How good is Denver? (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

Denver is 8-2 w/ the 2nd best record in the NFL. They have beaten SD, KC, WAS, PHI, JAX, OAK, NYJ, and NE, while they have lost to MIA and NYG. Most power rankings have Denver ranked 2nd in the NFL and they have been there for a while. However, some still don't seem to give them any credit.

NFL Rankings (as of week 10):

Offense:

Scoring: 5th

Yards: 4th

Rushing: 2nd

Passing: 20th



Defense:

Scoring: 5th

Yards: 17th

Rushing: 2nd

Passing: 28th

Tunrover differential: 2nd

Time of Possession: 2nd

Overall, good balance between offense and defense. Weak point seems to be pass D and pass O. Strength seems to be rush O, rush D, and turnover differential. Many would say that the formula for championships is to run the ball, stop the run, and don't turn the ball over. Denver has done that well so far.

Obviously, I am a Denver homer. I believe that Denver is playing awesome football so far. I am really impressed that Jake has performed the way we all hoped he would, and I have been very pleased with the play of the D-line. However, I remember the 2nd half collapses of the past few seasons, and so I am nervous - I have my doubts like many others.

Do you believe that Denver can maintain their current position as the 2nd best team in the NFL, and secure a 1st round bye? Or, do you believe that it's all smoke and mirrors and it will all come crashing down?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Denver's second half slides started before now, so I do not see them falling apart this year. They do have three difficult road games, so I can easily see them going 3-3 the rest of the way and finishing at 11-5. That might drop them to the number 3 seed, though. The defense does seem to be playing better lately in the 4th quarter of games and that is a good sign.

 

[thatguy]

I see Denver reallistically finishing 12-4 or better, dropping 2 of the 3 tough road games remaining, but beating the teams that they should.I will also say that the poor numbers you cite for their passing D and O are deceptive. Their offensive numbers are low because they simply don't need to pass as much as other teams. They are one of the only teams in football that can march the ball down the field and score without throwing one pass, which is something they tend to do late in games when they're sitting on a lead. Against the Jets, they had two 9 minute drives in the first half which can only happen with a heavy dose of runs. Their passing D gives up a lot of yards, but most of those yards tend to come in the second half when the other team is playing catchup. Overall, their passing D has been adequate. I wouldn't call it anything special, but certainly far better than the numbers indicate.

 

[cstu]

Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, good.

 

[diesel7982]

I recall hearing Colin say they were very overrated.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Denver has looked very good this year, except for the first game against Miami where they came out flat> But I think Denver is 0-7 all time in Miami, so it wasn't that suprising. The rest of their wins have been very impressive and the other loss to NYG was on that last second TD pass by Eli. Overall, I think Denver looks very solid this year. Like Seattle, they have improved from last year and look like they are ready to take it to the next level.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Defense:

Scoring: 5th

Yards: 17th

Rushing: 2nd

Passing: 28th

Uh oh.Their defense keeps collapsing in the second half when they build a good lead. See: Washington, New England, NYG, Philadelphia.

That's not something that's going to show itself against the Jets obviously, but if it happens again when they face the remaining three good teams on their schedule, win or lose, it points towards an early exit in the playoffs again when the games really count.

I don't think they are going to pull off the 2nd seed, but they have a shot at it. Denver NEEDS HFA (Denver has the best HFA in the NFL IMO). I think they have the biggest disparity of any NFL team home v road games in the last umpteen years.

 

[Acme CEO]

I can't put my finger on it, but they seem to be missing something. What they need:- They've been very good at pressuring the QB, but have not been turning pressures into sacks until recently (oak & nyj).- The rookies in the secondary need another year. They could be very good next year, playing along Baily & Lynch. - More consistent play/improvement from Bell, Lelie, & Putzier.- A solid WR3 when needed.- Better running against a 3-4 defense.

 

[jonessed]

Haven't most of Denver's games been at home so far this year? They really excel at Mile High. The key ingredient to this year's success has been Plummer's lack of turnovers and he has a tendency to slip on the road. They have some road games ahead that I think will better define them. If Plummer can keep from throwing picks they will probably stay at #2 or #3.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Coming into this week, I told myself that if Denver finished 12-4, I would be happy. I figured they would win their last two home games, at Buffalo and one of the other three road games(Dal, KC and SD). Having already won at Dallas today, I am now going to get greedy and hope for a 13-3 finish. I think at KC is very winnable next week. The Chiefs are not quite the offensive team they have been in the past and the Broncos always seem to move the ball on them. Either way, gutting that game out today in Dallas shows a killer instinct they have lacked in years past.

