threats to Pats in AFC

[supafly]

I haven't followed the offseason very closely so I might be missing some things but it seems like a weak year in the AFC. We seem like the best team on paper by a healthy margin. Here are superbowl odds from the first link google gave me:

Pats 7-1
Steelers 10-1
Broncos 17-1
Chiefs 20-1
Bengals 20-1
Colts 35-1
Raiders 30-1
Ravens 40-1

Steelers are still loaded at the skill positions and have a HC / QB combo who has gotten it done before. IS there D any better?

Bronco's did it last year with no QB. Can they do it again? They seem a little low on the list. Did they lose anyone important from last year?

Chiefs seem high.

Bengals and Colts can't get it done in the playoffs until they prove otherwise.

Why are the raiders so high?

Why are the Ravens so low?

Do you agree that the Pats are the favorites to win the AFC and who are the biggest threats?

The Ravens are so low due to the general public (read:suckers) basing their predictions and movement of money off of the most recent season, rather than their larger body of work.

Unfortunately for them, they forget that all of the stars on last year's team were injured (Flacco, Steve Smith, Pitta, first round WR Periman, Dumerville, Suggs), so they somehow assume that they'll suck again. It's odd. While the Ravens are generally a 10-6 or even 9-7 team, they've proven to be formidable in the postseason, even at the lowest of seeds. 40-1 odds are a value pick, even for plopping down a twenty dollar bill.

 

[JMC00]

The steelers. I am still concerned with this secondary. Not enough size and i wonder how much man coverage they will play. Teams with size at wr will give this team problems.

Odell Beckham, DeAndre Hopkins and Demaryius Thomas

10 rec 200 yards 1 TD

take away the 87 yard TD by Beckham

9 rec 113 rec 0 TD to 3 of the top 10 receivers

but ya should be concerned with the secondary

 

[Ring 6]

If I were a betting man, I'd look at the odds for the Jets (60-1 Super Bowl, 30-1 AFC).

The defensive line is very strong, they have two good running backs and a big-play receiver. Above all, they have a serious, level-headed coach, for a change. If they get on a roll (and if JG doesn't get the job done in the first 4 weeks) they could be difficult to stop.

I'm NOT saying that they are favourites -- just under-priced. (Oh, and, of course, once, now and always ... Jets Suck!)

The jets could be 1000000 to 1 and it would still be a bad bet. They have zero chance of winning the SB. ZERO

 

[Ring 6]

The Ravens are so low due to the general public (read:suckers) basing their predictions and movement of money off of the most recent season, rather than their larger body of work.

Unfortunately for them, they forget that all of the stars on last year's team were injured (Flacco, Steve Smith, Pitta, first round WR Periman, Dumerville, Suggs), so they somehow assume that they'll suck again. It's odd. While the Ravens are generally a 10-6 or even 9-7 team, they've proven to be formidable in the postseason, even at the lowest of seeds. 40-1 odds are a value pick, even for plopping down a twenty dollar bill.

They were bad last year before the injuries gave them an excuse.

 

[Ring 6]

They were bad last year before the injuries gave them an excuse.

To expand on this they were 2-5 with Steve smith. They were 3-7 with flacco and forsett.
They had 9 defensive players start 14 or more games a 10th start the first 9 and they were 2-7 when he went down.
FYI dumerville played all 16 last year.

 

[jmt57]

I think Pittsburgh is the obvious top choice for the team to be the primary threat in the AFC. Even with injuries to major players they were right in it deep into the post season.

While Denver will take a step back, I don't believe it will be as dramatic as some here have predicted (or hoped for). The Broncos still have most of the pieces from last year's team in place.

WR: same (Demaryius Thomas, Emmanuel Sanders, Jordan Norwood, Bennie Fowler.
TE: Owen Daniels is gone, leaving Virgil Green as the starter.
OL: Former Seahawk Russell Okung replaces Ryan Harris at LT, not a bad swap at all. Max Garcia is a downgrade from Evan Mathis at LG, but Michael Schofield should be an upgrade over Louis Vasquez at RG. Schofield finished last year at RT; Donald Stephenson takes over that position. The biggest problem may be the lack of continuity on the offensive line with so many changes, especially early in the season.
RB: C.J. Anderson still starts, with Devontae Booker replacing Ronnie Hillman.
QB: Trevor Siemian starts and Paxton Lynch is the backup, but is this truly any worse than it was last year with Peyton Manning?

