What did we learn in week 3? (1 Viewer)

[zoonation]

I learned Seattle isn't as good as last year and that the Bengals D looks dominant.

 

[thatguy]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

If you don't think Denver proved they have the ability to beat Seattle, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I think most reasonable people who watched that game saw two evenly matched teams, and came away believing Denver has the ability to beat Seattle. The fact that in this particular game they didn't beat them says nothing of what they can do in the future.

 

[thatguy]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

If you don't think Denver proved they have the ability to beat Seattle, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I think most reasonable people who watched that game saw two evenly matched teams, and came away believing Denver has the ability to beat Seattle. The fact that in this particular game they didn't beat them says nothing of what they can do in the future.

Seattle averaged around 5.5 yard per play IIRC, despite being at home with the loudest fans in the NFL. So again, the two teams were evenly matched.

 

[thatguy]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

They didn't lose on a coin toss, lol.... they lost because they played no defense in OT when it mattered most. They were beat fair and square.

Seattle couldn't stop Denver when it mattered most either. If they win that toss and get the ball, I think they score. Is it a certainty? Of course not, but we didn't get the chance to find out.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I learned that the Bronco's haven't improved. Still the same team they were last year. The score of that game didn't reflect the Seahawk dominance.

 

[Banger]

I learned Seattle isn't as good as last year and that the Bengals D looks dominant.

I don't know...they played the other team in the super bowl with one of the best qb's in the history of the game at the helm. They still won the game when they had to.

 

[SproutDaddy]

I learned that the Bronco's haven't improved. Still the same team they were last year. The score of that game didn't reflect the Seahawk dominance.

I see you got new homer glasses. Had to make them a bit thicker, eh.

 

[Banger]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

They didn't lose on a coin toss, lol.... they lost because they played no defense in OT when it mattered most. They were beat fair and square.

Seattle couldn't stop Denver when it mattered most either. If they win that toss and get the ball, I think they score. Is it a certainty? Of course not, but we didn't get the chance to find out.

the same thing could be said for Denver.

 

[thatguy]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

They didn't lose on a coin toss, lol.... they lost because they played no defense in OT when it mattered most. They were beat fair and square.

Seattle couldn't stop Denver when it mattered most either. If they win that toss and get the ball, I think they score. Is it a certainty? Of course not, but we didn't get the chance to find out.

the same thing could be said for Denver.

I conceded that point. The previous poster said as much and I was merely saying that Seattle couldn't stop Denver on the last drive, when it mattered most, either.

 

[BigTex]

Gio is still the man!

 

[msudaisy26]

Gio is still the man!

Fantasy wise I agree, but watching him play he reminds me a lot of Leveon Bell last year.

 

[Ace zero1]

I learned Seattle isn't as good as last year and that the Bengals D looks dominant.

seattle dominated the game till the 4th quarter. Denver has gotten better om defense. seattle is still elite.

 

[Courtweeks87]

Gio is still the man!

Fantasy wise I agree, but watching him play he reminds me a lot of Leveon Bell last year.

Reminds me a lot of spiller not very effective between the tackles but they use him correctly. Hill is a perfect complement to him!

 

[Leonidas]

Only 2 undefeated teams: Philly and Arizona

Umm, no.

Cinci isn't undefeated?

Not only are they undefeated. They look like the clear best team in the NFL right now. They've been dominant.

I'd agree. Only complete team right now.

they've beat the Ravens, Falcons and Titans. I agree that they have looked good but let's not get carried away - let's revisit after week 6 - Patriots, Panthers and Colts are up next.

Yeah those Falcons sure don't look very good, and CIN only beat them 24-10

 

[msudaisy26]

Only 2 undefeated teams: Philly and Arizona

Umm, no.

Cinci isn't undefeated?

Not only are they undefeated. They look like the clear best team in the NFL right now. They've been dominant.

I'd agree. Only complete team right now.

they've beat the Ravens, Falcons and Titans. I agree that they have looked good but let's not get carried away - let's revisit after week 6 - Patriots, Panthers and Colts are up next.

Yeah those Falcons sure don't look very good, and CIN only beat them 24-10

Only beat them by 2 touchdowns lol.

 

[steelwind]

That I'm actually losing interest in football and I shouldn't drag everyone else down around me.

 

[Leonidas]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

Very much agreed.

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

Surely you realize that not doing something doesn't mean it is impossible.