 

[thatguy]

Coming into this week, I told myself that if Denver finished 12-4, I would be happy. I figured they would win their last two home games, at Buffalo and one of the other three road games(Dal, KC and SD). Having already won at Dallas today, I am now going to get greedy and hope for a 13-3 finish. I think at KC is very winnable next week. The Chiefs are not quite the offensive team they have been in the past and the Broncos always seem to move the ball on them. Either way, gutting that game out today in Dallas shows a killer instinct they have lacked in years past.

This was EXACTLY my line of thinking. In fact, I told my cousin this today, almost verbatim. Are you inside my head? Or, wait, are you me?

 

[MagicMan]

Coming into this week, I told myself that if Denver finished 12-4, I would be happy. I figured they would win their last two home games, at Buffalo and one of the other three road games(Dal, KC and SD). Having already won at Dallas today, I am now going to get greedy and hope for a 13-3 finish. I think at KC is very winnable next week. The Chiefs are not quite the offensive team they have been in the past and the Broncos always seem to move the ball on them. Either way, gutting that game out today in Dallas shows a killer instinct they have lacked in years past.

They were lucky. They won because Cundiff missed an EASY FG

 

[thatguy]

Coming into this week,  I told myself that if Denver finished 12-4, I would be happy. I figured they would win their last two home games, at Buffalo and one of the other three road games(Dal, KC and SD).  Having already won at Dallas today, I am now going to get greedy and hope for a 13-3 finish.  I think at KC is very winnable next week.  The Chiefs are not quite the offensive team they have been in the past and the Broncos always seem to move the ball on them.  Either way, gutting that game out today in Dallas shows a killer instinct they have lacked in years past.

They were lucky. They won because Cundiff missed an EASY FG

And if Cundiff makes that FG and Dallas goes on to win, which isn't a given as I'm sure you've heard of the butterfly effect, then Dallas was lucky, right? You know, 'cause the refs blew a call on that recoverd fumble by Newman (the replays showed he was clearly out of bounds).Both teams made costly mistakes. Both teams got some lucky breaks. The better team won.

 

[MagicMan]

And if Cundiff makes that FG and Dallas goes on to win, which isn't a given as I'm sure you've heard of the butterfly effect,

It wasn't? Denver did not score after that in regulation so yes they would have won. That was a given.

then Dallas was lucky, right? You know, 'cause the refs blew a call on that recoverd fumble by Newman (the replays showed he was clearly out of bounds).

The ball was clearly inbounds when Newman recovered it.

Both teams made costly mistakes. Both teams got some lucky breaks. The better team won.

The lucky team won.I'm not saying Denver didn't play a decent game, but it was nothing to write home about.

 

[thatguy]

And if Cundiff makes that FG and Dallas goes on to win, which isn't a given as I'm sure you've heard of the butterfly effect,

It wasn't? Denver did not score after that in regulation so yes they would have won. That was a given.

then Dallas was lucky, right?  You know, 'cause the refs blew a call on that recoverd fumble by Newman (the replays showed he was clearly out of bounds).

The ball was clearly inbounds when Newman recovered it.

Both teams made costly mistakes.  Both teams got some lucky breaks.  The better team won.

The lucky team won.I'm not saying Denver didn't play a decent game, but it was nothing to write home about.

Denver played like ####, and they still won, because they are the better team. You seem to forget the part about the butterfly effect. Denver didn't score again in regulation, no, but if Cundiff makes that FG, the whole texture of the game is different and there's no saying what happens. Nothing would have played out the same. You can't isolate one play in a game, hypothetically change it, and assume the rest of the game plays out the same way. Doesn't work that way bud. If you can't agree with this, then I'm wasting my time.

If you reply to this thread by telling me again how wrong I am, the whole rest of your life may play out completely different than it otherwise would have, you just never know.

The ball was in bounds, yes, but Newman's arm was out of bounds. See, if his arm is out of bounds, then it doesn't matter where the ball is. Go watch the replay if you don't believe me. His arm was clearly out. Hence, correct call = Denver ball.

The better team won. I won't bother trying to convince you again, because apparently some simple concepts are lost on you.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, I am sure Denver would have dilly-dallied around on their last possession in regulation if they had been trailing by three points. And Newman was definitely out of bounds when he recovered that fumble. The refs blew that call. Fortunately, the better team won in the end.

 

[Big Score]

Lets put it like this.They're better than the Cowgirls.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I recall hearing Colin say they were very overrated.

That was after week 2. I have since admitted I was wrong. I was impressed with their play yesterday. I think that PLummer is helping, but their defense is plenty solid and the team has someone different step up on a regular basis, even Ron Dayne.

Colin

 

[moleculo]

Here's a hypothetical - what would have happened if the game were in Mile High? I have to believe that Denver would win handily - can any Cowboy fans argue that point?You can argue that Denver got lucky, I can argue that Dallas got lucky. You can argue about the TOP and the drive stats, I can counter that Champ's int which was returned for a TD cost Denver a possession - Dallas went directly from one long drive to a second long drive, I call it about even.To answer my original question, if Denver beat a 7-3 team on the road w/ minimal preparations and an injured critical part of the offense (Bell), I'd have to say that the Broncos are a darn good team. I'm starting to believe...

 

[Courtjester]

I am trying to temper my excitement over this team. I know I am being presumptuous, but I just see this great season coming to an end on the field at the RCA Dome..... :(

 

[Uncle Pete]

I dont like Denver... but I am a believer (god i hate agreeing with Woody Paige)

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am reserving judgement. Their win against San Diego I have to put in the fortuitious column, as does one for their win against Dallas. They took an injured Philly team in termoil and handled a badly battered Jets club. Even N.E. was massively depleted when they played.The name of the game is winning, and they have done that, but I'm hard pressed to find quality wins against impressive opponents. I suspect they may be the second or third best team in the NFL this year, but they are still, in my opinion, a quantum leap down from Indy.

 

[SSOG]

I can't put my finger on it, but they seem to be missing something.

What they need:

- They've been very good at pressuring the QB, but have not been turning pressures into sacks until recently (oak & nyj).

- The rookies in the secondary need another year. They could be very good next year, playing along Baily & Lynch.

- More consistent play/improvement from Bell, Lelie, & Putzier.

- A solid WR3 when needed.

- Better running against a 3-4 defense.

The rookies in the secondary don't need another year. They've both been playing so spectacularly that Shanahan just released the guy who opened the season as a starting CB.As for the better running against a 3-4 defense... Only 1 more 3-4 defense left on the schedule, unless we draw Pitt or SD in the playoffs. And so far, the record this year against 3-4 defense is 2-1. Which is pretty darn impressive, since SD and Dallas are both two of the best teams in the league.

I am reserving judgement. Their win against San Diego I have to put in the fortuitious column, as does one for their win against Dallas. They took an injured Philly team in termoil and handled a badly battered Jets club. Even N.E. was massively depleted when they played.

The name of the game is winning, and they have done that, but I'm hard pressed to find quality wins against impressive opponents. I suspect they may be the second or third best team in the NFL this year, but they are still, in my opinion, a quantum leap down from Indy.

Why was the win against San Diego fortuitous? Because they overcame a 14-3 defecit? Because Champ Bailey returned an interception for a TD? Champ Bailey is tied for the league lead in interceptions, despite the fact that he's missed the equivalent of 4 games worth of action, and despite the fact that he hasn't turned in a single multi-int effort to date. I don't think it's at all "lucky" that Champ got an interception. And then after that, Denver proceeded to outscore San Diego 10-3, with no blown calls or lucky breaks involved. It was a CLOSE game, yes, but certainly not a LUCKY game.Also, it should be noted that Denver faced the Eagles when they had Owens, McNabb, Westbrook, Sheppard, and all their other key componants healthy. They might have been in turmoil AFTER the Denver loss, but that was a quality Philly team that we beat. And say what you will about New England, they're still 6-4.

The Colts have been fattening their records against the poor sisters of the NFL. They have 10 victories, 3 of which came against Houston or SanFran- the two worst teams possibly in the last decade. Add in another win against a Tennessee team in cap hell, an abysmal Baltimore squad, an abysmal Cleveland squad, and a St. Louis team that was kicking Indy's butt until their starting QB got hurt. The only 3 teams with winning records the Colts have played are New England- who both Denver and Indy blew out- Jacksonville- who Indy barely beat AT HOME and Denver dominated ON THE ROAD- and Cincinatti. Compare that to all the quality teams Denver has played- Miami, San Diego, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Washington, New England, New York Giants, Philly, Oakland, N.Y. Jets, Dallas. That's their entire schedule, you can feel free to pick out which teams you feel are "quality" from that bunch, but I'm sure you'll agree that Denver has played a lot more decent teams than Indy.

