NFL Week 3 thread, Trent Richardson is a Colt

[Lathum]

That guy has more lives than a cat though. It seems that we have been in a position where we think that every couple years and then he wins another Super Bowl.... (I hate that man)

This year seems different. Those other teams had a lot of talent and weren't performing, then got hot. This team doesn't have nearly the talent and is underperforming.

He did just win a Super Bowl two seasons ago...

I'm not saying he is going to be or should be fired after this season, but they have had a pretty good run, at some point it was bound to end.

[Coffee Warlord]

Bears defense...opportunistic as hell (still), but the age is really showing this season.

[kingfc22]

Wow. What a catch by Brown.

[PurdueBrad]

WOW, what a grab!

[tucker rocky]

Do I smell a Bears letdown, now that they let the Steelers back in the game?

[Coffee Warlord]

Be nice if the Bears defense actually, you know, stopped someone.

[Coffee Warlord]

4th quarter is Jay Cutler time though!

[tucker rocky]

Hilarious play by Ben there. :lol:

[Coffee Warlord]

That looks dangerously like an MCL and/or ACL tear for Melton.

[Coffee Warlord]

That's a touchdown.

But it's not gonna be overturned.

[Coffee Warlord]

Wow. Did not expect that one to be overturned.

[hoopsguy]

Nice work by "the other" Bennett on the grab, as well as Collinsworth very quickly realizing that the foot did drag.

[Coffee Warlord]

4th quarter is Jay Cutler time though!

Jay Cutler time, bitches.

[hoopsguy]

Just crazy how many TDs the Bears defense have scored over the last 1+ seasons.

[mckerney]

Good lord the Steelers are awful.

IS LONDON READY FOR STEELERS VS. VIKINGS?

[britrock88]

They should count themselves lucky it's not the John Shoop era Bears.

Having flashbacks to late-'00s UNC, where he landed afterward. *shudders*

[Desnudo]

IS LONDON READY FOR STEELERS VS. VIKINGS?

I expect full anarchy

[Passacaglia]

You could argue that they are without their three best offensive players in Gronkowski, Amendola and Vereen.

:confused: I'm assuming you mean besides Brady?

[Suburban Rhythm]

what worse, steelers performance, or number of "Big Ben" jokes in London next week?

[Chief Rum]

:confused: I'm assuming you mean besides Brady?

I'm sure he meant skill position players.

[mckerney]

what worse, steelers performance, or number of "Big Ben" jokes in London next week?

The Big Ben jokes will only be interrupted by comments about the Vikings pondering the QB position.

I think Roethlisberger should be fine if Brian Hoyer can throw for 300 yards and 3 TDs against Minnesota. In the case he is terrible it might not matter as it seems turning the ball over 4 times against the Vikings isn't going to hurt a teams chances of winning.

[Coffee Warlord]

Looks like Melton is indeed out for the year with an ACL tear.

[mckerney]

Jacoby Jones injured last night after being hit in the head witha champagne bottle by a stripper named Sweet Pea.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Jacoby Jones injured last night after being hit in the head witha champagne bottle by a stripper named Sweet Pea.

If I had a dollar for every time this happened to me...

[Bobble]

I'm sure he meant skill position players.

:confused: I know it's semantics but QB is skill position, no? "Skill position" as opposed to linemen, is that not right?

[Thomkal]

How's this for an injury: Cardinals safety Rashad Johnson injured his finger after tackling Saints RB Darren Sproles on a punt return. He went to the sidelines to have it checked, pulled his hand out of his glove, and the tip of his middle finger remained behind. Had to have surgery to shave the finger down to his first knuckle, and to make sure there was no infection from having the bone exposed. Ewwwww! He's somehow Day to Day now on the injury list.

My beloved Cardinals lost two of their starting linebackers to season ending injuries as well, so its pretty much game over for them this season. :(

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000249502/article/rashad-johnson-lost-tip-of-finger-in-cardinals-game

[EagleFan]

Go Broncos!!! Run it up. Feel so satisfied that you overlook next week! :)

[BillJasper]

I'm starting to get a feeling that the only team that can stop the Broncos is the Broncos.

[EagleFan]

I'm starting to get a feeling that the only team that can stop the Broncos is the Broncos.

Seahawks/Broncos may have a date in New Jersey in February.

[Buccaneer]

Seahawks/Broncos may have a date in New Jersey in February.

That was my son's pre-season SB pick. I disagreed with him but he knows much more about this than I do.

[ColtCrazy]

This team is just so smooth. Home Field will be decided in that KC, @ Pats, @ KC stretch. Go 2-1 then, and maybe one other loss, and I'm sold.

[EagleFan]

This scares me. With how crappy the Eagles defense is the Broncos are going to score 70 points next week... :(

[EagleFan]

dola: and that's if Vick plays a good game. If he plays his normal "I can't make smart decisions" game which leads to 4-5 turnovers it will be like an old time college score like 102-21.

[Travis]

As a Seahawks fan, I'd be fascinated to see how our D would match up with the Bronco's offense.

That said, Wilson would need to play the best game of his young career for the Seahawks to have a shot at winning that matchup.

[Carman Bulldog]

:confused: I know it's semantics but QB is skill position, no? "Skill position" as opposed to linemen, is that not right?

Yes, it was poorly worded and probably should have read that "Brady is without his three best offensive weapons in Gronk, Amendola and Vereen." Obviously Brady (and even Logan Mankins) are amongst their best offensive players.

[cartman]

I'm starting to get a feeling that the only team that can stop the Broncos is the Broncos.

You must have overlooked their away game in Kansas City. I'm sure the crowd noise will allow the Chief's D line to get to Manning.

[BishopMVP]

Definitely. Not the Pats fault they got the start the season against the best of the Sun Belt. :) The D is playing great, though I want to see how they do next week against an angry Falcon team. And the 3-0 will only help once seeding comes in. The Bronco-Pat tilt probably decides the #1 seed tie breaker. No one in the North will keep up and Houston is suspect.Bengals have a chance I think - they can get to 12 wins pretty easily (but I think the Ravens and Steelers are still getting slightly more respect than they should due to past success). Next 3 Pats games will be good - @ATL, @CIN, NO. Even 1-2 in that stretch and we're set up pretty well. One thing worth noting on the Pats-Broncos game - we have a Monday night game the week before, so 1 less day to prepare.

I still think people are also overselling the Broncos - I'd bet money on them losing 1 of their next 3 NFL games (Philly, @Dallas, @Indy). Kind of unfair they get a Bye Week 6 and Week 9.Yes, it was poorly worded and probably should have read that "Brady is without his three best offensive weapons in Gronk, Amendola and Vereen." Obviously Brady (and even Logan Mankins) are amongst their best offensive players.Even if we're talking O-Line, I'd put Solder and probably Vollmer ahead of Mankins (and Vereen) at this point - Mankins hasn't been as good as his rep for a couple seasons. I also think that people are overstating Vereen's impact a little bit at this point - I think he's talented, as week 1 showed, and should have gotten more touches last year, but he had 457 yards total from scrimmage in his 1st 2 NFL seasons.

[Matthean]

This looks to be the year ESPN has a weekly article on something covering Peyton and his family.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I want to know what kind of pizza is worth crashing your car into a guard rail & shattering your forearm, possibly ending your career & costing your team a pick in trading for a necessary replacement?

[mckerney]

I want to know what kind of pizza is worth crashing your car into a guard rail & shattering your forearm, possibly ending your career & costing your team a pick in trading for a necessary replacement?

Probably macaroni and cheese or buffalo chicken, though possibly steak and fries too.

[Radii]

I want to know what kind of pizza is worth crashing your car into a guard rail & shattering your forearm, possibly ending your career & costing your team a pick in trading for a necessary replacement?

Eh, I can see it happening. I know I've had moments where I have a bag of fast food in the passenger seat and I have to brake a little harder than I expected and the bag tips forward, and my instinct is 100% to lurch over and grab the bag before my precious fries hit the floor. I could easily see things going really wrong over something stupid in that moment.

[ColtCrazy]

Bengals have a chance I think - they can get to 12 wins pretty easily (but I think the Ravens and Steelers are still getting slightly more respect than they should due to past success). Next 3 Pats games will be good - @ATL, @CIN, NO. Even 1-2 in that stretch and we're set up pretty well. One thing worth noting on the Pats-Broncos game - we have a Monday night game the week before, so 1 less day to prepare.

I still think people are also overselling the Broncos - I'd bet money on them losing 1 of their next 3 NFL games (Philly, @Dallas, @Indy). Kind of unfair they get a Bye Week 6 and Week 9.Even if we're talking O-Line, I'd put Solder and probably Vollmer ahead of Mankins (and Vereen) at this point - Mankins hasn't been as good as his rep for a couple seasons. I also think that people are overstating Vereen's impact a little bit at this point - I think he's talented, as week 1 showed, and should have gotten more touches last year, but he had 457 yards total from scrimmage in his 1st 2 NFL seasons.