CIN hasn't lost a game, therefore it is not possible for them to lose a game. Somehow that logic doesn't work, same as "DEN lost, therefore they cannot win [against SEA]" does not work

 

[Leonidas]

Only 2 undefeated teams: Philly and Arizona

Umm, no.

Cinci isn't undefeated?

Not only are they undefeated. They look like the clear best team in the NFL right now. They've been dominant.

I'd agree. Only complete team right now.

they've beat the Ravens, Falcons and Titans. I agree that they have looked good but let's not get carried away - let's revisit after week 6 - Patriots, Panthers and Colts are up next.

Yeah those Falcons sure don't look very good, and CIN only beat them 24-10

Only beat them by 2 touchdowns lol.

Sarcasm.

I was using it.

 

[thecardiackid]

In my 14 team $ league, I didn't draft my first RB till round #8 (Ingram), and the 2nd RB in round #11 (Bradshaw), and they're both in the top 12 after 3 weeks. Ingram will fall w/ the hand injury, but that's crazy. Not much depth past Blue and Hyde, but have the WR/TE ammo to make some deals.

Agree the 2-4 RBBCs are nuts, and way more common these days.

 

[Zow]

That i have no clue how to pick a defense.

That all you have to do is pick up whoever plays Jacksonville or Tampa bay.

 

[Zow]

I learned that the Bronco's haven't improved. Still the same team they were last year. The score of that game didn't reflect the Seahawk dominance.

Haven't improved from being the best offense ever. Ok.

 

[msudaisy26]

Only 2 undefeated teams: Philly and Arizona

Umm, no.

Cinci isn't undefeated?

Not only are they undefeated. They look like the clear best team in the NFL right now. They've been dominant.

I'd agree. Only complete team right now.

they've beat the Ravens, Falcons and Titans. I agree that they have looked good but let's not get carried away - let's revisit after week 6 - Patriots, Panthers and Colts are up next.

Yeah those Falcons sure don't look very good, and CIN only beat them 24-10

Only beat them by 2 touchdowns lol.

Sarcasm.

I was using it.

I am sorry, it can be hard to tell when it is sarcasm and when someone isn't

 

[Reegus]

I learned Seattle isn't as good as last year and that the Bengals D looks dominant.

seattle dominated the game till the 4th quarter. Denver has gotten better om defense. seattle is still elite.

Elite yet losing to the charges. ROFL

 

[cvnpoka]

Drafting WR/TEs in the early rounds was better than drafting RBs.

Not sure about that, tell that to my team that went AJ Green, Julio, Patterson and Vincent Jackson in the first 4 rounds and is 0-2 looking to be 0-3

my team that went gio, murray, leveon is doing pretty well.

ofc, so is my team that went graham, julio, garcon is doing pretty well.

its almost, like, as if, mebbe, umm, i dunno, its about picking the right guys that dont bust.

 

[cvnpoka]

After 3 weeks, I've come to the conclusion that FF has become too random to be enjoyable anymore. The RBBCs, ridiculous number of injuries, bizarre coaching decisions and out of the blue poor performances (studs) are killing the fun.

I'm moving on to daily fantasy and retiring from this redraft bulls#it.

New excuses, same boohoo'ing.

Right. The playing field is the same for everyone. EVERY year first round RB goes down. Not even the biggest fantasy expert can boast over %70 success rate when predicting players. That's why you roster a whole team. If you miss on a couple guys you make up for it with depth, and win your league by being the 2-3% better at picking players than your opponents.

I'm not complaining that I lost, I'm complaining about the reasons for the losses. I spend a considerable amount of time scouting, researching, working the wire, negiotiating trades, etc. and just about every week my losses result from obscure situations which couldn't be accounted for, which I listed in my post above. It's rarely due to poor roster management or a weak roster, which are certainly understandable and not worth complaining about.

Every year, FF is becoming more and more about luck where the % of skill involved is being slowly phased out by the sheer randominess of the league. I know daily has it's flaws can be frustrating in many ways but I'm going to take a year off from redraft and focus on those instead.

theres always been a ton of randomness in ff. in past years, i bet you didnt realize how lucky you were getting.

 

[Braktastic]

That i have no clue how to pick a defense.

That all you have to do is pick up whoever plays Jacksonville or Tampa bay.

Or Oakland

 

[Shutout]

After 3 weeks, I've come to the conclusion that FF has become too random to be enjoyable anymore. The RBBCs, ridiculous number of injuries, bizarre coaching decisions and out of the blue poor performances (studs) are killing the fun.