Indy will still probably get HFA, simply because they have a two-game lead as a result of their cupcake schedule, but I don't think it's so clear that they're the better team.

 

[Elway Lives]

A lot of Denver's success this season has been because of remarkably mistake free games. If you don't allow any turnovers in a game, that right there will give you a pretty good leg up on your opponent, and Denver had done just that...until they got to Dallas. At Dallas, they played average on the mistake free scale...a couple of turnovers (both of which resulted in touchdowns), and what seemed like more penalties than usual (though I'm too lazy to actually verify that). I thought for sure that losing that edge would be the end for them, but to their credit they still managed to come back and pull one out. On the road even. Against a very good team at home. Special teams has been great. Foxworth and Williams have indeed been stellar. Plummer's passing has been a great compliment to another fantastic rushing offense. And the defensive line has found its fire and is using it much more effectively now. Next week at KC still scares me, but a win there would convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this team is for real and can compete with anyone, anywhere. I'm pretty much convinced now anyway after the win in Dallas.

 

[thesurfshop19]

I don't think people have to be *impressed* with Denver's play, but to call out their strength of schedule is borderline insanity.They've beaten more playoff-caliber teams than anyone else in the league.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am reserving judgement. Their win against San Diego I have to put in the fortuitious column, as does one for their win against Dallas. They took an injured Philly team in termoil and handled a badly battered Jets club. Even N.E. was massively depleted when they played.

The name of the game is winning, and they have done that, but I'm hard pressed to find quality wins against impressive opponents. I suspect they may be the second or third best team in the NFL this year, but they are still, in my opinion, a quantum leap down from Indy.

Are you on drugs? Denver is 5-1 against teams above .500, including wins @Dallas (7-4) and @Jacksonville (7-3) and won against Washington and Philadelphia when both were playing well. The Redskins were 3-0 when the Broncos beat them and the Eagles were 4-2. Denver has had arguably the most difficult schedule in the NFL this season and is 9-2. If that doesn't impress you, then you obviously have some bias that is getting in the way and preventing you from drawing a logical conclusion.

 

[Ghost Rider]

12-3.The number 2 seed and a first round bye in the AFC. 5th in the NFL in total offense (2nd in rushing, 14th in passing) and 6th in points scored.16th in the NFL in total defense, but 6th in points allowed.6-3 against teams above .500 (plus a dominating win over Philly, when they were still at full-strength and playing well). Yep, I would say the Broncos are pretty darn good.

 

[jwvdcw]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

 

[jurb26]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

Broncos by 2.

 

[Ghost Rider]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

It all depends on how impressive New England looks in their final two regular season games and in their first round game. If they continue to play as well as they have in recent weeks, I would say Denver would be favored by 2 1/2 or 3 points, which is a virtual push (when taking away the home field advantage always given by Vegas).

 

[davaco]

at home, i think they are very very good, on the road, they are just good.one thing is for sure, I hope they lose thier 1st round playoff game. otherwise I think we could be watching another Indy/denver blowout in the AFC title game

 

[davaco]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

Denver by 6

 

[jwvdcw]

at home, i think they are very very good, on the road, they are just good.

one thing is for sure, I hope they lose thier 1st round playoff game. otherwise I think we could be watching another Indy/denver blowout in the AFC title game

 

[Ghost Rider]

at home, i think they are very very good, on the road, they are just good.

8-0 with an average margin of victory being almost 14 points (4 of those 8 teams being above .500 teams with a healthy Philly team with Owens being a 5th) is only very, very good? I would call that great.

 

[BoltBacker]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

Den -3I just don't think DEN can win in Indy if Indy is healthy. NE has a better chance if they can get to that game but I don't think NE can win in DEN.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Denver has surprised me this year. A couple weeks in to the season, I thought they were headed for 6-10 or 7-9. They have found a lot of different ways to win. I'm not sure I'd take them against Indy, and I think they could lose at home to NE, Cincy, and Pittsburgh, but they definitely played a lot better than I expect them to this season.Colin

 

[greenroom]

Not sure why everyone is saying NE in the second round. As they stand I think it will be NE and Indy then Cincy vs Denver.Which I would put Indy a +3 over NE... although I have concerns that Indy will not make it out of the second round no matter who they face. Due to the Dungy issue I just don't see how he and the the team can put that behind them. IMO And I would put Denver a +2 1/2 over CincyThis would be a classic I think. But I think Denver being home and have prevous playoffs games under the belt will be to much for the Bengals.