I agree. Funny, but this new Colts emphasis on the run sets up perfectly as a way to beat the Broncos. The Pats, when their backs are healthy, could do it too. Bengals could as well. Pounding teams should be successful against them.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Eh, I can see it happening. I know I've had moments where I have a bag of fast food in the passenger seat and I have to brake a little harder than I expected and the bag tips forward, and my instinct is 100% to lurch over and grab the bag before my precious fries hit the floor. I could easily see things going really wrong over something stupid in that moment.

Oh, I can easily see it. I just hope it was at least something worth trying to save. If it was Little Caesars, he need to be slapped.

[cuervo72]

The median can expect a fine for hitting a defenseless receiver.

[BishopMVP]

I agree. Funny, but this new Colts emphasis on the run sets up perfectly as a way to beat the Broncos. The Pats, when their backs are healthy, could do it too. Bengals could as well. Pounding teams should be successful against them.Ridley's been healthy, it's the loss of Gronk (who's a really good run blocker) and Hernandez that's killing our running game. Even though Hernandez wasn't a good blocker by TE standards, it was all about putting the 2 TE's out there and basing our offense on their personnel groupings. If the defense came out in a base 4-3/3-4, then we'd split Hernandez out wide against a linebacker or safety and throw quick option routes, or have Gronk going up the seam against single coverage from a safety. If they'd come out in a nickel vs. that we'd keep Hernandez inside and run it won their throats. The Denver game last year was a perfect example (although I think Hernandez was out and Fells was the 2nd TE) - I believe they stuck with the nickel against our 2-TE sets (and we also went up-tempo no-huddle so they couldn't sub out of it) and Ridley/Bolden ended up with 42 carries for 205 yards. So overall, even though we had great rushing stats for the year, and I think they're average/above-average, I don't think Ridley or the O-Line was nearly as elite as the numbers looked - what made it elite was the scheming.

Colts I want to get a couple more in-depth looks at. They looked great against the 49ers, but the only time their running game really looked good was once Patrick Willis went down. They do seem to be a team that emphasizes toughness (and having Luck as QB is great for that), so we'll see how that plays out.

Denver just isn't good on defense right now. Part of that is Bailey/Miller being out, but it won't turn around overnight when they come back. They gave up 262 yards in the first half (and were losing at halftime) to the Ravens and gave up 224 in the first half (and were only up 17-16 late in the 3rd) to a Giants team that got annihilated the next week in Carolina. I don't think Carter or Ihenacho are great, but if they're banged up too that's just means an even more questionable secondary against the Eagles/Cowboys. NFL rosters are just so thin you're so close to having to play obviously below-replacement level players who can/will get targeted by smart teams.

[TroyF]

I agree. Funny, but this new Colts emphasis on the run sets up perfectly as a way to beat the Broncos. The Pats, when their backs are healthy, could do it too. Bengals could as well. Pounding teams should be successful against them.

Really? Look, the Broncos are not going 16-0. I don't buy that for a second. But do you really think ground and pound beats the Broncos?

The Broncos were 3rd in the NFL against the run last year. They were second in yards per carry against. This year they are number 1.

Last year the Pats gouged them and the Texans ran pretty well on them. The Ravens ran it ok in the playoff game, but it took multiple questionable calls and a boneheaded play by the free safety to cost them that game.

No, ground and pound is not your best bet with this Broncos team. What is? Confuse Manning. The Broncos scored under 28 points in 4 games last year. They went 2-2 in those games. Manning had 7TD's, 5 INT's and 1 fumble lost in those four games. Almost 50% of the turnovers he committed last year took place in 4 games. He turned the ball over 3 times in the playoff game. 9 turnovers in 5 total losses last year. 7 turnovers in 13 wins.

Not difficult math here. You want to beat Denver, you confuse Manning and force turnovers. Manning doesn't turn the ball over? You lose. Period.

Again, this isn't the rambling of a Broncos fan who thinks they are going unbeaten and are a lock for the Super Bowl. Teams with a stud pass rusher on the left will cause Clark problems. Manning may not stay healthy. The WR core could get decimated by injury. It's a long F'n season.

But ground and pound? It had damned well better be backed up by forcing turnovers from Manning or that strategy will implode.