I'm moving on to daily fantasy and retiring from this redraft bulls#it.

New excuses, same boohoo'ing.

Right. The playing field is the same for everyone. EVERY year first round RB goes down. Not even the biggest fantasy expert can boast over %70 success rate when predicting players. That's why you roster a whole team. If you miss on a couple guys you make up for it with depth, and win your league by being the 2-3% better at picking players than your opponents.

I'm not complaining that I lost, I'm complaining about the reasons for the losses. I spend a considerable amount of time scouting, researching, working the wire, negiotiating trades, etc. and just about every week my losses result from obscure situations which couldn't be accounted for, which I listed in my post above. It's rarely due to poor roster management or a weak roster, which are certainly understandable and not worth complaining about.

Every year, FF is becoming more and more about luck where the % of skill involved is being slowly phased out by the sheer randominess of the league. I know daily has it's flaws can be frustrating in many ways but I'm going to take a year off from redraft and focus on those instead.

Sometimes Patrick Willis gets an unnecessary roughness penalty on a perfectly clean and legal hit. #### happens, accept it and move on.I bet people simply don't remember all the times that the ball bounced in their favor and they got away with one. I bet the John Brown owners were thrilled at the two bad unnecessary roughness penalties that allowed Arizona to continue their drive and culminated in one of Brown's TDs.

Again #### happens, accept it and move on.

I think that's kind of their point: That #### happens....all the time....which leads to the game being pure luck and less skill. When the field is leveled by the amount of info available and the skill edge is eroded, the only thing left that separates winners from losers is that odd luck and what's the fun of that? If nothing you do adds value to the outcome, you might as well be flipping a coin and saying heads I win this week and tails I lose this week. Doesn't take long before that gets boring.

The sheer numbers of the game say that for every winner in this game there are 9-15 losers (on the season, not weekly). That suggests that playing ff will leave you frustrated 9 out of 10 times on average. But if you're exceptionally good at it, maybe you are frustrated only 6 out of 10 times.

Like a lot of real life NFL players say at times: at some point, the highs of winning don't over ride the lows of losing. The fun of playing on Sunday's doesn't hold up to the boredom of practice and staying in shape. And that's similar to us. We love t play on Sunday's but at some point we tire of the practice (keeping ourselves mentally "in shape" all offseason) and practicing and participating all week, watching the waiver wire, making decisions on Thursday games...Sunday games...Monday games...

You look up and before you know it you're watching football for 15 hours a week and probably putting in another 5-10 managing your team. That's a legit part time job.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I learned Seattle isn't as good as last year and that the Bengals D looks dominant.

seattle dominated the game till the 4th quarter. Denver has gotten better om defense. seattle is still elite.

Elite yet losing to the charges. ROFL

chargers are a playoff team. shrug

 

[chinawildman]

If nothing you do adds value to the outcome, you might as well be flipping a coin and saying heads I win this week and tails I lose this week. Doesn't take long before that gets boring.

You know... that's the same reason I don't like playing poker. But then again my friends that enjoy poker tell me that just means I suck at poker.

 

[Insein]

The Chris Johnson is actually done and I shouldn't have drafted him so heavily.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

Very much agreed.

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

Surely you realize that not doing something doesn't mean it is impossible.

CIN hasn't lost a game, therefore it is not possible for them to lose a game. Somehow that logic doesn't work, same as "DEN lost, therefore they cannot win [against SEA]" does not work

I agree that theoretically any team can beat any other team "on any given Sunday" and that Denver, being a great team, is more likely to beat a great team like Seattle than many others would be. But after having been beaten twice in a row, one of those times in the biggest game of the year, I don't think it makes sense to say that Denver has shown they can beat Seattle. I think they've shown that they can lose to them.

Not that it matters, but neither of those franchises are "my team", I'm just offering my opinion.

 

[Faust]

What you need to know from 'Monday Night Football'

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000399349/article/what-you-need-to-know-from-monday-night-football

 

[FUBAR]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

Very much agreed.

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

Surely you realize that not doing something doesn't mean it is impossible.

CIN hasn't lost a game, therefore it is not possible for them to lose a game. Somehow that logic doesn't work, same as "DEN lost, therefore they cannot win [against SEA]" does not work

I agree that theoretically any team can beat any other team "on any given Sunday" and that Denver, being a great team, is more likely to beat a great team like Seattle than many others would be. But after having been beaten twice in a row, one of those times in the biggest game of the year, I don't think it makes sense to say that Denver has shown they can beat Seattle. I think they've shown that they can lose to them.