 

[SSOG]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

Broncos by 2.

Home field advantage is worth 3 points to Vegas. The first round playoff bye is worth even more. Home teams win something crazy like 80% of the time in the divisional round, including 6 times in the past 12 years when no road team has won a divisional playoff game. Denver has only been an underdog TWICE in the past 2 seasons. Trust me, Denver will be favored by a lot more than 2, no matter WHO they open against. Of course, New England will be a chic pick, so the bettors will probably push the line a bit after it opens. I'd wager the line opens at Denver (-5 to 6).Edit: I don't know why everyone was so surprised by Denver this season. Their only losses were Kenoy Kennedy, Dan Neil, and Reggie Hayward. They already had a quality replacement for Kennedy in-house (Nick Ferguson was a starter in 2003 before losing his job to Lynch in 2004). They also IMPROVED their D-line despite losing Hayward (I know this because every single starter from last season's D-line, except of course Hayward, is behind Trevor Pryce, Gerard Warren, Michael Myers, Courtney Brown, Ebenezer Ekuban, John Engleberger, and Demetrin Veil on the depth chart). So the only question was depth on the O-line, which I think people should have been willing to overlook given Denver's EXTENSIVE history of replacing key cogs on their line without missing a beat.

To me, all objective analysis indicated a strong chance of Denver IMPROVING this season, and yet everyone was betting on them to regress. It wasn't like they overachieved last season, either, losing 3 games in the final seconds.

 

[jurb26]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

Broncos by 2.

Home field advantage is worth 3 points to Vegas. The first round playoff bye is worth even more. Home teams win something crazy like 80% of the time in the divisional round, including 6 times in the past 12 years when no road team has won a divisional playoff game. Denver has only been an underdog TWICE in the past 2 seasons. Trust me, Denver will be favored by a lot more than 2, no matter WHO they open against. Of course, New England will be a chic pick, so the bettors will probably push the line a bit after it opens. I'd wager the line opens at Denver (-5 to 6).

NE hasn't lost in the playoffs in 4 years. People remember these types of things. I don't care who and where they are playing. NE will not and should not be dogs by much.

 

[SSOG]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

Broncos by 2.

Home field advantage is worth 3 points to Vegas. The first round playoff bye is worth even more. Home teams win something crazy like 80% of the time in the divisional round, including 6 times in the past 12 years when no road team has won a divisional playoff game. Denver has only been an underdog TWICE in the past 2 seasons. Trust me, Denver will be favored by a lot more than 2, no matter WHO they open against. Of course, New England will be a chic pick, so the bettors will probably push the line a bit after it opens. I'd wager the line opens at Denver (-5 to 6).

NE hasn't lost in the playoffs in 4 years. People remember these types of things. I don't care who and where they are playing. NE will not and should not be dogs by much.

Well, I'll tell you what, if the 2004 New England Patriots show up to play the Denver Broncos, they'll probably be favored.You want to know what ELSE the Patriots haven't done in the past 4 years? For one, they haven't sent a team to the playoffs that was worse than 6th in the NFL in points allowed. This season, they're 18th. They were also a combined 5-0 against Indy and Denver in 2003-2004, and a combined 0-2 against Indy and Denver in 2005.

This New England team isn't anywhere NEAR as good as past NE teams, and Vegas recognizes this, making them solid underdogs several times this season. Don't expect that to change anytime soon. The casual fan might be misinformed enough to think that performance in seasons past is somehow relevant to the current season, but that doesn't mean that Vegas is buying it. Heck, Tampa hasn't lost a playoff game since 2001, and I doubt Vegas cares one whit.

 

[jurb26]

What does everyone think the point spread would be if NE played at Denver in the 2nd round?

Broncos by 2.

Home field advantage is worth 3 points to Vegas. The first round playoff bye is worth even more. Home teams win something crazy like 80% of the time in the divisional round, including 6 times in the past 12 years when no road team has won a divisional playoff game. Denver has only been an underdog TWICE in the past 2 seasons. Trust me, Denver will be favored by a lot more than 2, no matter WHO they open against. Of course, New England will be a chic pick, so the bettors will probably push the line a bit after it opens. I'd wager the line opens at Denver (-5 to 6).

