NFL.com: Why the Denver Broncos are Super Bowl favorites

[condon84]

I am as big a Pats fan as anyone else, but I am no homer by any means. I speak as I see it.

I think this argument of soft schedule is a weak one. I am saying this because if everyone remembers correctly, last year people were saying the same things about our schedule at the end when we won like 9-10 straight heading into the playoffs at 13-3 and in that span didn't beat any winning team. However we deflected that question by saying "We can only beat teams we have on our schedule" and at the end we ended up in the Superbowl.

I would hate to see the Manning family anywhere near any Superbowl, but with playoffs you never know. You just need to be hot and get the right breaks (and with Peyton, you know he is gonna get some free PI calls every game) and voila, you are in the Superbowl. Green Bay did it couple of years back and this year I won't be surprised if someone else does it.

Hey now, are you really trying to interject some common sense here?

Edit, stupid IPad.

 

[dannydyn]

So at Ravens is a win against a weak opponent. Please.

Ravens up to this past weekend's win over the Giants were playing like a monkey fcking a football. They are missing half of their defense, so yes, AT THE TIME the Broncos played them, they were weak. Weak enough to have almost lost to the crappy Chargers - saved by a miracle on a 4th & 29 run by Rice.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Broncos should be more worried about us then us of them.

 

[Deus Irae]

So at Ravens is a win against a weak opponent. Please.

I'm not sure what the "please" is about. The Ravens had lost 3 straight before last week. The week prior to the losing streak starting, they'd gone to OT to beat the Chargers. The week before that, they'd eeked out a 13-10 win against the Leftwich-led Steelers. They've been a very questionable team all season long.

If the Broncos have a cupcake schedule, so do we with only the Texans win being a middle of the pack victory. Since you're obviously calling the Broncos a weak opponent.

This simply doesn't follow logic, on multiple levels.

 

[gmtaxi27]

Ravens up to this past weekend's win over the Giants were playing like a monkey fcking a football. They are missing half of their defense, so yes, AT THE TIME the Broncos played them, they were weak. Weak enough to have almost lost to the crappy Chargers - saved by a miracle on a 4th & 29 run by Rice.

By this logic there isn't any good teams in the NFL. So basically the Pats are really the only good team. The Ravens, are lucky, the Broncos are just a product of their schedule, The Giants suck because they won't the playoffs. The Packers suck because they got blown out by the Giants who suck.

We also lost to the Niners who may not be that good, because they got blown out by the Giants who you say are not that good.

We blew out Houston, but how good are they, if they lost to the Vikings at home who got blown out by the Bucs who suck.

I noticed nobody mentioned that we barely beat the Jags, Bills and Jets, and lost to the God-awful Cards.

You can disect every team and find a fault to suit your argument, but you need to realize no matter who you play its hard to win in this league week in and out.

 

[letekro]

At Denver is a very difficult game against any QB. It is an extremely difficult game against a hot Peyton Manning and a quality group of BIG receivers. Yes, we should be able to move the ball against them, but they showed in the second half of the first game this year that they can shut us down for an extended period of time. Assuming the Giants don't make the playoffs, At Denver is definitely the toughest possible matchup we could face.

 

[Deus Irae]

By this logic there isn't any good teams in the NFL. So basically the Pats are really the only good team. The Ravens, are lucky, the Broncos are just a product of their schedule, The Giants suck because they won't the playoffs. The Packers suck because they got blown out by the Giants who suck.

We also lost to the Niners who may not be that good, because they got blown out by the Giants who you say are not that good.

We blew out Houston, but how good are they, if they lost to the Vikings at home who got blown out by the Bucs who suck.

I noticed nobody mentioned that we barely beat the Jags, Bills and Jets, and lost to the God-awful Cards.

You can disect every team and find a fault to suit your argument, but you need to realize no matter who you play its hard to win in this league week in and out.