While the offense is in transition, the defense is relatively stable.

DL: the same, with Derek Wolfe and Jared Crick at DE and Sylvester Williams at NT.
LB: Von Miller and DeMarcus Ware return on the outside, and Brandon Marshall returns on the inside. The only dropoff is the loss of ILB Danny Trevathan, who is replaced by former UDFA Todd Davis.
DB: the secondary remains intact with corners Aqib Talib, Chris Harris and Bradley Roby at nickel; T.J. Ward is the strong safety and Darian Stewart the free safety.


While the media has focused on the quarterback position, the real question is Denver's offensive line. (Does that sound familiar?) I doubt that they will go 12-4 again; but I (unfortunately) expect them to still be very competitive. Their defense may not be able to carry them the way they did last year but they are not going to drop as precipitously as some have predicted.

 

[IllegalContact]

Yes, that's tough. But none look un-winnable.

They will be underdogs in all of those games

 

[IllegalContact]

The Ravens are so low due to the general public (read:suckers) basing their predictions and movement of money off of the most recent season, rather than their larger body of work.

Unfortunately for them, they forget that all of the stars on last year's team were injured (Flacco, Steve Smith, Pitta, first round WR Periman, Dumerville, Suggs), so they somehow assume that they'll suck again. It's odd. While the Ravens are generally a 10-6 or even 9-7 team, they've proven to be formidable in the postseason, even at the lowest of seeds. 40-1 odds are a value pick, even for plopping down a twenty dollar bill.

The Ravens are the oldest team in the league.......between their skill guys and their pass rush, injuries have a strong potential for the Ravens

 

[supafly]

The Ravens are the oldest team in the league.......between their skill guys and their pass rush, injuries have a strong potential for the Ravens

Last we saw they were up 14 on the road--twice in the postseason, and almost pulled the upset again.

I don't think they're anything special, but they're generally a team who threatens a postseason appearance in most years. I'm not sure that we can write them off just yet.

It's also worth noting that they don't have the oldest team in the NFL as you've stated. That belongs to the Falcons.

The Falcons have the oldest roster in the NFL

 

[supafly]

To exists on this they were 2-5 with Steve smith. They were 3-7 with flacco and forsett.
They had 9 defensive players start 14 or more games a 10th start the first 9 and they were 2-7 when he went down.
FYI dumerville played all 16 last year.

Pretty sure they set a record for the most games lost by less than a TD or some abstract stat. It may not be worth much, but it is notable on some level.

What did they end up winning? 5-6 games? That was with lots of injuries, bad luck (terrible call to give JAX the victory), and many close games. I think they have the capacity to swap several of those losses into victories this year. I don't expect a repeat of last year. I expect something like their normal 9-7 mediocrity. Just my opinion.

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

Baltimore is where Pitt was 3-4 years ago, with a really aging core, but no real options.

They will ride this out another year and start to build out their roster again. They will fight for a playoff spot, but they are still the third best team in their own division.

 

[aluminum seats]

If the Jets are 3-3 after the first six, they should be popping champagne in New York.

They will be underdogs at home to the Bengals and the Seahawks (who are still thought of as one of hte premier teams in the league).

They will be huge underdogs in Pittsburgh, and I think Brown owns them in that game.

They will be huge underdogs in Arizona.

They will be underdogs in Kansas City, one of the toughest places to play.

They also don't get the Jimmy G break, as Brady is back for both meetings. Could be a tough year for the Jets. Key for them is Brandon Marshall - can he play like he did last yer (out of his mind)?

Revis is regressing. Their secondary beyond him isn't that good. Cromarte is gone.

Meh.

A little nitpick for you, Revis isn't regressing. He'd love to be regressing. He's just getting old.

 

[Ring 6]

Pretty sure they set a record for the most games lost by less than a TD or some abstract stat. It may not be worth much, but it is notable on some level.

What did they end up winning? 5-6 games? That was with lots of injuries, bad luck (terrible call to give JAX the victory), and many close games. I think they have the capacity to swap several of those losses into victories this year. I don't expect a repeat of last year. I expect something like their normal 9-7 mediocrity. Just my opinion.

My point is that blaming their 5-11 season in injuries is specious since the season was in the tank before them. I do t think they set any record but they also won only 1 game by more than 3 beating the Browns by 6 (and splitting with them) so that kind of negates the they were better than their recurs because they lost by 8 or less argument to me.
I see 6 or 7 wins at best.

 

[obgod3]

I don't know if the Broncos are going to take a step back, the defense still looks very tough. Offensively I think they will be better than last year. So to me the Broncos are the Pats toughest matchup still, plus they don't do particularly well out here in Denver. Steelers will always be right there so that's a tough one. I also think Miami could make a run. I do think the buffalo defense is going to be tough also.

Regardless the Pats O Line better get good, fast.

 

[Bill Lee]

Here are superbowl odds from the first link google gave me:

Pats 7-1
Steelers 10-1
Broncos 17-1
Chiefs 20-1
Bengals 20-1
Colts 35-1
Raiders 30-1
Ravens 40-1

I guess they're hiring banks of super-computers to calculate all those digits in the odds for the Jets ...

 

[FourierSeries]

I don't know if the Broncos are going to take a step back, the defense still looks very tough. Offensively I think they will be better than last year. So to me the Broncos are the Pats toughest matchup still, plus they don't do particularly well out here in Denver. Steelers will always be right there so that's a tough one. I also think Miami could make a run. I do think the buffalo defense is going to be tough also.

Regardless the Pats O Line better get good, fast.

Denver will get steamrolled if we can stay healthy (something we weren't able to do last year in either game) and if the OL doesn't **** the bed. We have the personnel to light them up. Also, their QB situation is laughable.

 

[supafly]

My point is that blaming their 5-11 season in injuries is specious since the season was in the tank before them. I do t think they set any record but they also won only 1 game by more than 3 beating the Browns by 6 (and splitting with them) so that kind of negates the they were better than their recurs because they lost by 8 or less argument to me.
I see 6 or 7 wins at best.

For the record, I'm not meaning to come off as argumentative. I'm just giving my opinion. As a matter of fact, I think you and I have this same conversation in most recent years.

My thought is simply that there's a good amount of parity in the AFCN, and I could certainly envision them getting in as a WC. It's going to take another year of poor play from them before I write them off.

 

[Gronkowski123]

Injuries and ourselves. I'm not afraid of any of these AFC teams.

Pitt? Give me a break. TB12 always destroys them no matter what!

The Hoodie > Tomlin

 

[IllegalContact]

Last we saw they were up 14 on the road--twice in the postseason, and almost pulled the upset again.

I don't think they're anything special, but they're generally a team who threatens a postseason appearance in most years. I'm not sure that we can write them off just yet.

It's also worth noting that they don't have the oldest team in the NFL as you've stated. That belongs to the Falcons.

The Falcons have the oldest roster in the NFL

Kicker and a bunch of scrubs.....ravens wr are old as well as their OLBs....and there's nothing backing that age up

 

[supafly]

Kicker and a bunch of scrubs.....ravens wr are old as well as their OLBs....and there's nothing backing that age up

Aside from Steve Smith, who is still a competitive beast, how are Mike Wallace and a first round promising WR considered "old?" Their WR group has probably improved, not gotten worse. We will see over time. I'm guessing Jump Ball Joe is good with his receivers, though.

People here made the same silly argument last season regarding DeMarcus Ware's age, and all he did was torture Tom Brady and our OL in the most important game of the season. Dumerville and Suggs are still formidable. You're right that they're running out of gas and getting older, but they could do a lot worse.

I'm predicting their usual 9-7 record, so it's not like I'm claiming they'll be the AFC champs. It will take a consecutive losing season for me before I write them off, that's all.