NE hasn't lost in the playoffs in 4 years. People remember these types of things. I don't care who and where they are playing. NE will not and should not be dogs by much.

Well, I'll tell you what, if the 2004 New England Patriots show up to play the Denver Broncos, they'll probably be favored.You want to know what ELSE the Patriots haven't done in the past 4 years? For one, they haven't sent a team to the playoffs that was worse than 6th in the NFL in points allowed. This season, they're 18th. They were also a combined 5-0 against Indy and Denver in 2003-2004, and a combined 0-2 against Indy and Denver in 2005.

This New England team isn't anywhere NEAR as good HEALTHY as past NE teams, and Vegas recognizes this, making them solid underdogs several times this season. Don't expect that to change anytime soon. The casual fan might be misinformed enough to think that performance in seasons past is somehow relevant to the current season, but that doesn't mean that Vegas is buying it. Heck, Tampa hasn't lost a playoff game since 2001, and I doubt Vegas cares one whit.

Fixed it for you. If the Pats run over their 1st round opponent like I expect they will, that will only fuel the fire even more. As a Steeler fan the team I least want to play in the playoffs is NE. I would rather play both Indy at Indy and your precious Broncos at Den than have to play a healthy NE in Pitt in the playoffs.On top of that, unfortunatly for you perception is reality when it comes to setting the line of these games. If enough people remember the Pats success, which I think they will, then the line will not be as high as it should.

 

[SSOG]

Fixed it for you. If the Pats run over their 1st round opponent like I expect they will, that will only fuel the fire even more. As a Steeler fan the team I least want to play in the playoffs is NE. I would rather play both Indy at Indy and your precious Broncos at Den than have to play a healthy NE in Pitt in the playoffs.

Does it matter WHY they aren't as good as past teams? Do they get bonus points for every starter on IR? Nope and nope. So who cares if they aren't as good because they're injured, the fact remains they aren't as good.

 

[djcolts]

Not sure why everyone is saying NE in the second round. As they stand I think it will be NE and Indy then Cincy vs Denver.

Which I would put Indy a +3 over NE... although I have concerns that Indy will not make it out of the second round no matter who they face. Due to the Dungy issue I just don't see how he and the the team can put that behind them. IMO

And I would put Denver a +2 1/2 over Cincy

This would be a classic I think. But I think Denver being home and have prevous playoffs games under the belt will be to much for the Bengals.

Because many people expect the Pats to win against Miami, and for Cincy to lose to a very hungry KC team at Arrowhead.I, of course, strongly disagree with your reasoning that the Colts will lose no matter who the 2nd round opponent is because of James Dungy's death. I'm much more concerned about game-rust more than tragedy that the team will have 3 full weeks to get over before they play their divisional round game.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Home field advantage is worth 3 points to Vegas. The first round playoff bye is worth even more. Home teams win something crazy like 80% of the time in the divisional round, including 6 times in the past 12 years when no road team has won a divisional playoff game.

Never underestimate the importance of that first round bye. Home teams are more dominant in the divisional round than in any other, IIRC.

 

[jurb26]

Fixed it for you. If the Pats run over their 1st round opponent like I expect they will, that will only fuel the fire even more. As a Steeler fan the team I least want to play in the playoffs is NE. I would rather play both Indy at Indy and your precious Broncos at Den than have to play a healthy NE in Pitt in the playoffs.

Does it matter WHY they aren't as good as past teams? Do they get bonus points for every starter on IR? Nope and nope. So who cares if they aren't as good because they're injured, the fact remains they aren't as good.

Were we not hearing this same crap last year about NE and how since they weren't "as good" or "as heathly" both Indy and Pitt were sure to beat up on them...... NE is a scary team and I don't think you Den fans should be trying to wake the sleeping dragon. I for one don't want to see them win it again, but you have to respect a team that has not lost a playoff game in 4 years and won the SB 3 out of those 4 years. They still have an undefeted head coach and QB guiding them in the playoffs whether you see them as good as past years or not. This is in large part the same team that DID win it last year. They D is getting healthy again, Dillon is back and the Oline is playing better than they did earlier in the year.

 

[djcolts]

Fixed it for you.  If the Pats run over their 1st round opponent like I expect they will, that will only fuel the fire even more.  As a Steeler fan the team I least want to play in the playoffs is NE.  I would rather play both Indy at Indy and your precious Broncos at Den than have to play a healthy NE in Pitt in the playoffs.

