Patriots, what's so impressive? (1 Viewer)

[P Boy]

N.E.'s third string almost beat the Dolphins this year (in fact, it's common knowledge they lost on purpose). They were never even CLOSE to losing the division.As for Denver, no one is saying that they are not a good team or won't play a good game. But they barely beat SD, BAL, and WAS at home--it's not like suddenly teams go to Denver and get crushed. (To their credit, they won all their home games.) They also got crushed by Miami, blew the game against the Giants, and like the Pats lost in KC.As I see it, N.E. was effectively 11-5 this year (they easily could have beaten Miami again). Denver was 3 fiedls goals away from being 10-6. Had that been the case, would N.E. have been a better team based on record.

So almost-wins have more impact than actual wins? Maybe they can seed the NFL playoffs per your criteria next year. "Welllllll, let's see, NE shoulda' won those 2 games, and they intentionally pissed away a 3rd, while IND barely scraped by in 3 games, so we'll play the game in NE even though IND is 12-4 and NE is 10-6. After all, we ALL know that NE is the better playoff team because of Belicheck & Brady." Last time I saw the rules, an "effective" win was a lose. I thought good teams found a way to win those kinds of games. What's next, taking away every RB's longest run from scrimmage in comparing RBs for FF?

 

[David Yudkin]

I've already indicated several times that the Patriots biggest advantage over Denver has been their post season success. In the past 5 years, the Pats are 10-0 in the post-season, outscoring their opponents 246-158. In that time, Denver has gone 0-2 in the post-season and has been outscored 90-34. Many feel that this data is too old to have any significance, so let's throw that out for argument's sake.Some want to hang their hats on regular season stats as a validation that the Broncos will win this week because their stats are so much better. But that includes numbers from early in the season when the Patriots were ravaged with injuries. The Broncos were clearly the much better team when directly compared to the Patriots over the first 8 games of the season. So I went in and looked at the numbers from each team's last 8 games. For N.E., I excluded their game with predominantly bench players against Miami (where they were trying TO LOSE) and instead used their game against Jacksonville.Here's the tail of the tape for those games . . .RECORDats: 7-1Broncos: 7-1OPPOSITION WINNING%ats: 58-70Broncos: 52-76FIRST DOWNSats: 180Broncos: 163FIRST DOWNS ALLOWEDats: 128Broncos: 144NET FIRST DOWNSats: +42Broncos: +19POINTS SCOREDats: 201Broncos: 194POINTS ALLOWEDats: 93Broncos: 106NET POINTSats: +108Broncos: +88PASSING YARDSats: 1898Broncos: 1643PASSING YARDS ALLOWEDats: 1742Broncos: 1684NET PASSING YARDSats: +156Broncos: -41RUSHING YARDSats: 954Broncos: 1178RUSHING YARDS ALLOWEDats: 488Broncos: 660NET RUSHING YARDSats: +466Broncos: +518TURNOVER MARGINats: +5Broncos: +11So while the Broncos might look better over the full year, over the latter part of the season I don't see too many categories where Denver trumped New England. Their biggest advantage is in turnover margin, which tells me that if New England holds on to the ball, Denver will have a tough time winning.Again, none of this matters at this point, as whoever plays better this weekend is going to win.

 

[Kit Fisto]

David Yudkin, I like you more and more every line you post.

 

[Mr.Happy]

If we bumped up posts form last year, they would pretty much say the same things as the Pats haters are saying right now.

 

[jurb26]

I've already indicated several times that the Patriots biggest advantage over Denver has been their post season success. In the past 5 years, the Pats are 10-0 in the post-season, outscoring their opponents 246-158. In that time, Denver has gone 0-2 in the post-season and has been outscored 90-34. Many feel that this data is too old to have any significance, so let's throw that out for argument's sake.

Some want to hang their hats on regular season stats as a validation that the Broncos will win this week because their stats are so much better. But that includes numbers from early in the season when the Patriots were ravaged with injuries. The Broncos were clearly the much better team when directly compared to the Patriots over the first 8 games of the season. So I went in and looked at the numbers from each team's last 8 games. For N.E., I excluded their game with predominantly bench players against Miami (where they were trying TO LOSE) and instead used their game against Jacksonville.

Here's the tail of the tape for those games . . .

RECORD:

Pats: 7-1

Broncos: 7-1

OPPOSITION WINNING%:

Pats: 58-70

Broncos: 52-76

FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: 180

Broncos: 163

FIRST DOWNS ALLOWED:

Pats: 128

Broncos: 144

NET FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: +42

Broncos: +19

POINTS SCORED:

Pats: 201

Broncos: 194

POINTS ALLOWED:

Pats: 93

Broncos: 106

NET POINTS:

Pats: +108

Broncos: +88

PASSING YARDS:

Pats: 1898

Broncos: 1643

PASSING YARDS ALLOWED:

Pats: 1742

Broncos: 1684

NET PASSING YARDS:

Pats: +156

Broncos: -41

RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: 954

Broncos: 1178

RUSHING YARDS ALLOWED:

Pats: 488

Broncos: 660

NET RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: +466

Broncos: +518

TURNOER MARGIN:

Pats: +5

Broncos: +11

So while the Broncos might look better over the full year, over the latter part of the season I don't see too many categories where Denver trumped New England. Their biggest advantage is in turnover margin, which tells me that if New England holds on to the ball, Denver will have a tough time winning.

Again, none of this matters at this point, as whoever plays better this weekend is going to win.

 

[moleculo]

I've already indicated several times that the Patriots biggest advantage over Denver has been their post season success. In the past 5 years, the Pats are 10-0 in the post-season, outscoring their opponents 246-158. In that time, Denver has gone 0-2 in the post-season and has been outscored 90-34. Many feel that this data is too old to have any significance, so let's throw that out for argument's sake.

Some want to hang their hats on regular season stats as a validation that the Broncos will win this week because their stats are so much better. But that includes numbers from early in the season when the Patriots were ravaged with injuries. The Broncos were clearly the much better team when directly compared to the Patriots over the first 8 games of the season. So I went in and looked at the numbers from each team's last 8 games. For N.E., I excluded their game with predominantly bench players against Miami (where they were trying TO LOSE) and instead used their game against Jacksonville.

Here's the tail of the tape for those games . . .

RECORD:

Pats: 7-1

Broncos: 7-1

OPPOSITION WINNING%:

Pats: 58-70

Broncos: 52-76

FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: 180

Broncos: 163

FIRST DOWNS ALLOWED:

Pats: 128

Broncos: 144

NET FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: +42

Broncos: +19

POINTS SCORED:

Pats: 201

Broncos: 194

POINTS ALLOWED:

Pats: 93

Broncos: 106

NET POINTS:

Pats: +108

Broncos: +88

PASSING YARDS:

Pats: 1898

Broncos: 1643

PASSING YARDS ALLOWED:

Pats: 1742

Broncos: 1684

NET PASSING YARDS:

Pats: +156

Broncos: -41

RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: 954

Broncos: 1178

RUSHING YARDS ALLOWED:

Pats: 488

Broncos: 660

NET RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: +466

Broncos: +518

TURNOER MARGIN:

Pats: +5

Broncos: +11

So while the Broncos might look better over the full year, over the latter part of the season I don't see too many categories where Denver trumped New England. Their biggest advantage is in turnover margin, which tells me that if New England holds on to the ball, Denver will have a tough time winning.

