Broncos have little to no chance of winning if they can't create turnovers

[PatriotSeven]

I agree that turnovers will probably be the difference maker, but I don't agree with the argument that Denver can't win unless we win the turnover battle.

The fact is: 4 weeks ago, we were dominating the game against NE until an unfortunate series of turnovers combined with some poor game-time decisions at the end of the 1st half by Fox gave momentum and the lead to New England.

In other words, Denver matches up better in a game with no turnovers; in fact, Tebow and the offense may be resilient enough to even survive 1 turnover, provided it doesn't come too late in the game...like during Tebow Time when we're driving to take a 34-30 lead with 10 seconds remaining.

Denver doesn't match up better with the Pats under any circumstances.

Patriots have the better defense. They allow less points per game. They have the #2 most efficient defense in the NFL.
Patriots have the better special teams defense. They are #2 in the NFL in field position.
Patriots have the better offense. They score 32+ points per game. They are the #4 most efficient offense.

So at 0 turnovers, even turnovers, no matter how you look at it, Pats will still be that team above. In fact you got it backwards. Pats could probably overcome a turnover and beat Denver, while Denver couldn't.

If you really want to get to the nitty gritty then a turnover is worth about 3.5 points at midfield against your average team. Patriots score 32 ppg and Denver 19.9 ppg.

At -1 turnovers against the Patriots, score would be 29-22, in favor of Patriots.
At -2 turnovers against the Patriots score would be 25-26, a slight edge to the Broncos.

But then you still have to take into consideration that Pats defense allow less points so even at -2, Pats would probably still edge the Broncos out. Does that mean Denver can't beat the Pats? No. Any team can win on any given Sunday but it would be a huge upset. After all, Kyle Orton and the KC Chiefs beat the Perfect GB Packers in a turnover-free game and that was a huge upset too. But 8 out of 10 times the Pats would beat Denver, and GB would smoke the Chiefs.

In fact it took Buffalo 4 takeaways to beat the Patriots, and the Pats only lost by 3, 34-31 in the beginning of the season. So Pats can turnover the ball 4 times and still put up 31 points. By comparisons, in the rematch against the Bills when the Patriots were +3, the score was 49-21. When Denver was -4 against Buffalo they got blown out 40-14. Patriots only needed 3 from Denver to put up 41 on them.

Only one team beat the Patriots with a negative turnover margin which was the Pittsburg Steelers with a much healthier defense and a healthy Ben mid-season after the Patriots bye week, which is when a lot of teams got beat due to the new rules not allowing a full week of practice.

How many games have the Broncos won this year with a negative turnover margin? Have they won any?

The Patriots beat the Cowboys earlier this year 20-16, overcoming a -2 turnover margin, after turning over the ball 4 times to the Cowboys 2. They beat the New York Jets overcoming a turnover margin in a day when the Jets had no turnovers and Mark Sanchez posted a 105 QB rating.

There's only one team that beat the Pats that you could really call "fair and square", without the Pats beating themselves, this year and that was Pittsburg ,and it was after the bye week. Both the Giants and Buffalo games were a -4 turnover game for the Patriots which just doesn't happen very often. So for Denver to really be favored to win, they need a +2 or better turnover margin. Which is what Vegas says too.

Again, it doesn't mean the Broncos can't. But if Patriots bring their best game and Broncos still beat them, then they deserve all the credit and the win that comes after that game, and it would rightfully be called an upset. I give Tebow and the Broncos all the credit in the world, and have believed for some time everyone underestimate Tebow as a passer and NFL quarterback, but this would be an upset even for me. Tebowmania can go as wild as they want because they would deserve it. They would belong in the Super Bowl and will probably get there since none of the other two AFC teams would post a tougher challenge for Denver. Denver and Pats at least never got a shot at GB, Saints or 49ers. Well Denver did get blown out by GB, but not with Tebow and they were -2.

The point is if the Patriots can blow teams out, and blew Denver out with a positive turnover margin. If the Patriots can still beat teams with a negative turnover margin. If the Patriots can beat good teams at an even turnover margin. Why would Denver match up better at an even turnover margin than if they played the Pats with them managing a takeway? Makes no sense. Denver would benefit very much from a takeaway and positive turnover margin just like any other team.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

...amazing how 2 weeks ago in an absolute must win game at home the Bronocos managed all of 3 points yet now Tebow and the game have it all figured out.

