What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Simple poll, Vote with your mind, not your heart (1 Viewer)

Who will win?

  • Pats

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Broncos

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
How many more years do you expect the NE/Brady/Belicheck playoff streak to continue unabated?
I've pretty much answered this in other threads, but here goes again . . .#1 answer) they don't make the playoffs at all#2 answer) someone completely disrupts their game plan, their tempo, and ultimately they start coughing up the football#3) they suffer so many injuries that they are not competitiveWe've seen #1 in practice (2002). We have not yet seen #2 in practice. We have seen #3 in practice (earlier this year).So this year, since #1 is out, we are left with #2 or #3--both of which combined could very well happen in the weeks ahead.
 
You're right. It's a pretty big stretch to say that the team that has consistantly played better for 16 straight games is the better team. It might just be a statistical quirk.
YOu Denver homers are missing the point here. It happens in every sport- a dynasty type team stops caring too much about the regular season and just coasts through it while an upstart team has a better regular season record. I could name tons of examples, but heres one: Phoenix, not SA or Det, had the best NBA record last year. Do you really think they were the best team?With that said, this game is impossible for me to predict. HOnestly, I could see either team blowing the other out. I really have no clue what to expect here, but until the Pats lose in the playoffs, I'll go with them.

 
YOu Denver homers are missing the point here. It happens in every sport- a dynasty type team stops caring too much about the regular season and just coasts through it while an upstart team has a better regular season record.
Are you suggesting that New England coasted through the regular season?
I could name tons of examples, but heres one: Phoenix, not SA or Det, had the best NBA record last year. Do you really think they were the best team?
The difference there is in the NBA, the better team will almost always emerge victorious in a best-of-7 series. In the NFL, it is one game and the better team will not always win in the playoffs (see: 2001 Patriots). New England was, at best, the 6th best team in the NFL this season, but in the NFL, it is "and and you're done", so anything can happen. All SSOG is saying, and I agree, is that over the course of this season, the Broncos have been a better team than the Patriots and should be favored to win. Will they? Not necessarily.
 
In the preseason, starters play for about a quarter, sometimes two. Teams use vanilla offensive gameplans designed not to give anything away. During the regular season, starters play for the entire game. Coordinators scheme aggressively, not holding anything back, except for very very rare occassions late in the season. During the playoffs, starters play for the entire game. Coordinators scheme aggressively, not holding anything back. Oh yeah, I can see how the regular season shows us nothing at all about how a team will perform in the postseason. Yes, the regular season is as different from the postseason as the preseason is from the regular season.
You just proved my point. The Patriots' starters didn't play for the entire game for all 16 games. That's exactly the reason why the Patriots' regular season is not a valid predictor of the Patriots post season. Maybe more valid than preseason/regular season, but not by much.
Do you mean to tell me we can't assume that Steve Smith is the most dangerous receiver, Chicago the most dangerous defense, Denver the best home team, or Shaun Alexander the best runningback? Is any team that faces the Pats going to for a second consider that Brady won't be the biggest threat?
By your logic, teams shouldn't gameplan for Darrell Jackson. After all, he only has 482 yards receiving this year. Whatever you do, don't look at his 368 yards receiving through the first four games, or his 72 yards receiving and a TD in the last full game he played, because that's only a small sample size. He's obviously not a good receiver. And please, don't bother me with ancient history. Who cares that he has over 150 catches for over 3300 yards and 16 TDs in the last two years - all that counts is 2005.

By your logic, I'm sure Carolina will be thrilled to learn that the Bears won't be passing the ball, as their QB only has 259 yards passing this year. Although the Bears will be happy to note that Deshaun Foster only has 2 TDs and less than 1000 yards this year. Clearly the Panthers don't run the ball, and NEVER near the goal line.

Or maybe - just maybe - you knew what you were doing when you picked Steve Smith and Shaun Alexander as examples of guys with good regular season stats who should do well in the playoffs. It's possible, if not likely, that you know that Denver isn't coming off the same kind of injuries that New England is. And - if you'll excuse the wild, conspiracy-theory allegations - I secretly suspect that you know that the reason Denver's 2005 regular season numbers look so much better than New England's 2005 regular season numbers has SOMETHING to do with the injuries.

Just like Darrell Jackson's.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
YOu Denver homers are missing the point here. It happens in every sport- a dynasty type team stops caring too much about the regular season and just coasts through it while an upstart team has a better regular season record. 
Are you suggesting that New England coasted through the regular season?
Are you suggesting that playing their backups for most of the Miami game gave the Patriots the best chance to win?
 
YOu Denver homers are missing the point here. It happens in every sport- a dynasty type team stops caring too much about the regular season and just coasts through it while an upstart team has a better regular season record.
Are you suggesting that New England coasted through the regular season?
Are you suggesting that playing their backups for most of the Miami game gave the Patriots the best chance to win?
Where did I say that or imply that? Oh, that's right...nowhere.
 
One thing that is as certain about sports streaks as death or taxes - streaks end. Always.

How many more years do you expect the NE/Brady/Belicheck playoff streak to continue unabated?
Let's take your suggestion that you should bet against a streak, and imagine that you adopted it after the Patriots' second playoff win. You would now be 0-8. So let's say you waited until their second Superbowl win. You would now be 0-4.

Let's say you waited until their second Superbowl win, and only bet against them in each game in which the opponent was favored. You would now be 0-2.

It doesn't seem like you're plan to bet against streaks works very well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
YOu Denver homers are missing the point here. It happens in every sport- a dynasty type team stops caring too much about the regular season and just coasts through it while an upstart team has a better regular season record. I could name tons of examples, but heres one: Phoenix, not SA or Det, had the best NBA record last year. Do you really think they were the best team?

With that said, this game is impossible for me to predict. HOnestly, I could see either team blowing the other out. I really have no clue what to expect here, but until the Pats lose in the playoffs, I'll go with them.
It does NOT happen in every sport. It happens in basketball, and it happens in baseball. And there are very good reasons for why in both cases. Allow me to explain.First, basketball. This one is easy. There are 30 teams. 16 teams make the playoffs. That's over 50%- including many teams with a losing record. In addition, no playoff teams get a substantial bonus based on where they finished the season (there are no bye weeks, and if I recall correctly, the NBA Postseason does not feature reseeding every round so the highest remaining seed always faces the lowest). As such, there's not a whole lot of motivation to finish with the best record in basketball. Quite honestly, it doesn't matter. Even home court advantage isn't that big, especially since the first round expanded to a best-of-seven series, because now 4/7ths of the games (57%) will be played at home.

Second, baseball. Again, another easy one. Two words- pitching rotation. To get a lot of wins in the regular season, you're going to need 5 good starting pitchers. Your best pitcher only plays one out of every 5 games. In the postseason, however, teams usually go to a 3 or 4 man rotation- which means that teams with only 3 quality pitchers might not perform well in the regular season, but become very dangerous once they reach the playoffs and shorten their rotation. Houston last year was a great example of this. Please note that the shortened rotation thing also has some effect on basketball, where starters typically get more minutes and fewer bench players are used in the postseason.

Hockey might very well behave in a similar matter, since they share a similar playoff format with basketball (high percentage of teams make it, no bye weeks, as far as I know there's no reseeding, and home ice only applies to 57% of the games even if you're the #1 seed). To be honest, I've never followed hockey closely enough to say one way or another.

Now compare this to football. First, there are only 16 games (as opposed to 82 or 162), so it's a lot easier to maintain your focus. Second, the teams with the best records get a first-round bye, which is HUGE, historically. That provides plenty of motivation to finish with the best record in the league. Third, a very small percentage of the teams make the playoffs, and with the constant churn, no spot is guaranteed (only 5 of 12 playoff squads from last year returned there this year). Fourth, HFA is *HUGE* in football, since home field guarantees you that 100% of your playoff games will be played at home (or in a neutral site, in the case of a SB), as opposed to basketball, baseball, or hockey, where the best it guarantees you is a 57% margin.

Yes, in baseball, basketball, or possibly hockey, teams regularly mail in the regular season- however, suggesting that teams do the same thing in football (aside from when their playoff seeding is set) is just ignorant.

To further reinforce this point... last season, a 51% winning percentage would have netted you a trip to the NBA postseason. This year, no team made the postseason with a worse than 62.5% winning percentage (and that wasn't even good enough for Kansas City, who was sitting at home with a 62.5% win rate).

By your logic, teams shouldn't gameplan for Darrell Jackson. After all, he only has 482 yards receiving this year. Whatever you do, don't look at his 368 yards receiving through the first four games, or his 72 yards receiving and a TD in the last full game he played, because that's only a small sample size. He's obviously not a good receiver.

And please, don't bother me with ancient history. Who cares that he has over 150 catches for over 3300 yards and 16 TDs in the last two years - all that counts is 2005.

By your logic, I'm sure Carolina will be thrilled to learn that the Bears won't be passing the ball, as their QB only has 259 yards passing this year. Although the Bears will be happy to note that Deshaun Foster only has 2 TDs and less than 1000 yards this year. Clearly the Panthers don't run the ball, and NEVER near the goal line.

Or maybe - just maybe - you knew what you were doing when you picked Steve Smith and Shaun Alexander as examples of guys with good regular season stats who should do well in the playoffs. It's possible, if not likely, that you know that Denver isn't coming off the same kind of injuries that New England is. And - if you'll excuse the wild, conspiracy-theory allegations - I secretly suspect that you know that the reason Denver's 2005 regular season numbers look so much better than New England's 2005 regular season numbers has SOMETHING to do with the injuries.

Just like Darrell Jackson's.
First off, I know that Darrell Jackson is still suspect- no one knows how good he'll be until he actually gets out there and plays.Second, if you look at Darrell Jackson on a per-game basis, you see that his regular season statistics were extremely good. So you wouldn't be discounting him based on the regular season, you'd be NOT discounting him based on the regular season. Your arguements are silly and pointless, since they completely ignore PER GAME numbers. The numbers you gave me are for Rex Grossman and Darrell Jackson who only played a handful of games each. The numbers *I* gave *you* are for New England, who played 16 games.

Third, even if you COMPLETELY DISCOUNT the games New England played with any players injured, the fact remains that they did not play as well this season as Denver did.

Fourth, if you want to bring up history, are you going to say that Corey Dillon is one of the most dangerous rushers in the postseason, since he had a great year in 2004? Or are you going to say that New England's rushing attack is pretty weak, because he had such a bad year in 2005? Which is more relevant? Should Denver expect to see the 2004 version of Corey Dillon this week, the one who averaged 4.7 yards per carry, or should Denver expect to see the 2005 version that's averaging 3.5 yards per carry? Likewise, should Denver expect to see the 2004 version of Tom Brady, who completed 60.8% of his passes, or the 2005 version, who completed 63% of his passes? Should Denver expect to see the 2004 version of Bruschi, who was totally healthy, or the 2005 version, who didn't play a down last week? Should Denver expect to see the 2004 Patriots LT, Matt Light, or the 2005 Patriots LT (was it Kaczur? I dunno, the rookie)?

So wait, let's see if I've got this straight... this season, Denver will be facing the 2005 version of Tom Brady, the 2005 version of Corey Dillon, the 2005 version of Matt Light, the 2005 version of Tedy Bruschi, the 2005 version of Rodney Harrison, and the 2005 version of Ty Law... yet somehow, what the 2004 versions of all of those players did will be more predictive of this New England team than what the 2005 versions of those players did?

Huh?

 
In the preseason, starters play for about a quarter, sometimes two. Teams use vanilla offensive gameplans designed not to give anything away. During the regular season, starters play for the entire game. Coordinators scheme aggressively, not holding anything back, except for very very rare occassions late in the season. During the playoffs, starters play for the entire game. Coordinators scheme aggressively, not holding anything back. Oh yeah, I can see how the regular season shows us nothing at all about how a team will perform in the postseason. Yes, the regular season is as different from the postseason as the preseason is from the regular season.
You just proved my point. The Patriots' starters didn't play for the entire game for all 16 games. That's exactly the reason why the Patriots' regular season is not a valid predictor of the Patriots post season. Maybe more valid than preseason/regular season, but not by much.
I didn't prove your point. Starters played the entire game during the regular season. Sure, Rodney Harrison may have gotten injured, but did New England simply cease to name a starting safety after that? Matt Light is gone, so does New England no longer have a starting left tackle? What about when Richard Seymour was out, did they stop naming a starting defensive end? And did they play the game without a starting RB when Corey Dillon was out?Of course not. That would be absurd. Even when planned starters were injured, Belichick still started everyone he thought would give him the best chance to win, and those starters remained in for the entire game or until they got injured. In the preseason, coaches start whoever they think gives them the best chance to win, and then pulls those starters after 15 minutes of action. PLEASE, *PLEASE* tell me that you can see a difference between the two points. And don't try to minimalize that difference, because it is ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.

Regular season statistics are indicitive of what a team can do when it's trying its absolute hardest to win every single game (with a few exceptions at the end of the season). Preseason statistics are indicitive of what a team can do when it's trying its absolute hardest to evaluate players who probably won't even play in the NFL that season and keep its quality players healthy.

Will New England be trying its absolute hardest to evaluate players who probably won't even play in the NFL that season and keep its quality players healthy in Denver next week? No? Then I can see why preseason statistics wouldn't be very indicitive of the quality of this team.

Will New England be trying its absolute hardest to win in Denver next week? Yes? Then why wouldn't regular season statistics be indicitive of the quality of this team? Again, even if you completely remove weeks 3-8 (despite the fact that they still had a lot of opening-day starters playing), New England *HAS NOT* been as good this season as Denver has.

 
So wait, let's see if I've got this straight... this season, Denver will be facing the 2005 version of Tom Brady, the 2005 version of Corey Dillon, the 2005 version of Matt Light, the 2005 version of Tedy Bruschi, the 2005 version of Rodney Harrison, and the 2005 version of Ty Law... yet somehow, what the 2004 versions of all of those players did will be more predictive of this New England team than what the 2005 versions of those players did?
I'll gladly concede that the 2005 versions of Ty Law, Matt Light and Rodney Harrison are irrelevant. I'll even spot you Koppen. Now, will you concede that the 2005 versions of Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel (ILB), Colvin, Warren, Hobbs, Hawkins, and Wilson (FS) are relevant? And that the performances of Starks, Beisel, Chad Brown, Poole, Chatham, Scott, Vrabel (OLB), Gay, Green, Klecko, Izzo, Hill, Pass, Zereoue, Banta-Cain and Don Davis aren't quite indicative of the team that the Broncos will face?

I didn't prove your point. Starters played the entire game during the regular season. Sure, Rodney Harrison may have gotten injured, but did New England simply cease to name a starting safety after that? Matt Light is gone, so does New England no longer have a starting left tackle? What about when Richard Seymour was out, did they stop naming a starting defensive end? And did they play the game without a starting RB when Corey Dillon was out?

Of course not. That would be absurd. Even when planned starters were injured, Belichick still started everyone he thought would give him the best chance to win, and those starters remained in for the entire game or until they got injured.
See above. The guys they played are significant downgrades from the guys that will be on the field. You've written a lot of words trying to justify why regular season stats are a better predictor than the Patriots' 2001-2004 playoff record. I'm not sure what you're looking for, but maybe this is it:

I readily concede that the 2005 Patriots are probably neither as good as the 2004 Patriots, nor as bad as their 2005 regular season stats. But it is for that reason that I don't think you can accurately compare these two teams until we see them on the field.

I believe that Denver has a good run defense, a very good pass defense, a very good running game, and a good, but beatable passing game. I believe that New England has a very good run defense, a good pass defense, an excellent passing game, and a mediocre running game. The two teams match up well against each other, and we're going to see a lot of strength-versus-strength.

But I believe that there is a specific set of skills involved in winning games in the playoffs. I believe that Brady and Belichick possess these skills more than their Denver counterparts. In fact, up and down the New England team, you'll find more players who know how to win in the playoffs than Denver.

And that is why I believe that the Patriots' playoff track record is extremely relevant to their matchup vs. Denver.

 
You're wasting your time Fred. Just a couple of weeks ago, SSOG thought Duane Starks was still with the Pats.We'll see what's what Saturday night. I for one wouldn't want the fate of my favorite team in the hands of Jake Plummer, that's for sure.

 
Wow, there is an hour of my life I wont get back! lolIt is going to be a great game. I think both teams are pretty much evenly matched. I think the Broncos home field advantage will help them, but in the end, the Patriots will win. The Pats always tend to focus on three key components they want to take away from a team in the game. They make you come out of your game plan. As for all of the stats and all, I usually look at the last four weeks and see who is coming on strong. Look at the first four post season games. It was no suprise to me who won (actually picked all four right! lol). I only say this because the Patriots are not the same team they were in the start of the season...give them some credit for fixing up some holes.Hope Tedy Plays! :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really, a lot of traditional analysis goes out the window with Belichick. I really marvel at what he has accomplished. Granted, Belichick's current club is not on par with his super bowl winners. However, we aren't asking Belichick to dismantle a 2001 Rams' offense that scored over 500 points. Nor are we asking him to dismantle a Colts' offense that in 2003 scored 447 or in 2004 scored over 500 points. We are asking him to contain a Broncos offense that scored 395. I have to give Belichick the benefit of the doubt. He will shut down the Broncos' offense and win this game. I just don't think Belichick can shut down a powerhouse offense like the Colts or Seahawks have with the club he has now.

 
All homersim aside, DEN is the better team, and is playing at home.

Ought to be a great game, with Brady playing lights out in the post season, but NE doesn't have quite enough this year.
:goodposting: that's basically it in a nutshell.

Denver wins 23 - 16.

 
Pats. If BB can use the Hank Poteat/Troy Brown combo to force Peyton Manning into 3 picks, imagine what he'll do to Plummer!!!! But, this is the new Jake Plummer, right? Better than last years 2nd consecutive MVP? So, where did Jake finish in the MVP voting this year?

 
Pats. If BB can use the Hank Poteat/Troy Brown combo to force Peyton Manning into 3 picks, imagine what he'll do to Plummer!!!! But, this is the new Jake Plummer, right? Better than last years 2nd consecutive MVP? So, where did Jake finish in the MVP voting this year?
Manning only had 1 pick in last year's playoff game. I'm not saying it wasn't an impressive performance by the Pats last year, but the Colts' problem was 3 bleeping points - not 3 INTs.
 
this game will be won and lost on third down, and I believe Brady will outplay Plummer in that regard.Pats 24 Den 13

 
I have to say these playoffs feel more wide-open and exciting than I remember the last few years being. With Pitt and NE being low seeds and the Eagles not even in the playoffs, the usual favorites have some hills to overcome. I honestly don't know who's going to come out on top but it'll be damn fun to watch :thumbup:

 
I keep chuckling every time I see someone say the Broncos cannot win because of Jake Plummer or because Brady is better than Plummer. Last time I checked, having the edge at quarterback doesn't automatically guarantee you a win in the playoffs. I am pretty sure Joe Montana lost his fair share of playoff games and usually to inferior quarterbacks. As for Plummer, his one playoff win to date was on the road against Troy Aikman and the Dallas Cowboys. If you want to use the QB comparison when talking playoff game,s the way I see it, if Plummer could win a road playoff game against Aikman (who has just as many Super Bowl wins as Brady) with a barely above average Arizona Cardinals team, then he can certainly win a home game against Tom Brady with a 13-3 Denver Broncos team.

 
145 votes for the Pats, 136 votes for the Broncos, and it becomes obvious that the majority of FBGs aren't gamblers.

 
this game will be won and lost on third down, and I believe Brady will outplay Plummer in that regard.

Pats 24 Den 13
Despite the NE D being the 3rd worst team in the NFL in allowing 3rd down conversions?Interesting....

Edited: Oops - I forgot. Regular season stats are meaningless, unless you include the Pats' last 8 games, except for MIA which they intentionally dumped, and exclude games against QBs whose rating is over 70, and then exclude games against teams with RBs who went off for 100 yds, and include games against teams whose HC's favorite color is blue.

Then NE is 2nd best against 3rd conversions in the league...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for Plummer, his one playoff win to date was on the road against Troy Aikman and the Dallas Cowboys. If you want to use the QB comparison when talking playoff game,s the way I see it, if Plummer could win a road playoff game against Aikman (who has just as many Super Bowl wins as Brady) with a barely above average Arizona Cardinals team, then he can certainly win a home game against Tom Brady with a 13-3 Denver Broncos team.
Not to take anything away from Plummer in that one game, but the Cowboys were 3 years removed from their last title, coming off a 6-10 record, and with Aikman coming back after missing almost all the first half of the season due to injury.In the 3 playoff games he's appeared in since that game, his team went 0-3 and were outscored 131-55 (and he pitched in with 5 INT).
 
As for Plummer, his one playoff win to date was on the road against Troy Aikman and the Dallas Cowboys. If you want to use the QB comparison when talking playoff game,s the way I see it, if Plummer could win a road playoff game against Aikman (who has just as many Super Bowl wins as Brady) with a barely above average Arizona Cardinals team, then he can certainly win a home game against Tom Brady with a 13-3 Denver Broncos team.
Not to take anything away from Plummer in that one game, but the Cowboys were 3 years removed from their last title, coming off a 6-10 record, and with Aikman coming back after missing almost all the first half of the season due to injury.In the 3 playoff games he's appeared in since that game, his team went 0-3 and were outscored 131-55 (and he pitched in with 5 INT).
Guess he started afresh tonight - helped by Anderson, Sauerbrun, Brady, Faulk, Brown and HobbsNext week is going to be a whole different ballgame, particularly if the Colts win tomorrow

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for Plummer, his one playoff win to date was on the road against Troy Aikman and the Dallas Cowboys. If you want to use the QB comparison when talking playoff game,s the way I see it, if Plummer could win a road playoff game against Aikman (who has just as many Super Bowl wins as Brady) with a barely above average Arizona Cardinals team, then he can certainly win a home game against Tom Brady with a 13-3 Denver Broncos team.
Not to take anything away from Plummer in that one game, but the Cowboys were 3 years removed from their last title, coming off a 6-10 record, and with Aikman coming back after missing almost all the first half of the season due to injury.In the 3 playoff games he's appeared in since that game, his team went 0-3 and were outscored 131-55 (and he pitched in with 5 INT).
Guess he started afresh tonight - helped by Anderson, Sauerbrun, Brady, Faulk, Brown and Hobbs
Wait wait wait... you mean that TEAMS win football games, and not individual quarterbacks?Quick, let me get some paper so I can take notes.

 
Well, I happen to think that Sauerbrun was probably the best pick up this year. Telling stat from the game, average NE start: own 18

 
Denver at home with a better overall team than the Pats. Easy vote here.
Denver at home...sure. Devner a better overall team...not so sure. Granted, I'm a Pats homer but this team is not the same team that lost by 8 in Denver earlier this season. I just don't see the Broncos rolling up the kind of rushing yards they did this time around.I'm confident the Pats win, not comfortably, by they win nonetheless.
:bye:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top