[TroyF]

Ridley's been healthy, it's the loss of Gronk (who's a really good run blocker) and Hernandez that's killing our running game. Even though Hernandez wasn't a good blocker by TE standards, it was all about putting the 2 TE's out there and basing our offense on their personnel groupings. If the defense came out in a base 4-3/3-4, then we'd split Hernandez out wide against a linebacker or safety and throw quick option routes, or have Gronk going up the seam against single coverage from a safety. If they'd come out in a nickel vs. that we'd keep Hernandez inside and run it won their throats. The Denver game last year was a perfect example (although I think Hernandez was out and Fells was the 2nd TE) - I believe they stuck with the nickel against our 2-TE sets (and we also went up-tempo no-huddle so they couldn't sub out of it) and Ridley/Bolden ended up with 42 carries for 205 yards. So overall, even though we had great rushing stats for the year, and I think they're average/above-average, I don't think Ridley or the O-Line was nearly as elite as the numbers looked - what made it elite was the scheming.

Colts I want to get a couple more in-depth looks at. They looked great against the 49ers, but the only time their running game really looked good was once Patrick Willis went down. They do seem to be a team that emphasizes toughness (and having Luck as QB is great for that), so we'll see how that plays out.

Denver just isn't good on defense right now. Part of that is Bailey/Miller being out, but it won't turn around overnight when they come back. They gave up 262 yards in the first half (and were losing at halftime) to the Ravens and gave up 224 in the first half (and were only up 17-16 late in the 3rd) to a Giants team that got annihilated the next week in Carolina. I don't think Carter or Ihenacho are great, but if they're banged up too that's just means an even more questionable secondary against the Eagles/Cowboys. NFL rosters are just so thin you're so close to having to play obviously below-replacement level players who can/will get targeted by smart teams.


Another post I'm confused about. Part of the reason those teams stopped at halftime is because they couldn't sustain a running game and eventually the Broncos figured out the passing game. You simply are not going to sustain offense in this league averaging under 3 yards per carry on the ground. I fully expect McCoy to do a hell of a lot better than that this week, but as I said above, it doesn't matter what happens if the Eagles don't force Manning into mistakes. They can score 35, That still won't be enough if Manning doesn't turn the ball over.

[larrymcg421]

I think the Dolphins-Colts game from a few years back, where the Dolphins lost despite controlling the clock for 45 minutes, is a good example of how a pound it strategy is meaningless if you can't stop the Peyton.

Yeah it's great that you took 8 minutes off the clock and kicked a FG. Peyton just threw an 80 yard TD. You are now losing.

[TroyF]

I think the Dolphins-Colts game from a few years back, where the Dolphins lost despite controlling the clock for 45 minutes, is a good example of how a pound it strategy is meaningless if you can't stop the Peyton.

Yeah it's great that you took 8 minutes off the clock and kicked a FG. Peyton just threw an 80 yard TD. You are now losing.

The only team who succeeded with a ground and pound strategy was the Patriots. They dominated the LOS and pounded the Denver defense.

A couple of things about the game though:


1) NE was the best offense in the NFL last year. It's not like most teams have the weapons to play like that.

2) Denver wasn't playing especially well during that stretch. They lost three of four games and weren't playing very well on either side of the ball. The Chargers crushed them in the first half the next week before the comeback.

3) This Denver team is far better than that one from last year. The offense is now beyond very good, it's great and potentially historic. Brandon Stokely and his three catches a game have been replaced by Wes Welker and his 6 catches a game. The plodding TE's who caught a ton of balls have been replaced by a guy who can split the seams.

4) Even with all the ball control, the Patriots won the game because of massive Denver turnovers. Thomas dropped the ball untouched running down the field for a TD, Manning dropped the ball on the 14 yard line setting up a short field and McGahee fumbled the ball at the Pats 15 with 5 minutes left and Denver driving for a score that would have cut the game to 3 points.

5) Which brings me back to the original point. You want to beat Denver, get the turnovers, especially from Manning. That's the way you beat this football team. And it will happen. Someone will force him into a ton of mistakes and the Broncos will lose. I'm very concerned about the post season. . . a speed rusher off the edge could decimate the offense.

[BishopMVP]

Really? Look, the Broncos are not going 16-0. I don't buy that for a second. But do you really think ground and pound beats the Broncos?

The Broncos were 3rd in the NFL against the run last year. They were second in yards per carry against. This year they are number 1.

Last year the Pats gouged them and the Texans ran pretty well on them. The Ravens ran it ok in the playoff game, but it took multiple questionable calls and a boneheaded play by the free safety to cost them that game.

No, ground and pound is not your best bet with this Broncos team. What is? Confuse Manning. The Broncos scored under 28 points in 4 games last year. They went 2-2 in those games. Manning had 7TD's, 5 INT's and 1 fumble lost in those four games. Almost 50% of the turnovers he committed last year took place in 4 games. He turned the ball over 3 times in the playoff game. 9 turnovers in 5 total losses last year. 7 turnovers in 13 wins.

Not difficult math here. You want to beat Denver, you confuse Manning and force turnovers. Manning doesn't turn the ball over? You lose. Period.

But ground and pound? It had damned well better be backed up by forcing turnovers from Manning or that strategy will implode.For all the numbers you threw out, how about this? When teams scored more than 23 points against Denver last season, they were 4-0, when they scored 23 or less, they were 0-13. The Broncos were 11-0 vs. non-playoff teams, and 2-4 vs. playoff teams. That's simple math.

I don't think there is some secret strategy here (and I definitely think attacking the pass defense is a better bet than the run defense), but in the one game I watched most closely the Patriots did beat them with a ground and pound strategy, and despite Belichick's rep vs. Manning, Manning didn't throw a single pick that day (he did fumble once). So yes, turnovers are important, but they're important for every team (and avoiding them is a huge part of what's made Manning and Brady so great.) NFL teams are 5478-1477-14 (.787) since 1978 and 2170-558-3 (.795) since 2000 when winning the turnover battle. The Patriots in particular are 119-10 under Belichick when winning the turnover battle. But this isn't some secret and you don't need to be +3 against Denver to win. You just need to be a good football team that makes some big plays on offense and a couple on defense. So far they've played 2 bad football teams, and 1 questionable one in Baltimore. I think Philly and Dallas both fall into the flawed category, but they both have explosive offenses - let's see what plays out here.Another post I'm confused about. Part of the reason those teams stopped at halftime is because they couldn't sustain a running game and eventually the Broncos figured out the passing game. You simply are not going to sustain offense in this league averaging under 3 yards per carry on the ground.Opponent total yards by half* - Baltimore 184/166 NYG 224/256 Oakland 144/165. Opponent Points scored by half - Baltimore 17/10 NYG 9/14 Oakland 7/14. Broncos yards by half* - vs. BAL 164/321 vs. NYG 224/189 vs. OAK 294/239 . Broncos points by half - vs. BAL 14/35 vs. NYG 10/31 vs. OAK 27/10

Those teams stopped running because at some point Denver (usually with the help of turnovers, a punt return TD, or the opponent being the Raiders) jumped out to a big lead, but they all still moved the ball just as effectively in the 2nd half. Denver didn't figure anything out against their passing games beyond "Our opponent is forced to throw to catch up" and luckily, those teams had bad WR's, a terrible O-Line, and a terrible QB respectively.

* - this was done with ESPN's Drive Charts, so it includes defensive penalty yardage. If anybody knows a site that breaks down team stats by quarter, let me know

[BishopMVP]

2) Denver wasn't playing especially well during that stretch. They lost three of four games and weren't playing very well on either side of the ball. The Chargers crushed them in the first half the next week before the comeback.Playing badly, or played the 3 best teams (Houston, Atlanta, New England) you played all year outside of Baltimore?4) Even with all the ball control, the Patriots won the game because of massive Denver turnovers. Thomas dropped the ball untouched running down the field for a TD, Manning dropped the ball on the 14 yard line setting up a short field and McGahee fumbled the ball at the Pats 15 with 5 minutes left and Denver driving for a score that would have cut the game to 3 points.But you can say this about every single loss from a good team (especially when you use rose-colored glasses to say things like if McGahee didn't fumble on that drive you definitely would have scored a TD, instead of a FG or a different turnover). I can point out 2-3 plays from our loss to the Ravens in the playoffs last year, or the 2 Super Bowl's against the Giants, or that AFC CG loss to Peyton and Indy, or that playoff loss in Denver a few years back. And I'm sure if I went back to watch that Broncos game from last year I could find 2-3 huge Pats miscues - they just don't stand out because we held on to win.

[Butter]

Of course Denver is awesome against the run, because everybody has been behind by 20 points in the 2nd half and has no opportunity to use the run to keep the ball away from Peyton.

When the Bengals were awful, they used to be top 1/2 of the league against the pass because nobody ever had to pass against them, they could just run the Bengals over.

The Broncos are really good, and the favorite in the AFC right now. But it's still pretty early.

[TroyF]

OK, I'll try to address these points one by one:

1) The Broncos were 2-4 against playoff teams last year.

Yep, they were. A 6 point loss at Atlanta. A 6 point loss at home to the Texans. A 10 point loss on the road to the Pats. The blown coverage game in the playoffs. An 8 point win at the Bengals. A blowout against the Ravens on the road.