Does it matter WHY they aren't as good as past teams? Do they get bonus points for every starter on IR? Nope and nope. So who cares if they aren't as good because they're injured, the fact remains they aren't as good.

Were we not hearing this same crap last year about NE and how since they weren't "as good" or "as heathly" both Indy and Pitt were sure to beat up on them...... NE is a scary team and I don't think you Den fans should be trying to wake the sleeping dragon. I for one don't want to see them win it again, but you have to respect a team that has not lost a playoff game in 4 years and won the SB 3 out of those 4 years. They still have an undefeted head coach and QB guiding them in the playoffs whether you see them as good as past years or not. This is in large part the same team that DID win it last year. They D is getting healthy again, Dillon is back and the Oline is playing better than they did earlier in the year.

Last year people made bad assumptions about NE, Indy AND Pitt and basically ignored history. Indy was a #3 seed - and no #3 seed has won a Super Bowl since 1990 (the current playoff system). Pitt had a rookie starting QB - they don't win many Super Bowls, either. NE only played 2 poor games all season last year - and one was with Dillon out of the mix. This season - NE will (probably) have to win 2 road playoff games to make the Super Bowl - and if they are the #3 seed, they will likely have to play Pitt, @Denver and @Indy to do it - that is a really tough road for them - especially the 2nd round game with one of the few teams that plays the Pats well historically. Plus, this year they don't have Rodney Harrison and Dillon is not playing as well this year as he did last year.

Is NE scary? Of course they are. But, this year's road to the Super Bowl will be much tougher than any of their other Super Bowl runs - and while you can't ignore their pedigree, you can't ignore history either - no one has ever 3-peated, and teams without the 1st-round bye do not win the Super Bowl very often.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Denver has surprised me this year. A couple weeks in to the season, I thought they were headed for 6-10 or 7-9. They have found a lot of different ways to win. I'm not sure I'd take them against Indy, and I think they could lose at home to NE, Cincy, and Pittsburgh, but they definitely played a lot better than I expect them to this season.

Colin

After the week 1 loss to Miami, I thought they were done. Great turnaround. Their defense has played exceptionally well, they're running game has stayed healthy and Jake Plummer isn't turning the ball over.I think Denver is the favorite in any game they play until Indy.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

People worried about the Colts resting players and being able to "turn it on" when they have to need to look no further than their preseason games.In the preseason, Indy is as vanilla as you can get. They rest players like E. James and look mediocre and they came out of the gates flying.The Colts will dominate, absolutely dominate whoever their first opponent is at home in the playoffs.The Colts have gone in two weeks to looking unbeatable, sitting on top of the world to a team that's now being allowed to find "angles" or reasons to win.This hype of them not being the best team or these "other" teams are now better is only going to fuel their fire more.I for one will Hammer the Colts that first week they play. No way any team in the playoffs, NE, CINCi, or Pitt will stop them from scoring 30 points that first week.

 

[BoltBacker]

I for one will Hammer the Colts that first week they play. No way any team in the playoffs, NE, CINCi, or Pitt will stop them from scoring 30 points that first week.

I agree with you the Colts have to be considered heavy favorites this year but if any team beats them in Indy I think Cincy has a shot. They won't stop Indy from scoring 30 but Cincy is capable of scoring 40. That would be a great game to watch.

 

[SSOG]

Were we not hearing this same crap last year about NE and how since they weren't "as good" or "as heathly" both Indy and Pitt were sure to beat up on them...... NE is a scary team and I don't think you Den fans should be trying to wake the sleeping dragon. I for one don't want to see them win it again, but you have to respect a team that has not lost a playoff game in 4 years and won the SB 3 out of those 4 years. They still have an undefeted head coach and QB guiding them in the playoffs whether you see them as good as past years or not. This is in large part the same team that DID win it last year. They D is getting healthy again, Dillon is back and the Oline is playing better than they did earlier in the year.

You want to know what the difference is? Last year, the Pats were 14-2 and the #2 seed. This year, the Pats will be at best 11-5 and the #3 seed, if they get lucky. And this year's Pats have had a drastically EASIER schedule than last year's.Stop trying to compare the situations. The situations are NOT comparable. They aren't even CLOSE to comparable.

P.S. Bellichick isn't undefeated in the playoffs. Look it up.