His logic was fine. Your attempt to railroad it, however, was not. The Ravens had suffered additional injuries and were not playing well at the time. Your argument is essentially trying to claim that the Arizona cardinals beating the Patriots in the first month is no different than if they'd beaten them last week. The reality is that teams change over the course of the season, that teams sometimes have hard/easy schedules, that teams do get lucky either in play or with officiating (Ask Seattle or GB about that), and that such things do matter.

 

[gmtaxi27]

His logic was fine. Your attempt to railroad it, however, was not. The Ravens had suffered additional injuries and were not playing well at the time. Your argument is essentially trying to claim that the Arizona cardinals beating the Patriots in the first month is no different than if they'd beaten them last week. The reality is that teams change over the course of the season, that teams sometimes have hard/easy schedules, that teams do get lucky either in play or with officiating (Ask Seattle or GB about that), and that such things do matter.

OK, so you are willing to give the Broncos a pass for their losses earlier in the year, because Manning was a little rusty and didn't have the timing with his receivers like he has now. Like you said teams change over the season.

And what do you say about the Pats game last week. Maybe the Pats aren't that good, because the Jags are one of the worst teams in football.

I just hate when people discount a teams record because of who they beat. Yet they over look their own teams flaws, and make excuses like we didn't have Gronk, or Spikes. I don't buy it, The Packers had a bunch of injuries and they waxed the Titans.

As for the Broncos, if you watch the games you can't help but be impressed with them. Are they perfect no? A good offense can move the ball on them, but they are playing real well, and for anyone to discount them is just a homer just trying to make the Pats look good.

 

[fnordcircle]

Being favorites the last 2 super bowls didn't help us either so I'm not sure why people care about this sort of stuff.

 

[aluminum seats]

Ravens up to this past weekend's win over the Giants were playing like a monkey fcking a football.

Is this something you've seen?

 

[Deus Irae]

OK, so you are willing to give the Broncos a pass for their losses earlier in the year, because Manning was a little rusty and didn't have the timing with his receivers like he has now. Like you said teams change over the season.

Why would you give anyone a pass? It's a 16 game season, and it unfolds over time. You don't give teams a "pass". What you do is look for context. You don't see me belittling the Broncos for their ugly win over the Chiefs, because I recognize that Crennel often gives Manning fits. Now, in context, the Broncos wins against other winning teams:

Injury devastated Ravens team that was in the midst of a 3 game losing streak that had been preceded by an OT loss to the Chargers and a 13-10 eeked out victory of the Byron Leftwich-led Steelers

Notoriously inconsistent Bengals team that was in the midst of a 4 game losing streak

And what do you say about the Pats game last week. Maybe the Pats aren't that good, because the Jags are one of the worst teams in football.

The Patriots won a game in a classic letdown situation. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you now grading with style points?

I just hate when people discount a teams record because of who they beat. Yet they over look their own teams flaws, and make excuses like we didn't have Gronk, or Spikes. I don't buy it, The Packers had a bunch of injuries and they waxed the Titans.

You're making no sense, at all. The players on the field make an obvious difference. It's stupid to pretend otherwise.

As for the Broncos, if you watch the games you can't help but be impressed with them. Are they perfect no? A good offense can move the ball on them, but they are playing real well, and for anyone to discount them is just a homer just trying to make the Pats look good.

I've watched the Broncos all season long. They're the most overrated team in the NFL, and no team is even in a close second. That's not homerism. That's looking at the top rated teams and analyzing them.

 

[patfanken]

I look at last year's team and can make comparisons to the 2001 team. That was team that really wasn't ready for a superbowl run. It was a team in the midst of retooling, but got hot, got a bunch breaks,(good bounces and calls) and barely managed to hang on to win the superbowl. That team was like the Giants last season. A good, but not great team, who caught fire at just the right time The true nature of that team, without the breaks was the 9-7 2002 version. It wasn't until the 2003 team that BB had built his true superbowl team.