Again, none of this matters at this point, as whoever plays better this weekend is going to win.

good info, I just did a similar analysis, but found different points of interest:first of all, I don't understand how you can arbitrarily take the Miami game out of the equation. That was a game that the Patriots lost. They weren't playing their starters, right? How much did Plummer play in week 17 vs SD? how many carries did MA have? How many tackles did Al Wilson have? The answer is that Denver rested their players and STILL won, on the road, vs a tough opponent many had picked to go to the SB. So, how is it fair to take the Mia game out, but leave the SD game in? doesn't make sense.

Secondly, NE palyed 4 games at home, four on the road. Denver, over this same stretch, played 5 on the road and three at home. This could easily account for some of the statistical differences.

My conclusion after looking at the tale of the tape is that both teams were VERY SIMILAR over the last 8 games. Denver won one more game, despite having more road games. NE had more passing yards, Denver had more rushing yards. Denver scored more points, NE allowed fewer points. Over this stretch, NE allowed 3 300 yd passing games, and two 100 yd rushing games. Denver allowed zero 300 yd. passing games, and one 100 yd rushing game.

Interestingly, over the last 8 game stretch, NE and DEN had three common opponents: home for NYJ, @ BUF, and @KC. both beat NYJ and BUF and lost to KC. Over these three games, DEN outscored the opponent 82-48, while NE outscored their poopnents 67-36. Denver had a better turnover differential, significantly more rushing yards, and more overall yards than NE, while NE had more passing yards and allowed fewer rushing and recieving yards. Seems pretty even to me.

My conclusion is that NE clearly did not have a significantly better last half of the season then Denver did; in fact, it could be argued that Denver had a slightly better last 8 games. Saying NE will win this weekend because they had a better second half of the season is just as ignorant as saying that DEN will win because they did in week 6.

 

[David Yudkin]

Beofre people start screaming that I am anti-Denver or ultra pro-New England, let me say that while I do think New England will win, Denver poses a huge challange for the Patriots. They historically have not played their best there, and if they get sloppy with the ball they will have a big hole to dig themselves out of like earlier this year.I don't see New England giving up three 50-yard+ plays this time around, as the defense has had a chance to work together in terms of positioning and coverage patterns. That, essentially, is what killed them early on this year, as they could never field close to the same unit from week to week and simply blew coverage for easy 80 yard TDs.It remains to be seen which team ultimately will be able to knock the Pats out of their playoff rhythm and force them out of their style of play. It hasn't happened in the post season yet. They have been able to get teams to beat themselves, and once someone figures out how to get the Pats to implode the Pats will lose.

 

[Pnishthm]

Talent like Dion Branch and David Givens at WR? How about those 3rd string CBs they used for last years run. Believe me, this team is a lot less talented than 1/4 of the league. It's their ability to play as a team and believe in their system that makes them what they are.

Are you really going to play this game?Deion Branch may not be a top-10 NFL WR, but he's the reigning Super Bowl MVP.

And while you talk about 3rd-string CBs, what about some of the title-winning players like Brady, Dillon, Law, Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinest, Seymour, and Vinatieri?

The Patriots don't have less talent than other top-caliber teams. In fact, the reason they win is because they have more talent at the lower rungs and therefore can exploit matchups and be more versatile.

Sure, I'll play this game one more time. No need to go much more than that since it seems that 90% of the board disagrees with you and it's obvious that you aren't gonna change your opinion (which you are entitled to have).Branch is a Super Bowl MVP because somebody has to be the MVP. He's nowhere near a top WR in this league and neither is any of their WRs. They are ALL system WRs.

Brady may be the best QB in the league but I'm pretty sure the confidence that he has in their system is what puts him over the top.

Dillon is not even a top 10 RB in the NFL right now. Plus, the Pats won a Super Bowl with Antwain Stiff.

Law was one of the best CBs in the league yes, but the Pats just replaced him when he went down with Randell Gay? Gay got the job done. Why? Because of the system.

Many of the other guys you listed are quality players. But they don't run as fast, aren't as big, aren't as strong as many other players at their positions. What makes them so good is the system that puts them in position to succeed, their belief in that system, and the TEAM CONCEPT. They know that all they have to worry about is their job because they are confident that the players around them will do their job correctly.

I don't but into the concept that the "lower rung" players are better talent wise then other team's "lower rung" players. They are just coached better and believe in the team concept where all they need to do is step in and concentrate on just their job.

Thanks for participating

 

[P Boy]

So while the Broncos might look better over the full year, over the latter part of the season I don't see too many categories where Denver trumped New England.  Their biggest advantage is in turnover margin, which tells me that if New England holds on to the ball, Denver will have a tough time winning.

LOLI feel like I'm stalking you here, but I just can't help responding to your ever-evolving creative finesse.So regular season stats don't matter, but as long as we're looking at them, let's only look at them when NE was playing some real bonafide loser teams - a combined pitiful 46-66 when you throw out MIA (for some reason DEN found a way to annihilate SD in the last game of the season with 2nd & 3rd stringers playing significants amounts of time when it meant nothing to them, but of course NE lost intentionally to a team it couldn't handle on the road last year when the Phins were dog-butt ugly & NE had everything to play for regarding HFA - just so they intentionally could catch DEN in the 2nd round) and then instead include a JAX team that obviously wasn't ready to play with its hurt QB.That's some interesting number wrangling you've got going there.There's no way to convince you that DEN is a better team THIS YEAR, so there's no point in arguing anymore, since you have a serious case of blue-and-red goggles on, but I sure am looking forward to your next post & seeing which way you creatively steer the thread.

 

[moleculo]

It has been claimed by many that NE should win because Brady is undefeated in the playoffs, and BB is 11-1, and NE has won 3 of the past 4 SBs, etc... If past history is to be entered into this equation (and I don't think it sohuld be), then we have to accept some other history as wellenver is 11-2 all time at home in the playoffs. Denver has outscored their opponents 382-250 during that span, with an average score of 29-19.I don't know for sure, but I would wager that only GB can boast a better home playoff record.Can we call NE recent history vs Mile High Mistique a push?

 

[jurb26]

There's no way to convince you that DEN is a better team THIS YEAR, so there's no point in arguing anymore, since you have a serious case of blue-and-red goggles on, but I sure am looking forward to your next post & seeing which way you creatively steer the thread.

How in the world do you possibly gather this conclusion? He is not and has not said that Den was a worse team over the course of the 2005 regular season. Only that NE has greatly reduced this margin and POSSIBLY surpassed it throughout the duration of the final weeks of the season. The key factor and point I have yet to see a single Den fan/homer (take that back I've seen one) acknowledge is that both teams seem to be playing at very similar levels now, as we enter the playoffs. The line is thin, thin enough that most people feel more comfortable to fall back on NE's past pention for success in the playoffs rather than Den's. Basically what this sounds like to me and has the whole time is a bunch of Den homers crying that NE is actually finally getting respect for it's back to back SB wins and 3 SBs in 4 years. Like it or not they are the Champs and will be until either Den or someone else knocks them off. Rightfully so in games that the public sees as virtual pushes, they will get the nod.

 

[David Yudkin]

My conclusion is that NE clearly did not have a significantly better last half of the season then Denver did; in fact, it could be argued that Denver had a slightly better last 8 games. Saying NE will win this weekend because they had a better second half of the season is just as ignorant as saying that DEN will win because they did in week 6.

My conclusion that the Patriots will win stems solely from their proven playoff success and has nothing at all to do with either team's latter part of the season.As for excluding the Miami game for New England, THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO LOSE. The team all but admits it. Sources close to the team have indicated that it was a conscious decision WEEKS AGO to game plan against Jacksonville AND ONLY Jacksonville rather than have to think about facing the Steelers, Chargers, or Chiefs. That way, they had 3-4 weeks to prepare for the Jags and focused only on them--and we saw how that worked out.Belichick used players he hadn't used all season to get them some playing time should they need to play during the playoffs. We're talking third stringers and playing guys out of position to see if they could adjust. I guess the drop kick wasn't a dead giveaway.Why count that game in an analysis? These guys went up againt the first team of the Dolphins and STILL almost won. So to credit New England with a LOSS and poor statistics seems like a silly exercise to me, even if that's how it goes down in the scorebook.If you want to discount the Chargers game for Denver, that leaves us with:RECORDats: 7-1Broncos: 6-1OPPOSITION WINNING%ats: 58-70 (.453)Broncos: 43-69 (.384)NET FIRST DOWNSats: +42Broncos: +17NET POINTSats: +108Broncos: +62NET PASSING YARDSats: +156Broncos: -102NET RUSHING YARDSats: +466Broncos: +452NET TOTAL YARDSats: +622Broncos: +350TURNOER MARGINats: +5Broncos: +9Taking out the Chargers game makes the Broncos ledger far worse.

 

[parrot]

You guys do an awful lot of analysis only to conclude that none of it matters anyway.

 

[djcolts]

You guys do an awful lot of analysis only to conclude that none of it matters anyway.

It is a long week - we've got to do something to get ready for the weekend's games.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Sure, I'll play this game one more time. No need to go much more than that since it seems that 90% of the board disagrees with you and it's obvious that you aren't gonna change your opinion (which you are entitled to have).

90% of the board disagrees with me?

Branch is a Super Bowl MVP because somebody has to be the MVP. He's nowhere near a top WR in this league and neither is any of their WRs. They are ALL system WRs.

Brady may be the best QB in the league but I'm pretty sure the confidence that he has in their system is what puts him over the top.

Dillon is not even a top 10 RB in the NFL right now. Plus, the Pats won a Super Bowl with Antwain Stiff.

Law was one of the best CBs in the league yes, but the Pats just replaced him when he went down with Randell Gay? Gay got the job done. Why? Because of the system.

Many of the other guys you listed are quality players. But they don't run as fast, aren't as big, aren't as strong as many other players at their positions. What makes them so good is the system that puts them in position to succeed, their belief in that system, and the TEAM CONCEPT. They know that all they have to worry about is their job because they are confident that the players around them will do their job correctly.

I don't but into the concept that the "lower rung" players are better talent wise then other team's "lower rung" players. They are just coached better and believe in the team concept where all they need to do is step in and concentrate on just their job.

Sorry, I just don't agree with you here. Talent isn't simply speed and strength ... it is also instincts and intelligence, which those players have in spades. (And for the record, Dillon may have been the best runner in the league in 2004.)How about this, though. If the system, and not the talent, is the main reason for success, then no complaining about injuries as long as the replacements have a few weeks to get acclimated to the team concept. Deal?

Thanks for participating

Wow, I guess you put me in my place. Nice work. One last point. With the NFL's salary cap, talent is essentially measured in dollars. You have to get a certain contribution for your money, which is generally determined by the market (especially for veteran players).

By this measure, based on all the statistical research that New England does, the Patriots pay less for the same amount of talent than other teams in the league. Every article and book about Belichick clearly talks about his economic side -- get $10 out of a player but pay him $8. If you invert this, it means that for the same amount of money the Patriots are getting more talent.

 

[SSOG]

Yep, they stunk pretty good in the first half of the year. Oh btw, did you look at that schedule? Toughest in the NFL. They ended up 3-3. Not great, not horrible. Yes, they had the benefit of a softer second half.

You could play the 'what's so impressive' card on a number of teams this year. How tough was Seattle's schedule? Chicago's?

You're absolutely right. You can play the "what's so impressive" card on a NUMBER of teams this season.Unfortunately for the Patriots, the team they're facing this week, the team that the majority of FBGs think they'll beat, isn't one of those teams. What's so impressive about the Denver Broncos? Second best turnover differential (they only lost the turnover battle ONCE all season), 8-0 at home, second best record in the NFL, an NFL-best SEVEN wins against winning clubs (they went 7-3, a winning percentage second only to Indy's 5-2). What's so impressive about the Denver Broncos? A first round bye, a dominating performance against the third toughest schedule in in the NFL in the toughest division in the NFL and matched up against the second toughest division in the NFL. What's so impressive about the Denver Broncos? How about a 28-20 victory against the Pats that wasn't as close as it looked (28-3 before Denver went into prevent defense), or two victories against a SD club that absolutely UNDRESSED New England in Foxborough.

Why count that game in an analysis? These guys went up againt the first team of the Dolphins and STILL almost won. So to credit New England with a LOSS and poor statistics seems like a silly exercise to me, even if that's how it goes down in the scorebook.

So? Denver went up against a first team San Diego squad that was LIGHTYEARS ahead of Miami this season... and they didn't ALMOST win, they DID win. In dominating fashion.San Diego didn't rest any starters in the final game of the season. Denver did. Denver still blew them out of the water.

 

[Workhorse]

As for excluding the Miami game for New England, THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO LOSE. The team all but admits it. Sources close to the team have indicated that it was a conscious decision WEEKS AGO to game plan against Jacksonville AND ONLY Jacksonville rather than have to think about facing the Steelers, Chargers, or Chiefs. That way, they had 3-4 weeks to prepare for the Jags and focused only on them--and we saw how that worked out.

Sorry, but I just don't buy this.

Are you telling me that Belichick was pissed that Matt Cassell and the scrub bunch almost rallied back to win that game? Did BB tell Cassell to narrowly miss the winning TD pass at the end of regulation?

 

[P Boy]

Perfect. SSOG and DY in this thread together. This ought to make for some top notch finagling and angles that no one ever imagined could exist.Someone let Joe know that he'd better get some more bandwidth until Sunday comes..

 

[munga30]

"Did BB tell Cassell to narrowly miss the winning TD pass at the end of regulation?"It was a two point conversion pass. And yes, I think whoever speaks into the helmet did.

 

[Workhorse]

"Did BB tell Cassell to narrowly miss the winning TD pass at the end of regulation?"

It was a two point conversion pass. And yes, I think whoever speaks into the helmet did.

Yes, the 2-pointer. That's what I meant.So, what you're saying is with 2 minutes left, down 8 points, the Patriots, who were trying to lose the game intentionally, run a hectic two-minute drill as follows:

Kickoff Olindo Mare kicks 70 yards from Mia30 to NE End Zone, Tim Dwight returns to NE38 for 38 yards

1st-10-NE38 Rush Matt Cassel Off Left End to NE39 for 1 yard

2nd-9-NE39 Pass Matt Cassel Pass to Heath Evans to NE44 for 5 yards

Penalty NE-Tim Dwight PENALIZED -5 yards for Illegal Motion

3rd-9-NE39 Pass Matt Cassel Pass to Brandon Childress to Mia40 for 21 yards

1st-10-Mia40 Time Out New England Patriots timeout.

1st-10-Mia40 Pass Matt Cassel Pass to Andre' Davis to Mia29 for 11 yards

1st-10-Mia29 Incomplete Pass Matt Cassel Pass Incomplete

2nd-10-Mia29 Incomplete Pass Matt Cassel Pass Incomplete to Brandon Childress

3rd-10-Mia29 Pass Matt Cassel Pass to Heath Evans to Mia10 for 19 yards

Penalty NE-Andre' Davis PENALIZED -10 yards for Holding

3rd-1-Mia20 Incomplete Pass Matt Cassel Pass Incomplete to Andre' Davis

4th-1-Mia20 Rush Matt Cassel Off Right Guard to Mia18 for 2 yards

1st-10-Mia18 Time Out New England Patriots timeout.

Penalty Mia-Jason Taylor PENALIZED 9 yards for Roughing Passer

1st-9-Mia9 Incomplete Pass Matt Cassel Pass Incomplete to Tim Dwight

2nd-9-Mia9 Pass Matt Cassel Pass to Ben Watson for 9 yards for a TOUCHDOWN

Then THIS is intentional?????

Missed Two Point Conversion 2pt Pass (Incomplete). Unsuccessful.

 

[David Yudkin]

So while the Broncos might look better over the full year, over the latter part of the season I don't see too many categories where Denver trumped New England.  Their biggest advantage is in turnover margin, which tells me that if New England holds on to the ball, Denver will have a tough time winning.

LOLI feel like I'm stalking you here, but I just can't help responding to your ever-evolving creative finesse.

So regular season stats don't matter, but as long as we're looking at them, let's only look at them when NE was playing some real bonafide loser teams - a combined pitiful 46-66 when you throw out MIA (for some reason DEN found a way to annihilate SD in the last game of the season with 2nd & 3rd stringers playing significants amounts of time when it meant nothing to them, but of course NE lost intentionally to a team it couldn't handle on the road last year when the Phins were dog-butt ugly & NE had everything to play for regarding HFA - just so they intentionally could catch DEN in the 2nd round) and then instead include a JAX team that obviously wasn't ready to play with its hurt QB.

That's some interesting number wrangling you've got going there.

There's no way to convince you that DEN is a better team THIS YEAR, so there's no point in arguing anymore, since you have a serious case of blue-and-red goggles on, but I sure am looking forward to your next post & seeing which way you creatively steer the thread.

I'm sure there is a reason why we should INCLUDE a game that the Pats were trying TO LOSE with a bunch of third stringers but EXCLUDE a PLAYOFF game instead. But here goes . . .LAST 8 REGULAR SEASON GAMES FOR BOTH TEAMS:

RECORD:

Pats: 6-2

Broncos: 7-1

OPPOSITION WINNING%:

Pats: 55-73

Broncos: 52-76

FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: 179

Broncos: 163

FIRST DOWNS ALLOWED:

Pats: 138

Broncos: 144

NET FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: +34

Broncos: +19

POINTS SCORED:

Pats: 199

Broncos: 194

POINTS ALLOWED:

Pats: 118

Broncos: 106

NET POINTS:

Pats: +81

Broncos: +88

PASSING YARDS:

Pats: 1913

Broncos: 1643

PASSING YARDS ALLOWED:

Pats: 1767

Broncos: 1684

NET PASSING YARDS:

Pats: +146

Broncos: -41

RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: 891

Broncos: 1178

RUSHING YARDS ALLOWED:

Pats: 549

Broncos: 660

NET RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: +342

Broncos: +518

NET YARDS:

Pats: +488

Broncos: +477

TURNOVER MARGIN:

Pats: +2

Broncos: +11

As I said 18 times in 13 threads (or so it seems), I don't see anything in recent games (even counting only the last 8 regular season games) to indicate that Denver is light years above the Patriots. And we completely ignored the Pats' thrashing of the Jaguars (the most recent game for either the Pats or the Broncos).

Yes, for the entire season Denver was a better team. In the second half, I think the Patriots were a slightly better team.

Including team career playoff records where the Broncos predominantly had a completely different team years and years ago has no bearing on the current crop of Denver players. However, as far as the Pats players go, the core of them have RECENT experience in the playoffs to consider. I don't see how including games involving a huge dose of Davis and Elway has any bearing on how Plummer or Bell will do.

 

[moleculo]

My conclusion is that NE clearly did not have a significantly better last half of the season then Denver did; in fact, it could be argued that Denver had a slightly better last 8 games. Saying NE will win this weekend because they had a better second half of the season is just as ignorant as saying that DEN will win because they did in week 6.

My conclusion that the Patriots will win stems solely from their proven playoff success and has nothing at all to do with either team's latter part of the season.As for excluding the Miami game for New England, THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO LOSE. The team all but admits it. Sources close to the team have indicated that it was a conscious decision WEEKS AGO to game plan against Jacksonville AND ONLY Jacksonville rather than have to think about facing the Steelers, Chargers, or Chiefs. That way, they had 3-4 weeks to prepare for the Jags and focused only on them--and we saw how that worked out.

Belichick used players he hadn't used all season to get them some playing time should they need to play during the playoffs. We're talking third stringers and playing guys out of position to see if they could adjust. I guess the drop kick wasn't a dead giveaway.

Why count that game in an analysis? These guys went up againt the first team of the Dolphins and STILL almost won. So to credit New England with a LOSS and poor statistics seems like a silly exercise to me, even if that's how it goes down in the scorebook.

If you want to discount the Chargers game for Denver, that leaves us with:

RECORD:

Pats: 7-1

Broncos: 6-1

OPPOSITION WINNING%:

Pats: 58-70 (.453)

Broncos: 43-69 (.384)

NET FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: +42

Broncos: +17

NET POINTS:

Pats: +108

Broncos: +62

NET PASSING YARDS:

Pats: +156

Broncos: -102

NET RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: +466

Broncos: +452

NET TOTAL YARDS:

Pats: +622

Broncos: +350

TURNOER MARGIN:

Pats: +5

Broncos: +9

Taking out the Chargers game makes the Broncos ledger far worse.

That's because the Broncos 2nd string guys dominated the Chargers on the road - NE 2nd string did not dominate the Dolphins at home.If you want to arbitrarily take away a game, I think discounting the Baltimore game would be a closer fit. Denver was looking forward to their next game anyhow and didn't really play well. Or, if we are going to pick one loss we will discount, let's discount the KC game.

Either way, it doesn't matter - we essentially concluded the same - both last 8 games were good, neither significantly better than the other. we simply chose a couple of stats to focus on and draw conclusions from.

Let's break it down this way:

category...................................ADVANTAGE

better team, based on

performance in last 8 games:.....EVEN

recent playoff sucess.................NEW ENGLAND

Mile High Mistique......................DENVER

(even so far, right?)

Home Field Advantage................DENVER

extra week to prepare................DENVER

 

[P Boy]

How did both teams do this year against teams whose starting QB's favorite color is red, whose HC has 3 or more children, and whose right DE doesn't eat asparagus?

 

[David Yudkin]

Are you telling me that Belichick was pissed that Matt Cassell and the scrub bunch almost rallied back to win that game? Did BB tell Cassell to narrowly miss the winning TD pass at the end of regulation?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Cassell did not narrowly miss a winning TD pass in regulation. He rallied the team for 2 TD including a TD pass with no time on the clock to pull within 2 points. The Pats needed a 2-point conversion to send the game into OT, and Cassell not only missed a wide open player in the end zone, he through the ball INTO THE STANDS. He missed him by 30 or 40 feet. AT NO POINT was New England going to win this game, and it's leaked out that the plan all along was to face Jacksonville. Of course, the team will never admit to that, but that's what has been discussed somewhat opening behind closed doors and with anonymous sources.Belichick was very happy with the outcome. The second team played well. And the third string that played the entire second hald all got some game experience.

 

[moleculo]

Including team career playoff records where the Broncos predominantly had a completely different team years and years ago has no bearing on the current crop of Denver players.  However, as far as the Pats players go, the core of them have RECENT experience in the playoffs to consider.  I don't see how including games involving a huge dose of Davis and Elway has any bearing on how Plummer or Bell will do.

Nor do I see the relevance of counting teams with Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington, Roman Pfifer, Drew Bledsoe, Romeo Crennel or Charlie Weiss.Denver was pretty tough to beat in Mile High before the SB glory years. They were 8-1 before TD became a Bronco. don't you think that that rowdy fans, altitude, temperature, etc. might have something to do with what will happen this weekend?

edit for spelling.

 

[David Yudkin]

Let's break it down this way:category...................................ADVANTAGEbetter team, based on performance in last 8 games:.....EVENrecent playoff sucess.................NEW ENGLANDMile High Mistique......................DENVER(even so far, right?)Home Field Advantage................DENVERextra week to prepare................DENVER

I agree with everything you listed, but the question is are they all weighted evenly? Recent playoff success ***COULD*** carry 10 times the importance of the other categories.And I for one think listing the Mile High Mystique is double dipping since you also listed Home Field Advantage. Those are one and the same.It remains to be seen if the Pats can continue to win big games. But the Titans, Steelers, Colts, Rams, Panthers, Eagles, and Jaguars all thought they were going to win and didn't. And in the majority of those games the Pats did not look like they were the better team "on paper, "by statistical analysis," "by pointspread," or whatever other metric you want to use.

 

[David Yudkin]

Including team career playoff records where the Broncos predominantly had a completely different team years and years ago has no bearing on the current crop of Denver players.  However, as far as the Pats players go, the core of them have RECENT experience in the playoffs to consider.  I don't see how including games involving a huge dose of Davis and Elway has any bearing on how Plummer or Bell will do.

Nor do I see the relivance of counting teams with Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington, Roman Pfifer, Drew Bledsoe, Romeo Crennel or Charlie Weiss.Denver was pretty tough to beat in Mile High before the SB glory years. They were 8-1 before TD became a Bronco. don't you think that that rowdy fans, altitude, temperature, etc. might have something to do with what will happen this weekend?

But there are still PLENTY of Patriots that HAVE PLAYED in the Pats playoff games of late. Bringing up games from the playoffs BEFORE the Elway era only ensures that NONE of the players are active.Yes, Denver is a tough place to play. Denver is a difficult place to play in the post-season. But other than Rod Smith, how many Broncos have won a playoff game? (That's a serious question, as I don't have an answer to that.)

So the real question (pages and pages later) is if the home field advantage and an extra week to prepare can trump the EXTENSIVE playoff resume for a lot of the Patriots players.

Stay tuned this weekend to find out.

 

[moleculo]

I agree with everything you listed, but the question is are they all weighted evenly?  Recent playoff success ***COULD*** carry 10 times the importance of the other categories.

And I for one think listing the Mile High Mystique is double dipping since you also listed Home Field Advantage.  Those are one and the same.

It remains to be seen if the Pats can continue to win big games.  But the Titans, Steelers, Colts, Rams, Panthers, Eagles, and Jaguars all thought they were going to win and didn't.  And in the majority of those games the Pats did not look like they were the better team "on paper, "by statistical analysis," "by pointspread," or whatever other metric you want to use.

Ok, I'll grant you that it might be double dipping, IF you will concede that home field advantage could have the same weight as recent playoff sucess. It's a big deal - try 8-0 at home this year.

So the real question (pages and pages later) is if the home field advantage and an extra week to prepare can trump the EXTENSIVE playoff resume for a lot of the Patriots players.

Stay tuned this weekend to find out.

Agreed. It's going to be a great game, and I am definately looking forward to it.

 

[thesurfshop19]

And in the majority of those games the Pats did not look like they were the better team "on paper, "by statistical analysis," "by pointspread," or whatever other metric you want to use.

I'm on your side here, but As far as I can remember, at gametime, the Patriots were favored in all but 2 of their playoff games in the past 4 years (@Steelers, vs. Rams in 2001).

And most stats had the Patriots as the best team in the league the last 2 years. Those teams were great and it showed up in the stats.

This year, they might be great but we can't tell from the stats. Unlike some in here, I'm not going to argue that they definitively are or aren't great. We simply can't know at this juncture.

Given that uncertainty, the one thing I am certain is that the Patriots will have the best player in the game and several other very good ones with playoff experience.

The Broncos have Rod Smith, Trevor Pryce, John Lynch, Jason Elam, and a few others with Super Bowl rings, and Jake Plummer has won a playoff game with Arizona. But the Patriots obviously have a huge edge here and I think it's a big factor going into this game.

 

[David Yudkin]

And in the majority of those games the Pats did not look like they were the better team "on paper, "by statistical analysis," "by pointspread," or whatever other metric you want to use.

I'm on your side here, but As far as I can remember, at gametime, the Patriots were favored in all but 2 of their playoff games in the past 4 years (@Steelers, vs. Rams in 2001).

And most stats had the Patriots as the best team in the league the last 2 years. Those teams were great and it showed up in the stats.

This year, they might be great but we can't tell from the stats. Unlike some in here, I'm not going to argue that they definitively are or aren't great. We simply can't know at this juncture.

Given that uncertainty, the one thing I am certain is that the Patriots will have the best player in the game and several other very good ones with playoff experience.

The Broncos have Rod Smith, Trevor Pryce, John Lynch, Jason Elam, and a few others with Super Bowl rings, and Jake Plummer has won a playoff game with Arizona. But the Patriots obviously have a huge edge here and I think it's a big factor going into this game.

I don't remember the exact lines of the games, but I DO REMEMBER the 1,001 threads by people on these very boards pimping the team of the week. And I probably am not exaggerating the number of threads over the years.Each year, there was a progression of who was going to knock the socks off the Pats. Thread after thread after thread. That's the thing I remember the most. Along the lines of, well the Colts are light years better than the Titans. Then they never played a team like the Steelers. Then the Eagles were way better based on Pro Bowlers or stats or shoe size or whatever.

As for who wins THIS game, I am less confident in the Pats winning than in any other game in the postseason in the past 3 years. But I still think that they will dig deep and come up with enough to eke out another win. The Pats probably should have lost to a lot of other teams they beat, and that's what I've been saying all along that the "intangibles" category has to be weighed mightly heavily as they seem to get the job done when on paper they normally don't look like the team that will win.

 

[SoloMatisse]

The Patriots team that beat Jacksonville by 25 points and destroyed the rest of the AFC East at the end of the year SHOULD NOT be compared to the team that looked like a wounded dog early in the season.  If you've watched the difference in the way the team has played, then you'll know what I mean.  It's not even close.

How did NE do before they caught that murders row of QBs - Bollinger twice, Simms, Losman, & Frerotte (whom they lost to)? Oh, that's right, they caught a capable NFL team in KC & got a mudhole stomped into their backs by Larry Johnson & the Chiefs.Tell me why their excursion into DEN should be any different than their excursion into KC.

Bollinger, Simms, Losman, Frerotte.......PLUMMER. He'll be the next scrub QB the Pats beat up on. And the LJ thing with KC....Larry Johnson gained over 100 yds in 10 games this year, including New England, but the Pats were the only team to hold him to less than 4 a carry....3.8.

Dont just DRINK the koolaid....CHUG IT and let it spill all down the front of your shirt!

 

[thesurfshop19]

I don't remember the exact lines of the games, but I DO REMEMBER the 1,001 threads by people on these very boards pimping the team of the week. And I probably am not exaggerating the number of threads over the years.

Each year, there was a progression of who was going to knock the socks off the Pats. Thread after thread after thread. That's the thing I remember the most. Along the lines of, well the Colts are light years better than the Titans. Then they never played a team like the Steelers. Then the Eagles were way better based on Pro Bowlers or stats or shoe size or whatever.

Fair enough. I think some of that was self-fulfilled because a few Patriots fans (certainly not all) were a bit irritating with the "no respect" thing and people just wanted the Patriots to lose. But I can understand that it's very tiring to hear that sort of thing about your team over and over (I remember in 1997, Broncos fans were hearing the same thing when they beat the Packers).

 

[dansav]

My conclusion is that NE clearly did not have a significantly better last half of the season then Denver did; in fact, it could be argued that Denver had a slightly better last 8 games. Saying NE will win this weekend because they had a better second half of the season is just as ignorant as saying that DEN will win because they did in week 6.

My conclusion that the Patriots will win stems solely from their proven playoff success and has nothing at all to do with either team's latter part of the season.As for excluding the Miami game for New England, THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO LOSE. The team all but admits it. Sources close to the team have indicated that it was a conscious decision WEEKS AGO to game plan against Jacksonville AND ONLY Jacksonville rather than have to think about facing the Steelers, Chargers, or Chiefs. That way, they had 3-4 weeks to prepare for the Jags and focused only on them--and we saw how that worked out.

Belichick used players he hadn't used all season to get them some playing time should they need to play during the playoffs. We're talking third stringers and playing guys out of position to see if they could adjust. I guess the drop kick wasn't a dead giveaway.

Why count that game in an analysis? These guys went up againt the first team of the Dolphins and STILL almost won. So to credit New England with a LOSS and poor statistics seems like a silly exercise to me, even if that's how it goes down in the scorebook.

If you want to discount the Chargers game for Denver, that leaves us with:

RECORD:

Pats: 7-1

Broncos: 6-1

OPPOSITION WINNING%:

Pats: 58-70 (.453)

Broncos: 43-69 (.384)

NET FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: +42

Broncos: +17

NET POINTS:

Pats: +108

Broncos: +62

NET PASSING YARDS:

Pats: +156

Broncos: -102

NET RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: +466

Broncos: +452

NET TOTAL YARDS:

Pats: +622

Broncos: +350

TURNOER MARGIN:

Pats: +5

Broncos: +9

Taking out the Chargers game makes the Broncos ledger far worse.

That's because the Broncos 2nd string guys dominated the Chargers on the road - NE 2nd string did not dominate the Dolphins at home.If you want to arbitrarily take away a game, I think discounting the Baltimore game would be a closer fit. Denver was looking forward to their next game anyhow and didn't really play well. Or, if we are going to pick one loss we will discount, let's discount the KC game.

Either way, it doesn't matter - we essentially concluded the same - both last 8 games were good, neither significantly better than the other. we simply chose a couple of stats to focus on and draw conclusions from.

Let's break it down this way:

category...................................ADVANTAGE

better team, based on

performance in last 8 games:.....EVEN

recent playoff sucess.................NEW ENGLAND

Mile High Mistique......................DENVER

(even so far, right?)

Home Field Advantage................DENVER

extra week to prepare................DENVER

Coaching....................NEW ENGLAND

 

[moleculo]

Coaching....................NEW ENGLAND

How do you figure? I've provided evidence, antecedal and statistical, as to how I came up with my judgements...how will you justify that, all things considered even, Belichick is better than Shannahan?

 

[greenroom]

Let me Tom Brady is 10-0 in the playoffs. But how many times did they play Denver? ZEROTom Brady's record against Denver 1-3. Can NE win... sure Will they I would not bet the house on it. As Denver matches up well against New England. And it seems that Denver has the Pats number.And Shanny is just as good of a coach as Belichick. So to me it will come down who is rested and where the game is played.Rested .. Denver Plus Denver got to see how the Pats beat the Jags so got to see the NE Pats and "how improved" they are. Home.. Denver

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

So while the Broncos might look better over the full year, over the latter part of the season I don't see too many categories where Denver trumped New England.  Their biggest advantage is in turnover margin, which tells me that if New England holds on to the ball, Denver will have a tough time winning.

LOLI feel like I'm stalking you here, but I just can't help responding to your ever-evolving creative finesse.

So regular season stats don't matter, but as long as we're looking at them, let's only look at them when NE was playing some real bonafide loser teams - a combined pitiful 46-66 when you throw out MIA (for some reason DEN found a way to annihilate SD in the last game of the season with 2nd & 3rd stringers playing significants amounts of time when it meant nothing to them, but of course NE lost intentionally to a team it couldn't handle on the road last year when the Phins were dog-butt ugly & NE had everything to play for regarding HFA - just so they intentionally could catch DEN in the 2nd round) and then instead include a JAX team that obviously wasn't ready to play with its hurt QB.

That's some interesting number wrangling you've got going there.

There's no way to convince you that DEN is a better team THIS YEAR, so there's no point in arguing anymore, since you have a serious case of blue-and-red goggles on, but I sure am looking forward to your next post & seeing which way you creatively steer the thread.

I'm sure there is a reason why we should INCLUDE a game that the Pats were trying TO LOSE with a bunch of third stringers but EXCLUDE a PLAYOFF game instead. But here goes . . .LAST 8 REGULAR SEASON GAMES FOR BOTH TEAMS:

RECORD:

Pats: 6-2

Broncos: 7-1

OPPOSITION WINNING%:

Pats: 55-73

Broncos: 52-76

FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: 179

Broncos: 163

FIRST DOWNS ALLOWED:

Pats: 138

Broncos: 144

NET FIRST DOWNS:

Pats: +34

Broncos: +19

POINTS SCORED:

Pats: 199

Broncos: 194

POINTS ALLOWED:

Pats: 118

Broncos: 106

NET POINTS:

Pats: +81

Broncos: +88

PASSING YARDS:

Pats: 1913

Broncos: 1643

PASSING YARDS ALLOWED:

Pats: 1767

Broncos: 1684

NET PASSING YARDS:

Pats: +146

Broncos: -41

RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: 891

Broncos: 1178

RUSHING YARDS ALLOWED:

Pats: 549

Broncos: 660

NET RUSHING YARDS:

Pats: +342

Broncos: +518

NET YARDS:

Pats: +488

Broncos: +477

TURNOVER MARGIN:

Pats: +2

Broncos: +11

As I said 18 times in 13 threads (or so it seems), I don't see anything in recent games (even counting only the last 8 regular season games) to indicate that Denver is light years above the Patriots. And we completely ignored the Pats' thrashing of the Jaguars (the most recent game for either the Pats or the Broncos).

Yes, for the entire season Denver was a better team. In the second half, I think the Patriots were a slightly better team.

Including team career playoff records where the Broncos predominantly had a completely different team years and years ago has no bearing on the current crop of Denver players. However, as far as the Pats players go, the core of them have RECENT experience in the playoffs to consider. I don't see how including games involving a huge dose of Davis and Elway has any bearing on how Plummer or Bell will do.

Going to be a great game

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't remember the exact lines of the games, but I DO REMEMBER the 1,001 threads by people on these very boards pimping the team of the week.  And I probably am not exaggerating the number of threads over the years.

Each year, there was a progression of who was going to knock the socks off the Pats.  Thread after thread after thread.  That's the thing I remember the most.  Along the lines of, well the Colts are light years better than the Titans.  Then they never played a team like the Steelers.  Then the Eagles were way better based on Pro Bowlers or stats or shoe size or whatever.

Fair enough. I think some of that was self-fulfilled because a few Patriots fans (certainly not all) were a bit irritating with the "no respect" thing and people just wanted the Patriots to lose. But I can understand that it's very tiring to hear that sort of thing about your team over and over (I remember in 1997, Broncos fans were hearing the same thing when they beat the Packers).

NOTE TO ALL: I'm a Cowboys fan.

 

[thesurfshop19]

NOTE TO ALL: I'm a Cowboys fan.

The point was that I can understand how some Patriots fans felt slighted about not getting enough respect, but the way that a few of them handled it may have actually made the situation worse. A number of respected posters were a bit turned off by this in both 2001 and 2003 (not so much in 2004). It was sort of a snowball effect thing.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The Patriots were beaten in KC fairly handily because Tom Brady threw 4 interceptions. The D was actually somewhat effective against Larry Johnson as he didnt run wild but they couldnt get off the field on 3rd down.If you think Brady plays this poorly on Saturday then I agree, Denver will beat the Pats easily. If you think Brady will come up big and put in a typical Brady playoff performance then I think the Pats win. The way the Pats D is playing, if Brady plays well, the Pats win.I think it rather ridiculous that we are discussing the Patriot loss to Miami in week 17 and the Denver win in week 17 vs. SD. Yes, SD played their starters for most of the game (Brees got knocked out in the 2nd quarter I believe). However, how motivated was SD for that game? What could have been a great season was flushed down the toilet at that point and they were eliminated from the playoffs. I really dont think Denver saw the same SD team in week 17 that the Pats played in week 4. But thats just me.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Hmmm, when looking at how Denver has owned New England since Shanahan has came to town, the argument could be made that he owns them as much as Belichick owns Indy. After all, Belichick's only loss to Indy was this year with his injury-riddled team and Shanahan's only loss (to my recollection) to New England was when he had to start Danny Kanell at quarterback. As for asking how many Broncos have won playoff games, how many Patriots had won any playoff games before 2001? Or how many had any Ravens won before 2000? See what I mean? You have to start somewhere. Yes, playoff experience can give you an advantage, but I think it only counts for so much.

 

[Pat Patriot]

And whoever is arguing that the Pats have been less talented than other teams over the years, STOP IT! The Pats team in 2001 won on guts, heart and coaching. The Pats teams from 2003 and 2004 were LOADED. They were both 14-2. Brady had matured into one of the best QB's in the league. The Pats won 20 straight games in that stretch.This years team, albeit a bit older, is also LOADED. Although the Pats have had huge injuries across the board, 1 injury trumps all others. If Harrison hadnt gone down, I believe that the Pats would have finished 13-3 and would be the favorite to 3-peat even ahead of the Colts who would have home field advantage.The Pats proved last year they could overcome CB injuries because they had Harrison and Wilson at safety. This year they will prove if they can overcome the injury to Harrison. I'm not sure they can but I am pretty sure they will give Denver a good game Saturday night.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am pretty sure they will give Denver a good game Saturday night.

No one is saying they won't. In fact, I think those picking the Broncos to win are being far more respectful of the Patriots than they other way around. Most people picking Denver are saying it is going to be a tough game and that beating NE isn't going to be easy. On the other hand, some (not all) people picking NE are saying stupid crap like Denver has no shot or Brady is better than Plummer so that automatically will equal a victory. When it all comes down to it, as a Broncos fan, the Patriots scare the hell out of me and if the Broncos win, I will breath a huge sigh of relief after the game, but if they lose, it won't surprise me either. I am prepared for either outcome. I know how hard it is going to be to knock the Patriots out of the playoffs, but it can be done.

 

[Serenity Now]

You guys do an awful lot of analysis only to conclude that none of it matters anyway.

You're new here, aren't you?

 

[meabeln]

Put it this way. Why should Denvers most recent excursion into the world of playoff football turn out any different than the last 3?

Two weeks to plan? Both of the last 2 seasons, the Broncos knew their playoff opponent in the wild card round in week 16. Two weeks to play. Heck, two years ago, they even got to scrimmage the Colts in week 17, to no avail.

Should it be the feared Bronco pass rush, and their feared 28 sacks this season, playing with a healthy lineup. The Pats played without Richard Seymour for 1/3 of the season, and still had 33.

To wrap it up, there is simply no way I see the Pats losing to the Broncos. NO scenario I can put together has Jake 'the fake' Plummer pulling it out against Brady. NONE!!!

Hmm, the past two years the Broncos secondary has played worse than it has this year, and they were playing the Colts in Indy both times. Hmm this year the are playing at home against the Patriots. The Patriots are of course damn good, but their passing attack is not quite on the level of Manning and the Colts in Indy. Also, if you go by the past, then the Patriots with Brady should never lose another postseason game, ever. They are 10-0 so why should they ever ever lose another playoff game.

Yeah, thats an extreme but come on, this is not the same Denver team that was in the playoffs the past 3 times, and its not the same Patriots team. Im not saying the Patriots are worse than their past playoff teams, but I am saying the Broncos are better then the past three teams, and they are not playing against Manning in Indy.

 

[thesurfshop19]

And whoever is arguing that the Pats have been less talented than other teams over the years, STOP IT! The Pats team in 2001 won on guts, heart and coaching. The Pats teams from 2003 and 2004 were LOADED. They were both 14-2. Brady had matured into one of the best QB's in the league. The Pats won 20 straight games in that stretch.

This years team, albeit a bit older, is also LOADED. Although the Pats have had huge injuries across the board, 1 injury trumps all others. If Harrison hadnt gone down, I believe that the Pats would have finished 13-3 and would be the favorite to 3-peat even ahead of the Colts who would have home field advantage.

The Pats proved last year they could overcome CB injuries because they had Harrison and Wilson at safety. This year they will prove if they can overcome the injury to Harrison. I'm not sure they can but I am pretty sure they will give Denver a good game Saturday night.

Thank you! You need great talent AND coaching to win 3 titles in 4 years, and that's exactly what the Patriots have had.

 

[Aaronur]

TURNOVER MARGIN:

Pats: +2

Broncos: +11

I would agree that both teams played well at the end of the season, Denver played well all season but if we look at playoff games inparticular and football as a whole we will see that the most important stat is turnovers. Of which the Pats have been masters of in their thrashing of the Colts but have been troubled at this year. And turnovers is an area Denver has done very well in much better than NE. I think that NE will win because they find ways to create turnovers in big games, but based on turnover data alone I think you have to give the last half of the season to Denver.And to whoever said that last year was all about Steelers being 15-1 you must never watch ESPN because I remember that being about the 20-something game winning streak by the Pats being the longest in league history as the top story for most of the year, and everyone picking them to with the Super Bowl because a rookie QB couldn't win one. And I think ESPN is the largest sports media in the world so that would be a pretty big endoursment.

 

[Pat Patriot]

TURNOVER MARGIN:

Pats: +2

Broncos: +11

I would agree that both teams played well at the end of the season, Denver played well all season but if we look at playoff games inparticular and football as a whole we will see that the most important stat is turnovers. Of which the Pats have been masters of in their thrashing of the Colts but have been troubled at this year. And turnovers is an area Denver has done very well in much better than NE. I think that NE will win because they find ways to create turnovers in big games, but based on turnover data alone I think you have to give the last half of the season to Denver.And to whoever said that last year was all about Steelers being 15-1 you must never watch ESPN because I remember that being about the 20-something game winning streak by the Pats being the longest in league history as the top story for most of the year, and everyone picking them to with the Super Bowl because a rookie QB couldn't win one. And I think ESPN is the largest sports media in the world so that would be a pretty big endoursment.

You are half right. The Pats 20 game winning streak ended in week 7 against Pitt so it pretty much ended there. The buzz last season was about having 3 absolutely dominant teams ( and youre not even talking about Indy) in the Pats, Pitt and Philly. Going into the playoffs, the favorite in the AFC was a toss up. Pitt and NE had the byes as INDY destroyed Denver (similar to 2003 when they destroyed Denver, Beat KC and their offense looked invincible). The Pats sat back with the bye as everyone talked up Indy. We all know what the Pats did to Indy.This year the Pats played in the first round and destroyed the Jags while Denver has sat back with the bye. Everyone is talking up the Pats this year. Will the extra game this year be the Pats undoing? It could be. Denver is good and they had a bye. It should be an outstanding game.

 

[moleculo]

I don't remember the exact lines of the games, but I DO REMEMBER the 1,001 threads by people on these very boards pimping the team of the week. And I probably am not exaggerating the number of threads over the years.

Each year, there was a progression of who was going to knock the socks off the Pats. Thread after thread after thread. That's the thing I remember the most. Along the lines of, well the Colts are light years better than the Titans. Then they never played a team like the Steelers. Then the Eagles were way better based on Pro Bowlers or stats or shoe size or whatever.

Fair enough. I think some of that was self-fulfilled because a few Patriots fans (certainly not all) were a bit irritating with the "no respect" thing and people just wanted the Patriots to lose. But I can understand that it's very tiring to hear that sort of thing about your team over and over (I remember in 1997, Broncos fans were hearing the same thing when they beat the Packers).

NOTE TO ALL: I'm a Cowboys fan.

By the way, contrarily to what you all may think based on my posts above, I have not picked the Broncos to win ...yet. I think the Pats have an excellent chance to win IN Denver. I think they have a better chance than the Jags did in '96, and the Jags won in Denver. I simply wanted to bring to light a couple of aspects which had gone un-looked - namely, Denvers strong finish and Denvers home playoff record - "Mile High Mystique." I'll have my pick by Thursday.

 

[SSOG]

As for excluding the Miami game for New England, THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO LOSE. The team all but admits it. Sources close to the team have indicated that it was a conscious decision WEEKS AGO to game plan against Jacksonville AND ONLY Jacksonville rather than have to think about facing the Steelers, Chargers, or Chiefs. That way, they had 3-4 weeks to prepare for the Jags and focused only on them--and we saw how that worked out.

So... wait a minute. Having several weeks to prepare for an opponent is an advantage?

Hmmm, when looking at how Denver has owned New England since Shanahan has came to town, the argument could be made that he owns them as much as Belichick owns Indy. After all, Belichick's only loss to Indy was this year with his injury-riddled team and Shanahan's only loss (to my recollection) to New England was when he had to start Danny Kanell at quarterback.

As for asking how many Broncos have won playoff games, how many Patriots had won any playoff games before 2001? Or how many had any Ravens won before 2000? See what I mean? You have to start somewhere. Yes, playoff experience can give you an advantage, but I think it only counts for so much.

First off, a very valid point.Denver's record in its last 4 games against Indy: 1-3.

Indy's record in its last 4 games against New England: 1-3.

New England's record in its last 4 games against Denver: 1-3.

Second off, okay, let's say you want to give weight to playoff experience. That's fine. What I don't get is why does playoff experience only count if the team wins? New England has made the playoffs for 3 straight seasons. Denver has made the playoffs for 3 straight seasons. New England has made the playoffs 4 times this decade. Denver has made the playoffs 4 times this decade. Yes, New England has won more playoff games, but Denver's not exactly the Cincinnati Bengals here. If anything, I would think LOSING the first round game every year would only make the Broncos hungrier. There are a lot of Patriots who don't understand what "lose and go home" means. Not so with the Denver Broncos. Al Wilson, Champ Bailey, Mike Anderson, Ashley Lelie, the entire DL except for Pryce... none of these guys have ever won a playoff game, but they've certainly LOST their fair share. One would think that that would only make them hungrier. Meanwhile, New England has very few players left on their roster who know what it's like to lose a playoff game. If you want to talk about intangibles, then you've got to talk about "hunger", and Denver's all over it there.

 

[Workhorse]

There are a lot of Patriots who don't understand what "lose and go home" means. Not so with the Denver Broncos. Al Wilson, Champ Bailey, Mike Anderson, Ashley Lelie, the entire DL except for Pryce... none of these guys have ever won a playoff game, but they've certainly LOST their fair share. One would think that that would only make them hungrier. Meanwhile, New England has very few players left on their roster who know what it's like to lose a playoff game. If you want to talk about intangibles, then you've got to talk about "hunger", and Denver's all over it there.

I think that the Broncos are the better team this year and will most likely win, but this "logic" is baffling.

The Broncos have an advantage because they've FAILED in the postseason multiple times? By this logic, the Bills should have dominated in that 4th try in the Super Bowl, no?

Now I've heard everything.