I think BB frankly can say whatever he wants. It's his opinion, and not necessarily fact. He was obviously dejected, and clearly didn't feel like speaking to the press after the game. I can understand his frustration.
But as a Denver native and Broncos fan, I think it's off-base to think that the Pats are / were / will be the better team.
1) Four of the 5 TO's were forced. Granted, Brady's last INT was a desperation heave, and not really important. But the Broncos FORCED 3 TO's. To think that they were "gifts" understates the quality of play that forced them. While the two fumbles weren't hard hits, they were good plays made by one of the best Defenses in the NFL. The punter's hit was textbook, and didn't have to be hard because he knocked the ball out with his helmet. Champ's INT was pre-planned. The Pats had been running that pick move all night, and Champ intentionally switched to the outside receiver. And don't forget - Brady was under immediate pressure to throw it from the corner blitz. If he doesn't throw that ball, he gets sacked or he throws it out of the endzone, and the Pats have to settle for 3 pts, which wouldn't have been enough to win the game (even taking away the 7 pts Denver scored as a result). It was a great play call, and a great adjustment by Champ(despite the fact that he deserved that shot on the 2 yd line for walking in).
2) If you believe that the Pats would beat the Broncos 7 or 8 times out of 10, then you have to believe that the Pats would win 8 in a row against the Broncos or 7 of the next 8, since the Broncos won both meetings this year. There is absolutely nothing that tells me that's possible, let alone plausible, given the Pat's record. Granted, they were much improved at the end of the year with injured players coming back, but the Broncos were also a much better team - Plummer was much better after their first few losses in the early part of the season, throwing very few INT's and a number of TD's.
3) When people look at stats and argue that the Pats put up 2x the number of yards vs Denver, that's inconsequential. The Broncos D got the stops when they needed them. The single touchdown for the Pats was an end of game clean-up variety. The Broncos kept the Pats out of the endzone for all practical purposes. And that type of "bend, don't' break" defense is Denver's hallmark. They ranked 3rd in pts against, but ranked 15 in yards allowed / game. In addition, the Broncos had much better field position the entire game, which automatically means that they won't have as many offensive yards.
4) During the regular season, the Broncos were statistically the better team in every category, both offense and defense - with the exception of offensive passing yds / game.
5) The comments about the officiating being poor are fair, but the end result I doubt would have been different. The PI call was pretty bogus. But that doesn't mean the Broncos can't get atleast some points from that drive. They were already in Elam's range. So that's maybe a 4pt difference, but could have been zero if the Broncos had continued to drive the ball. The ensuing field goal that barely cleared was a muffed kick. Elam's range is 60 yards (he's got a 63 yarder to his credit) and in the "thin air" he most likely would have hit the retry much better. So you can argue that those calls were bad, but the result would not be 0 points.
In the end, the Broncos played better because they are better. The only support for the argument that the Pats didn't play as well as they could have is Brady - he was uncharacteristically inaccurate at points during the game. Perhaps he was rushed, or felt pressured, but he should have completed a number of passes that were really poorly thrown.
I know it's hard to admit. It sucked when Elway retired and the Broncos sucked so badly. They were getting beat by mediocre teams. But when a better team survives and advances, it's not luck or gifts. It's probability.
But as a Denver native and Broncos fan, I think it's off-base to think that the Pats are / were / will be the better team.
1) Four of the 5 TO's were forced. Granted, Brady's last INT was a desperation heave, and not really important. But the Broncos FORCED 3 TO's. To think that they were "gifts" understates the quality of play that forced them. While the two fumbles weren't hard hits, they were good plays made by one of the best Defenses in the NFL. The punter's hit was textbook, and didn't have to be hard because he knocked the ball out with his helmet. Champ's INT was pre-planned. The Pats had been running that pick move all night, and Champ intentionally switched to the outside receiver. And don't forget - Brady was under immediate pressure to throw it from the corner blitz. If he doesn't throw that ball, he gets sacked or he throws it out of the endzone, and the Pats have to settle for 3 pts, which wouldn't have been enough to win the game (even taking away the 7 pts Denver scored as a result). It was a great play call, and a great adjustment by Champ(despite the fact that he deserved that shot on the 2 yd line for walking in).
2) If you believe that the Pats would beat the Broncos 7 or 8 times out of 10, then you have to believe that the Pats would win 8 in a row against the Broncos or 7 of the next 8, since the Broncos won both meetings this year. There is absolutely nothing that tells me that's possible, let alone plausible, given the Pat's record. Granted, they were much improved at the end of the year with injured players coming back, but the Broncos were also a much better team - Plummer was much better after their first few losses in the early part of the season, throwing very few INT's and a number of TD's.
3) When people look at stats and argue that the Pats put up 2x the number of yards vs Denver, that's inconsequential. The Broncos D got the stops when they needed them. The single touchdown for the Pats was an end of game clean-up variety. The Broncos kept the Pats out of the endzone for all practical purposes. And that type of "bend, don't' break" defense is Denver's hallmark. They ranked 3rd in pts against, but ranked 15 in yards allowed / game. In addition, the Broncos had much better field position the entire game, which automatically means that they won't have as many offensive yards.
4) During the regular season, the Broncos were statistically the better team in every category, both offense and defense - with the exception of offensive passing yds / game.
5) The comments about the officiating being poor are fair, but the end result I doubt would have been different. The PI call was pretty bogus. But that doesn't mean the Broncos can't get atleast some points from that drive. They were already in Elam's range. So that's maybe a 4pt difference, but could have been zero if the Broncos had continued to drive the ball. The ensuing field goal that barely cleared was a muffed kick. Elam's range is 60 yards (he's got a 63 yarder to his credit) and in the "thin air" he most likely would have hit the retry much better. So you can argue that those calls were bad, but the result would not be 0 points.
In the end, the Broncos played better because they are better. The only support for the argument that the Pats didn't play as well as they could have is Brady - he was uncharacteristically inaccurate at points during the game. Perhaps he was rushed, or felt pressured, but he should have completed a number of passes that were really poorly thrown.
I know it's hard to admit. It sucked when Elway retired and the Broncos sucked so badly. They were getting beat by mediocre teams. But when a better team survives and advances, it's not luck or gifts. It's probability.
Last edited:
