Broncos look good.....

[Kontradiction]

First, I am not making excuses for anything. I have been highlighting how it was different. The Pats of 2011 had their issues, but their issues were very different than the Broncos issues of this year.

That the issues are different is almost irrelevant. They were still important issues which those that railed against the Pats used as a main focal point in their argument for why the Pats wouldn't do anything in the playoffs. Some could make a compelling argument for why the issues that surrounded the 2011 Patriots were more handicapping than the issues surrounding the 2012 Broncos.

As for almost wins, of course they are losses, but how you lose especially against good teams can say something your team. the fact that the Pats took the Giants to the wire while the Broncos have gotten blown out by every great team they have faced speaks to both teams. Yes, they are all losses, but it tells you something about each team.

I'll respond to this with a question: Do you think this Patriots team, as it's currently playing, is different from the Patriots team that we saw earlier in the season?

As for the slow starts, I may be wrong there about the Pats.

You are. The 2011 Patriots had many slow starts on offense.

As for the Pats' 2011 schedule, they didn't face too many top teams BUT their schedule was brutal compared to who the Broncos have faced this year. The Pats faced a lot of 8-8, 9-7 type of teams (I think 10 games were vs. teams with 8-8 or better records) but only two teams with less than 6 wins. The Broncos will definitely have 8 games vs. teams with sub .500 records and possibly that number could be as many as 11 games vs. sub .500 teams depending how the next two weeks shake out.

The Broncos definitely have a weak schedule, but you have to play who you're scheduled to play, correct? That's what we as Patriots fans have been telling all the detractors over the years. As for the Broncos, they're beating this weak schedule. That's what good teams are supposed to, isn't that right?

As for the argument the 2011 Pats haven't faced anyone, that is another argument to show how the 2011 Pats and the 2012 Broncos are different. The 2012 Broncos have faced somebodies and failed each time by getting blown out (at least a 10 point loss each game) every time. So the 2011 Pats may have performed well against the average teams in the NFL and never been tested, the 2012 Broncos have not performed well vs. the elite teams.

The Broncos haven't played a good team since the Patriots earlier in the year and actually made that game interesting (a little too interesting for my tastes). Since then, they've had the softest part of their schedule. Every good, playoff caliber team changes over the course of the season and most end up getting better.

Lastly, the 2011 Pats had a lot of things break their way to get to the Super Bowl. Rothlisberger was injured which gave the Pats an easy match up with the Broncos. The Texans were down to their third string QB by the time they reached the playoffs. The Ravens could have and some say should have won the AFC Championship game if not for a strip of the game winning TD if he held onto for a second longer would have been a TD and a shanked field goal that would have sent the game into overtime. The Pats were fortunate to face a weaken AFC field. They might have still gone to the Super Bowl without it, but we will never know. If the Broncos face a full strength or near full strength Patriots, they will not have such an easy route to a potential Super Bowl. Things fell right for the Pats last year in the playoffs.

Things tend to break right for Super Bowl contenders. That's one of the components of a run. However, aside from the Pats, I don't see anybody in the AFC that can give this Broncos team, as it's currently playing, that many problems. For instance, I can't see Houston dominating them again in the playoffs the way they did in the regular season. Baltimore is on it's last legs. Cincy might be able to give them a game but in the end, Dalton wouldn't be able to match firepower and the Broncos' strength is their CB's, and the Colts definitely aren't ready yet. The AFC isn't as weak as it was last year, but let's not make the conference out to look like a juggernaut, either.

I think I have made a pretty good case how both teams are different. I am not excuse making because there is no reason to make excuses for the 2011 Pats' team. I am arguing how the two teams are different, not the merits of the 2011 team.

You're arguing about how the two teams are different when they're really not all that different aside from the "downsides" that the detractors pointed out about us last year and the Broncos this year.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Am I the only one that does not give a ***** about other teams or giving them praise? I dont give an F about how good a team looks. In my mind, its the Patriots, and then a bunch of bums.

No, you're not the only one. Fortunately, there are only a few of you out there. :bricks:

 

[SVN]

Sometimes you have to play average teams to get your confidence and tempo going and thats exactly what broncos have done. They have not lost games they are supposed to win..which unfortunately the pats have with seattle and arizona. They have not blown a 9 pt lead vs Baltimore. Yes we matchup well with denver but this overconfidence that we can beat them that too on the road is something I cant understand. And as much as you dislike him or say he has choked in the past -He is still peyton manning .And no QB makes BB more worried than him.

 

[SVN]

I look at it this way........

the pats have the ability to beat anyone, anywhere......if everyone brings their A games, the pats come out on top everywhere.

If the pats don't win out it is simply because they did not come close to playing the way they are capable of playing.

the pats played like idiots in the first half against the niners.....actually, they only played about 15-20 miinutes of decent football........a full 60 would have made the niners look like the rams.......same with seattle......same with anyone.

it now comes down to #12.....if he plays scared, the pats are screwed regardless of what the defense does.

Some credit goes to san fran. They came and ran plays out of the pistol,played aggressive to win. And on defense they really were too quick for us early on.So we played like crap but the other team had something to do with it.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

However, aside from the Pats, I don't see anybody in the AFC that can give this Broncos team, as it's currently playing, that many problems. For instance, I can't see Houston dominating them again in the playoffs the way they did in the regular season. Baltimore is on it's last legs. Cincy might be able to give them a game but in the end, Dalton wouldn't be able to match firepower and the Broncos' strength is their CB's, and the Colts definitely aren't ready yet.

Sorry, but this is borderline foolish. The NFL is such an up-and-down league, and every year we think all the chips will fall exactly as it looks going into the postseason. Cincy may not even make the playoffs- in fact, I think Pittsburgh will get in. Last year everyone would have said Houston was "on its last legs" without Schaub, and they nearly made it to the AFCCG. The Broncos were supposed to roll over last year against the Steelers, who would surely annihilate their run-only offense.

Meanwhile, you write off the Colts. You don't think the Colts against Manning would make for some great entertainment and probably a competitive game, with many players who have intimate knowledge of Peyton's tendencies and offensive system? Let's not forget about the teams that are just playing with the house's money and have no pressure.

Last year, the Patriots waltzed through the regular season and then came against a brick wall defense against Baltimore, who everyone said would get pummeled by them after seeing the AFCD games. And did you think the Jets had any chance to beat us in '10?

That doesn't even take into account the NFC, if you really want to see the wild west, just look at how that conference has gone down the last few years.

I would be saying the same thing if the Pats were the "hot team", and this isn't to belittle the Broncos. The bottom line is, there are 6 good teams in the race every year, the football is oval-shaped and bounces is strange directions, and players, just like fans, feel the pressure to win and react to it in different ways.

So, while there is every reason to think the Broncos have just as good a shot of winning it as any other team, if not a better shot, they are still far from a lock from winning the conference, even if they do beat the Pats.

 

[Kontradiction]

Sorry, but this is borderline foolish. The NFL is such an up-and-down league, and every year we think all the chips will fall exactly as it looks going into the postseason. Cincy may not even make the playoffs- in fact, I think Pittsburgh will get in. Last year everyone would have said Houston was "on its last legs" without Schaub, and they nearly made it to the AFCCG.

Yeah but they didn't.

The Broncos were supposed to roll over last year against the Steelers, who would surely annihilate their run-only offense.

The Steelers weren't a very good team last year and one of their starting safeties (not to mention their enforcer over the middle) wasn't playing. I'm really not sure why so many jump on their wagon for a win. Regardless, Denver eventually got annihilated like so many thought they would. In the end, it was the two teams competing for the AFC that everyone thought would be there.

Meanwhile, you write off the Colts. You don't think the Colts against Manning would make for some great entertainment and probably a competitive game, with many players who have intimate knowledge of Peyton's tendencies and offensive system? Let's not forget about the teams that are just playing with the house's money and have no pressure.

Entertainment is one thing. A win for the Colts against the Broncos is another. They aren't ready. They're defense is not that good and is in transition, as is their offense where their rookie quarterback is still learning to go through his progressions properly.

And did you think the Jets had any chance to beat us in '10?

I openly warned people against rooting for the Jets in the 2010 Wild Card round, then mocked the people that did then cried about the Pats losing to them after the Divisional round.

That doesn't even take into account the NFC, if you really want to see the wild west, just look at how that conference has gone down the last few years.

I would be saying the same thing if the Pats were the "hot team", and this isn't to belittle the Broncos. The bottom line is, there are 6 good teams in the race every year, the football is oval-shaped and bounces is strange directions, and players, just like fans, feel the pressure to win and react to it in different ways.

Look, I'm not saying that an upset of the Broncos by a team other than the Pats couldn't happen. It very well could, and hopefully will. But, from where I'm sitting, I'm looking at the weaker of the two conferences. Outside of the Pats, you have a Baltimore team whose wheels are falling off due to injury, a Houston team who has seen their pass defense struggle of late, a Colts team in a rebuilding year and overacheiving, a Cincy team with a good defense but inconsistent offense whose strengths in the air play right into the strength of the Broncos defense, and an aging and, at times, struggling Pittsburgh team that lost to the Broncos back when they were still struggling.

 

[Rob0729]

That the issues are different is almost irrelevant. They were still important issues which those that railed against the Pats used as a main focal point in their argument for why the Pats wouldn't do anything in the playoffs. Some could make a compelling argument for why the issues that surrounded the 2011 Patriots were more handicapping than the issues surrounding the 2012 Broncos.



I'll respond to this with a question: Do you think this Patriots team, as it's currently playing, is different from the Patriots team that we saw earlier in the season?



You are. The 2011 Patriots had many slow starts on offense.



The Broncos definitely have a weak schedule, but you have to play who you're scheduled to play, correct? That's what we as Patriots fans have been telling all the detractors over the years. As for the Broncos, they're beating this weak schedule. That's what good teams are supposed to, isn't that right?



The Broncos haven't played a good team since the Patriots earlier in the year and actually made that game interesting (a little too interesting for my tastes). Since then, they've had the softest part of their schedule. Every good, playoff caliber team changes over the course of the season and most end up getting better.



Things tend to break right for Super Bowl contenders. That's one of the components of a run. However, aside from the Pats, I don't see anybody in the AFC that can give this Broncos team, as it's currently playing, that many problems. For instance, I can't see Houston dominating them again in the playoffs the way they did in the regular season. Baltimore is on it's last legs. Cincy might be able to give them a game but in the end, Dalton wouldn't be able to match firepower and the Broncos' strength is their CB's, and the Colts definitely aren't ready yet. The AFC isn't as weak as it was last year, but let's not make the conference out to look like a juggernaut, either.



You're arguing about how the two teams are different when they're really not all that different aside from the "downsides" that the detractors pointed out about us last year and the Broncos this year.

We are going around in circles on this so I will say a couple things and be done.

• We are talking about the Broncos in relations to whether they meet the Pats in Denver in the Divisional Round. All this talk about the 2011 Pats and whether teams that go to the Super Bowl gets breaks is irrelevant. The 2011 Patriots essentially had two bye weeks in the playoffs last year because they faced a vastly inferior Broncos team in the Divisional round and needed some breaks to beat the Ravens in AFC Championships. Unless the fact the Pats are going to Denver in the divisional round means that Gronk definitely won't play or some other lucky break for the Broncos is guaranteed to occur, there is no comparison to the 2011 team in that respect. This conversation is about whether we should be afraid about playing Denver in Denver. No one can argue that the Pats are vastly inferior to the Broncos even if you think the Broncos. Lucky breaks cannot be counted on.
• I agree that the Broncos are the second best team in the AFC. Overall, the AFC is a weak Conference in terms of playoff teams. Only the Pats, Broncos, and Texans could sniff the playoffs if they were in the NFC. That said, I think the Texans could beat the Broncos. I think they can get a fast start on the Broncos and the Broncos not being able to rebound. I also disagree that no team in the AFC can give the Broncos any problems other the Pats. KC gave the Broncos problems a few weeks ago and if they had an average QB, they might have beaten the Broncos.
• As to your question about the Pats today being different than earlier in the season. Of course I do. Brady and the offense have had an offensive explosion in the last month and a half and the defense is being far more aggressive. BTW, you want to talk about dumb arguments, Broncos fans and Pats haters use the "Broncos are a much different team than when the faced the Pats" argument to argue why the Broncos would beat the Pats as if the Pats haven't improved since then. Both teams have.

 

[Rob0729]

Entertainment is one thing. A win for the Colts against the Broncos is another. They aren't ready. They're defense is not that good and is in transition, as is their offense where their rookie quarterback is still learning to go through his progressions properly.

No offense, but I think that is ridiculous to make a bold statement like that. We have seen time and time again that anything can happen in the playoffs.

People said the Packers were a year or two away from making a legitimate run for the Super Bowl the year they won it. They 8-6 at this point in 2010 and most people question whether they would even get into the playoff nevermind go to the Super Bowl and win it. That team was decimated by injuries and their offense was erratic during the season (sometime world class, sometimes non-existent).

In 2010, no one in the world thought the Jets could come into Foxboro and beat the Pats either.

Odds are good that the Colts couldn't beat the Broncos, but if Andrew Luck got hot, I think there is a chance they could pull out a victory vs. the Broncos.

Heck, the last time the Colts won the Super Bowl, everyone thought they were one and done in the playoffs because they had a historically bad defense.

 

[Huckleberry1]

All I know is this, if we were facing a team that was averaging almost 40 points a game against us over the past year I wouldn't feel too good about that match-up, even with Brady playing great. If Denver shows they can stymie the Patriots offense next time around I will change my tune on it, until then i feel really good about the Patriots against them.

 

[Kontradiction]

We are going around in circles on this so I will say a couple things and be done.

• We are talking about the Broncos in relations to whether they meet the Pats in Denver in the Divisional Round. All this talk about the 2011 Pats and whether teams that go to the Super Bowl gets breaks is irrelevant. The 2011 Patriots essentially had two bye weeks in the playoffs last year because they faced a vastly inferior Broncos team in the Divisional round and needed some breaks to beat the Ravens in AFC Championships. Unless the fact the Pats are going to Denver in the divisional round means that Gronk definitely won't play or some other lucky break for the Broncos is guaranteed to occur, there is no comparison to the 2011 team in that respect. This conversation is about whether we should be afraid about playing Denver in Denver. No one can argue that the Pats are vastly inferior to the Broncos even if you think the Broncos. Lucky breaks cannot be counted on.
• I agree that the Broncos are the second best team in the AFC. Overall, the AFC is a weak Conference in terms of playoff teams. Only the Pats, Broncos, and Texans could sniff the playoffs if they were in the NFC. That said, I think the Texans could beat the Broncos. I think they can get a fast start on the Broncos and the Broncos not being able to rebound. I also disagree that no team in the AFC can give the Broncos any problems other the Pats. KC gave the Broncos problems a few weeks ago and if they had an average QB, they might have beaten the Broncos.
• As to your question about the Pats today being different than earlier in the season. Of course I do. Brady and the offense have had an offensive explosion in the last month and a half and the defense is being far more aggressive. BTW, you want to talk about dumb arguments, Broncos fans and Pats haters use the "Broncos are a much different team than when the faced the Pats" argument to argue why the Broncos would beat the Pats as if the Pats haven't improved since then. Both teams have.

Rob, for one, your original point was that you were unsure if Denver could compete with the elite of the conference due to their inability to beat them earlier in the season. A comparison to our very own 2011 Patriots was inevitable, and is surely NOT irrelevant. For another, your logic about KC almost beating Denver can also be applied to Miami almost beating New England. For a third, given that you recognize that the Broncos are a better team than earlier in the year, why are you still unsure if Denver can compete with the big boys in the AFC?

No offense, but I think that is ridiculous to make a bold statement like that. We have seen time and time again that anything can happen in the playoffs.

I noted as much in my last sentence.

People said the Packers were a year or two away from making a legitimate run for the Super Bowl the year they won it. They 8-6 at this point in 2010 and most people question whether they would even get into the playoff nevermind go to the Super Bowl and win it. That team was decimated by injuries and their offense was erratic during the season (sometime world class, sometimes non-existent).

I can pull up posts of mine where I stated, clearly, on here that the Packers were my candidate to make the Super Bowl prior to the 2010 playoffs. As it happened, they developed a running game. They already had the defense and the quarterback.

In 2010, no one in the world thought the Jets could come into Foxboro and beat the Pats either.

There were quite a few people on here cautioning members to be careful of what they wished for when they were rooting for the Jets to beat the Colts that year.

Odds are good that the Colts couldn't beat the Broncos, but if Andrew Luck got hot, I think there is a chance they could pull out a victory vs. the Broncos.

Any given Sunday. There's always a *chance* that a team could squeak out an upset. But, from where we're sitting right now, I see a Colts team whose strengths play right into the Broncos hands. A lot of their offense is dictated upon Andrew Luck's ability to strike down the field to his wide receivers either between the hashes or down the sideline with Hilton. With the Broncos two corners, they could easily control the Colts unless they have an off day. They also have a front seven that can slow down Ballard and the run game. To me, the only two teams that can exploit the Broncos weakness to cover the TE's down the seam are Houston and New England.

Heck, the last time the Colts won the Super Bowl, everyone thought they were one and done in the playoffs because they had a historically bad defense.

And those people weren't wrong. What happened was Bob Sanders came back healthy and the run defense improved tenfold. The Colts run defense in the regular season was an absolute joke. If they would have brought that garbage in the playoffs, Larry Johnson would have ran them down like grass. In all, it's a bad comparison. The Colts run defense in the playoffs was a completely different unit than their run defense in the regular season.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob, for one, your original point was that you were unsure if Denver could compete with the elite of the conference due to their inability to beat them earlier in the season. A comparison to our very own 2011 Patriots was inevitable, and is surely NOT irrelevant. For another, your logic about KC almost beating Denver can also be applied to Miami almost beating New England. For a third, given that you recognize that the Broncos are a better team than earlier in the year, why are you still unsure if Denver can compete with the big boys in the AFC?

Again, the Pats of 2011 didn't prove they could beat the elite teams of the NFL at least without a few breaks going their way.

As for the KC thing, why are you constantly bringing the Patriots into the argument? What the Pats did or didn't do vs. Miami have to do with my example of proof of a vastly inferior team giving the Broncos problems a few weeks ago as a reason to support that a far better team could give them troubles in the playoffs? Stop bringing the Pats into everything when they are irrelevant. You said that Colts weren't ready to beat the Broncos in the playoffs because they were deficient. I giving you examples of why they might be able to if they get hot.

I can pull up posts of mine where I stated, clearly, on here that the Packers were my candidate to make the Super Bowl prior to the 2010 playoffs. As it happened, they developed a running game. They already had the defense and the quarterback.

And I can pull plenty of posts and articles off the Internet if I look hard enough that people thought the Packers might not even reach the playoffs this time two years ago. Two weeks from now things can radically change. For the sake of my point, why you said a year and 50 weeks ago (which was before the Pats' game since that game was in week 16) because two weeks can make a big difference in the playoffs. This time last year, people didn't think the Giants were going to make the playoffs. Six weeks later they were going to the Super Bowl.

There were quite a few people on here cautioning members to be careful of what they wished for when they were rooting for the Jets to beat the Colts that year.

Again, a few people means very little. I'm sure there are a few people who say the Colts will be a dangerous team if they get to the playoffs or the Steelers. The overwhelming sentiment was that the Pats were going to win in a route. In fact, the media were laughing at the Jets about how hard they were going to be smacked around. There are contrarians about every game when they are wrong, their comments disappear. When they are right, they are all the sudden geniuses. No one other than Jets fans and a select few thought the Jets would win and most of that select few were just lucky guessing.

Any given Sunday. There's always a *chance* that a team could squeak out an upset. But, from where we're sitting right now, I see a Colts team whose strengths play right into the Broncos hands. A lot of their offense is dictated upon Andrew Luck's ability to strike down the field to his wide receivers either between the hashes or down the sideline with Hilton. With the Broncos two corners, they could easily control the Colts unless they have an off day. They also have a front seven that can slow down Ballard and the run game. To me, the only two teams that can exploit the Broncos weakness to cover the TE's down the seam are Houston and New England.

I don't know. Dwayne Allen has been a pretty good TE/HB for the Colts this year.

And those people weren't wrong. What happened was Bob Sanders came back healthy and the run defense improved tenfold. The Colts run defense in the regular season was an absolute joke. If they would have brought that garbage in the playoffs, Larry Johnson would have ran them down like grass. In all, it's a bad comparison. The Colts run defense in the playoffs was a completely different unit than their run defense in the regular season.

Their run defense improved dramatically in the playoffs, but it was more than just Sanders. He was just one guy. Besides their defense didn't do all that well vs. the Pats in the first half in the AFC Championship game and the Pats' offense pretty much shot itself in the foot multiple times in the second half.

Also, look at the Giants last year. Or the Cards in 2008 (although they only made the Super Bowl). Or Giants in 2007. The NFL playoffs have been littered with teams who supposedly had no chance in the playoffs that have gotten to the Super Bowl and/or won it. It seems like every year there is at least half the games in the Division round being upsets.

 

[coolguy]

The nfl is a different beast now than it was during the montana and bradshaw era, were the best team won every year.

The teams with the most momentum have a greater chance of winning the superbowl than teams teams that dominated season.

The 14-2 chargers, 13-3 patriots and the 15-1 steelers all lost to teams that were hotter than they were at the time.

The steelers beat the patriots in week of the 2004 season, only to lose to a patriots team that were firing on all cylinders in the playoffs.

I still think the jets made it to two afccg because they were fighting to keep their season alive for the last month of the regular season.......

The patriots just need to get healthy and use the wild card round as momentum against the broncos.

 

[Kontradiction]

Again, the Pats of 2011 didn't prove they could beat the elite teams of the NFL at least without a few breaks going their way.

And, again, breaks fall one way or another for teams that make the Super Bowl. Luck is generally involved, and it could be involved with the Broncos this year. We'll have to see. But this argument still doesn't dispute the fact that there are many striking similarities between the 2012 Broncos and the 2011 Pats.

As for the KC thing, why are you constantly bringing the Patriots into the argument? What the Pats did or didn't do vs. Miami have to do with my example of proof of a vastly inferior team giving the Broncos problems a few weeks ago as a reason to support that a far better team could give them troubles in the playoffs? Stop bringing the Pats into everything when they are irrelevant.

Because the comparison is apt. You stated that the Broncos almost lost to KC and used it as evidence that they could possibly have trouble with or lose to the Colts. By that logic, the Pats also almost lost to an inept team in Miami, and by the same logic, they could also have trouble with or lose to the Colts. That it's driving you nuts to see the Patriots brought in and compared to isn't a fault of mine. In this case, your own logic has shot you in the foot. As for the irrelevant part of it, you've brought teams like the Packers (in a previous post), the Giants, and the Cardinals (in this post) into the argument. Sorry, but using the 2011 and 2012 Patriots as a comparison isn't irrelevant when the comparison, specifically with the 2011 version of the team, is so dead on.

You said that Colts weren't ready to beat the Broncos in the playoffs because they were deficient. I giving you examples of why they might be able to if they get hot.

They aren't ready. The only way that the Colts would give the Broncos, in Denver no less, a run for their money is if the Broncos had an off day or fell apart.

Again, a few people means very little. I'm sure there are a few people who say the Colts will be a dangerous team if they get to the playoffs or the Steelers.

Provide me with detailed examples of how you think the Colts would attack the Broncos, both defensively and offensively, in order to have a shot of winning the game.

The overwhelming sentiment was that the Pats were going to win in a route. In fact, the media were laughing at the Jets about how hard they were going to be smacked around. There are contrarians about every game when they are wrong, their comments disappear. When they are right, they are all the sudden geniuses. No one other than Jets fans and a select few thought the Jets would win and most of that select few were just lucky guessing.

Eh, I wouldn't say that's the case. It was the case that the media and many on here spoke louder, though it is certainly understandable. But if you actually looked at the game and took the rose colored glasses off, the warning signs were there. In 2010...

1. The Jets had beaten a Patriots team with a deep threat 28-14.

2. A lot of things broke right in the 45-3 meeting.

3. The 2010 Patriots kryptonite was a team that can play in your face press man while double bracketing the likes of Welker and Gronk. The Jets could do that.

4. The Patriots had trouble stopping teams with good running games off the right side of the LOS.

Understandably, though, the Patriots could have still won that game if not for a brainfart pick by Brady and if the Patriots had a defense that could consistently stop the run. Nevertheless, the warning signs were there. Playing the Jets was a 50/50 proposition that year while the team had beaten the Colts. Anybody expecting another blowout was kidding themselves and buying a little too much into the media hype.

I don't know. Dwayne Allen has been a pretty good TE/HB for the Colts this year.

He has been a surprise for them, no doubt. But he's still young. If Coby Fleener was fully healthy and was hitting his stride along with Allen, it would improve the Colts' chances against them in my mind. But it doesn't. Again, their strengths on offense play right into Denver's strengths on defense. In the end, I don't see them scoring enough to keep up with Manning.

Their run defense improved dramatically in the playoffs, but it was more than just Sanders. He was just one guy. Besides their defense didn't do all that well vs. the Pats in the first half in the AFC Championship game and the Pats' offense pretty much shot itself in the foot multiple times in the second half.

Their unit as a whole stepped up, but Sanders was the spark that made it happen. Still, my point stands. The Colts defense in that postseason was a completely different unit. If they hadn't of been, KC would have elminated them Wild Card weekend.

Also, look at the Giants last year.

A good team all year that went through various injury issues and a slump against a tougher schedule... and also beat the 2011 Pats.

Or the Cards in 2008 (although they only made the Super Bowl).

A good team that had the benefit of playing against a weaker conference, like the Broncos, Patriots, and Texans will this year.

Or Giants in 2007.

Another team that had the benefit of playing a weaker conference, followed by a team that they had played twice already and were very familiar with (not to mention Tony Romo), followed by a team throwing the game away in OT, followed by the luckiest performance of all time in the Super Bowl.

Essentially, I'll admit that a weaker conference is good for teams like the Colts and Bengals (young upstarts). But with teams like the Patriots, Broncos, and Texans, it gets significantly harder. None of those teams that you named had to go through truly elite teams in their conference. With the Cardinals, as soon as they did (against the Steelers), they lost.

The NFL playoffs have been littered with teams who supposedly had no chance in the playoffs that have gotten to the Super Bowl and/or won it. It seems like every year there is at least half the games in the Division round being upsets.

I'm not going to discount an upset. It happens every year, and I hope it can happen to the Texans or the Broncos. I'm just pointing out why I can't see it at this point in time.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

i don't see us in the SB this year...hopefully next...but i would rather lose in houston than in denver

 

[SVN]

Pats as per CHFF are 7th best ! ..wow

Denver Broncos Still No. 1 in our Quality Stats Power Rankings

 

[Reckedtrek]

Broncos look good.....

So don't the Pats.

 

[RIpats88]

I just think that from a pure talent stand-point, the Patriots have more all around talent than the broncos and are a better team despite what the record says.

and im still not convinced that the last 2 games are going to be such a cake-walk for them either...Kansas city gave them fits last time

ever since we became the 3rd seed, everyone on this site acts like teams have never gone on the road to the superbowl...in actuality, most of the last few superbowl winners ended up being teams that had to fight and play on the road to wins.