Broncos: Easiest path to the #1 seed ever?

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Back to the original point (avoiding the Manning vs. Brady stuff done for years)...

11 wins in a row with no margin for error is not easy, period. Even if you assume the Broncos had an 80% chance to win *every* one of those 11 games, the odds winning all 11 were:

0.8 ^ 11 = 8.6%.

Drop that to 75% percent in every game and the odds are cut to 4%.

13-3 with 11 in a row (and needing all of them) to nail down the top seed is mighty impressive.

Regards,
Chris

 

[PatsFanInVa]

This thread makes me happy to be a Pats fan.

I mean, I'd be p.o.'d too if I were a Broncos fan, especially one that remembered the Elway era. He was always an afterthought behind Montana, then finally "backed up" over Marino when Terrell Davis showed up to save him from ringlessness.... then Ohhhhhhh, you get back to back super bowls, but that's one shy of anybody saying "dynasty" so you fall apart... then you get an asterisk role as the giant-killer that can beat the Pats but nobody else, under Shanny... Then you pick up this era's Elway, Peyton Manning -- the QB that woulda been the best of his era except that other guy.

I mean, it's a long proud history of also-ran almost-greatness.

You guy have been really good over the years, especially playing the Pats when Shanny was in charge. And you struck gold in the Manning sweepstakes. Also, he does way better commercials.

We may or may not see you in this tourney... and if so, we'll kick your butts in Denver. You know this, we know this.

I've been thinking about Elway a lot recently. You know why? Because the day's going to come when there's an argument that Brady's not presently the best QB in the game. Nobody's immortal. When that day comes, I'll thank the running backs and improving D for his last two rings, a la Elway's only ones.

So enjoy the website where there's a real dynasty in progress. Who knows? You may just be a footnote on the way to the next chapter.

 

[1960Pats]

Guys, this is starting to get tiresome. Lets agree on a couple of things and then move on to other discussions with Denver fans or better yet, wait until we know there is actually going to be a game between the 2 teams.

1. Peyton Manning is a great QB. He's a certain first ballot HOFer....and the 2nd best QB of his era.

2. The Universe doesn't exist where Tom Brady is EVER looking up at Peyton Manning. In virtually EVERY comparison mode Brady comes out better. From wins, playoff success, straight stats, comparing surrounding talent, and the fact Manning played in a dome, etc. There is simply NO comparison.

But so what - Both are great QB's and any game between them is an event the general public will enjoy.

3. The reality is that any game between the Broncos, and the Pats WON'T be about Manning and Brady. Football is still the ultimate team sport and the game will be won or lost for a lot of reasons that have NOTHING to do with Manning OR Brady.

So all servers that had to die to provide the bandwidth to create the thread, have died in vain. However entertaining, nothing that's been said in this discussion will have any meaning on the actual game (if it occurs) Not the comparative schedules, not the amount of points that were or weren't scored, whose defense is better or worse in the past. THAT game will be a distinctly individual moment between 2 very talented teams, and regardless of what has happened in the past, the team that plays the best, gets the bounces, and calls will win.

Its as simple as that.

Good luck in your quest to corral this episode of Trolls Gone Wild. By the number of remaining pages I'm guessing that it hasn't worked yet.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Back to the original point (avoiding the Manning vs. Brady stuff done for years)...

11 wins in a row with no margin for error is not easy, period. Even if you assume the Broncos had an 80% chance to win *every* one of those 11 games, the odds winning all 11 were:

0.8 ^ 11 = 8.6%.

Drop that to 75% percent in every game and the odds are cut to 4%.

13-3 with 11 in a row (and needing all of them) to nail down the top seed is mighty impressive.

Regards,
Chris

How about 18 in a row? .8 ^ 7 worse. (Or 16 regular season games, .8 ^ 5 worse).

Then lose 1, and it's a punchline, Chris.

So nothing against an 11 game regular season win streak, but the operative words there are "regular season." It's a nice run. Now it's time to dance.

 

[1960Pats]

The title of this thread was asking for a bombardment of negative posts from Denver fans. Why act surprised when they come?

I'm disappointed in the number of responses to what are obviously disruptive posters.

I have to admit that I enjoyed the time off from the P6 rumpswabs last year. Too bad Denver is becoming Indy II with their insecurity over his legacy.

Before and after rule changes were pushed to help P6 and his passing game, and his team was moved to an all expansion division, his team has gone one and out seven times in the playoffs. That's seven in eleven playoffs, many times with the best regular season record that his fans thump their chests about now.

1999 he led his team to a 13-3 record and went out in the first playoff game.
2000 10-6 and one and out.
2002 10-6 and one and out.
2005 14-2 and one and out.
2007 13-3 and one and out.
2008 12-4 and one and out.
2010 10-6 and one and out.

In those seven seasons he led his team to a stunning regular season record of 82-30, but the playoff record was an even more stunning 0-7, with many of those games at home.

Unfortunately for those NFLers that wanted to see P6 dominate the NFL, Tom Brady showed up out of nowhere and has been the dominant QB instead. Sorry, but that's life.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

How about 18 in a row? .8 ^ 7 worse. (Or 16 regular season games, .8 ^ 5 worse).

Then lose 1, and it's a punchline, Chris.

So nothing against an 11 game regular season win streak, but the operative words there are "regular season." It's a nice run. Now it's time to dance.

I'm solely addressing the "path to the #1 seed". What Denver did was impressive. Of course that means squat going forward, but as far as the subject line goes, what they did (past tense) gets a big thumbs up in my book.

Reminds me of the 12 in a row the Pats ran off to end the 2003 regular season. And those Pats needed all 12 of those to fetch the #1 seed. If the Pats lost to the Colts in that epic goalline stand game, the Pats, Chiefs and Colts would have all finished 13-3 and I believe the Chiefs would have won the #1 seed on tiebreakers.

Regards,
Chris

 

[RYObroncosfan]

I can't believe this thread is almost 500 posts strong (or weak, honestly).

Here are the only facts anyone needs, and that's all the thread needed from the start:

--The Broncos had a better regular season than the Pats. Why? Because they won 13 games and the Pats won 12. Disagree? Go for it...but there's a reason the NFL doesn't base seeding on a combination of strength of victory/SOS/road wins/wins when games are played in 18 degree weather with a 37% chance of snow. Wins are the easiest way to determine the top seed (also, the most logical).

--Winning 11 games in a row, against anyone, is difficult. Someone pulled up the odds here before, but regardless of who you play, 11 in a row is impressive. They could have played a tougher schedule, but they didn't. It's not college football; you don't have a choice in who you play. Winning their last 11 by 7+ points is about as good as they could have possibly done.

--The playoffs are a whole new ball game. They have just as good of a shot of losing in the first round as they do anything else. It's only fun to discuss for so long before it gets old. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. Yes, to the Pats fans who think they're a lock for the AFCCG or Super Bowl...you could also lose in the first round! It's possible! Let's let the games speak for themselves. Then whoever loses can argue about how they should've won and are better anyway, as it will inevitably happen.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The Broncos deserve the #1 seed. Winning games is all that matters. You don't chose you who play, when or where you play them.

That being said, anyone with a brain has to admit that they have not been challenged by any significant team in a very long time. Baltimore was at rock bottom. The Bengals are up and down. Everyone else flat-out sucked. That much was obvious a month ago, as the Patriots were preparing to face Houston and then San Francisco, and all of us agreed that to get the #1 seed the Patriots would have to run the table, given the Broncos lame closing schedule.

That schedule may hurt them in the playoffs- it's a fair argument to make. It could also help them if they have used the second halves of those non-competitive games to manage the injuries of key players while still remianing sharp. I haven't see enough of the Broncos blowouts to know. I had no desire to watch games with no expectation of it being a contest.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can't believe this thread is almost 500 posts strong (or weak, honestly).

Here are the only facts anyone needs, and that's all the thread needed from the start:

--The Broncos had a better regular season than the Pats. Why? Because they won 13 games and the Pats won 12. Disagree? Go for it...but there's a reason the NFL doesn't base seeding on a combination of strength of victory/SOS/road wins/wins when games are played in 18 degree weather with a 37% chance of snow. Wins are the easiest way to determine the top seed (also, the most logical).

We don't agree on how to assess "better regular season". I think that SOS/SOV and things like games lost by poor officiating calls need to be taken into consideration. Having said that, I agree that the Broncos had a very nice regular season. While I'd argue that they didn't beat any of the tough teams on their schedule, they did win all the games that they should have, and that's a testament to them.

--Winning 11 games in a row, against anyone, is difficult. Someone pulled up the odds here before, but regardless of who you play, 11 in a row is impressive. They could have played a tougher schedule, but they didn't. It's not college football; you don't have a choice in who you play. Winning their last 11 by 7+ points is about as good as they could have possibly done.

Winning 11 is tough. Winning them against mostly stiffs makes it easier, though. The Broncos deserve props for what they did, but they don't deserve the sort of overrating that the Broncos trolls were posting.

--The playoffs are a whole new ball game. They have just as good of a shot of losing in the first round as they do anything else. It's only fun to discuss for so long before it gets old. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. Yes, to the Pats fans who think they're a lock for the AFCCG or Super Bowl...you could also lose in the first round! It's possible! Let's let the games speak for themselves. Then whoever loses can argue about how they should've won and are better anyway, as it will inevitably happen.

This part of your post sums up every NFL game, every NFL playoff team, and every NFL fan base, and it should be required reading (just change team names) before every playoff season begins. Nicely done.

 

[everlong]

This thread is one of the most insanely idiotic discussions I have ever read. At no point in these rambling, incoherent responses was anybody even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on all of your souls.

 

[Double TE]

How could the Pats lose in the first round when they have a bye?

 

[Rick Sanford 25]

The title of this thread was asking for a bombardment of negative posts from Denver fans. Why act surprised when they come?

I'm disappointed in the number of responses to what are obviously disruptive posters.

I have to admit that I enjoyed the time off from the P6 rumpswabs last year. Too bad Denver is becoming Indy II with their insecurity over his legacy.

Before and after rule changes were pushed to help P6 and his passing game, and his team was moved to an all expansion division, his team has gone one and out seven times in the playoffs. That's seven in eleven playoffs, many times with the best regular season record that his fans thump their chests about now.

1999 he led his team to a 13-3 record and went out in the first playoff game.
2000 10-6 and one and out.
2002 10-6 and one and out.
2005 14-2 and one and out.
2007 13-3 and one and out.
2008 12-4 and one and out.
2010 10-6 and one and out.

In those seven seasons he led his team to a stunning regular season record of 82-30, but the playoff record was an even more stunning 0-7, with many of those games at home.

Unfortunately for those NFLers that wanted to see P6 dominate the NFL, Tom Brady showed up out of nowhere and has been the dominant QB instead. Sorry, but that's life.

Patriots fan from down under, back in the states. Give me a big welcome!
One of the distressing things I can see in these posts (and I picked it out purposely is to state some facts) and hopefully that can make the debate a little less mean and a bit more (hopefully) objective. Without blue and orange or red goggles.

Fact: Manning and Brady are both great quarterbacks
Fact: Manning, as stated above is 9-10 and 0-7 in those one and done years.
Fact: when Tom had McGuinest, Harrison, Washington, Vrabel and Teddy playing at a high level. 9-0 and 3 Super Bowls. Since that time he is a pedestrian 7-6 wih home one and done playoff games to Baltimore and NY.
Fact: Brady's individual stats have climbed as the team has relied on him and their defense has struggled over the last 5 years. Very Indy like.
Fact: When Manning won his Super Bowl, the Colts Defense played lights out.
Fact: If you exclude the Denver playoff game last year, our points per game is probably 5-7 points lower than the regular season in the playoffs. In fact, we've only scored 31 points in our past 2 Super Bowls after having a nuclear offense during the regular season.
Fact: The Colts averaged a TD less (or more) in the playoffs than in the regular season uner Manning.
Fact: Both teams had questionable calls go against them in AFC Championship games. In 2003 you could make a case the Colts got hosed and in 2007 Hobbs P.I. was bogus.
Fact: in the years Manning went one and out, he only had the best record once (2005). Sorry, can't let facts get in the way.
Fact: The past 3 years, New England has looked more like Indy II than Denver has.

These are just the musings from 8,000 miles away.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That is correct,I would rather play the Broncos than the Texans.

Call me crazy,but that is the truth,I could see Foster and Andre Johnson being totally different players when its the playoffs and Schaub like I said can be mediocre like Flacco one game and pretty darn accurate the next,also JJ Watt is as big a force and playmaker as Miller is.

Knowshon Moreno and the Broncos running backs don't scare me,if the Pats secondary can do what they did in the first meeting they can handle Peyton enough to win the game should it get to that point,I am not saying we will win easily but if they meet it will be a close game as Brady vs. Manning almost always are.

I don't want to just assume the two teams will meet because that would be writing off the road divisional playoff teams,one of which are those Texans who will NOT be an easy out.

I'm going to go ahead and call you crazy, then. The Texans don't worry me very much. We already played that game, and everyone saw how it went. Arian Foster ran out of gas about a month and a half ago; he's not even close to the same RB that he was last season. Kubiak has pulled a bona fide Jeff Fisher on him. He'll gash you for a couple of runs per game, but he's not going to beat the Pats on his own, and Schaub is only effective when teams are keying in on Foster. Manning-to-Thomas worries me a whole lot more than Schaub-to-Johnson does. I think people forget how differently the Broncos game could have gone if Moore hadn't forced that early fumble by Thomas.

On the Broncos' side of things, Knowshon Moreno should worry you, if you've seen the Broncos play at any point in the past month. He's not amazing, but he gets the job done just fine. Which is all somewhat beside the point anyways, since the real issue is that Peyton Manning is really, really good, and Mile High is probably the best home field advantage in the NFL except maybe for Seattle.

In other words: if the Pats go to Denver for the AFCCG, it will probably be a toss up. If Houston comes here, then the Pats will probably (rightly) be 7-9 point favorites. The Texans have gone 1-3 in the last month for a reason. Several reasons, actually:

1) they finally faced strong competition.
2) they peaked way too early. As early as October, I was openly wondering wtf Kubiak was doing, giving Foster 25+ carries per game through the first 5 weeks. A better coach would have rotated in Forsett and (once healthy) Ben Tate. That's the point of having RB depth- keeping your backs fresh. Even if that had cost them a win in the first 2 months, it probably would have got them that win back over the past month, and as an added bonus their best player wouldn't be entirely gassed come the playoffs. Remember all of those seasons when the Chargers rode Tomlinson to a high seed, then went out with a whimper because he was banged up and playing at 75% once the games started counting? You're seeing it again.
3) They have trouble with tight ends, since their blitz-happy scheme leaves them vulnerable over the middle of the field. Kyle Rudolph is a homeless man's Gronk, and he had a touchdown for the Vikings. Hernandez had 8 receptions and 2 touchdowns against them for the same reason. With Gronk back, this offense is basically tailor-made to destroy the Texans' D.
4) Brady has played plenty of games against Wade Phillips' one-gap, blitz-heavy style of 3-4 defense. He's shown, over and over again, that he can reliably dissect it.

 

[CYA_PATS_DEN>NE_2012AFCCG]

Fact: Manning, as stated above is 9-10 and 0-7 in those one and done years

Really dude? I can do those kind of statistics too.

Fact: The team that scores the most points wins the game 100% of the time.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Really dude? I can do those kind of statistics too.

Fact: The team that scores the most points wins the game 100% of the time.

I dunno, I find "he didn't win any games in years where he didn't win any games" to be a pretty insightful statement.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Patriots fan from down under, back in the states. Give me a big welcome!
One of the distressing things I can see in these posts (and I picked it out purposely is to state some facts) and hopefully that can make the debate a little less mean and a bit more (hopefully) objective. Without blue and orange or red goggles.

Fact: Manning and Brady are both great quarterbacks
Fact: Manning, as stated above is 9-10 and 0-7 in those one and done years.
Fact: when Tom had McGuinest, Harrison, Washington, Vrabel and Teddy playing at a high level. 9-0 and 3 Super Bowls. Since that time he is a pedestrian 7-6 wih home one and done playoff games to Baltimore and NY.
Fact: Brady's individual stats have climbed as the team has relied on him and their defense has struggled over the last 5 years. Very Indy like.
Fact: When Manning won his Super Bowl, the Colts Defense played lights out.
Fact: If you exclude the Denver playoff game last year, our points per game is probably 5-7 points lower than the regular season in the playoffs. In fact, we've only scored 31 points in our past 2 Super Bowls after having a nuclear offense during the regular season.
Fact: The Colts averaged a TD less (or more) in the playoffs than in the regular season uner Manning.
Fact: Both teams had questionable calls go against them in AFC Championship games. In 2003 you could make a case the Colts got hosed and in 2007 Hobbs P.I. was bogus.
Fact: in the years Manning went one and out, he only had the best record once (2005). Sorry, can't let facts get in the way.
Fact: The past 3 years, New England has looked more like Indy II than Denver has.

These are just the musings from 8,000 miles away.

How many QBs do you know of with more than 7 playoff wins since 2005? Also, I don't remember the Colts' defense playing lights out in the 2006 AFCCG.

 

[Triumph]

Really dude? I can do those kind of statistics too.

Fact: The team that scores the most points wins the game 100% of the time.

Do you promise to come back here after the Pats take down the Broncos in the AFCC?

Its going to be s fun game assuming the Broncos make it that far.

 

[Triumph]

How many QBs do you know of with more than 7 playoff wins since 2005? Also, I don't remember the Colts' defense playing lights out in the 2006 AFCCG.

I do.

Indy only gave up 1 TD and 2 FGs in the 2nd half.

New England Patriots at Indianapolis Colts - January 21st, 2007 - Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[Deus Irae]

Really dude? I can do those kind of statistics too.

Fact: The team that scores the most points wins the game 100% of the time.

I dunno, I find "he didn't win any games in years where he didn't win any games" to be a pretty insightful statement.

Pointing out that 7 of 10 losses are in one-and-done seasons isn't a redundancy, so I'm not sure why you two went there. Manning's had a 14 season career and has won double digit games in 12 of the 14 regular seasons, yet Manning has won 6 of his 9 playoff games in 2 seasons and is 3-9 over the course of the rest of his postseason career.

 

[CYA_PATS_DEN>NE_2012AFCCG]

Do you promise to come back here after the Pats take down the Broncos in the AFCC?

Its going to be s fun game assuming the Broncos make it that far.

Yep I'll be here to eat my crow, if that happens. Too bad it won't, and I'll still be here to drink everyone's tears