2) I understand turnover stats. I get it, you turn the ball over you lose. What I'm trying to point out is that against Manning, it's turnovers or bust. You WILL NOT win the game if you don't force the Broncos to turn the ball over. I'm not even talking turnover ratio here. I don't care if YOU turn the ball over 3 times or 0 times. If you don't force turnovers against the Broncos, any other strategy you employ is doomed for failure. Even with a mammoth negative turnover ratio, Denver was in every single one of the losses above. Think about that for a second.

3) Defense in the second half. Seriously? It was the blowouts that started it? OK, lets get to reality for a second.

Here is the total yardage of the Ravens by drive in the third quarter:

-6
3
9
2
14

By the time they started moving the ball again the score was 42-17.

The Giants? Slightly different. The Giants first five possessions in the second half were:

-1
81 TD
INT
11
-9

That -9 was where the punt return happened to put Denver up 38-16. Keep in mind, however, Denver had scored a TD every time they touched the ball in the second half to that point. While the score was 31-16 at the time of the punt, the Giants were reeling. Did we catch a massive break on that INT? Of course. But after Denver scored, the game is 31-16, not 45-10. The Giants still had a chance to move the ball. Their next two drives combined for 2 total yards.

4) This is a better team than last year. The offense is better. Peyton is comfortable and he has a ton of weapons. The defense is playing well when it needs to, and the best player on it is still out for 3 more weeks. Remember at the start of the Ravens game when I kept commenting on how much time Flacco had to throw? Yeah, I'm thinking Von Miller changes that dynamic a little bit, don't you? (this is assuming he isn't kicked out of the league by then, which could happen, but I'm going on the premise he'll actually be there)

5) Again, this isn't coming from some psycho fan who thinks the Broncos are a sure Super Bowl pick. They aren't. They have holes. A good pass rush with the kid on the left can get to Manning. Teams like the Chiefs, Patriots, Bengals and Titans will take advantage of that. The defense is better, but in this day and age of the NFL, you aren't stopping the great teams that often. Tom Brady will be better by the time the Broncos roll into town. Luck, Vick, Griffin, Rivers, Romo and Brady could all get scorching hot and no NFL defense stops them. If that happens, and Manning throws a few INT's? They lose. This isn't a 16-0 team.

In the playoffs, you face great teams each week. As the Patriots have found out, you can have a dominant team and either have a break go against you (the helmet catch for example) or catch a hot team. . . and you go bye bye. Denver will be one of those great teams in the playoffs. They might win out or they might choke again in the first round.

But to try and say some simple ground and pound strategy beats Denver? Please. To try and say they suck because they were 2-4 against playoff teams last year? The Ravens were 2-3 before the playoffs started. The Patriots were 3-3 and still didn't beat Denver out for the top seed. Sorry, I'm not seeing how that proves much of anything.

[TroyF]

Of course Denver is awesome against the run, because everybody has been behind by 20 points in the 2nd half and has no opportunity to use the run to keep the ball away from Peyton.

When the Bengals were awful, they used to be top 1/2 of the league against the pass because nobody ever had to pass against them, they could just run the Bengals over.

The Broncos are really good, and the favorite in the AFC right now. But it's still pretty early.

Oh, I missed this. That's why yards per carry is kind of important. Denver had a pretty damned good run defense guys.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I say there's no way anyone beats the Broncos. They're going to the Super Bowl and going to win it all!

:devil:

[Kodos]

As long as they can beat mighty KC!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

As long as they can beat mighty KC!

They'll kill the Chiefs. The spreads in both games should be 23 points, if not 30.

[Matthean]

They'll kill the Chiefs. The spreads in both games should be 23 points, if not 30.

How can this be when they have to play @KC and deal with that crowd noise? :D

Tampa Bay benchs Josh Freeman (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9720203/tampa-bay-buccaneers-bench-josh-freeman-mike-glennon)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

How can this be when they have to play @KC and deal with that crowd noise? :D

The KC crowd will go silent in honor of Peyton Manning's greatness.

[Suicane75]

Point is, even money, have to pick someone, nobody is picking anyone other than the Broncos to win the Super Bowl right now.

[Matthean]

Point is, even money, have to pick someone, nobody is picking anyone other than the Broncos to win the Super Bowl right now.

You mean no one is picking Seattle?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Point is, even money, have to pick someone, nobody is picking anyone other than the Broncos to win the Super Bowl right now.

They're the favorites thus far, but, at 3:1, not close to even money.

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/futures/

[Danny]

They're the favorites thus far, but, at 3:1, not close to even money.

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/futures/

Thats not what he said

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Thats not what he said

My point being that even smart betters aren't going even money on their odds. I realize what he said.

Personally, I'd take a team like Seattle over Denver. I'm not sure there's a team in the NFL like Denver that is definitively one injury away from being an average team at best. All it takes is one hit.

