Broncos' Week 14 Playoff Scenarios

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The Broncos are one of four AFC teams that can clinch the playoffs in Week 14.

AFC

DENVER BRONCOS

Denver clinches a playoff spot with:

1) DEN win or tie OR

2) MIA loss or tie OR

3) BAL loss or tie

rest - http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Broncos-Week-14-Playoff-Scenarios/2328e933-8918-4b42-8ce1-13d896f008

Pretty simple for the Broncos - JUST WIN BABY :salute:

[BroncoWave]

I don't understand how we haven't already clinched. I guess we would lose a 3-way tie with Baltimore and Miami if we all finished 10-6?

[MasterShake]

I don't understand how we haven't already clinched. I guess we would lose a 3-way tie with Baltimore and Miami if we all finished 10-6?

NO ONE loses in a 3 way... bow chicka bow wow!

[DenBronx]

So if we lose out and Balt or Mia keep winning we could miss the playoffs??? Wth!



Would love to see KC lose out.

[Joel]

I don't understand how we haven't already clinched. I guess we would lose a 3-way tie with Baltimore and Miami if we all finished 10-6?
I don't get that either, but I guess it's because they'd have to win and us lose the rest, and our last 4 are all division games. That would leave us .500 in the AFC (the second tiebreak; the first only applies to a threeway tie if one team swept the others, and we haven't played Miami) and Baltimore and Miami would be much better if they won the rest. Sincere best wishes to both of 'em on that, since they both play NE, so either winning would give us a cushion for playoff homefield. Baltimore plays Detroit and Cincy too though, so I doubt they get a wildcard.

[BroncoWave]

The race for the 6 seed will be interesting. Baltimore is the better team but Miami has the much softer schedule. The 5-7 group is still very much in it as well. I definitely don't miss the days in which we were one of those teams scratching and clawing for those final wildcard spots.

[Broncolingus]

Denver's (probably?) going to need W's in all of the four remaining games to keep the #1...

...and (obviously) want's no part of Tommy-girl and the Patsies at Gillette in January.

Things should be much more clear for the AFC in...


http://geekoutlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2-Weeks.jpg


IMO...

[BroncoWave]

I kinda like it that we will need to keep our foot on the gas all the way to the end to keep the 1 seed. It's hard to regain that intensity for the playoffs when you have that bye week on top of not playing meaningful games over the past few weeks.

[Broncolingus]

I kinda like it that we will need to keep our foot on the gas all the way to the end to keep the 1 seed.


I agree and well said...

[LawDog]

I thought Miami was the only one who could knock us out if we lose the remaining and they win the remaining. We have the head-to-head tiebreaker over the Ravens.

[Joel]

The race for the 6 seed will be interesting. Baltimore is the better team but Miami has the much softer schedule. The 5-7 group is still very much in it as well. I definitely don't miss the days in which we were one of those teams scratching and clawing for those final wildcard spots.
That's the REALLY weird part about NO ONE having clinched an AFC playoff spot yet: Mathematically, EVERYONE is STILL alive. I knew Houston and Jax were still in it going into this week because I actually took the time to work it out from their schedules (no quick job since most of the AFC bubble teams play multiple others the last 5 weeks.) Fortunately, ESPNs got their "Playoff Machine" back up now and I can just use that; IF Houston won their last four and EVERYTHING ELSE broke EXACTLY right, they'd be the #6 seed at 6-10: http://tinyurl.com/qahy4dd IF:

1) Houston won the rest AND
2) Baltimore AND Miami lost the rest AND
3) Tennessee lost 1 (in addition to the Houston loss) AND
4) Pittsburgh lost their last 3 (after beating Miami) AND
5) San Diego lost every game EXCEPT Oakland AND
6) the Jets lost every game EXCEPT @Miami AND
7) Oakland won @the Jets AND lost @SD AND Denver OR KC AND
8) Cleveland lost 2 of its last 4, BUT NOT @the Jets AND @Pittsburgh AND
9) Buffalo lost 2 of its last 4, BUT NOT Miami AND
10) Jacksonville lost the rest,

6-10 Houston would be #6 seed. In fact, in that scenario (it actually has about a half dozen different AFC permutations, which sounds like a lot until we consider there'd be 2^20 AFC combinations if there were no cross-conference games, instead of several) Jax could lose to Houston this week and STILL make it if they won the rest and Houston lost once. What's really weird is Oakland would get the #6 seed if they beat SD, but NOT if they beat us OR KC. I don't get how beating the divisions two best teams wouldn't help them but beating its third best would.

Anyway, the AFC sucks this year, especially once we get past division leaders and KC, so it's a little odd none of those division leaders has clinched even a wildcard yet.

[Joel]

I thought Miami was the only one who could knock us out if we lose the remaining and they win the remaining. We have the head-to-head tiebreaker over the Ravens.
Based on ESPNs playoff machine, that appears correct, but not for that reason: In a tie between >2 teams, head-to-head only counts if one team swept the rest; otherwise the first tiebreak is conference win percentage. That would actually make Miami the #5 seed, because KC would win the AFCW, and THEN the head-to-head over Baltimore would give us the #6.

So, technically, we've clinched a playoff berth by the narrowest of margins.

[SR]

I don't understand how we haven't already clinched. I guess we would lose a 3-way tie with Baltimore and Miami if we all finished 10-6?

I thought I read last week that if Denver won @KC they clinched. Maybe there were some conditions that precluded that from happening.

[Joel]

I thought I read last week that if Denver won @KC they clinched. Maybe there were some conditions that precluded that from happening.
No, LawDog's essentially right, I just didn't see it at first because of not factoring in KC winning the division if we lose the rest, so BOTH wildcards would be in play. Miami would get the #5 on conference win percentage, but then it would be down to us and Baltimore, and the head-to-head would give us the #6. Everyone else already has 7 losses and we have 10 wins, so that's that.

[BroncoWave]

Yeah, the way I see it we have in fact clinched a playoff spot. I don't see how we haven't. Assuming we don't win the division, the worst we could do is finish in a 3-way tie at 10-6 with Baltimore and Miami.

If that happens, Miami would be 9-3 in the AFC, Baltimore would be 8-4, and Denver would be 6-6.

The important key here is that only one team can advance to the playoffs each time through the tiebreakers. This means you can't just put Miami and Baltimore in on the same step. Since this step gives Miami the 5 seed, you revert back to step 1 for the 6 seed. Since we won the head-to-head with Baltimore, that puts us in the 6 seed.

So unless I am completely misinterpreting the tiebreaking scenarios, Denver has currently clinched a playoff spot.

[BroncoWave]

The article in the original post has been deleted from the site. That must mean the Broncos realize that was incorrect info as well.

[SR]

According to NFL.com the only team to clinch a playoff berth is Seattle.

[BroncoWave]

Same for ESPN.com. I really don't get it. I would like to see the explanation of how we don't get in.

[Joel]

Yeah, the way I see it we have in fact clinched a playoff spot. I don't see how we haven't. Assuming we don't win the division, the worst we could do is finish in a 3-way tie at 10-6 with Baltimore and Miami.

If that happens, Miami would be 9-3 in the AFC, Baltimore would be 8-4, and Denver would be 6-6.

The important key here is that only one team can advance to the playoffs each time through the tiebreakers. This means you can't just put Miami and Baltimore in on the same step. Since this step gives Miami the 5 seed, you revert back to step 1 for the 6 seed. Since we won the head-to-head with Baltimore, that puts us in the 6 seed.

So unless I am completely misinterpreting the tiebreaking scenarios, Denver has currently clinched a playoff spot.
It's about time that broke our way. I think it was '06 that we finished 9-7 and had the tiebreaks over every bubble team but KC (in fact, we'd beaten two head-to-head) but THEY all had the tiebreaks over KC, and KC had split with us but had a better division record. So the upshot was the only way we could make the playoffs was if KC was the #5 seed (which was impossible) because otherwise step 1 was "Denver is eliminated by division record."

The Chiefs wound up #6 seed and the Jets #5, even though we had the same record AND beat them. Then again, the wildcard hosts were Indy and NE that year; maybe just as well. :tongue:

[Joel]

Same for ESPN.com. I really don't get it. I would like to see the explanation of how we don't get in.
Found it at last: http://tinyurl.com/pkogr8s Cincy's only 2 games up in the AFCN, so IF

1) Baltimore won the rest (including @Cincy week 17) AND 2) Cincy lost 2 of their next 4 (again, including Baltimore week 17) Baltimore would win the AFCN. Then, IF

1) Cincy won EXACTLY 2 (3 gives them the division even with a loss to Baltimore) AND 2) Miami won the rest AND 3) we lost the rest, Miami would be #5 seed due to a better AFC record than us and Cincy, and Cincy would be #6 due to a better AFC record than us. In that extremely unlikely scenario, we could hypothetically still miss the playoffs. Oh, those Pats and Colts losses.... :mad:

[BroncoWave]

Ah, I see. I wasn't thinking about the Bengals. Good job!

[Joel]

Ah, I see. I wasn't thinking about the Bengals. Good job!
Me neither; I've taken it for granted they win that division, since about this time last year, really. Baltimore certainly won't: They face 3 playoff teams this month, 2 on the road. I welcome and encourage them to beat NE at home, but if Cincy can handle Indy at home that's probably it for the Ravens. I'd bet on Pitt at home against Cincy before Baltimore@Cincy. If anyone upsets the Bengals in the AFCN, it's Pitt: They must beat Miami and Cincy, but 3/4 games are at home. Depends on whether Rodgers is back and 100% hosting Pitt, I guess, and whether the Bengals tank.

I figure Cincy beats the Wayneless Colts in the cold and the AFC's set except for whether we keep the #1 seed and who gets the dubious privilege of a Bengals beatdown as their tuneup.

[AllThings18]

If Denver & Miami both finish 10-6 Miami would own the tiebreaker based on a better AFC record at that point. That would take Denver going 0-4 and Miami going 4-0. Neither are likely to happen.

[Joel]

Right, but it's mathematically possible so we haven't clinched quite yet. Actually, the fact NO ONE has clinched an AFC divison yet creates several scenarios where we'd miss the playoffs if we lost the rest (e.g. if the Colts and/or Pats didn't win their division but DID get 10 wins they'd BOTH be ahead of us because they beat us: Big games matter.)

[smith49]

NO ONE loses in a 3 way... bow chicka bow wow![/QUOTE]



I think more attention needs to be paid to this post. It's clearly the best and most meaningful one in this thread.

[AllThings18]

I haven't updated this following the Seattle/New Orleans game yet, but since they are both NFC, it doesn't really alter much but the SOV and SOS on teams that played or will play each of them. AFC East & AFC South.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/2d7051deae4aaf81172ff9e3ad870fd6/tumblr_mx70710tQO1s5gh7fo1_r2_1280.png
https://31.media.tumblr.com/2d7051deae4aaf81172ff9e3ad870fd6/tumblr_mx70710tQO1s5gh7fo1_r2_1280.png

[LawDog]

Right, but it's mathematically possible so we haven't clinched quite yet. Actually, the fact NO ONE has clinched an AFC divison yet creates several scenarios where we'd miss the playoffs if we lost the rest (e.g. if the Colts and/or Pats didn't win their division but DID get 10 wins they'd BOTH be ahead of us because they beat us: Big games matter.)

Only the Pats could get a wildcard with 10 wins and push us down with a tiebreaker, and in that scenario I believe we would still be six seed. Colts win their division with one more win since they swept the Titans.

[Joel]

I haven't updated this following the Seattle/New Orleans game yet, but since they are both NFC, it doesn't really alter much but the SOV and SOS on teams that played or will play each of them. AFC East & AFC South.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/2d7051deae4aaf81172ff9e3ad870fd6/tumblr_mx70710tQO1s5gh7fo1_r2_1280.png
https://31.media.tumblr.com/2d7051deae4aaf81172ff9e3ad870fd6/tumblr_mx70710tQO1s5gh7fo1_r2_1280.png
I hate those things, because SoV/S doesn't mean jack right now since EACH of the 48 remaining games will alter it for everyone. Just like when people say (as they did of us two weeks ago) "the win at home gives Denver the head-to-head tiebreak and thus sole possession of first place in the AFCW." Yeah, not really; we won the home stand, but the head-to-head tiebreak won't be decided (if at all) until the road rematch. It wasn't trivial; after the first win we couldn't LOSE the first tiebreak, but we hadn't WON it by any means: It remained in limbo.

That's why we speak of "clinching:" Because it ALWAYS remains mathematically possible for ANYONE to win a division and/or playoff homefield—until it isn't. Realistically, with four losers left there's not much chance we lose HALF our remaining games (the only way we could lose the AFCW and an automatic playoff berth,) but we COULD—theoretically—lose them all, and if an impressively long series of other extremely unlikely events occurred there's an infinitesimal yet real possibility we miss the playoffs: That's why we haven't clinched.

That'll change the moment we win a game and/or the Pats and Bengals clinch THEIR divisions (bet on the former happening first,) but not yet, and it's no given. At this point last year Houston would've clinched playoff homefield the same way we can clinch the AFCW: Win 2/4. Unfortunately for them they lost all but one and, worse still, both we and the Pats kept winning; Houston not only lost homefield throughout, but a bye and Divisional homefield. The way they played the last month NE probably beats them anyway, but playing @NE can only have hurt them.

If the last two years have taught (or reminded) me (of) anything, it's that "it ain't over till it's OVER." For the Cheatriots, not even then. :tongue:

[Joel]

Only the Pats could get a wildcard with 10 wins and push us down with a tiebreaker, and in that scenario I believe we would still be six seed. Colts win their division with one more win since they swept the Titans.
I think you're correct, but don't want to take the time to work it out; I'm pretty sure the only scenario where NE doesn't win the AFCE is the winner of the Jets/Dolphins game taking the crown instead. If it's Miami they couldn't bump us out, and if it's the Jets Miami couldn't have 10 wins. Worse case, that would leave the Pats, us and the Ravens (in that order) as the only 10 win teams fighting over the two wildcards, so we'd get the #6. I KNOW you're right about the Colts though; 10 wins (or even 9) would clinch the AFCS thanks to the Titans sweep.

[LawDog]

I think you're correct, but don't want to take the time to work it out; I'm pretty sure the only scenario where NE doesn't win the AFCE is the winner of the Jets/Dolphins game taking the crown instead. If it's Miami they couldn't bump us out, and if it's the Jets Miami couldn't have 10 wins. Worse case, that would leave the Pats, us and the Ravens (in that order) as the only 10 win teams fighting over the two wildcards, so we'd get the #6. I KNOW you're right about the Colts though; 10 wins (or even 9) would clinch the AFCS thanks to the Titans sweep.

Jets only have 5 wins now, they can't win the division if NE gets to 10, which is the premise of this part of the discussion. Miami would have to win out and NE could only win against Cleveland or Baltimore (because a win over Buffalo would give them the division record tiebreak over Miami as Miami can only get to 3-3 and NE is already at 3-1).

Edit: Miami is only at 1-2 in division so they could get to 4-2 as well, so then it would go to common games - which I haven't looked at. NE's win would still have to come against Cleveland or Baltimore and Miami beat Cleveland and lost to the Ravens so it would have to be Cleveland - and even that might not do it.

Edit: Miami lost to both NO and TB, and NE beat both so there is no way Miami can win the division unless NE loses the rest of their games. So this whole 10 win analysis is moot.

[Poet]

Me neither; I've taken it for granted they win that division, since about this time last year, really. Baltimore certainly won't: They face 3 playoff teams this month, 2 on the road. I welcome and encourage them to beat NE at home, but if Cincy can handle Indy at home that's probably it for the Ravens. I'd bet on Pitt at home against Cincy before Baltimore@Cincy. If anyone upsets the Bengals in the AFCN, it's Pitt: They must beat Miami and Cincy, but 3/4 games are at home. Depends on whether Rodgers is back and 100% hosting Pitt, I guess, and whether the Bengals tank.

I figure Cincy beats the Wayneless Colts in the cold and the AFC's set except for whether we keep the #1 seed and who gets the dubious privilege of a Bengals beatdown as their tuneup.

The Bengals, as bad as they are compared to the NFC teams, only auto loss to the Broncos. We're better than the Chiefs and Charles can't run on us. In the playoffs we're better than the Colts, we're better than the Patriots, Gronk be damned. Honestly, if the whole "Manning sucks in the postseason and he can't throw in the cold," theory of yours holds true, Cincinnati would roflstomp the Broncos.

So, in reality,Joel, you think the Bengals are the second best team in the AFC. We appreciate your support, Joel. :D

[AllThings18]

I hate those things, because SoV/S doesn't mean jack right now since EACH of the 48 remaining games will alter it for everyone. Just like when people say (as they did of us two weeks ago) "the win at home gives Denver the head-to-head tiebreak and thus sole possession of first place in the AFCW." Yeah, not really; we won the home stand, but the head-to-head tiebreak won't be decided (if at all) until the road rematch. It wasn't trivial; after the first win we couldn't LOSE the first tiebreak, but we hadn't WON it by any means: It remained in limbo.

That's why we speak of "clinching:" Because it ALWAYS remains mathematically possible for ANYONE to win a division and/or playoff homefield—until it isn't. Realistically, with four losers left there's not much chance we lose HALF our remaining games (the only way we could lose the AFCW and an automatic playoff berth,) but we COULD—theoretically—lose them all, and if an impressively long series of other extremely unlikely events occurred there's an infinitesimal yet real possibility we miss the playoffs: That's why we haven't clinched.

That'll change the moment we win a game and/or the Pats and Bengals clinch THEIR divisions (bet on the former happening first,) but not yet, and it's no given. At this point last year Houston would've clinched playoff homefield the same way we can clinch the AFCW: Win 2/4. Unfortunately for them they lost all but one and, worse still, both we and the Pats kept winning; Houston not only lost homefield throughout, but a bye and Divisional homefield. The way they played the last month NE probably beats them anyway, but playing @NE can only have hurt them.

If the last two years have taught (or reminded) me (of) anything, it's that "it ain't over till it's OVER." For the Cheatriots, not even then. :tongue:

I hate those factors too because they rarely even come into play, but it didn't take much to include them.

Cliinching each step of the way is the most important thing, and as of now the only thing that is clincable is the playoff birth. The West will likely take a couple of more weeks depending on the outcome of the games. I've always been one that likes to see everything laid out in front of me, so I made it for myself and simply thought I would share.

[Joel]

Jets only have 5 wins now, they can't win the division if NE gets to 10, which is the premise of this part of the discussion. Miami would have to win out and NE could only win against Cleveland or Baltimore (because a win over Buffalo would give them the division record tiebreak over Miami as Miami can only get to 3-3 and NE is already at 3-1).
Just a sidebar: That's pretty much the flip side of what I was saying with Miami; if the Jets COULD win the AFCE despite NE reaching 10, it could only be by getting win #9 @Miami,, which would limit Miami to 9 wins max, so THEY couldn't catch us. That's the only way the AFCE is relevant to our #6 chances: If Miami AND NE have 10 wins WITHOUT winning the AFCE, which is impossible.


Edit: Miami is only at 1-2 in division so they could get to 4-2 as well, so then it would go to common games - which I haven't looked at. NE's win would still have to come against Cleveland or Baltimore and Miami beat Cleveland and lost to the Ravens so it would have to be Cleveland - and even that might not do it.
They still can't BOTH eliminate us unless NEITHER wins the AFCE, impossible if both win 10. Worst case, one wins the AFCE, the other gets the #5 and we eliminate Baltimore for the #6.


Edit: Miami lost to both NO and TB, and NE beat both so there is no way Miami can win the division unless NE loses the rest of their games. So this whole 10 win analysis is moot.
Works for me. Go, (and I can't BELIEVE a Houston native's saying this) Bungles! :tongue: Or better yet: Go, Broncos; Go, America. :salute:

I hate those factors too because they rarely even come into play, but it didn't take much to include them.

Cliinching each step of the way is the most important thing, and as of now the only thing that is clincable is the playoff birth. The West will likely take a couple of more weeks depending on the outcome of the games. I've always been one that likes to see everything laid out in front of me, so I made it for myself and simply thought I would share.
They arise often enough; the problem is they're innumerable even a week or two out, let alone a month. As much as I like statistical masturbation, the moneyshot's just too disappointing here.

[Joel]

The Bengals, as bad as they are compared to the NFC teams, only auto loss to the Broncos. We're better than the Chiefs and Charles can't run on us. In the playoffs we're better than the Colts, we're better than the Patriots, Gronk be damned. Honestly, if the whole "Manning sucks in the postseason and he can't throw in the cold," theory of yours holds true, Cincinnati would roflstomp the Broncos.

So, in reality,Joel, you think the Bengals are the second best team in the AFC. We appreciate your support, Joel. :D
Actually, I pretty much do (remember, I'm the guy who said this time last year the Ravens would collapse, the Steelers stay collapsed and the Bengals cruise to the AFCN title this year.) The Pats are VERY tough at Foxborough though (just ask Manning,) so it's not a lock ya'll can win there; it's really best for both of us if NE tanks, but I doubt they will (go, Ravens, but not against the Bengals? :tongue:) The possibility of a Bengals@Broncos AFCCG has occurred to me, and if ya'lls D brought it I think we'd have better luck hosting the defenseless Pats.

For what it's worth though, on the way home from my uncle-in-laws birthday part tonight I did find myself idly wondering if, assuming we both reach the AFCCG and ya'lls D DOES chase Manning all over the field while shutting down our run, the Bengals would have a shot against Seattle. Any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday, but unless the NFL finally reads the riot act to the Legion of Boom Dalton would REALLY have to bring his A game, and if he slipped once, even briefly, that might be it.

[Poet]

Actually, I pretty much do (remember, I'm the guy who said this time last year the Ravens would collapse, the Steelers stay collapsed and the Bengals cruise to the AFCN title this year.) The Pats are VERY tough at Foxborough though (just ask Manning,) so it's not a lock ya'll can win there; it's really best for both of us if NE tanks, but I doubt they will (go, Ravens, but not against the Bengals? :tongue:) The possibility of a Bengals@Broncos AFCCG has occurred to me, and if ya'lls D brought it I think we'd have better luck hosting the defenseless Pats.

For what it's worth though, on the way home from my uncle-in-laws birthday part tonight I did find myself idly wondering if, assuming we both reach the AFCCG and ya'lls D DOES chase Manning all over the field while shutting down our run, the Bengals would have a shot against Seattle. Any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday, but unless the NFL finally reads the riot act to the Legion of Boom Dalton would REALLY have to bring his A game, and if he slipped once, even briefly, that might be it.

I honestly would be okay with playing the Patriots on the road. They can't stop the run, and the Bengals line has changed it's lineup. We're much better at running the ball right now than we were before. Also, if they have to put a gimpy Talib on Green, it's goodnight. Even if he's doubled, Green is going to abuse any safety they have. I also don't think the Patriots have an answer for the two tight end sets that we run. They have Gronk back, they have one legitimate weapon. Amendola is a non-issue for us.

The Seahawks on the road are still tough, but they're not dynamic. We'd have a shot, because Lynch ain't running on us. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone is going to run on us, knock on wood.

But, we can't beat Denver, so we're ******. Pacman Jones on Thomas sounds....awful. Von Miller is too fast for Anthony Collins, although AC isn't a bad replacement at LT. I love Zimmer, but he can't outsmart Manning. Oh god, ugh.

[Joel]

I honestly would be okay with playing the Patriots on the road. They can't stop the run, and the Bengals line has changed it's lineup. We're much better at running the ball right now than we were before. Also, if they have to put a gimpy Talib on Green, it's goodnight. Even if he's doubled, Green is going to abuse any safety they have. I also don't think the Patriots have an answer for the two tight end sets that we run. They have Gronk back, they have one legitimate weapon. Amendola is a non-issue for us.
You may well be right; that was largely my take on our game @NE (but don't forget Edelman; he's probably their most dangerous WR) and if we'd had even Daltonesque passing they never get close after our D demolishes them halfway through the first. Just... keep an eye on 'em; there's good documented reason I'm not the only one who calls them "Cheatriots," and their backup RT leg-whipped the Panthers best pass rusher right out of that game in addition to what Talib did to Smith. I'm not saying that's what happened to Vickerson, but can't help wondering....


The Seahawks on the road are still tough, but they're not dynamic. We'd have a shot, because Lynch ain't running on us. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone is going to run on us, knock on wood.

But, we can't beat Denver, so we're ******. Pacman Jones on Thomas sounds....awful. Von Miller is too fast for Anthony Collins, although AC isn't a bad replacement at LT. I love Zimmer, but he can't outsmart Manning. Oh god, ugh.
I dunno, I'd rather play NE than ya'll, especially at home, where Brady's never won a playoff and the crowd can work on him. If Lynch can't run on ya'll Moreno and Ball sure as Hell can't, not behind our line. That would put the whole thing on Manning, a scenario I dislike on principle because it makes the defenses job too simple (if still not easy.) As an offensively minded guy, I dislike opposing defenses knowing what I'll do before I do it on EVERY down.

Yet even if Moreno can't average 9 yds/carry against them again, I'd still worry more about a GOOD front seven than NEs one-man pass rush, and be more concerned about ya'lls secondary than NEs banged up group (that suspension on Dennard may be a blessing in disguise for them if they can survive till it expires.) Heck, if the Colts and Chiefs could catch a ball occasionally I think ANY legit AFC playoff team could beat NE home or away; Brady can't get open and catch his own passes, or play D.

[Poet]

Moreno's pass catching ability is really disconcerting to me. Just FWIW.

[Joel]

Moreno's pass catching ability is really disconcerting to me. Just FWIW.
It should be. He's a really versatile back, not the best at any one thing, but pretty good at everything; running, receiving, picking up the blitz and short yardage. A pure "third down" back who blocks/catches well, or a bruiser at the goal line, or a fast shifty back for first down would each be better in those situations, but most would be a tell for precisely that reason and because they do everything else badly. With Moreno we have the whole playbook on every down, so his presence in the formation reveals absolutely nothing to the defense (which is how I like it.)

Same argument with Dreessen (and Tamme, to a lesser extent) over Orange Julius or Virgil Green: I dislike restricting my options and DESPISE telegraphing playcalls, so I'll sacrifice some specialized excellence for general proficiency, especially in an offense designed to do a wide variety of things with the same personnel so the D has no time to substitute. These days it seems like the main difference between a good all around TE and HB is the TE doesn't rush (except in NE.)