The Denver Broncos Are Officially Favored to Win the AFC West

[Joel]

By people NOT members of this site, I mean. Here's a video at NFL.com where Kurt Warner sums it up pretty nicely:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d824dd465/Will-Broncos-win-AFC-West?module=HP11_content_stream

Warner notes what I have: IF we beat Chicago (by no means guaranteed, but likely) we could easily finish 10-6 even without beating the Pats. He doesn't mention (but probably knows) that, while the Raiders are playing two NFC North teams that beat us (i.e. common opponents,) that's followed by two more Divisional games whose outcomes are doubly important.

Meanwhile, IF we get past the Bears we have nothing left but a home game against the Divisions weakest team, plus two common opponents who beat Oakland. The Pats will be tough, but even on the road the Bills look pretty beatable now. Oakland has to either beat GB or Oakland or hope Chicago beats us to draw even on the common opponent tie break; IF we beat KC at home they can't pull ahead on the Division tiebreak. All of which leads to the playoff chances predicted for Denver here:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/12/playoff-probabilities-week-14.html

That's right, Advanced NFL Stats rates our game with Chicago and my Cowboys game with the Giants as the most playoff pivotal ones this week: IF we win our playoff chances are estimated at 77% and Chicagos at 38%; a loss drops our chances to 46% while raising theirs to 70%. That just puts a value on what everyone already knew: This game means at least as much to them as it does to us, and they will come to Denver knowing that, so WE better come "loaded for Bear."

[Slick]

If you were born before 1977 joel, you can't like denver and dallas.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[rcsodak]

What if he has a split personality?

[Dzone]

If we demolish Chicago on Sunday, there will be ensuing pandemonium.

[Canmore]

If we demolish Chicago on Sunday, there will be ensuing pandemonium.

Let the pandemonium begin.

[Joel]

If you were born before 1977 joel, you can't like denver and dallas.
I'm really just a Craig Morton fan? :tongue:

If we demolish Chicago on Sunday, there will be ensuing pandemonium.
No, if they demolish US there will be ensuing pandemonium. We'll still have to beat (at least) KC and/or Buffalo, and probably both, but if the Bears pull out a win, Denver fans will be in shock and the Raiders will be almost dead even with us (half a game behind vs. the Division and common opponents.) This is still a game we really need to win, and winning makes nothing automatic. It does, however, make our chances of winning the Division much better--IF we win.

I actually have a bad feeling about this game. My main worry is the team getting used to being behind, expecting Tebow to win it at the end. Or if we take an early lead they could think the Bears have no chance of coming back against a team that always wins, even when trailing every game. Either one could result in guys playing with less urgency and intensity, and if we let up even briefly the Bears could beat us. They're certainly going to try, because, while both teams need this game, the Bears are far more desperate for it. They're much better against the run; Barber's a good back who can hurt us if we can't keep him in front of us and tackle well. The same rule applies to both teams: Playoff teams win games like this. To hear Lovie Smith and his team talk, they are definitely taking Tebow Time and the whole team seriously; we are no traveling under anyones radar or being underestimated.

I'm cautiously optimistic, but realistically, if we win we still have it to do but if we lose most of the playoff chances will be replaced by questions. A loss basically leaves us hoping we beat Buffalo and KC while the Raiders lose to Detroit and another AFC West team. Dicey. Best win on Sunday.

[Shazam!]

I actually have a bad feeling about this game. My main worry is the team getting used to being behind, expecting Tebow to win it at the end. Or if we take an early lead they could think the Bears have no chance of coming back against a team that always wins, even when trailing every game. Either one could result in guys playing with less urgency and intensity, and if we let up even briefly the Bears could beat us. They're certainly going to try, because, while both teams need this game, the Bears are far more desperate for it. They're much better against the run; Barber's a good back who can hurt us if we can't keep him in front of us and tackle well. The same rule applies to both teams: Playoff teams win games like this. To hear Lovie Smith and his team talk, they are definitely taking Tebow Time and the whole team seriously; we are no traveling under anyones radar or being underestimated.

That's because if you followed this team for any significant amount of time you have become used to those scenarios under the previous regime.

If we can't beatdown Chicago without Forte AND Cutler, we deserve to lose.

This game is ripe for the picking for us. Fox, Tebow and Co. find a way in a low scoring affair that isn't too pretty against a physical opponent.

[Nomad]

To be a debbie downer....I believe the BRONCOS go on a 2 game skid and win the last 2. Oakland wins this weekend and eventually the West.

[Shazam!]

To be a debbie downer....I believe the BRONCOS go on a 2 game skid and win the last 2. Oakland wins this weekend and eventually the West.

No friggin' way Oakland beats GB and Detroit back to back and Denver losing back to back home games. Not happening.

[Nomad]

No friggin' way Oakland beats GB and Detroit back to back and Denver losing back to back home games. Not happening.

Calm down....I put the post in the wrong thread:lol:. It was supposed to be in MO's thread.

[BORDERLINE]

If we can't beatdown Chicago without Forte AND Cutler, we deserve to lose.


And that pretty much sums up how I feel about this game. We should win this one with our defense eating Hannies lunch. DO you guys know if Miller is a go???

[Northman]

We wont dominate Chicago because of their defense. But i think we do get the win.

[pnbronco]

And that pretty much sums up how I feel about this game. We should win this one with our defense eating Hannies lunch. DO you guys know if Miller is a go???

He's planning on it. From what I understand they never wanted to cask him last week because of there the incision was, they were afraid of infection. He would not let it go so they put a cast on him but never planned on letting him suite up.

If everything was healing as planned they plan to rotate him in and out this week. I have not heard anything different from that as of yet.

[vettesplus]

We wont dominate Chicago because of their defense. But i think we do get the win.

i agree, with a win against the bears if we can finish the last 3 games 2-1 we should be the west champs

[FanInAZ]

I'm really just a Craig Morton fan? :tongue:

I knew there was something that I liked about you :five: He's still the original #7 in my book.

[Ravage!!!]

And that pretty much sums up how I feel about this game. We should win this one with our defense eating Hannies lunch. DO you guys know if Miller is a go???

Miller is a go :whoo:

[FanInAZ]

We wont dominate Chicago because of their defense. But i think we do get the win.

Chicago's D is defiantly superior to anything Tebow has faced so far. The only way we blow out the Bears is if their O keeps turning the ball over to us in their own territory. That's not a farfetched scenario for them.

[Ravage!!!]

Chicago's D is defiantly superior to anything Tebow has faced so far. The only way we blow out the Bears is if their O keeps turning the ball over to us in their own territory. That's not a farfetched scenario for them.

Exactly. Without a good running game and Forte, and without Cutler, their offense is pretty bad. Hannie will get crushed with our pass rush, and they WILL turn over the ball giving us short fields. The problem, is keeping our punts to a minimum, and keeping hester from giving them good field position in return.

[Joel]

That's because if you followed this team for any significant amount of time you have become used to those scenarios under the previous regime.

If we can't beatdown Chicago without Forte AND Cutler, we deserve to lose.

This game is ripe for the picking for us. Fox, Tebow and Co. find a way in a low scoring affair that isn't too pretty against a physical opponent.
I agree with all of that; playoff teams win games like this, and if we don't we don't belong in the playoffs, though we'd still have a decent chance of going. Most fans are looking ahead to NE; I hope the team is not.

To be a debbie downer....I believe the BRONCOS go on a 2 game skid and win the last 2. Oakland wins this weekend and eventually the West.
No CA team will beat the undefeated defending champs in Lambeau in December. That game is as close to a sure thing as the NFL ever gets. HOWEVER, the Lions' season has been going down the tubes ever since SF beat them. They weren't THAT much better than last years 6-10 team in the first place; without the Vikings blowing a 20-0 half time lead and the Cowboys throwing picks when up 27-3 in the fourth they start 3-2. Oakland could maul them at home, though I believe Suh returns for that game and may be looking to make up for lost time (or playing on a leash so he's not suspended again.)

Their other two games are a Chargers team expecting everyone from the GM down to be fired come January and KC with a QB TBA; Orton replaced Palko for one whole play before getting hurt last week. If Oakland doesn't blow out both those teams THEY don't belong in the playoffs.

The good news is if we play as well as we should against a Bears team that has no offense, a disintegrating Bills team (that beat Oakland when they were strong) and a moribund Chiefs team in Denver, we have a great shot at 10-6. The bad news is Oakland ALSO has a great shot at 10-6 and should be no worse than 9-7, so we can't affort to take off any games. The one exception might be the Pats: If we can beat Chicago, a Lions win in Oakland would give us the third tiebreak (common opponents) because we beat Miami and they beat Oakland. At that point we would have both beaten and been beaten by all the same teams (beat the Jets, Vikings and Bears; lost to the Packers, Lions and Pats (since Buffalo beat Oakland, losing to them couldn't hurt us for the TIEBREAK, and would put us even overall if the Lions beat Oakland.))

Beating Chicago would put us in great shape; essentially all we'd have to do is beat KC in Denver and finish even or ahead of Oakland overall. We split the first tiebreak (head to head) and they can't get the second (Division record) if we beat KC, so their only hope would be beating us on common opponents, which is impossible if we beat Chicago since we'd be a game ahead and NE and Buffalo beat them. If we beat NE OR Buffalo we'd have the third tiebreak locked up even if Oakland beats the Lions--but first we MUST beat Chicago.

If Chicago beats us, things go to Hell in a hurry. First off, it would not only keep Oakland tied with us overall, it would give them back the game they lost against a common opponent (Miami) last week. That would mean we'd have to either win all remaining games or win all but one and hope Detroit wins in Oakland; I expect no other losses for them (though SD is a possibility.)

For the record, the fourth tiebreak is Conference record and, without going into the permutations, suffice it to say that if we finish even against Division and common opponents we're likely to finish even against the Conference (Miami makes up for our loss to Tennesse, essentially.) Then it goes to strength of victory, which is fairly difficult to precisely project at this point.

Short form: Even if GB beat Oakland, unless we beat the Bears we'll have to run the table or get help from Detroit or SD. Detroit's the best bet, but would you want to depend on any of those outcomes?

[TXBRONC]

We talk about Hester and rightfully so but guys don't forget they have a very good defense capable winning the game for them.

[Joel]

I knew there was something that I liked about you :five: He's still the original #7 in my book.
Honestly, I feel awful for the only QB to start and lose SBs for both Conferences (SB V with Dallas and SB XII with Denver.) Whenever I imagine him, he's throwing darts at a picture of Roger Staubach, who took his job in Dallas then beat him in the Super Bowl. :tsk: :tsk:

Exactly. Without a good running game and Forte, and without Cutler, their offense is pretty bad. Hannie will get crushed with our pass rush, and they WILL turn over the ball giving us short fields. The problem, is keeping our punts to a minimum, and keeping hester from giving them good field position in return.
Like I say, watching many a Cowboys game tells me Barber's a good back (I was surprised they lost him, though they've traded up.) Chicago's running game isn't dead without Forte, and we're not great against the run, especially outside; it's one of the drawbacks of trading size for speed at RDE and Sam, especially when they're chasing upfield to get the QB. The nice thing is that Barber's not great at making guys miss in space; he benefits greatly from good blocking (which was often lacking in Dallas and remains lacking in Chicago, though they do that better than they pass block.) Our D will not be able to just munch them: We'll have to either stop their run, take a big lead or both to force them back on Hanie and allow them to dominate.

[Joel]

Since this thread is about the playoffs more than the Bears, I wanted to post Oaklands tiebreak standings so far along with ours to help clarify the picture:

Denver 7-5 Head to Head 1-1 Division 3-2 Common 5-3 Conference 6-3

Raiders 7-5 Head to Head 1-1 Division 2-2 Common 4-4 Conference 5-5

Denvers Schedule:

Chicago (7-5)
NE (9-3)
@ Buffalo (5-7)
KC (5-7)

Raiders Schedule:
@ GB (12-0)
Detroit (7-5)
@ KC (5-7)
SD (4-8)

All but the first of Oaklands games is very winnable, and they should be heavy favorites in the last two. All but one of our games is also very winnable, but I would only call us heavy favorites in the first and last ones, which, combined with the favorability of Oaklands schedule and the impact on tiebreaks, makes both must win games for us. You can plug in wins/losses by each team against each opponent into the above standings, which are the first four tiebreaks in order of precedence (if it goes past that, we're probably screwed.) Note: GB, Detroit and Chicago are common (3rd tiebreak) but NON-CONFERENCE (4th tiebreak) opponents.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?page=tiebreakers
The fifth tiebreak would be strength of victory; while very much subject to change (e.g. if Oakland miraculously beats the 12-0 Packers,) Oaklands defeated opponents are currently a combined 40-45, while ours are 36-48.

[Ravage!!!]

Like I say, watching many a Cowboys game tells me Barber's a good back (I was surprised they lost him, though they've traded up.) Chicago's running game isn't dead without Forte, and we're not great against the run, especially outside; it's one of the drawbacks of trading size for speed at RDE and Sam, especially when they're chasing upfield to get the QB. The nice thing is that Barber's not great at making guys miss in space; he benefits greatly from good blocking (which was often lacking in Dallas and remains lacking in Chicago, though they do that better than they pass block.) Our D will not be able to just munch them: We'll have to either stop their run, take a big lead or both to force them back on Hanie and allow them to dominate.

THeir offense is dead without Forte and Cutler. Cutler could make their mediocre WRs decent, and Forte thrived off the passing threat of Martz's downfield system. Same as Cutler thrived off of the threat of Forte out of the backfield. Without one, the other would drop (although Cutler would still have Barber, while Forte would be stuck with Hannie).

Without both, the team is left with a bad QB, and a mediocre RB, and WRs that don't threaten many with Hannie behind center. The Chicago Bear's defense is good enough to win this game on their own, but the Bear's offense is not really the threat.... UNLESS their defense continues to give them short fields. Barber is decent, at best, as a back that can spell someone (I was hoping Denver would get him when he was released by Cowboys), but isn't someone that has proved at all to be a featured back.

Chicago's offense was pathetic against the Chiefs defense, which is NOT good (although their DBs with Flowers is pretty good, even without their stud safety in the lineup). The Chiefs can't rush the passer at all.

I'm not worried about Barber dominating the game and keeping Hannie from having to throw. I'm worried about the Chicago defense.

[Joel]

THeir offense is dead without Forte and Cutler. Cutler could make their mediocre WRs decent, and Forte thrived off the passing threat of Martz's downfield system. Same as Cutler thrived off of the threat of Forte out of the backfield. Without one, the other would drop (although Cutler would still have Barber, while Forte would be stuck with Hannie).

Without both, the team is left with a bad QB, and a mediocre RB, and WRs that don't threaten many with Hannie behind center. The Chicago Bear's defense is good enough to win this game on their own, but the Bear's offense is not really the threat.... UNLESS their defense continues to give them short fields. Barber is decent, at best, as a back that can spell someone (I was hoping Denver would get him when he was released by Cowboys), but isn't someone that has proved at all to be a featured back.

Chicago's offense was pathetic against the Chiefs defense, which is NOT good (although their DBs with Flowers is pretty good, even without their stud safety in the lineup). The Chiefs can't rush the passer at all.

I'm not worried about Barber dominating the game and keeping Hannie from having to throw. I'm worried about the Chicago defense.
I'm worried about both. Their D is good against the run and McGahee has been dinged one way or another all season, plus Peppers and their LBs have the speed to get to Tebow passing or chase him down running. That's stuff everyone knows though, and there is some hope in that their secondary isn't all that good: Even if we can't run, we can still hurt them if Tebow has time to throw and proves last week wasn't a fluke.

However, folks expecting their offense to just roll over and die because Cutler and Forte are out may be in for a surprise. I won't guarantee it, because Barber needs blockers to be really effective, but he CAN hurt you. He doesn't make guys miss much, but can run over them, something our fast but small D is vulnerable to, especially outside and/or when Doom and Miller blitz QBs. You're not the only one who hoped Denver would get him when Dallas dumped him, but the biggest problem he had in Dallas is the same one their whole offense has: Their line has been crap since before Aikman retired (that's WHY he retired, even if Jerry blamed 2 concussions in 1 season on the guy who led them to 3 SBs, who was summarily cut.) Fortunately, the Bears line is probably worse, but they've gotten better, and always run blocked better than they pass blocked (relatively speaking.)

Everything's in our favor, but if we look ahead to NE and try to phone this one in, the call better be to 911.

[T.K.O.]

NO loosey talk !
worst to first baby !!!!:elefant::salute:

we MUST beat chicago,kc & the pats ( just to show people this team belongs in the playoffs !):D