Well, there's a small group of us in Denver who think that Denver's losses to finish out the season were directly attributable to John "I Am The Most Conservative Head Coach EVER" Fox and Mike "Run Run Run Punt" McCoy.

The media pundits who have been bashing Tebow since Genesis are now trying to deflect scrutiny by heaping praise on Fox and McCoy, who have allegedly "tailored" Denver's offense to suit Tebow's strengths.

Poppy****! Tebow thrives in an up-tempo offense with 4 and 5 receiver sets, lots of motion, and operating almost exclusively out of the shotgun. He's also very good throwing out of bootlegs.

But look at the Play-By-Play logs on NFL.com. Denver's offense has Tebow lining up under center half the time with 1 or 2 receiver set and handing off the ball to McGahee from conventional I-Formation sets. The only time Tebow is "unleashed" is when Denver is desperately behind the 8 ball and the coaches are FORCED to abandon their super-ultra-mega conservative play calling.

The 80-yard pass to D. Thomas on 1st down was a thing of beauty, but it was set up by predictable play calling that had Denver running the ball 21 times in 22 first down attempts! That's ridiculous.

I think what was "figured out" in the Pittsburgh game is that Tebow can throw the deep ball VERY accurately, maybe even more accurately than Brady. And that if he's unleashed to do this more than once every 23 first-downs, we might see a repeat of what happened in OT.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

Denver doesn't match up better with the Pats under any circumstances.

[...rest of long post, which I did read...]

I'll say this about turnovers: you can't predict 'em.

You can graph their effect on a game after the fact. Just like you can graph (or predict) the distribution of 2 dice thrown a hundred times: you'll end up with a bell-shaped graph that favors combinations of 7 (1:6, 2:5, 3:4).

I wrote a little Excel program years ago to pick games against the spread using just a few variables: 1st downs by rushing, passing, and penalty. As the season wears on, these things become fairly predictable (even things like penalties), and if you assign a value to each variable, you can get EXTREMELY accurate final scores. For what it's worth, teams that get lots of first downs rushing win most of the time, and Denver is a lot better at this than New England.

But in blowout games, the difference was always turnovers...turnovers that can't be predicted in advance.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I'll say this about turnovers: you can't predict 'em.

You can graph their effect on a game after the fact. Just like you can graph (or predict) the distribution of 2 dice thrown a hundred times: you'll end up with a bell-shaped graph that favors combinations of 7 (1:6, 2:5, 3:4).

I wrote a little Excel program years ago to pick games against the spread using just a few variables: 1st downs by rushing, passing, and penalty. As the season wears on, these things become fairly predictable (even things like penalties), and if you assign a value to each variable, you can get EXTREMELY accurate final scores. For what it's worth, teams that get lots of first downs rushing win most of the time, and Denver is a lot better at this than New England.

But in blowout games, the difference was always turnovers...turnovers that can't be predicted in advance.

I don't think you understand how it works. Anywhere from -2,-1,0, and then of course + turnovers Pats have an advantage over Denver.

First downs is further down on the meaningless stat list than all the others. IN reality the most efficient offense and most efficient teams wins most football games. That's the case in the superbowl, playoffs, regular games, pre-season, any game, any sport, any planet.

Patriots is more efficient, executes better and more productive on both ends of the ball. All the other stats, even point totals, have less to do with winning. Patriots are a top 3 in exection. Top 3 in efficiency. Top 3 in production. Top 3 in actual winning percentage. They have already beat Denver. They have blown out common opponents and Denver.

Like I said, however you want to look at it, the Patriots outperform Denver. But the two most important stats when it comes to winning, are efficiency/execution and turnovers.

Those are the two that decide the win-loss percentage of 95% of all football games. Very, very, very rarely will you have a less efficient offense beat a more efficient offense or team.

Team efficiency is a total team stat. Offensive efficiency is a total offense stat. Defensive efficiency is a total defense stat. They actually measure a team as a whole or at least one half of the team, in a non-vacuum.

What you are talking about, first downs, situational stats, rushing, passing. The more you try to break down a footbal team's performance under certain situational conditions and predict outcomes off of that, the WORSE off you will be in your ability to predict how good the overall team actually is. They are meaningless.

First downs mean nothing compared to the fact New England has proven to put up 32+ points a game in an efficient manner. I don't care how many first downs Denver has. New England puts up more points and allows less and they do this against just about any team they face, especially Denver. End of story.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

Well, just to be clear, my formula for predicting a final score was predicated on using the fewest number of variables. Your formula apparently takes into account every freakin' statistic known to mankind, and I'll admit that out of 23,000 offensive and defensive statistics, New England probably stacks up better against Denver.

My "system" used first downs by rushing, passing, and penalty because I could easily scrape pages on NFL.com to find these 3 discrete pieces of data and use them to calculate a projected final score.

My thinking was that if a team is getting lots of first downs by rushing, it *probably* means: they like to play smashmouth; they're dominating the line of scrimmage; they are ahead. So each 1st down by rushing was worth around 3.5 points.

OTOH, if a team has lots of first downs by passing, it *probably* means: they can't run (so they're not controlling the LOS); and/or they are behind and trying to catch up, so they are throwing the ball a lot. So each 1st down by passing was worth around 1.5 points.

Statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is interesting, but what they cover up is essential. Take the so-called "QB Rating", which is really just a Passer Rating. Why shouldn't the QBR also take into account rushes by the QB and TD's by the QB? I think that each rush should count the same as a completed pass, and total yards should include rushing yards. And each rushing TD should count the same as a passing TD. If you just add in those 3 stats to the QBR, suddenly Tebow is one of the best QB's in the League.

And then how do you measure intangibles? You can't. So you have to take them "on faith" and just "believe". To quote Tebow: "When you believe, unbelievable things can happen."

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Well, there's a small group of us in Denver who think that Denver's losses to finish out the season were directly attributable to John "I Am The Most Conservative Head Coach EVER" Fox and Mike "Run Run Run Punt" McCoy.

The media pundits who have been bashing Tebow since Genesis are now trying to deflect scrutiny by heaping praise on Fox and McCoy, who have allegedly "tailored" Denver's offense to suit Tebow's strengths.

Poppy****! Tebow thrives in an up-tempo offense with 4 and 5 receiver sets, lots of motion, and operating almost exclusively out of the shotgun. He's also very good throwing out of bootlegs.

But look at the Play-By-Play logs on NFL.com. Denver's offense has Tebow lining up under center half the time with 1 or 2 receiver set and handing off the ball to McGahee from conventional I-Formation sets. The only time Tebow is "unleashed" is when Denver is desperately behind the 8 ball and the coaches are FORCED to abandon their super-ultra-mega conservative play calling.

The 80-yard pass to D. Thomas on 1st down was a thing of beauty, but it was set up by predictable play calling that had Denver running the ball 21 times in 22 first down attempts! That's ridiculous.

I think what was "figured out" in the Pittsburgh game is that Tebow can throw the deep ball VERY accurately, maybe even more accurately than Brady. And that if he's unleashed to do this more than once every 23 first-downs, we might see a repeat of what happened in OT.

It was set up by blown coverage...which was the result of really poor situational awareness on the part of the Steelers. That as opposed to deep ball accuracy is what Tebow has going for him. Or had, as in Pittsburgh's safeties not to mention their DC miscalculated. If he does that more than once in every 23 first downs, his picks are going to increase exponentially against the coverage adjustments smart teams will make accordingly. The NFL sidelines are littered with QB's who can make those throws...wearing baseball caps as opposed to helmets.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

It was set up by blown coverage...which was the result of really poor situational awareness on the part of the Steelers. That as opposed to deep ball accuracy is what Tebow has going for him. Or had, as in Pittsburgh's safeties not to mention their DC miscalculated. If he does that more than once in every 23 first downs, his picks are going to increase exponentially against the coverage adjustments smart teams will make accordingly. The NFL sidelines are littered with QB's who can make those throws...wearing baseball caps as opposed to helmets.

Fine. Shut down the long throws, and Tebow will run for 110 yards.

Don't forget: Tebow had 50 yards on 10 carries on the ground against a Pittsburgh team that regularly had 9, sometimes 10 guys in the box. Tebow averages 60 yards rushing per game along with nearly 1 rushing TD per game. By comparison, Cam Newton's per game rushing average is *only* 44 yards.

Since Tebow started for Denver, opponents have schemed to "shut down" Tebow's ability to run, yet he somehow manages to eek out 60 yards per game.

 

[Clonamery]

Fine. Shut down the long throws, and Tebow will run for 110 yards.

Don't forget: Tebow had 50 yards on 10 carries on the ground against a Pittsburgh team that regularly had 9, sometimes 10 guys in the box. Tebow averages 60 yards rushing per game along with nearly 1 rushing TD per game. By comparison, Cam Newton's per game rushing average is *only* 44 yards.

Since Tebow started for Denver, opponents have schemed to "shut down" Tebow's ability to run, yet he somehow manages to eek out 60 yards per game.

Jeepers, Tebow sounds unbeatable. Really, you gotta get some sleep. And for goodness sakes, take off that Tebow jersey and take a shower, you smell.

 

[BTTA]

I'm getting the impression that there is massive denial among the Broncos faithful about the adjustments that the Pats made on defense that turned the first game completely on its head. Its like everything that happened from midway through the second quarter was due to poor decision making by the Broncos. Wow.

The Pats would have beaten that Steelers team, with those injuries, by 20+ points.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

Jeepers, Tebow sounds unbeatable. Really, you gotta get some sleep. And for goodness sakes, take off that Tebow jersey and take a shower, you smell.

Well, it probably *is* time to wrap up for the day and find something just a little bit more productive to do with my time. I think I'll go make some Seattle-inspired coffee on the stove.

But I shall return. Still need to get my post count up to 50 so I can start my first thread. It shall be called:

"Predict Denver's First 4 Offensive Plays"

And my answer shall be:

1 - Run MaGahee 3 yards
2 - Run Magahee 4 yards
3 - Run Tebow Read Option 4 yards, 1st down
4 - Run Magahee 5 yards

 

[Armchair Bronco]

I'm getting the impression that there is massive denial among the Broncos faithful about the adjustments that the Pats made on defense that turned the first game completely on its head. Its like everything that happened from midway through the second quarter was due to poor decision making by the Broncos. Wow.

Well, in fairness it was both bad decision making by the Broncos AND unfortunate turnovers.

The Pats would have beaten that Steelers team, with those injuries, by 20+ points.

Well, good thing for you that you guys didn't have to get your jerseys dirty, isn't it?

 

[PatriotSeven]

Well, just to be clear, my formula for predicting a final score was predicated on using the fewest number of variables. Your formula apparently takes into account every freakin' statistic known to mankind, and I'll admit that out of 23,000 offensive and defensive statistics, New England probably stacks up better against Denver.

My "system" used first downs by rushing, passing, and penalty because I could easily scrape pages on NFL.com to find these 3 discrete pieces of data and use them to calculate a projected final score.

My thinking was that if a team is getting lots of first downs by rushing, it *probably* means: they like to play smashmouth; they're dominating the line of scrimmage; they are ahead. So each 1st down by rushing was worth around 3.5 points.

OTOH, if a team has lots of first downs by passing, it *probably* means: they can't run (so they're not controlling the LOS); and/or they are behind and trying to catch up, so they are throwing the ball a lot. So each 1st down by passing was worth around 1.5 points.

Statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is interesting, but what they cover up is essential. Take the so-called "QB Rating", which is really just a Passer Rating. Why shouldn't the QBR also take into account rushes by the QB and TD's by the QB? I think that each rush should count the same as a completed pass, and total yards should include rushing yards. And each rushing TD should count the same as a passing TD. If you just add in those 3 stats to the QBR, suddenly Tebow is one of the best QB's in the League.

And then how do you measure intangibles? You can't. So you have to take them "on faith" and just "believe". To quote Tebow: "When you believe, unbelievable things can happen."

I think my formula is about as simple as it gets.

Number 2 team in winning percentage. Number 3 most efficient team in the NFL. Doesn't really get much simpler than that. Two variables. Not to mention they already beat Denver pretty badly once only 3 weeks ago and have a more impressive winning percentage against common opponents. You're using a variable that just, simply put, doesn't correlate to winning very well. The one I'm using does because, well one of them just happens to be the winning record itself and the other one which measures execution and breaks it down into offense/defense might as well be the same thing.


And....

Intangibles? You think Brady doesn't have intangibles? You think the Patriots don't have intangibles? Don't buy into this holier than who knows who mystical "can't put my finger on it" nonsense. Good football teams, consistent winners, win because they execute well, work hard, have good leaders and coaching and because they ultimately score more points than their opponents. That's it. And yes all the great ones believe. So does Brady.


However. Execution, believing, intangibles, motivation, all of those things can add up and outweight other less meaningless stats like yards are usually the difference maker when the other team may missing those things and not executing well. But when the other team has it too, out-execute you, and match you toe to toe in every department and the Patriots are one of those teams that have IT....then that's when talent does make a difference. That's when experience does make a difference. That's when having tight-ends like Gronk and Hernandez to go along with your awesome leader who believes makes a difference. That's when having a guy like Wes Welker who believes in your quarterback as your number 1 can make a difference. That's when consistency does make a difference. That's when having a well practiced and deep playbook can make a difference.

The Patriots, unlike other talented, and high powered teams, who are inconsistent, don't execute well, have leadership issues, or motivational issues, also equally possess intangibles, they work hard, have a great work ethic, very professional, have players with intangibles, and 4th quarter comebacks and have all their ducks in a row. They are a great group of players and a great team and are also hungry for another playoff win. They never underestimate anyone.

And to be honest those intangibles that you mention that other rookie players ESPN analysts, and fans try to define? The 4th quarter intangible that helps Tebow win games which people write articles on trying to explain what that IT is? Well in the Patriots organization and as far as Tom Brady goes, they have an actual definition for those intangibles: Concentration. Focus. Motivation.

That's what that "it" is. It may not sound as amazing as "a higher power and an "it" but it's really all it is. Great coaches actually seek players with these traits and yes, they can be defined and even measured.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Fine. Shut down the long throws, and Tebow will run for 110 yards.

Don't forget: Tebow had 50 yards on 10 carries on the ground against a Pittsburgh team that regularly had 9, sometimes 10 guys in the box. Tebow averages 60 yards rushing per game along with nearly 1 rushing TD per game. By comparison, Cam Newton's per game rushing average is *only* 44 yards.

Since Tebow started for Denver, opponents have schemed to "shut down" Tebow's ability to run, yet he somehow manages to eek out 60 yards per game.

Our HC has a game plan as a DC enshrined in the HOF already based on letting the other guys run all day. His players thought it was nuts. Until it got them a ring. And they didn't have an offense remotely like this or a QB like Brady either...

 

[Armchair Bronco]

I think my formula is about as simple as it gets.

My formula was designed to predict the final score AGAINST THE SPREAD. We all know that San Francisco will beat, say, the St. Louis Rams. But will they beat them by 15 points?

My formula *tried* to answer that question.

Using winning percentage as you do is like peeking at tomorrow's newspaper and then stating which teams will win and lose. The winning percentage will predict relative strengths, but will not give you a predicted final score against the spread.

And how does one measure "execution"? I'm curious, not trying to troll with this question. The notion that there's some stat on NFL.com called "Execution Percentage" seems like a bit of stretch. Isn't this a composite stat that rests on dozens of other stats, kinda like the so-called "QB Rating"?

 

[mosi]

The Broncos were doing fine against New England the first time, until they started turning it over. The Broncos (w/Tebow starting) have yet to lose a game this season when they've been even or ahead in the turnover battle. Saying that they have no chance is just silly.

Exactly. Have been re-watching the week 15 game and the game was a lot closer than the score. The broncos fought hard for a full 60 minutes They played hard and they ran hard. Their run game dropped fast when their running back left the game and they stopped trying to run.

Most pats games come down to a few plays. If the pats make them, they do OK. If they don't, they are in trouble.

This game is going to be a lot closer than people think and will show the true "intestinal fortitude" of this team.

 

[FCB02062]

Since the Patriots defense has gone into a statistical swoon, the team has had a hard time winning when the offense turns it over and they're even or minus on the turnover ratio. Look at the games they've lost the last two seasons, including the playoffs....common theme? The Pats turned it over and didn't create enough turnovers to even the tide. NYG and Buffalo this season, NYJ last season in the playoffs and in week 2, Cleveland last season...Baltimore in the playoffs in 09....
If Brady takes care of the ball, makes smart throws, and doesn't force into triple coverage, odds are the Patriots will win the game Saturday night. Turnovers are the great equalizer football and they've helped the Patriots win alot of games the last few seasons with a below average defense....lets hope it continues Saturday night

 

[PatriotSeven]

My formula was designed to predict the final score AGAINST THE SPREAD. We all know that San Francisco will beat, say, the St. Louis Rams. But will they beat them by 15 points?

My formula *tried* to answer that question.

Using winning percentage as you do is like peeking at tomorrow's newspaper and then stating which teams will win and lose. The winning percentage will predict relative strengths, but will not give you a predicted final score against the spread.

And how does one measure "execution"? I'm curious, not trying to troll with this question. The notion that there's some stat on NFL.com called "Execution Percentage" seems like a bit of stretch. Isn't this a composite stat that rests on dozens of other stats, kinda like the so-called "QB Rating"?

If you're talking about betting. I don't use just winning percentage. I use a very simple and effective method which I already re-stated a million times. Efficiency and turnovers. Or even simpler, execution. Yards per point. Look it up. People have tried to re-define the wheel lately when it comes down to it, but it's been one of the most effective methods of predicting the spread and winning for decades and still the most important stat in football. It continues to outperform other "new and hyped stats" just like it always has. Because efficiency/execution/yards per point, in essence measures your offense's ability to score points. Your team efficiency, offense and defense combined, measures your team's ability to outscore your opponent.

Total points, total yards, total first downs, total turnovers, all of those fall short and correlate less accurately to winning than the number used to actually measure a team's ability to outscore for the win on any given week.

If you can quantify a team's ability to outscore another team in a number, you're basically quantifying their ability to beat them and win the game. And it also happens to be pretty accurate in measuring actual scores too against the spread.

Notice the difference in wording. It doesn't measure the amount of points a team can score. It measures a team's ability to outscore. That means its irrelevant if the Pats can beat you in a game scoring 17-15, 35-31 or 49-21. In the end their ability to outscore Denver is greater. When you combine it with yards per play and turnovers, it can predict a spread very, very effectively. But what I am more concerned with isn't its ability to predict whether the Patriots will score 30 points or 21 or beat the spread but rather its ability to predict that the Patriots will have the higher number on any given Sunday.

There is no possible stat you can pull up and look up that would nullify or out predict this unless it's a more accurate measure of measuring a team's ability to outscore. Whatever you are looking at, it's included in this. First downs don't measure a team's ability to outscore. It's relationship to a win is so far away that it's simply far less accurate. You're better off looking at yards.

For example offensive efficiency has been accurately indicating that Denver was a favorite to beat Pittsburg when no other analyst, stat, including winning percentage would have. And Denver did. And the whole world is shocked. I'm not. Because history has proven a more efficient offense will beat another team even if that other team has the #1 defense. #1 defense can't make up for an opponent with a much more efficient offense who out-executes you.

In fact offensive efficiency accurately predicted all 4 winning playoff teams. It's accurately predicted the majority of teams with winning records this season and in the history of football and all sports. The majority of playoff winners in the playoffs. In the AFC/NFC Champhionship games. And yes, Super Bowls as well.

It's currently predicting the Super Bowl teams favored are Patriots versus either 49ers or Green Bay.

Take this weekend game between the 49ers and Saints. How many analysts on ESPN, or fans, or the general public are going to pick the 49ers as favorites over the Saints? Well guess what? They are. Saints are underdogs according to efficiency and execution. The 49ers have a better overall ability to outscore the Saints. The Saints may get by them, which I hope they do because it will make for a more exciting match-up, but it's highly unlikely they will get past both the 49ers and GB to make the Super Bowl.

In fact who on this forum would consider the 49ers favorites over the Patriots? You're probably going to find your share of Patriots fans that will scoff it. Well guess what? Pats are underdogs to the 49ers. And the 49ers are damn near even or about as close as you can get to matching GB toe for toe. You can argue the 49ers are the best team in football.

And is anyone even mentioning them? Why? Because their quarterback's name is Alex Smith? With all due respect to proven coaches like Bill and Peyton, but what Harbaugh did with the 49ers this year, without a change at quarterback or serious personnel change is scary. That team and that coach are going to be a force in this league.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

If you're talking about betting. I don't use just winning percentage. I use a very simple and effective method which I already re-stated a million times. Efficiency and turnovers. Or even simpler, execution...

These are all very compelling arguments, and on paper I'll concede all of the major points to you. In a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, you'd go home with the trophy.

But I'm also an irrational fan and I'm just not prepared to say that this once-in-a-lifetime ride is going to end on Saturday night. I can't explain why this is so, there are no stats to back it up, and I'm not religious nor am I waiting for some kind of divine intervention.

But I am going to "believe" and if I do "unbelieve things can happen".

 

[The Brandon Five]

Well, good thing for you that you guys didn't have to get your jerseys dirty, isn't it?

That's the difference between going 13-3 and 8-8. There's no "degree of difficulty" score in football.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

Speaking of stats and a winning percentage, I just spotted this on ESPN:

"5-1

Since 2004, playoff teams that enter the postseason at .500 or worse are 5-1 in the wild-card round. Touché, NFC West and AFC West. It seems everyone else has been being good during the regular season for absolutely nothing. Fools!"

Tim Tebow spawns theories to explain his development as quarterback of the Denver Broncos - ESPN