Last year's team was also a "not ready for primetime" team. It was a "good" team, but a flawed one not only, because of the defense, but because the offense was one dimensional and was thin enough that a single key injury (Gronk) would severely limit it. Yet because of the schedule, and a few breaks, THAT team also got to the superbowl and was a play away from winning it.

I look on this team much like the 2002 team. It was a more talented team than the 2001 team. The QB was better, but it was still flawed. The defense was still missing key parts. And the that year the ball seemed to bounce away from the Pats, rather than toward it.

This year we can see the improvements. The offense is much more balanced. The depth is that much greater. We can lose key players along the OL, TE,. and WR, and still put up huge numbers. The talent on the defense is slowly coming together. We are still missing that key piece (consistent interior pass rusher), and the group is STILL very young....much more talented, but still so VERY young.

So can this team get back to the Superbowl. ABSOLUTELY - flaws and all. There is no team that this team CAN'T beat....at home OR on the road. However there is no team that we will play that we CAN'T lose to, including Cincinnati. IF we get healthy. IF the ball bounces our way a few times, then this team can win it all. However that being said. BB is building a wagon that in the next coming years will rival the 2003-2004 teams in talent and depth

Its ironic that the rest of the league and their fans are all waiting patiently for the Pats to decline, but in the meantime BB has rebuilt the 2007 talent, while keeping on winning, with those flawed rebuilding teams. I don't think the league fans realize that the best is yet to come.

 

[Rob0729]

This Broncos won vs a weak schedule is so bogus. They Dominated the Ravens in their house. Now all of sudden because a little losing streak the Ravens are a weak team. I didn't see any other team do that.

I could be wrong, but it seems like many fans here look for any reason to discredit a team that is not named the Pats.

If you watch the games, you will see the Broncos are the real deal.

Please take off the homer glasses it's embarrasing.

I love when people counter what they consider a bogus argument with a bogus argument themselves. No the Ravens aren't a weak team because they went on a "little" losing streak (although I don't know if losing three out of four games and going from a first round bye in the playoffs to fighting for their playoff lives a little losing streak). They were a weak opponent because half their defense didn't play in that game. The following defensive starters were out or on IR:

LaDarius Webb
Ray Lewis
Bernard Pollard
Jamel McClaim
Dannell Elerbe (who is starting for Lewis in his absence)

The inside of the defense was down to their third and fourth ILBs starting. Ed Reed is playing with a torn labrum. It was Terrell Suggs' first game back from a torn bicep that he is playing with instead of getting surgery. Torrey Smith went out of the game early in the third with a concussion. The Ravens are/were a mess. In fact, there is no team in the playoffs I want to see the Pats face more than the Ravens. I mean they didn't fire their OC midseason (right before the Broncos' game) because they are such a dominant team that they wanted to level the playing field a bit for the rest of the league.

My argument is that we do not know what type of team the Broncos are because they haven't really faced anyone. The Broncos could be a truly dominant team or they could be a team that picks on the soft teams. We don't know. That is why the argument the Broncos are clearly better is also a weak argument. They could be.

And even if the Broncos are better, does that mean they are good enough to hang with the top teams. They got blown out by the Falcons, Texans, and Pats. Does that mean the improve team can beat them or be more respectable in losses.

I think the Broncos are an unknown as to how good they really are. I am not afraid of them because they have yet to prove they can stop Brady and the offense. I am not scared of them because they went 10-0 against a soft schedule though.

 

[VrabelJr]

For what it's worth, I think the Bengals are one of the worst match ups for us out of all the playoff teams.

 

[aluminum seats]

I look at last year's team and can make comparisons to the 2001 team. That was team that really wasn't ready for a superbowl run. It was a team in the midst of retooling, but got hot, got a bunch breaks,(good bounces and calls) and barely managed to hang on to win the superbowl. That team was like the Giants last season. A good, but not great team, who caught fire at just the right time The true nature of that team, without the breaks was the 9-7 2002 version. It wasn't until the 2003 team that BB had built his true superbowl team.

Last year's team was also a "not ready for primetime" team. It was a "good" team, but a flawed one not only, because of the defense, but because the offense was one dimensional and was thin enough that a single key injury (Gronk) would severely limit it. Yet because of the schedule, and a few breaks, THAT team also got to the superbowl and was a play away from winning it.

I look on this team much like the 2002 team. It was a more talented team than the 2001 team. The QB was better, but it was still flawed. The defense was still missing key parts. And the that year the ball seemed to bounce away from the Pats, rather than toward it.

This year we can see the improvements. The offense is much more balanced. The depth is that much greater. We can lose key players along the OL, TE,. and WR, and still put up huge numbers. The talent on the defense is slowly coming together. We are still missing that key piece (consistent interior pass rusher), and the group is STILL very young....much more talented, but still so VERY young.

So can this team get back to the Superbowl. ABSOLUTELY - flaws and all. There is no team that this team CAN'T beat....at home OR on the road. However there is no team that we will play that we CAN'T lose to, including Cincinnati. IF we get healthy. IF the ball bounces our way a few times, then this team can win it all. However that being said. BB is building a wagon that in the next coming years will rival the 2003-2004 teams in talent and depth

Its ironic that the rest of the league and their fans are all waiting patiently for the Pats to decline, but in the meantime BB has rebuilt the 2007 talent, while keeping on winning, with those flawed rebuilding teams. I don't think the league fans realize that the best is yet to come.

Much of what you say is true, and I certainly love the general idea of the post.

There is at least one difference between the Pats now and in 2002, though, and it's an enormous one: Tom Brady's age. Then, the best truly was to come, in terms of his performance. And while nobody's going to dismiss the possibility of Brady being dominant for several more seasons, it does create a greater sense of urgency this year, as opposed to then.

 

[Uncle Rico]

For what it's worth, I think the Bengals are one of the worst match ups for us out of all the playoff teams.

I tend to agree with this. Tough D front, Green, BJGE, Dalton seems fairly clutch. I think the main thing working against them in a matchup with NE is that they're still a bit green.

 

[aluminum seats]

For what it's worth, I think the Bengals are one of the worst match ups for us out of all the playoff teams.

Bill Barnwell at Grantland said the same thing. I don't know, to be honest--haven't watched Cincy play much.

 

[Raymond]

I've watched the Broncos all season long. They're the most overrated team in the NFL, and no team is even in a close second.

I'm glad somebody feels that way. The team doesn't bother me so much as Manning. His 21-0 comeback on the Pats in 06 must have scarred me a bit.

 

[JMC00]

Rob Ninkovich sack-fumble of Peyton - YouTube

At one point that was the score of the game, with Sterling Moore getting lit up like a Christmas tree by Demaryius Thomas all game.

Actually at one point it was 31-7.

The Denver defense got to be highly ranked because the teams they have played they only had to account for 1 or 2 guys and when they have had to account for more. A guy like Jermaine Gersham puts up 108 yards, while AJ Green got 100 yards against them. Dennis Pitta went for 129 yards and 2 TD against them, I know it was a blow out but still Dennis Pitta? Greg Olsen 102 yards and 2 TD. Rod Streater put up 100 yards on them.

Now look at this

Welker in this season's game targeted 15 times, 13 rec 104 yards 1 TD

The playoff game Gronk was targeted 12 times for 10 receptions 145 yards and 3 TD.

The regular season game last year Hernandez was targeted 11 times for 9 rec 129 yards and 1 TD

It has been different guys killing that defense in each of the last 3 games.

btw in the game this year Gronk and Lloyd were targeted only 5 times each. I wonder if that may change. Hernandez didn't even play in the game Week 5.

 

[DocHoliday]

If Gronk is back we will whip the donkeys.

It'll be closer though - our offense is now weaker at the line but our D is better. Their offense has MUCH improved.