[Butter]

They're close to even money to win the AFC though.

[TroyF]

My point being that even smart betters aren't going even money on their odds. I realize what he said.

Personally, I'd take a team like Seattle over Denver. I'm not sure there's a team in the NFL like Denver that is definitively one injury away from being an average team at best. All it takes is one hit.

Really? I think there are multiple teams like that.

Packers - Aaron Rodgers to Seneca Wallace
Saints - Drew Brees to Luke McCown
Falcons - Ryan to Dominique Davis
Chargers - Rivers to Whitehurst


I think all of the above go from contenders to below average instantly.

Then we get to some others:
Patriots - Brady to Mallett
Seahawks - Wilson to Tavaris Jackson
Ravens - Flacco - Tyler
Bears - Cutler to McCown


QB is so important now that if you are a contender and lose your QB, the odds of winning a Super Bowl go to hell, the odds of making the playoffs take an gigantic hit and the odds of a losing season spike.

The Patriots did it before with Bledsoe/Brady and Cassell stepped in and played pretty well when Brady had his injury, but you just don't replace guys like that. Denver is not alone in this regard.

[BishopMVP]

You mean no one is picking Seattle?Yeah, just using FootballOutsiders as a guide they have Seattle as slightly more likely to both make and win the Super Bowl (with a large gap down to #3 - New England) FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | DVOA PLAYOFF ODDS REPORT (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds)1) The Broncos were 2-4 against playoff teams last year.

Yep, they were. A 6 point loss at Atlanta. A 6 point loss at home to the Texans. A 10 point loss on the road to the Pats. The blown coverage game in the playoffs. An 8 point win at the Bengals. A blowout against the Ravens on the road.
...
To try and say they suck because they were 2-4 against playoff teams last year? The Ravens were 2-3 before the playoffs started. The Patriots were 3-3 and still didn't beat Denver out for the top seed. Sorry, I'm not seeing how that proves much of anything.I'm not saying Denver sucks - I think they're the slight favorite in the weakened AFC right now - I just don't see them as this world-beating team. If Denver played New England, Seattle, Green Bay right now I'd favor the home team by about 60/40 in every matchup. I think any of Houston, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, SF, KC, Indy, Philly, Dallas, Chicago would have a ~30-40% chance to beat them.2) I understand turnover stats. I get it, you turn the ball over you lose. What I'm trying to point out is that against Manning, it's turnovers or bust. You WILL NOT win the game if you don't force the Broncos to turn the ball over. I'm not even talking turnover ratio here. I don't care if YOU turn the ball over 3 times or 0 times. If you don't force turnovers against the Broncos, any other strategy you employ is doomed for failure. Even with a mammoth negative turnover ratio, Denver was in every single one of the losses above. Think about that for a second.Clearly you're having trouble understanding turnovers if you think the number the opposition have has no bearing on the outcome. And guess what - one of those games last year (Houston) Denver had 1 turnover and Houston had 2. It happens (New England lost a game to Arizona last year despite winning turnover battle), just like good teams are usually still in games even with negative turnover ratios (as NE was vs. SF, Baltimore). I've seen your team play (borderline unstoppable passing offense, inconsistent running game, questionable but opportunistic defense that's better against the run, above average special teams), I've watched a team exactly like that play for the last 5 years, and I'm telling you there's no special secret formula to beat them. It's not ground and pound (which I haven't been advocating, but can work if you have the right personnel), it's not that you NEED to force X turnovers (although obviously that helps), it just requires being an above-average team that makes some big plays, limits its own mistakes, and takes advantage of the oppositions (whether that's Peyton fumbling the ball, an offensive lineman blowing an assignment and giving you a free sack on 3rd down, a DB misjudging a jump ball, a botched snap on a punt, etc). To pretend that only 1 of those 4 matter and some combination of other errors will never beat the Broncos is just a weird assertion.

[BishopMVP]

Really? I think there are multiple teams like that.

Packers - Aaron Rodgers to Seneca Wallace
Saints - Drew Brees to Luke McCown
Falcons - Ryan to Dominique Davis
Chargers - Rivers to Whitehurst


I think all of the above go from contenders to below average instantly.

Then we get to some others:
Patriots - Brady to Mallett
Seahawks - Wilson to Tavaris Jackson
Ravens - Flacco - Tyler
Bears - Cutler to McCown


QB is so important now that if you are a contender and lose your QB, the odds of winning a Super Bowl go to hell, the odds of making the playoffs take an gigantic hit and the odds of a losing season spike.

The Patriots did it before with Bledsoe/Brady and Cassell stepped in and played pretty well when Brady had his injury, but you just don't replace guys like that. Denver is not alone in this regard.I'd argue that the Chargers are already an average team, but other than that the list is pretty spot on. On the 2nd list, I think Seattle is the one that could survive/adapt to an injury to Wilson because they have the best defense and running game.

The 2 Patriots scenarios are wildly different. In one you had a better QB as the backup, which is a very rare case (although it could have happened in GB with a Favre injury, and did happen in SF last year), and I'm pretty comfortable saying none of the 8 listed backup QB's are going to be future all-pros. In the other one I think people assume Cassell did a really good job because he went 11-5, which is normally a very good record. But you have to understand that team was coming off the only 16-0 season in history, and probably had a win expectation level of 14 wins, so the downgrade to Cassell cost them 3 wins... it's just that very few teams have a win expectation above 11-12 wins, so a QB dropoff of 3 wins would kill almost any other teams playoff chances.

[gstelmack]

Tampa Bay benchs Josh Freeman (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9720203/tampa-bay-buccaneers-bench-josh-freeman-mike-glennon)

For Mike Glennon. 10% of the starting QBs in the NFL attended NC State.

[Thomkal]

How can this be when they have to play @KC and deal with that crowd noise? :D

Tampa Bay benchs Josh Freeman (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9720203/tampa-bay-buccaneers-bench-josh-freeman-mike-glennon)


Geez couldn't they have waited one more week so my beloved Cards got the benefit of facing Freeman? :mad: No doubt Glennon will do a "Cam Newton" on them and throw for over 400 yards in his debut now.

[TroyF]

Yeah, just using FootballOutsiders as a guide they have Seattle as slightly more likely to both make and win the Super Bowl (with a large gap down to #3 - New England) FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | DVOA PLAYOFF ODDS REPORT (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds)I'm not saying Denver sucks - I think they're the slight favorite in the weakened AFC right now - I just don't see them as this world-beating team. If Denver played New England, Seattle, Green Bay right now I'd favor the home team by about 60/40 in every matchup. I think any of Houston, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, SF, KC, Indy, Philly, Dallas, Chicago would have a ~30-40% chance to beat them.Clearly you're having trouble understanding turnovers if you think the number the opposition have has no bearing on the outcome. And guess what - one of those games last year (Houston) Denver had 1 turnover and Houston had 2. It happens (New England lost a game to Arizona last year despite winning turnover battle), just like good teams are usually still in games even with negative turnover ratios (as NE was vs. SF, Baltimore). I've seen your team play (borderline unstoppable passing offense, inconsistent running game, questionable but opportunistic defense that's better against the run, above average special teams), I've watched a team exactly like that play for the last 5 years, and I'm telling you there's no special secret formula to beat them. It's not ground and pound (which I haven't been advocating, but can work if you have the right personnel), it's not that you NEED to force X turnovers (although obviously that helps), it just requires being an above-average team that makes some big plays, limits its own mistakes, and takes advantage of the oppositions (whether that's Peyton fumbling the ball, an offensive lineman blowing an assignment and giving you a free sack on 3rd down, a DB misjudging a jump ball, a botched snap on a punt, etc). To pretend that only 1 of those 4 matter and some combination of other errors will never beat the Broncos is just a weird assertion.

I don't have trouble understanding turnovers in the least. The DB misjuding the assignment? That only led to a Ravens win because of the turnovers Denver committed earlier in the game.

I don't disagree with you on the Pats analogy to a point. They are now the Patriots part 2. The difference is the Patriots are not in the same league as Denver when it comes to a pass rush and the Broncos turnover ratio has consistently been worse. That said, I think this Denver defense is playing a LOT better than you think it is right now. And when Miller/Bailey get back it will only get better. The NE analogy is also apt with turnovers. . . while you guys do well in turnover margin, I don't really care how you do at the end of the day. If you can't force turnovers, you are dead. The offenses are simply too good and too tough to stop if you don't find a way to get the football from them.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Paul Oliver, former NFL player, commits suicide in Ga. - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57604711/paul-oliver-former-nfl-player-commits-suicide-in-ga/)

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Denver has to do something about their LT.

If only there was a team with a top-tier LT that was having a fire sale, where even the player has come out and said he wouldn't be shocked to be traded after they shipped out last year's top pick.

[BillJasper]

Denver has to do something about their LT.

If only there was a team with a top-tier LT that was having a fire sale, where even the player has come out and said he wouldn't be shocked to be traded after they shipped out last year's top pick.

Cleveland is going to make Joe Thomas suffer for as long as they possibly can. :lol: