The COLD strikes again!!!!

[Northman]

Under 300 yds passing and only 2 TDs. It was too cold.

[Army Bronco]

Lol...I didn't think about it but yes..I guess it was..

[tomjonesrocks]

Under 300 yds passing and only 2 TDs. It was too cold.

Brady's TD record? Nope.

[wayninja]

Brady's TD record? Nope.

He only needs 4 TD's and has 2 games. Might you be overreacting a bit?

2 TD's/game going into this game is exactly the pace he needs to break it...

[DenBronx]

How can anyone really put this one on Manning?

SDs offense was always on the damn field. Their time of possession was insane. That's what McCoy does, he hoardes the damn football. And our defense never made stops until it was too late. Manning can't do everything.

Also, I am thinking Holliday is becoming more of a liabilty then what he is worth. We need to figure this one out and quickly.

Not to mention we have many key injuries still. I dont know what's going on with our DTs now but Ryan Matthews just took them to the woodshed tonight and our secondary gives up HUGE plays, game changing HUGE plays.

We need to draft a game changing safety. Ihenacho has been rather bad lately....dont trust that guy anymore. And when in the heck are we going to get Moore back??


Welker, Bailey, Moore, Wolfe, Clady, Franklin, Vickerson.....and on and on. At this point you have to think NE will win out. We should still get the 1st round bye but most likely will get 2nd seed now. Meaning the road to the SB will go through NE and that sucks.


One last thing....where in the hell did the home field advantage go? Did it disappear??? No wonder Rivers likes playing here.

[DenBronx]

Brady's TD record? Nope.


Yeah he might get that next week. I think that record is still going to fall.

[DenBronx]

Under 300 yds passing and only 2 TDs. It was too cold.

Still better numbers then Tebow or Orton.

[wayninja]

How can anyone really put this one on Manning?

SDs offense was always on the damn field. Their time of possession was insane. That's what McCoy does, he hoardes the damn football. And our defense never made stops until it was too late. Manning can't do everything.

Also, I am thinking Holliday is becoming more of a liabilty then what he is worth. We need to figure this one out and quickly.

Not to mention we have many key injuries still. I dont know what's going on with our DTs now but Ryan Matthews just took them to the woodshed tonight and our secondary gives up HUGE plays, game changing HUGE plays.

We need to draft a game changing safety. Ihenacho has been rather bad lately....dont trust that guy anymore. And when in the heck are we going to get Moore back??


Welker, Bailey, Moore, Wolfe, Clady, Franklin, Vickerson.....and on and on. At this point you have to think NE will win out. We should still get the 1st round bye but most likely will get 2nd seed now. Meaning the road to the SB will go through NE and that sucks.


One last thing....where in the hell did the home field advantage go? Did it disappear??? No wonder Rivers likes playing here.

I'd say the blame for the game is more on Defense than anything, but honestly, Manning isn't very far behind.

3, 3 and outs in a row is not good, and that Interception was insanely costly. It's tough not to hold Manning accountable for the problems on offense tonight.

[Poet]

I think Northman is being facetious. I'm not sure though.

[wayninja]

I think Northman is being facetious. I'm not sure though.

He's pretty bitter ATM. He will deny it with a stoic "No! I just find it funny", but we know. We know.

[DenBronx]

He's having a meltdown on facebook.

[Dzone]

That last drive of dink passes was frustrating to watch.

[Joel]

I'd say the blame for the game is more on Defense than anything, but honestly, Manning isn't very far behind.

3, 3 and outs in a row is not good, and that Interception was insanely costly. It's tough not to hold Manning accountable for the problems on offense tonight.
The pick was on Manning forcing the ball out, though the protection wasn't great, but the rest is mostly on the D and the return game. We can't complain about running on 1st and G from our 6, then turn around and complain about a pick deep in our own territory when Manning's hit as he throws. The few times the D made a stop they still gave up enough SD was punting from midfield, and Holliday bobbling balls and calling for fair catches inside our 10 with no one near him only made it worse.

Manning didn't have lots of yards or TDs because we didn't have the ball much and SD covered the deep ball when we did. He DID complete 66% of his passes, but he can't do it alone. The Bolts beat us the same way they beat Indy: Run the ball constantly to keep the elite QBs high octane offense off the field so he MUST score on ALL the few drives he gets. That was to be expected; what wasn't expected was that a run D that's 7th best in yds/att would turn into, well, the Colts awful run D, AT HOME.


That last drive of dink passes was frustrating to watch.
It's called, "Prevent." It may be unfamiliar to some of us, since OUR D is so bad at it we gave Baltimore Hail Mary TDs at the end of BOTH halves in last years playoff, but that's how it's SUPPOSED to look. I WISH our D played Prevent that well; whenever we score right before halftime my first thought isn't "yea, we get the ball first!" it's "yea, we don't have to play Prevent!"

[weazel]

That last drive of dink passes was frustrating to watch.

padded some stats though... Championship!!!

[wayninja]

The pick was on Manning forcing the ball out, though the protection wasn't great, but the rest is mostly on the D and the return game. We can't complain about running on 1st and G from our 6, then turn around and complain about a pick deep in our own territory when Manning's hit as he throws. The few times the D made a stop they still gave up enough SD was punting from midfield, and Holliday bobbling balls and calling for fair catches inside our 10 with no one near him only made it worse.

I'm not sure we could have done anything about our starting position on that particular drive, that was just an awesome punt by the chargers.

The D was really bad, don't get me wrong, but it was the mental mistakes that killed us more than the physical ones. Taking really bad penalties to give the Bolts first downs was brutal.

But we KNOW this about our defense. You have to gameplan that the Chargers are going to put up roughly similar points as they did last time you played them. We need to be able to outscore that, and our offense looked awful, directionless. And the captain of that ship has to take responsibility for it.


Manning didn't have lots of yards or TDs because we didn't have the ball much and SD covered the deep ball when we did. He DID complete 66% of his passes, but he can't do it alone. The Bolts beat us the same way they beat Indy: Run the ball constantly to keep the elite QBs high octane offense off the field so he MUST score on ALL the few drives he gets. That was to be expected; what wasn't expected was that a run D that's 7th best in yds/att would turn into, well, the Colts awful run D, AT HOME.

Manning was forcing a lot of throws in to tight coverage. Some of that is protection, but some of that is on Manning. The costly INT was all manning. He held on way too long with the pocket collapsing and tried to drive his arm forward even in the face of a defenders arm coming down.

I said in the very first quarter. Our offense looked really off. Like they were playing in slow motion or something.


It's called, "Prevent." It may be unfamiliar to some of us, since OUR D is so bad at it we gave Baltimore Hail Mary TDs at the end of BOTH halves in last years playoff, but that's how it's SUPPOSED to look. I WISH our D played Prevent that well; whenever we score right before halftime my first thought isn't "yea, we get the ball first!" it's "yea, we don't have to play Prevent!"

I get that they used prevent effectively, but we bit right into it, time and time again, there was not a single challenge to the outside or attempt open the field deeper by staggering the depth of the routes. Maybe we didn't think we could protect well enough, but running the same play 6 times

[Joel]

I'm not sure we could have done anything about our starting position on that particular drive, that was just an awesome punt by the chargers.
It wasn't a 70 yd punt; where they kicked it from had a lot to do with where we got (that's how field position works, after all. ;))


The D was really bad, don't get me wrong, but it was the mental mistakes that killed us more than the physical ones. Taking really bad penalties to give the Bolts first downs was brutal.
That's part of the D being really bad. Honestly, I think Fox and Del Rio owe Bowlen a refund: Their both defensive specialists whose only job is maintain discipline on a D just good enough to win playoff games with a record setting offense, HoF QB and a pair of HoF WRs, yet they've not managed to do win ONE yet, let alone several. Someone compared us to Mannings Colts, but can anyone here imagine a Tony Dungy D lining up in the neutral zone on a punt, leaving Antonio Gates uncovered and having 12 men on the field ALL ON THE SAME DRIVE?!


But we KNOW this about our defense. You have to gameplan that the Chargers are going to put up roughly similar points as they did last time you played them. We need to be able to outscore that, and our offense looked awful, directionless. And the captain of that ship has to take responsibility for it.
Our offense didn't have the ball much, and was usually pinned deep even when it did. It's hard for the captain of the ship to steer it anywhere if he never gets to castoff so he can.

There's a reason he kept calling first down runs every time we were pinned inside our 10 (and I lost count of how many times that was.) Same reason McCoy did when we pinned THEM deep: To avoid an interception that guarantees points like the one Manning threw late. The difference is SDs NFL-worst D held US to three-and-outs when we were pinned deep; WE let THEM drive to midfield so they could punt to inside our 10—AGAIN. And burn half the quarter doing it (again, offense can't score without the ball.)


Manning was forcing a lot of throws in to tight coverage. Some of that is protection, but some of that is on Manning. The costly INT was all manning. He held on way too long with the pocket collapsing and tried to drive his arm forward even in the face of a defenders arm coming down.
The costly Int was mostly Manning, but some of it was a block that collapsed almost immediately. It's not like Manning held onto it for 7 seconds; I bet it wasn't >5, and probably not >4. It was also just one play, but the protection wasn't ever consistently great; if he gets protection like Rivers had their running doesn't matter. Of if Moreno and Ball get blocking like they had. Even the faults in our offense weren't solely nor even primarily on Manning, and I say that as someone who's taken lots of heat for questioning his postseason performance.


I said in the very first quarter. Our offense looked really off. Like they were playing in slow motion or something.
They were playing and the Bolts were serious, but that problem was far more egregious on defense, which is why our offense was so consistently and restrictively pinned (or penned) deep.


I get that they used prevent effectively, but we bit right into it, time and time again, there was not a single challenge to the outside or attempt open the field deeper by staggering the depth of the routes. Maybe we didn't think we could protect well enough, but running the same play 6 times
Run proficiently Prevent does its job very well, and it's not hard; the usual problem with Prevent isn't executing it but executing it TOO SOON, when even a long drive from an opponent is enough to get them back into the game if it also gets them into the end zone. We're just not used to seeing Prevent run well because our defensive gurus do such a consistently bad job coaching it; I can't count how many times in the past two years we've given a team the ball with <1:00 in a half only to let them score.

No, I don't think they thought we could protect well enough to go deep much, but we can't say, "Manning was forcing the ball into tight coverage; he shouldn't have don that," then turn around and say, "even though SD sold out on covering the long ball, Manning should've thrown it ANYWAY." Which is it? Can't be both.

Yes, we know our D is weak, even with a former DB as head coach and a former LB and head coach as DC. But even if they WERE game-planning for the offense to be so good it didn't matter if the D was useless (in which case wtf are we paying DEFENSIVE coaches to run an OFFENSE Manning designed and runs far better?) that's the wrong gameplan because it's asking too much of even an exceptional offense. They say teams have to win all phases of the game, and we failed defense and STs far worse than offense.

Meh, I'm'a eat something and go to bed; the one place I agree with you is that the more I think about this game the unhappier I and everyone around me will be. :tsk:

[Northman]

How can anyone really put this one on Manning?




The defense didnt throw the INT dude. And while people will say 20 pts should win you a ballgame anyone who has paid attention this team knows that the defense isnt the crutch of this team. Denver will not win a SB scoring only 20 pts, people need to get that out of their heads if that is what they think. And Denver certainly wont win a SB turning the ball over in crucial moments.

[Broncolingus]

The defense didnt throw the INT dude. And while people will say 20 pts should win you a ballgame anyone who has paid attention this team knows that the defense isnt the crutch of this team. Denver will not win a SB scoring only 20 pts, people need to get that out of their heads if that is what they think. And Denver certainly wont win a SB turning the ball over in crucial moments.

...prob not a good thing when there's a lot of legitimate '...won't win a Super Bowl...' observations about your favorite team...

[Northman]

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/s720x720/1465203_640684012644957_1188044214_n.jpg

[DenBronx]

The defense didnt throw the INT dude. And while people will say 20 pts should win you a ballgame anyone who has paid attention this team knows that the defense isnt the crutch of this team. Denver will not win a SB scoring only 20 pts, people need to get that out of their heads if that is what they think. And Denver certainly wont win a SB turning the ball over in crucial moments.

Manning had less time of possession in this game then any game all year. Our defense couldn't get SD off the field and Matthews had a field day. The gashed us with the run and then Rivers would sling it down field. Also their 3rd down conversion rate was insane.

I said it a few weeks back. SD is a lot better of a team then people give them credit for. There are several games that they could have won had things went their way. I don't want to see them in the playoffs because they are heating up late in the season. In fact I would much rather play the Colts, Balt or KC.

[Northman]

Manning had less time of possession in this game then any game all year. Our defense couldn't get SD off the field and Matthews had a field day. The gashed us with the run and then Rivers would sling it down field. Also their 3rd down conversion rate was insane.

I said it a few weeks back. SD is a lot better of a team then people give them credit for. There are several games that they could have won had things went their way. I don't want to see them in the playoffs because they are heating up late in the season. In fact I would much rather play the Colts, Balt or KC.


Dude, in this particular game TOP means nothing. At the end of the day he is a future HOF QB paid a lot of money to make plays when he gets the chance. The defense despite their problems still gave him the ball back with 5 minutes left. If this was a average or rookie QB than i can see giving him a pass but thats not the case here. If we had just simply gotten our asses kicked like 42-10 than i could just write it off a ass whooping. But he had a chance to make a play just like in double OT with the Bmore game and he didnt come through. Does shit like that happen? Yea. But please dont tell me that he doesnt deserve any blame here. The offense is the crutch of this football team, as it goes so does the rest of it and people either need to understand that or they dont. The defense will not win games for us, they just wont no matter how much we want to wish it.

[Broncolingus]

I don't want to see them in the playoffs because they are heating up late in the season...

...kinda sad the boys in orange aren't...

...but I agree, (**BroncosForums Donkster disclaimer here**) in most cases but certainly not all, that's what teams do who consistently win in the postseason.

[Joel]

Dude, in this particular game TOP means nothing. At the end of the day he is a future HOF QB paid a lot of money to make plays when he gets the chance. The defense despite their problems still gave him the ball back with 5 minutes left. If this was a average or rookie QB than i can see giving him a pass but thats not the case here. If we had just simply gotten our asses kicked like 42-10 than i could just write it off a ass whooping. But he had a chance to make a play just like in double OT with the Bmore game and he didnt come through. Does shit like that happen? Yea. But please dont tell me that he doesnt deserve any blame here. The offense is the crutch of this football team, as it goes so does the rest of it and people either need to understand that or they dont. The defense will not win games for us, they just wont no matter how much we want to wish it.
We were down 7 pts at the end of the game by that point, and the only reason we weren't still down 14 like we had been most of the half was that Manning led a TD drive on the previous possession. People complain about him calling first down runs on all the drives starting inside our 10, then turn around and complain about him throwing a pick in our territory. Never mind that the pass protection collapsed in <4 seconds on that play and the Int was forced.

Our D was garbage. Until now I could at least count on it playing the run very well, but they gave a team with a bottom ten rushing average its season high rushing total. On the very few occasions the D made a stop, it was either so late SD pinned us inside our 10 or our useless STs found a way to pin us deep anyway. We forced all of 3 punts in that game, and one of those was from midfield to our 11 on a drive that started at the SD 1 and took >8:00. Time of possession and field position DEFINITELY matter; that's Football 101, and our D left Manning hanging.

[Ravage!!!]

I think Northman is being facetious. I'm not sure though.

I can only HOPE he is/was.

[Ravage!!!]

Manning had less time of possession in this game then any game all year. Our defense couldn't get SD off the field and Matthews had a field day. The gashed us with the run and then Rivers would sling it down field. Also their 3rd down conversion rate was insane.

I said it a few weeks back. SD is a lot better of a team then people give them credit for. There are several games that they could have won had things went their way. I don't want to see them in the playoffs because they are heating up late in the season. In fact I would much rather play the Colts, Balt or KC.

Yeah.. would he have had "300yrds passing" if we had the ball in the 3rd quarter? I mean, is that REALLY what we are basing this off of? In the 16 games manning has had under 30 degrees.. he's 5% less passing % and 50 (yes, a whopping 50) less total passing yards per game than HIS high average.

[EastCoastBronco]

I just hope that Del Rio and Woodyard get their marital issues out of the way.
This defence doesn't know it's ass from it's elbow when he isn't out there directing traffic full time.

[bcbronc]

A big part of the reason SD had the ball all day was because our offence couldn't put together any drives. One first down in four possessions simply isn't good enough.

Defence isn't "good" but did come up big in crunch time. San Diego is a top 5 offence after all, need our offence to match their drives with drives of our own which didn't happen.

All in all, the team looked like a group that had already clinched a playoff spot and underestimated their opponent. Hopefully it's a kick in the ass that's well received.

[Mike]

Manning had less time of possession in this game then any game all year. Our defense couldn't get SD off the field and Matthews had a field day. The gashed us with the run and then Rivers would sling it down field. Also their 3rd down conversion rate was insane.

I said it a few weeks back. SD is a lot better of a team then people give them credit for. There are several games that they could have won had things went their way. I don't want to see them in the playoffs because they are heating up late in the season. In fact I would much rather play the Colts, Balt or KC.

But they did nothing with the possessions they had which is a problem. Especially considering SD's pass defense is not very good. Right now I am hoping that it was just a result of injured players, poor coaching, and short week coming together to the big pile that we witnessed.

[Joel]

A big reason we did nothing with our possessions was that we usually had our butts to our goal line and didn't want to give SD the ball right there (as on Mannings Int, thrown when protection collapsed AGAIN and he lacked the luxury of waiting till the next drive down 7 with 5:00 to play.) Some of that's on our crappy return game, but a lot's on our D giving up tons of yards even on the rare occasions they managed to prevent a score. The Bolts scored on all but one first half drive and all but three in the game, and half our drives started inside our 11. Bad D and STs.

[Northman]

A big reason we did nothing with our possessions was that we usually had our butts to our goal line and didn't want to give SD the ball right there (as on Mannings Int, thrown when protection collapsed AGAIN and he lacked the luxury of waiting till the next drive down 7 with 5:00 to play.) Some of that's on our crappy return game, but a lot's on our D giving up tons of yards even on the rare occasions they managed to prevent a score. The Bolts scored on all but one first half drive and all but three in the game, and half our drives started inside our 11. Bad D and STs.

Dude, come on. Our offense was flat our terrible that night. Enough excuses already.

[Dapper Dan]

An excuse would be saying it's the weather. The team didn't play well. They've played fine in the cold before.

[Joel]

Dude, come on. Our offense was flat our terrible that night. Enough excuses already.
They had their hands tied and very few possessions. Even so, Manning completed >65% of his passes and had a 92.43 PR—with his favorite WR on the sideline all game. With ANY kind of defense and special teams that would've been plenty. The only complaint I have against the offense was that our running was crap: We only tried 11 times, and only got 18 yds for the trouble.

In that sense I DO worry it was a playoff preview: Awful D, STs, run and pass blocking force Manning to do it all alone, and he can't beat playoff teams singlehandedly.

[Broncolingus]

...he can't beat playoff teams singlehandedly...

...but I knew a QB who could...:D

...well, at least until the Super Bowls :tsk:

[Joel]

...but I knew a QB who could...:D

...well, at least until the Super Bowls :tsk:
Well, the AFC sucks almost as badly this year as it did the first 25 years it existed so maybe that's an option, provided we don't mind being on the wrong end of a 55 or 42-10 SB. The Broncos don't get enough appreciation for being just the 5th AFL team to win a SB in 32 years of trying. The year Elway got his first—at 37 (coincidentally Mannings age)—the AFC hadn't won since the Raiders did it Elways rookie year.

[BroncoJoe]

Well, the AFC sucks almost as badly this year as it did the first 25 years it existed so maybe that's an option, provided we don't mind being on the wrong end of a 55 or 42-10 SB. The Broncos don't get enough appreciation for being just the 5th AFL team to win a SB in 32 years of trying. The year Elway got his first—at 37 (coincidentally Mannings age)—the AFC hadn't won since the Raiders did it Elways rookie year.

Once again, you're cherry picking. In the first 20 years, the NFC won 13 and the AFC won 12. Overall, the NFC has won 25, the AFC has won 22. Seems pretty even to me.

There was a run of 13 straight in the mid-80's to late 90's. Maybe that's what you're talking about, but it's been pretty even since it's inception. Both conferences have had their runs.

[Broncolingus]

I was just trying to throw an Elway compliment in there...

[BroncoJoe]

I was just trying to throw an Elway compliment in there...

You can't do that with Joel.

[MOtorboat]

Once again, you're cherry picking. In the first 20 years, the NFC won 13 and the AFC won 12. Overall, the NFC has won 25, the AFC has won 22. Seems pretty even to me.

There was a run of 13 straight in the mid-80's to late 90's. Maybe that's what you're talking about, but it's been pretty even since it's inception. Both conferences have had their runs.

You see, Joe. The Broncos and Chiefs are 11-3 this season, and can't possibly be as good as they were two years ago when they were 8-8 amd 7-9.

[BroncoJoe]

You see, Joe. The Broncos and Chiefs are 11-3 this season, and can't possibly be as good as they were two years ago when they were 8-8 amd 7-9.

Is it wrong when you wish someone's name wasn't so close to your own?

Kill me know.

[Dapper Dan]

Is it wrong when you wish someone's name wasn't so close to your own?

Kill me now.

Don't commit suicide. It'll start a discussion.

[Joel]

Once again, you're cherry picking. In the first 20 years, the NFC won 13 and the AFC won 12. Overall, the NFC has won 25, the AFC has won 22. Seems pretty even to me.

There was a run of 13 straight in the mid-80's to late 90's. Maybe that's what you're talking about, but it's been pretty even since it's inception. Both conferences have had their runs.
Yeah, except 5 of those early "AFC" victories were by NFL teams who'd just switched conferences:

The 1970 Colts won their 2nd year as an "AFC" team—two years after losing the SB as an NFL team.
The 1974 Steelers won back-to-back 4 years later, a feat they repeated 4 years after that.

Moving to the weaker AFC may have been the best thing that ever happened to Pitt; IIRC they only made the playoffs ONCE in their 38 year NFL existence.

Meanwhile, the only AFL winners in the first 31 Super Bowls were:

The 1968 Jets, 1969 Chiefs, 1972-73 Dolphins and 1976, 1980 and 1983 Raiders. 7 games out of 31; the NFC utterly dominated, and it was rarely even close. It took the AFC THAT LONG to catch up, and they were routinely blown out all through the '80s. The '9ers-Bengals games were tight, but even counting those the AFC was blown out in 15 out of 17 SBs by an average margin of >19 pts. Without the close Bengals games the AFC lost 13/17 SBs by more than 3 TDs.

The Raiders games were blowouts BY the AFC, but even counting those the NFC outscored the AFC by an average of >2 TDs/SB over 17 years, and only lost TWICE. When Dallas and SF met in three straight NFCCGs in the early '90s it was a foregone conclusion the winner would be SB champ, just like when Green Bay beat Dallas in the first two NFCCGs (technically, they were still NFL Championships, because the merger wasn't complete until the Chiefs win in '70.) They used to call it the Super Bore, watched for the spectacle because the winner was always almost certain.

If you don't remember what it was like, go watch the tape of SB XXXII and listen to them talk about how the AFC hadn't won in 13 years and what heavy underdogs we were. The balanced seemed to shift after that though; the Rams won in '99, but after that the AFC won 6 of the next 7, though the overall balance in the 6 years since is pretty even.

[Joel]

You see, Joe. The Broncos and Chiefs are 11-3 this season, and can't possibly be as good as they were two years ago when they were 8-8 amd 7-9.
It's funny, all year I've been hearing how the Chiefs record doesn't mean jack because they played crap teams (whom we also played; the only difference is NE and Baltimore for Buffalo and Cleveland, but in the latter case that's not a big difference.) I guarantee the whole CONFERENCE wasn't still in the playoff hunt the last month of 2011 though; this year even HOUSTON wasn't mathematically eliminated until a week and a half ago.

Whatever. If ya'll want to believe the Steelers dynasty proof of AFL parity just to spite me, feel free. It's more likely evidence even a poor NFL team could climb to the top of the AFL often as not, but don't be distracted by trivial facts like the Steelers being an NFL team long enough to have merged with the Eagles and Cardinals (i.e. the Steagles and Carpets, and the latter nickname is a good indicator of how good they were before moving to the AFC.)

Honestly, the STUPID arguments ya'll defend to the death just to pick a fight with me defy belief. I don't know if it's petty obstinance or genuine ignorance, but either way ya'll aren't embarrassing anyone but yourselves—but doing enough of THAT to cover the whole forum.

[MOtorboat]

I guarantee the whole CONFERENCE wasn't still in the playoff hunt the last month of 2011 though; this year even HOUSTON wasn't mathematically eliminated until a week and a half ago.

And...LOL

Only the Indianapolis Colts were mathematically eliminated from the playoffs during the first week of December. The EXACT same number of teams that were eliminated at the SAME TIME this year.

We're not even making arguments, we're just responding to your idiotic theories, proving them wrong time after time after time. Now, tell me again how the 11-3 Broncos and Chiefs are worse than they were two years ago. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

[BroncoJoe]

yeah, except 5 of those early "afc" victories were by nfl teams who'd just switched conferences:

The 1970 colts won their 2nd year as an "afc" team—two years after losing the sb as an nfl team.
The 1974 steelers won back-to-back 4 years later, a feat they repeated 4 years after that.

Moving to the weaker afc may have been the best thing that ever happened to pitt; iirc they only made the playoffs once in their 38 year nfl existence.

Meanwhile, the only afl winners in the first 31 super bowls were:

The 1968 jets, 1969 chiefs, 1972-73 dolphins and 1976, 1980 and 1983 raiders. 7 games out of 31; the nfc utterly dominated, and it was rarely even close. It took the afc that long to catch up, and they were routinely blown out all through the '80s. The '9ers-bengals games were tight, but even counting those the afc was blown out in 15 out of 17 sbs by an average margin of >19 pts. Without the close bengals games the afc lost 13/17 sbs by more than 3 tds.

The raiders games were blowouts by the afc, but even counting those the nfc outscored the afc by an average of >2 tds/sb over 17 years, and only lost twice. When dallas and sf met in three straight nfccgs in the early '90s it was a foregone conclusion the winner would be sb champ, just like when green bay beat dallas in the first two nfccgs (technically, they were still nfl championships, because the merger wasn't complete until the chiefs win in '70.) they used to call it the super bore, watched for the spectacle because the winner was always almost certain.

If you don't remember what it was like, go watch the tape of sb xxxii and listen to them talk about how the afc hadn't won in 13 years and what heavy underdogs we were. The balanced seemed to shift after that though; the rams won in '99, but after that the afc won 6 of the next 7, though the overall balance in the 6 years since is pretty even.

nfc 25, afc 22.

[Joel]

And...LOL

Only the Indianapolis Colts were mathematically eliminated from the playoffs during the first week of December. The EXACT same number of teams that were eliminated at the SAME TIME this year.
Yeah—because the season happened to end New Years Day, so the first game of December was Week 13, NOT Week 14, which is when Jax eliminated Houston this year. In other words, the AFCs worst team hung around an extra week this year before its second worst team ended their season.


We're not even making arguments, we're just responding to your idiotic theories, proving them wrong time after time after time. Now, tell me again how the 11-3 Broncos and Chiefs are worse than they were two years ago. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
The NFL owning the AFL for all but 7 of the first 31 SBs isn't just my "idiotic theory," it's documented historical fact, so LOL at the box scores.

I never said Denver and KC are worse than two years ago: I said the AFC is, and noted Denver's an exception. Where were/are you when everyone calls KC a paper tiger, because I've consistently held they didn't just stumble into 9 straight wins. Never mind; fill in my posts in your head with whatever you wish I'd said, then respond to that; if it ain't fixed, don't break it, right?

[Joel]

nfc 25, afc 22.
Pittsburgh was an NFL team, and so were the Colts; that's 5 NFL wins you're giving the AFC just because two teams moved after the merger. NFL 30 AFL 17. Otherwise, who gets credit for the Jets beating the Colts; is that AFL vs. AFL? Does it make sense to credit the AFL for the Colts losing SB III AND the Colts winning SB V? Not to mention that, once again, even a decade after the merger NFL teams not only beat AFL teams 13 years straight, but outscored them by an average of 20 pts, including the two biggest SB blowouts ever.

[BroncoJoe]

Pittsburgh was an NFL team, and so were the Colts; that's 5 NFL wins you're giving the AFC just because two teams moved after the merger. NFL 30 AFL 17. Otherwise, who gets credit for the Jets beating the Colts; is that AFL vs. AFL? Does it make sense to credit the AFL for the Colts losing SB III AND the Colts winning SB V? Not to mention that, once again, even a decade after the merger NFL teams not only beat AFL teams 13 years straight, but outscored them by an average of 20 pts, including the two biggest SB blowouts ever.

You can't arbitrarily change what conference they were in when they won. They won as AFC teams. You can justify it anyway you want, but the facts are indeed fact.

[MOtorboat]

You can't arbitrarily change what conference they were in when they won. They won as AFC teams. You can justify it anyway you want, but the facts are indeed fact.

If Seattle wins it all this year that win actually belongs to the AFC.

Which makes Seattle's record belong to the AFC this season, which makes the AFC the strongest conference evah!

[Joel]

You can't arbitrarily change what conference they were in when they won. They won as AFC teams. You can justify it anyway you want, but the facts are indeed fact.
The Colts LOSING their first SB said far more about the AFL than did their WIN just two years later. It was essentially the same team, with the same QB as when they won the 1959 NFL Championship before the AFL even existed. The NFL just called them up and said, "you're in the AFC now," without changing their roster, home city, stadium or anything else except that they got to play teams like the craptacular Patriots instead of the Packers who won the first two SBs.

Namath's not a big deal for winning a single SB, but because (as The Hidden Game of Football put it) "it was the BIG Big One, the one that proved the AFC wasn't creamed corn." The Jets were 17 pt underdogs, and justifiably after the Packers annihilated the Raiders and Chiefs in the first two SBs; 17 pts was generous, since the Packers victory margin was larger in BOTH their SBs. The AFL was just THAT FAR behind the NFL, and even SB III was generally considered a fluke; KC's SB IV win was more convincing.

Not that the move wasn't bumpy; the year of the merger Pitt finished 1-13 and won a coin flip to get the #1 overall pick and Bradshaw—but just four years later they won the first of two straight SBs. Going from 1 win to a SB repeat in 4 years was unheard of; no one matched it until the '89 Cowboys (who managed to lose 2 more games than the '70 Steelers.)

It was easier for an NFC team moved to the AFC though, because the NFC was a LOT better, and it stayed that way until 1997. I'm frankly surprised the AFC didn't catch up in the '80s, by which time both conferences were using the same draft and rules, but the fact remains the NFC won all but two SBs for 17 years by an average margin of 20 pts. 7 AFL wins in 31 years; just because the NFL gave the AFC three of its teams doesn't change that; that two former NFL teams won HALF the first 10 AFCCGs says everything about the early AFC.

[Joel]

If Seattle wins it all this year that win actually belongs to the AFC.

Which makes Seattle's record belong to the AFC this season, which makes the AFC the strongest conference evah!
Yeah, because the 1976-2001 AFC was WHOLLY distinct from the NFL, with a completely separate and competing draft, teams, schedules and even rules. Players drafted by the 1995 Seahawks could TOTALLY say, "Nah, I'm gonna go play for the Cowboys since they drafted me, too, and offered a LOT more money." It's EXACTLY the same as the '70s Steelers and Colts. :rolleyes:

FACT: Only 4 AFL teams managed to win just 7 of the first 31 SBs; anyone who claims differenty is welcome to show us the fifth team from Lamar Hunts league that managed a SB win before 1997. Except for those 7 SBs, the other 24 were NFL wins, most blowouts by 3 TDs. That's some kind o' parity. We didn't get TRUE parity until Denver won back-to-back.

[Poet]

Joel, you're really splitting hairs here, even for you.

[Joel]

Joel, you're really splitting hairs here, even for you.
I'm really not; the Colts won their first SB just two years after losing one as an NFL team, and when Pitt won their first two half their roster had been drafted by the AFL AND NFL. We can't use those games to claim the '70s AFC was on par with the NFC, because the AFL was NEVER on par with the NFL except in ratings, the all important factor that prompted the merger.

I hesitate to play the age card, but were ya'll just not around for the NFCs annual beatdown of the AFC the first 25 years? Look at Denver alone: Four SBs, never getting within two scores of winning ANY of them. The 27-10 loss when the Doomsday D smacked around their former QB was as good as it got for Denver until 1997, and they, Oakland and Buffalo were the cream of the AFC crop. The Bills SHOULD'VE beat the Giants in their 1 pt loss, but after that? Three straight annihilations, the second nearly surpassing Denvers record for most SB points allowed.

The Raiders had good teams, blowing out the NFC in all three of their SBs, and the '72-'73 Dolphins were arguably the best ever. The rest of the "AFC"s wins consisted of the Jets getting lucky against a beat-up aging dynasty, the Chiefs beating a Vikings team that made a habit of losing SBs, and former NFL teams beating other NFL teams. When original NFL teams played original AFL teams, the NFL ALWAYS won, and usually outscored the AFL 2:1 or more. Your Bengals twice made a game of it and the Bills did once; that was pretty much it.

Until Denver changed all that in '97, starting a string where the AFC won 9 out of 12 before the Saints and Packers managed consecutive NFC wins. The AFC was a joke until the Broncos, Ravens and Steelers (by then a fully AFC team) made it respectable (I'd include the Cheatriots, but... you know.... ;))

[MOtorboat]

Yeah, because the 1976-2001 AFC was WHOLLY distinct from the NFL, with a completely separate and competing draft, teams, schedules and even rules. Players drafted by the 1995 Seahawks could TOTALLY say, "Nah, I'm gonna go play for the Cowboys since they drafted me, too, and offered a LOT more money." It's EXACTLY the same as the '70s Steelers and Colts. :rolleyes:

FACT: Only 4 AFL teams managed to win just 7 of the first 31 SBs; anyone who claims differenty is welcome to show us the fifth team from Lamar Hunts league that managed a SB win before 1997. Except for those 7 SBs, the other 24 were NFL wins, most blowouts by 3 TDs. That's some kind o' parity. We didn't get TRUE parity until Denver won back-to-back.

So, you can arbitrarily switch teams from conference to conference to make an argument, but I cannot?

Got it.

Stupid rant is stupid.

[Joel]

So, you can arbitrarily switch teams from conference to conference to make an argument, but I cannot?
No, you can arbitrarily switch teams from conference to conference because THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT THE NFL DID DURING THE MERGER! But three NFL teams that had BEEN NFL teams longer than the AFL had EXISTED didn't magically become AFL teams after two years of playing with them.

Look, ask anyone who's been around long enough to have seen those games and they'll tell you the NFC consistently kicked the crap out of the AFC in EVERY SB unless the Dolphins, Raiders or an NFL team was playing. Not only did the NFC win almost EVERY time for 31 years, but usually by 3 TDs or more. That's just the historical factual reality as demonstrated by 31 box scores; whether you don't remember or choose to ignore the memories is immaterial to how egregiously and factually WRONG your claim is.


Got it.

Stupid rant is stupid.
Well, at least we agree on SOMETHING at last; now, are you done with a two page debate about a casual observation in passing and well known by everyone >30?

[MOtorboat]

egregiously and factually WRONG your claim is.

What "claim" are you talking about?

[MOtorboat]

Here is a "claim" I want to see disputed. The AFC was 12-6 in the first 18 Super Bowls.

[Joel]

You don't see the problem there, the "arbitrary" switch? Seriously?


What "claim" are you talking about?
The claim the NFC curbstomped the AFC in nearly all the first 31 SBs. That was the well known claim no one knowledgeable person would dispute, but when I dared allude to it in passing it was time to unleash the hounds, and that's the fox (or snipe) hunt you chose to join.


Here is a "claim" I want to see disputed. The AFC was 12-6 in the first 18 Super Bowls.
Sure, if we credit AFL teams for 5 wins by teams the NFL "arbitrarily switched" to the AFC because 1) the AFL was grossly inferior to the NFL even though it 2) spread its talent among 6 less teams. The only reason the "AFC" was 12-6 in the first 18 Super Bowls is because the NFL spotted it 5 champions; original AFL teams were 7-11 in that span.

More to the point, even well after the merger (i.e. once both leagues fully integrated) original AFL teams were 7-24 in the first 31 Super Bowls until Denver turned it around for them. And they didn't just consistently lose, they consistently lost BADLY; again, with a few exceptions like the Bengals pair and the Bills first, most losses weren't just beatings but MUGGINGS by 3 TDs or more.

Show me a 5th AFL team that managed a win in ANY of the first 31 SBs. Really simple task—assuming it's possible, which it sadly isn't. I'm an AFL guy at heart for many reasons, but the plain truth is the NFC owned the AFC until Denver finally established true conference parity (and it only took a quarter century.)

[MOtorboat]

You don't see the problem there, the "arbitrary" switch? Seriously?


The claim the NFC curbstomped the AFC in nearly all the first 31 SBs. That was the well known claim no one knowledgeable person would dispute, but when I dared allude to it in passing it was time to unleash the hounds, and that's the fox (or snipe) hunt you chose to join.


Sure, if we credit AFL teams for 5 wins by teams the NFL "arbitrarily switched" to the AFC because 1) the AFL was grossly inferior to the NFL even though it 2) spread its talent among 6 less teams. The only reason the "AFC" was 12-6 in the first 18 Super Bowls is because the NFL spotted it 5 champions; original AFL teams were 7-11 in that span.

More to the point, even well after the merger (i.e. once both leagues fully integrated) original AFL teams were 7-24 in the first 31 Super Bowls until Denver turned it around for them. And they didn't just consistently lose, they consistently lost BADLY; again, with a few exceptions like the Bengals pair and the Bills first, most losses weren't just beatings but MUGGINGS by 3 TDs or more.

Show me a 5th AFL team that managed a win in ANY of the first 31 SBs. Really simple task—assuming it's possible, which it sadly isn't. I'm an AFL guy at heart for many reasons, but the plain truth is the NFC owned the AFC until Denver finally established true conference parity (and it only took a quarter century.)

By 1970 (four whole years) the AFL/NFL divide was gone. So I'm not sure how that was relevant 6 years into the league, much less 31.

Who gives a ****? Only you, who now is going to great lengths to prove the AFC was inferior in 1970 to somehow prove that it's inferior this year (which it's not, but whatever), in a lame ass effort to disparage Manning and the Broncos No. 1 seed.

It's circular logic, at best. Mostly, it's just idiocy.

[Joel]

By 1970 (four whole years) the AFL/NFL divide was gone. So I'm not sure how that was relevant 6 years into the league, much less 31.
By 1970 it was gone on paper, but if you think the AFL and NFL magically achieved parity in just three years you're crazy. There's a reason the NFL had to spot the NFL three teams, just as there's a reason just TWO of those teams won HALF the next 10 AFCCGs. I agree (and have said) they were fully integrated after that; I don't know why the NFC kicked the crap out of every team but the Raiders in 15 of the next 17 SBs, but if you check the boxscores you'll find that's what happened. Do I really need to remind Broncos fans of 55-10?


Who gives a ****? Only you, who now is going to great lengths to prove the AFC was inferior in 1970 to somehow prove that it's inferior this year (which it's not, but whatever), in a lame ass effort to disparage Manning and the Broncos No. 1 seed.

It's circular logic, at best. Mostly, it's just idiocy.
A lame ass effort to disparage Manning and the Broncos No. 1 seed?! Nice non sequitur; I guess when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. My entire premise was that Denver's not sufficiently appreciated for the back-to-back SB wins that finally made the AFC respectable instead of the joke it had been for three decades. As for this year, the AFC sucks; that doesn't mean Denver does, because we're just one of 16 teams. The NFCW sucked all through the '80s and '90s (until last year, really,) but the '49ers still won 5 SBs after destroying their division.

Look, I don't know if you're just playing dumb or really are as pathetic as you sound, but either way I've long since lost all patience and interest for dealing with it. Next time you feel like insisting everything from my last post to username and login are insidious condemnation of the Broncos, please spare you, me and all of us the misery of what inevitably follows that assumption.

[Simple Jaded]

Somebody should read The Hidden Game of Football and see what the big deal is.

[Joel]

Somebody should read The Hidden Game of Football and see what the big deal is.
Many have; again, it's the whole reason Football Outsiders exists. I agree every pro football fan who hasn't read it should; they did an updated version in the mid-nineties with fantasy football stuff (I'm not sure fantasy football would exist without the original either; it's one thing to copy baseball but, as the book notes, football stats are very different in many fundamental ways.)