Not that it matters, but neither of those franchises are "my team", I'm just offering my opinion.

By being as close as they were and Denver's last drive, they showed they have the ability. One break in their direction and they won that game. Frankly, I was very surprised to see it as close as it was. Seattle has shown that they can be beat. It takes a great game to do so, but they're not the lock many thought they were to go back to the Super Bowl. (favorites, but far from a lock) They're still the best team in football.

 

[FUBAR]

I learned Seattle isn't as good as last year and that the Bengals D looks dominant.

seattle dominated the game till the 4th quarter. Denver has gotten better om defense. seattle is still elite.

Elite yet losing to the charges. ROFL

chargers are a playoff team. shrug

Chargers just might be the best team in the AFC - at least west of Ohio.

ETA: Rivers should be an All-Pro this year. He's not mentioned often among Peyton, Brees, ARod or Luck, but he's really good.

 

[Chaka]

The Chris Johnson is actually done and I shouldn't have drafted him so heavily.

This is looking more and more true. I was kind of high on CJ at his ADP this offseason but I am happy I wasn't able to land him in my league (he went 4.10). I am even happier that I did land Chris Ivory at 14.04. He's outproducing Johnson by a wide margin on the same number of touches, and it looks like they are finally using him in the passing game even if he isn't a threat as a receiver (although he looked solid last night) he makes the Jets play-action game much stronger because he is running the ball so well.

 

[doowain]

While their games after the bye will tell even more of who they are (@NE, CAR, @IND), right now the Bengals are the best team in the AFC (and maybe the entire NFL).

 

[doowain]

Ken Whisenhunt is either stubborn or stupid. Bishop Sankey is by far the best RB on the Titans roster (4.9 ypc over first 18 carries), yet he continues to run Shonn Greene and his cement feet out there. His reasoning...."Bishop needs to improve his footwork."

 

[(HULK)]

That i have no clue how to pick a defense.

That all you have to do is pick up whoever plays Jacksonville or Tampa bay.

Or Oakland

I think Carr has only been sacked twice. Not as strong a play as people are making it out to be.

 

[Spike]

If you're streaming defenses, taking whoever is playing against Jacksonville is a good strategy (Chargers in week 4).

Arizona is finding ways to win, and Larry Fitzgerald isn't one of them.

Philly games are the most exciting, and fantasy shoot-outs. Start your QBs and WRs against Philly.

Washington's run defense is legit. Sit your RBs against Washington.

Actually, their next 4 look pretty damned good. Jax, NYJets, Oak, KC.

 

[FF Ninja]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

If you don't think Denver proved they have the ability to beat Seattle, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I think most reasonable people who watched that game saw two evenly matched teams, and came away believing Denver has the ability to beat Seattle. The fact that in this particular game they didn't beat them says nothing of what they can do in the future.

I agree with this. The people just stomping there feet and yelling "scoreboard" are clearly not looking to have any sort of analytic discussion.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

If you don't think Denver proved they have the ability to beat Seattle, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I think most reasonable people who watched that game saw two evenly matched teams, and came away believing Denver has the ability to beat Seattle. The fact that in this particular game they didn't beat them says nothing of what they can do in the future.

I agree with this. The people just stomping there feet and yelling "scoreboard" are clearly not looking to have any sort of analytic discussion.

I'm sorry, but I am engaging in an analytic discussion (see my other posts where I have even added a few statistics), I just happen to have drawn a different conclusion from the information given than you did. You shouldn't be so dismissive of those who disagree, especially when I'm not "just stomping my feet and yelling scoreboard".

If one team keeps losing, I don't think the fact that they lost by less this time than last time means they can win, I think it shows they have improved but still aren't there yet. Or, let's qualify that and say that if both teams played each other every week for ten weeks in a row that it's possible Denver wins a couple of those, because yes, "on any given Sunday" any NFL team has shown that they can rise up and beat another. But when you say that Denver has shown that they can win, I don't think 2 out of 10 is what you mean, or maybe it is and I'm mistaken.

I don't believe in "moral" victories for championship hopeful teams. You can either get it done or you can't, and the fact that Denver was shut down for almost the entire game doesn't lead me to the conclusion that they're now poised to knock Seattle off their throne.

You want more analytics, look at the Denver drive chart, they put together one successful drive in the first half and one in the second. You're telling me that convinces you that they're as good as Seattle? I think Denver is an outstanding team, but they've proven to me they're still not as good as the Seahawks. If they meet again in the Superbowl I'd set the line at Seattle by 5 1/2 and I'd take Seattle and give the points.

START QTR POSS. YARD PLAYS YARDS RESULT 13:33 1 00:10 DEN 14 1 9 Fumble 10:33 1 07:06 DEN 20 15 75 Field Goal 01:12 1 01:59 DEN 29 3 6 Punt 09:31 2 04:04 DEN 7 8 23 Punt 03:05 2 00:27 DEN 20 3 0 Punt 00:12 2 00:12 DEN 20 1 -1 End of Half 15:00 3 01:15 DEN 20 3 8 Punt 10:04 3 02:04 DEN 7 5 35 Punt 06:31 3 00:27 DEN 17 3 0 Punt 01:38 3 01:45 DEN 36 5 14 Punt 13:07 4 01:55 DEN 23 4 17 Punt 11:02 4 01:42 SEA 19 5 19 Touchdown 06:07 4 03:55 DEN 19 9 57 Interception 00:59 4 00:41 DEN 20 6 80 Touchdown

EDIT: That drive chart didn't paste in nearly as pretty as I'd hoped. Here's the direct link.

 

[skinsrule05]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

 

[Truman]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

Very much agreed.

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it."Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

Surely you realize that not doing something doesn't mean it is impossible.


CIN hasn't lost a game, therefore it is not possible for them to lose a game. Somehow that logic doesn't work, same as "DEN lost, therefore they cannot win [against SEA]" does not work

I agree that theoretically any team can beat any other team "on any given Sunday" and that Denver, being a great team, is more likely to beat a great team like Seattle than many others would be. But after having been beaten twice in a row, one of those times in the biggest game of the year, I don't think it makes sense to say that Denver has shown they can beat Seattle. I think they've shown that they can lose to them.Not that it matters, but neither of those franchises are "my team", I'm just offering my opinion.

So you think there is a 100% chance Seattle wins next time they play?

 

[Truman]

Vegas had the Broncos below +200 to win IN SEATTLE. That equates to more than one in three. At home they would have them as a favourite. If you really knew that much more than professional oddsmakers you would be abusing their books. A line of 5.5 on a neutral field would be higher than the line for this past weekend with the Seahawks at home. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

Very much agreed.

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it."Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

Surely you realize that not doing something doesn't mean it is impossible.



CIN hasn't lost a game, therefore it is not possible for them to lose a game. Somehow that logic doesn't work, same as "DEN lost, therefore they cannot win [against SEA]" does not work

I agree that theoretically any team can beat any other team "on any given Sunday" and that Denver, being a great team, is more likely to beat a great team like Seattle than many others would be. But after having been beaten twice in a row, one of those times in the biggest game of the year, I don't think it makes sense to say that Denver has shown they can beat Seattle. I think they've shown that they can lose to them.Not that it matters, but neither of those franchises are "my team", I'm just offering my opinion.

So you think there is a 100% chance Seattle wins next time they play?

Well, since that directly contradicts what I wrote about any given Sunday, I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

Vegas had the Broncos below +200 to win IN SEATTLE. That equates to more than one in three. At home they would have them as a favourite. If you really knew that much more than professional oddsmakers you would be abusing their books. A line of 5.5 on a neutral field would be higher than the line for this past weekend with the Seahawks at home. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

I said what I would set the line at for their next meeting. I don't see why you would claim that I know more than the Vegas oddsmakers who do this professionally, I'm just a fan offering my opinion.

EDIT: And yes, I would increase the line from this past weekend based on the fact that Seattle keeps beating Denver. That influences my opinion.

 

[Chaka]

Not much learnin' going on in this thread.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

Listen, this whole thread is supposed to be about what we learned from week 3. After having lost to them twice recently, I saw people saying they learned Denver could beat Seattle and I offered a counter opinion based on my observations, and the outcomes of, their recent games. I felt that [SIZE=13.63636302948px]after having been ineffective for almost the entire game [/SIZE]Denver barely came back only to then lose. All that said to me was Denver has improved on defense but still can't score on Seattle enough to win.

Apparently others saw things differently and believe this game showed Denver is on par with Seattle, that's not what I saw.

 

[Chaka]

I learned that people still don't understand that they shouldn't try to "win" arguments on the internet.

 

[joffer]

I learned that people still don't understand that they shouldn't try to "win" arguments on the internet.

Wrong