PDA

View Full Version : After Week 1: What Team Can Keep the Broncos Out of the Super Bowl?



Cugel
09-10-2014, 07:07 AM
I've seen a lot of fans and analysts criticize the Broncos win over Indy. The Running game didn't look particularly good when they tried to run out the clock. The offense sputtered in the 2nd half and the defense let Indy back into the game instead of closing them out. Etc.

You can certainly argue this, but when I look around the AFC after week 1 it seems like there's nobody who can keep this team out of the Super Bowl. Yes, of course, it's only week 1 and things can change but how does it look right now?

What other team looks like they are a challenge for the Broncos in the playoffs?

1. Patriots? The Patriots looked underwhelming in losing to the Dolphins. Special teams breakdown led to a fumble in the first quarter. Leading by 10 at halftime they let the Dolphins score 23 unanswered points in the 2nd half. The Pats offensive line was terrible and clearly is in serious disarray after the idiot trade of their best OL G Logan Mankins right before the season. Brady was stripped twice for fumbles. Their offense could do nothing at all in the 2nd half. Their defense gave up 33 points and it should have been more, but for Tannehill's making some bad throws like the interception to Dennard at the Pats 6 and Mike Wallace fumbling giving the Pats field position.

They don't have a lot of weapons outside Gronkowski and their rebuilt defense didn't play well. Knowshon rushed for 134 yards, 5.6 yds per carry and a TD against them and Lamar Miller had another 59 yards for 5.4 yds/carry, so it wasn't just Knowshon.

I still expect the Pats to get it together and be the chief threat to the Broncos in the playoffs, but after week 1 they are clearly do not look ready to be a very good team, let alone a Super Bowl team.

2. The rest of the AFC West? The Chargers were leading 17-6 at the end of the 3rd Quarter and let the Cardinals score 12 unanswered points in the 4th to win. They're clearly the best of the rest, but it certainly doesn't look like they will challenge the Broncos for the division. They don't have a ton of weapons, and their defense is decent but not great. The Chiefs and Raiders? No. And Hell no.

3. Colts? We just beat the Colts and the game shouldn't have even been close but for the D.T. fumble on the onside kick - final should have been 31-17. Colts are the only team in the AFC South, and they have a good but not great defense, and not too many weapons on offense. Andrew Luck covers up for a lot of short-comings, but this roster is still a few players away from a SB team. Broncos are clearly better on both offense and defense to that team although Andrew Luck is always dangerous if you give him the ball late in the game with a chance to win.

4. AFC North? Bengals showed again they are the pick of the North, and certainly the Ravens and Steelers don't look like they are going to win that division. But does anybody think Andy Dalton is the answer at QB? Three straight playoff losses in the first round? They have a sound defense and AJ Green. Not a lot of other weapons though. Would anybody be worried about the Bengals in the playoffs? No. Still looking to be the best other team in the AFC after week 1. But, with Dalton's record in the playoffs, it's hard to pick this team to get to a Super Bowl.

So, who is there really to stop the Broncos? Things may change of course. Perhaps the Pats will get it together or the Ravens will go on a tear and Joe Flacco will start playing great like he did when they won the SB. But as of week 1 it doesn't look like there's any team capable of beating the Broncos in the playoffs.

Your thoughts as of week 1? (And yes, I know things can change and it's early yet - you don't need to point that out).

TXBRONC
09-10-2014, 07:24 AM
Yeah after week one it doesn't look like anyone could stop Broncos from getting there. But as you said it's only the first game. The grind of the season, injuries, as well the fact that some of these teams are going to improve will change the way these things look in the end. I expect as the season progresses Denver will also get better.

Northman
09-10-2014, 07:30 AM
Too early to tell. You cant put Denver on a pedestal while also putting every other team lower on the totem pole. Its just one game and some teams will progress and get better while others will regress. One game is just too small a sample to make any proclamations at this point one way or the other. The reality is after one game Denver is certainly beatable, they have flaws just like any other team in the league.

Joel
09-10-2014, 09:57 AM
Doesn't look like anyone can keep us out, but it didn't look like anyone but NE or maybe Indy could even before the season. Even for them, homefield was likely to be the difference, so taking the head-to-head from Indy was huge, though I'd like another game worth of lead on NE since the head-to-head's there (yet again.) As things stand though, the AFCs road to the SB goes through Denver; Brady's never won a Denver playoff, and we just beat Indy there, so I feel pretty good about that.

We already made a SB last year though, so that's not good enough for me now: I'm more interested in which NFC team can keep us from WINNING it, and both Seattle and SF look quite capable.

OrangeHoof
09-10-2014, 10:07 AM
IMO, the most likely site for the AFC Championship Game this year is in Indianapolis, despite losing to Denver in Week 1.

The Broncos have a brutal schedule and I have them penciled in at 11-5. I can see two losses to the NFC West, one surprise loss to an AFC West opponent, one loss to either New England or Cincy and one WTF "wasn't our day" loss probably to an AFC East opponent.

Indy has the easy AFC South (let's guess one fluke loss at Tennessee or J-Ville), the easy NFC East (either 4-0 or 3-1 there) then they get New England and the AFC North as the rest of their schedule (at most, two losses).

The Patriots are always capable of getting on a roll with Brady but I think both he and the Patriots are beginning their decline to mediocrity.

Denver should take the AFC West easily and get a first-round bye but Indy's schedule is so much easier, I see them having a better record as Denver or maybe the same. If it's the same, Denver gets to host the AFCCG. If not, Indy will host it.

MOtorboat
09-10-2014, 10:10 AM
New England, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, maybe Tennesee, Miami, Buffalo.

Any given Sunday.

Most important thing at this point is to secure the spot in the dance by winning the division.

Slick
09-10-2014, 10:21 AM
I wish we could just fast forward the regular season except for the rematch against Seattle. Records and stats aren't getting me excited anymore. The devastation of the last two seasons still stings me as a fan.

Hawgdriver
09-10-2014, 10:28 AM
Buffalo.

Seriously..every season there is a team that rises from the ashes like a phoenix. Like Indy did with Luck. Like KC did with Reid. The surprise team that suddenly reveals a quality roster, good coaching and chemistry.

Maybe that team isn't Buffalo. But every Sunday (outside of Nov. 9th and Dec. 28th) is going to be a grind, because the Broncos' opponent might be that team.

Northman
09-10-2014, 10:36 AM
I wish we could just fast forward the regular season except for the rematch against Seattle. Records and stats aren't getting me excited anymore. The devastation of the last two seasons still stings me as a fan.

Pretty much how i see it. Im sure we will have a great season but if we cant seal the deal this time than it will be disappointing that we allowed the chance last year to slip through out hands.

Cugel
09-10-2014, 11:10 AM
I'm really not trying to find reasons to bash the other teams in the AFC, but they just didn't look very good week 1, especially the Patriots. I mean, the Dolphins just lined up and said "we're going to run the ball with Knowshon, just try and stop us" and they couldn't. We all know that their offense isn't looking much better from a year ago and they lack weapons outside Gronk, but the defense was supposed to be the key improvement. Giving up 195 yards on the ground is pretty disappointing.

The rest of the AFC is rather like the rest of the NFC. There's Seattle, and then there's everybody else on a lower level. Right now, Denver does NOT look as good as the Seahawks and I doubt they win that game, but they don't have to be better than Seattle in week 3, they have to be better in week 19! But, nobody in the NFC looks like they could stop the Seahawks.

Well, nobody in the AFC so far looks like they will be able to get past the Broncos in the playoffs. Maybe Green Bay and S.F. are on a par with the Broncos, but Denver won't be facing them in the playoffs, and it sure doesn't look like anybody but Seattle will win the NFC Championship, so who cares? No other teams in the AFC look as good as the best NFC teams.

Maybe the Colts could beat the Broncos if the game is played in Indy. But Peyton will not be easy to beat in his second game in Indy. It's not like he can't play in that stadium, even if they're rooting against him. They will get Robert Mathis back which will help them, but they won't get better weapons offensively.

Still I'd say that team could be the team nobody really wants to face in the playoffs.

The Bengals? Not afraid of them are we? I'd like to see that matchup.

I think the playoff teams are Pats, Indy, Bengals, Broncos plus Miami and San Diego as the wild cards. Possibly the Ravens or Steelers will sneak in as wild cards. I like the Broncos over any of those teams, even on the road. Broncos played pretty well in NE last year until the 4th quarter when they let the game get away from them.

Cugel
09-10-2014, 11:16 AM
Buffalo.

Seriously..every season there is a team that rises from the ashes like a phoenix. Like Indy did with Luck. Like KC did with Reid. The surprise team that suddenly reveals a quality roster, good coaching and chemistry.

Better example is the Ravens in 2012, or the Giants winning the SB over the 18-0 Pats. Get a hot QB in December and January and upsets can happen.

Sure, it can happen. We'll keep an eye on the various teams as the season progresses. But, as of right now, Broncos have to be favored to beat any other team in the AFC.

Slick
09-10-2014, 11:21 AM
I'm really not trying to find reasons to bash the other teams in the AFC, but they just didn't look very good week 1, especially the Patriots. I mean, the Dolphins just lined up and said "we're going to run the ball with Knowshon, just try and stop us" and they couldn't. We all know that their offense isn't looking much better from a year ago and they lack weapons outside Gronk, but the defense was supposed to be the key improvement. Giving up 195 yards on the ground is pretty disappointing.

The rest of the AFC is rather like the rest of the NFC. There's Seattle, and then there's everybody else on a lower level. Right now, Denver does NOT look as good as the Seahawks and I doubt they win that game, but they don't have to be better than Seattle in week 3, they have to be better in week 19! But, nobody in the NFC looks like they could stop the Seahawks.

Well, nobody in the AFC so far looks like they will be able to get past the Broncos in the playoffs. Maybe Green Bay and S.F. are on a par with the Broncos, but Denver won't be facing them in the playoffs, and it sure doesn't look like anybody but Seattle will win the NFC Championship, so who cares? No other teams in the AFC look as good as the best NFC teams.

Maybe the Colts could beat the Broncos if the game is played in Indy. But Peyton will not be easy to beat in his second game in Indy. It's not like he can't play in that stadium, even if they're rooting against him. They will get Robert Mathis back which will help them, but they won't get better weapons offensively.

Still I'd say that team could be the team nobody really wants to face in the playoffs.

The Bengals? Not afraid of them are we? I'd like to see that matchup.

I think the playoff teams are Pats, Indy, Bengals, Broncos plus Miami and San Diego as the wild cards. Possibly the Ravens or Steelers will sneak in as wild cards. I like the Broncos over any of those teams, even on the road. Broncos played pretty well in NE last year until the 4th quarter when they let the game get away from them.

I think Mathis is out for the year now, Cugel.



A team that runs the ball and plays good defense could surprise all of us like Seattle did last year. Teams are now built to throw the ball and defenses are built to stop the pass so when a team goes against that norm, they could be tough to deal with.

Joel
09-10-2014, 11:34 AM
I wish we could just fast forward the regular season except for the rematch against Seattle. Records and stats aren't getting me excited anymore. The devastation of the last two seasons still stings me as a fan.
That's where I was last year, watching record after record shattered, all the time thinking, Don't care; nothing matters but the SB we should've won last year. I could barely enjoy a MOMENT of that whole historic season, because I knew the whole time—right up to Super Bowl Sunday—that it was all for naught unless we won that game, that all the records would just make the fall that much farther and harder if it ended like the 18-D'OH! Pats in '07. Now... IF we manage to avoid another choke job like the one against Baltimore 2 years ago AND get through the playoffs to SB XLIX, it's the same do-or-die.

Yet we can't be sure of a second CHANCE at redemption before February; till then I'll spend each week on the edge of my seat just like last year, with each win putting us that much closer to and each loss that much farther from the SB berth we need for the ultimate payoff for which we've paid Manning $60 million (and counting....) And I REALLY don't see him coming back if we fail a third straight time; he's from Louisiana, the Rockies are cold as Hell in December, and he'll be 39 this time next year, older than any starting QB who's ever won a SB, plus EIGHT starters are in contract years.

It's getting really emotionally draining, y'know? Guarantee Peyton Manning knows....

Valar Morghulis
09-10-2014, 11:42 AM
Lets not kid ourselves - NE are a good team that got better in the off season, they have a great HC and a great QB, they also dont have to play the NFC West, which mean they may even have home field advantage.

Denver will be in the mix and i think they have a realistic shot - but it is way too early to write anyone off - i mean, the chiefs could sign Tebow and he could take them on a magical run.....

Northman
09-10-2014, 11:57 AM
I'm really not trying to find reasons to bash the other teams in the AFC, but they just didn't look very good week 1, especially the Patriots.



I dont know, i watched some of that game and much like Denver the Pats looked good in the first half but failed to do anything in the second half much like us. I think in both cases it had to do with play calling and schemes on the defensive side of the ball for both games. Indy and Mia clearly outplayed both teams defensively in the second half and shut down what is normall dominant offenses.

Joel
09-10-2014, 12:12 PM
Lets not kid ourselves - NE are a good team that got better in the off season, they have a great HC and a great QB, they also dont have to play the NFC West, which mean they may even have home field advantage.

Denver will be in the mix and i think they have a realistic shot - but it is way too early to write anyone off - i mean, the chiefs could sign Tebow and he could take them on a magical run.....
We'll see. Maybe Knowshon was the final piece missing from Miamis championship puzzle, or maybe Belicheat failed to prepare his team for a division game. Neither of those hypotheticals sounds too plausible though. They didn't dump their best offensive linemen for no reason: They're facing hard choices between pricey stars who'll soon be over the hill (or already are) and replacing them with young top talent. That's life in the cap era; they had a good run (till caught cheating,) but dynasties aren't what they were pre-cap: Pitt's rebuilding, Baltimore's rebuilding, and NE looks likely to join them.

Valar Morghulis
09-10-2014, 12:21 PM
The Texans will get better as the season goes on, Pittsburgh are better than they have been recently, I believe the Jets will be tougher than most think, The bills D is tough and they just knocked off a highly fancied Bears team.

I think there is plenty of talent out there - plus there are so many variables that we have no control over such as injurys, suspensions, DV, heart attacks etc etc

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-10-2014, 12:32 PM
The Texans will get better as the season goes on, Pittsburgh are better than they have been recently, I believe the Jets will be tougher than most think, The bills D is tough and they just knocked off a highly fancied Bears team.

I think there is plenty of talent out there - plus there are so many variables that we have no control over such as injurys, suspensions, DV, heart attacks etc etc

McDonald's wrappers

Joel
09-10-2014, 12:50 PM
Frankly, I think the AFCN/E has collapsed so completely and the NFCW/S is so resurgent it looks a lot like most of the SB era: A bunch of really good NFC teams fighting over who gets to pound the crap out of the AFC Champs in the SB. The '9ers and Seahawks even LOOK like most of the first 30 SB champs; the only difference is SF's dueling Seattle for the division instead of the NFCE champs for the conference. Meanwhile, just one or two pass-happy AFC teams look like SB contenders, and they look just as likely to run into a buzz saw against the smash mouth eventual NFC champs.

Maybe SB XLVIII made sense in an NFL that, new pass-friendly rules notwithstanding, is kind of a throwback to the '70s and '80s. The good news is I doubt Wilson or Keapernick is Staubach or Montana.

NightTrainLayne
09-10-2014, 01:20 PM
Good grief. . . It's week one. Jeepers.

I understand the temptation to not enjoy the regular season. .. But I remember a lot of bad seasons over the years. Not as many as most fans thankfully.

But I'm going to enjoy and savor each win. And I'm not going to even start to question who can keep us out of the Superbowl until the playoffs get here.

MOtorboat
09-10-2014, 01:21 PM
I don't think Seattle and San Francisco have much of a chance to win the AFC.

Cugel
09-10-2014, 03:06 PM
I think Mathis is out for the year now, Cugel.

A team that runs the ball and plays good defense could surprise all of us like Seattle did last year. Teams are now built to throw the ball and defenses are built to stop the pass so when a team goes against that norm, they could be tough to deal with.

Wow! Out for the season? I thought he was only going to miss 4 games! :eek:

That's just HUGE for the Colts. Best pass-rusher in the NFL last year, the guy who terrorized Peyton Manning in the game in Indy, they simply cannot replace him. Maybe as big as the Broncos losing Miller and Clady.

But, there is NO other team in the NFL that has a defense like Seattle's. Nobody. If you have a team that can get consistent pressure all game long with just 4 DL and never blitz, that's impossible for any offense to deal with.

I remember the 2004-05 AFC Divisional Playoff between Indy and N.E. That year Manning set his previous personal best (and then NFL record) 49 TDs, and 522 points scored. It was a monster MVP year. But the Pats held the unstoppable Colts record setting offense to 276 yards and 3 total points. All day they got in Peyton's face and forced him to get rid of the ball quickly and then mugged his receivers under 10 yards. It's as if Seattle copied that game film.

There just aren't very many teams that can dominate Denver's OL with just 4 DL. If they can do that, then Manning will struggle to find an open receiver, and won't have time to throw deep to loosen up the defense. Just like the SB. Outside of the 49ers with a healthy and effective Aldon Smith there's just nobody who can do that though.

Cugel
09-10-2014, 03:07 PM
I don't think Seattle and San Francisco have much of a chance to win the AFC.

Huh? :confused:

Hawgdriver
09-10-2014, 03:10 PM
McDonald's wrappers

TD's

Cugel
09-10-2014, 03:16 PM
Frankly, I think the AFCN/E has collapsed so completely and the NFCW/S is so resurgent it looks a lot like most of the SB era: A bunch of really good NFC teams fighting over who gets to pound the crap out of the AFC Champs in the SB. The '9ers and Seahawks even LOOK like most of the first 30 SB champs; the only difference is SF's dueling Seattle for the division instead of the NFCE champs for the conference. Meanwhile, just one or two pass-happy AFC teams look like SB contenders, and they look just as likely to run into a buzz saw against the smash mouth eventual NFC champs.

Maybe SB XLVIII made sense in an NFL that, new pass-friendly rules notwithstanding, is kind of a throwback to the '70s and '80s. The good news is I doubt Wilson or Keapernick is Staubach or Montana.

You're overstating it. The 2013 Seahawks had the 8th ranked offense in the NFL, with 5,424 yards of offense; 3236 passing yards and 2188 yards rushing. That's a majority of your yards through the air, just like every other team: not exactly the '83 Redskins with John Riggins and the Hogs, or the '84 Raiders with Marcus Allen.

The 2014 SB is simple. An outstanding defense could get consistent pressure on Manning with only 4 DL and no blitzes. That allowed them to shut down the short passing game without worrying about Peyton throwing over the top for big yards.

Joel
09-10-2014, 03:20 PM
Huh? :confused:
So Seattle and SF can't keep us out of the SB, and REACHING the SB is all that matters; WINNING it—or just not getting our heads bashed in from kickoff to gun—is irrelevant. That's why when people list the most successful teams of the SB era it goes Pitt (6-2 in SBs) Dallas (5-3 in SBs) Denver (2-5 in SBs, and none of the losses were remotely close.) Sure the '9ers won 5, but they've only BEEN to 6; big deal. The Giants have only been to 5; who cares that they won all but one of them. It's an honor just to be violated. :)

MOtorboat
09-10-2014, 03:31 PM
So Seattle and SF can't keep us out of the SB, and REACHING the SB is all that matters; WINNING it—or just not getting our heads bashed in from kickoff to gun—is irrelevant. That's why when people list the most successful teams of the SB era it goes Pitt (6-2 in SBs) Dallas (5-3 in SBs) Denver (2-5 in SBs, and none of the losses were remotely close.) Sure the '9ers won 5, but they've only BEEN to 6; big deal. The Giants have only been to 5; who cares that they won all but one of them. It's an honor just to be violated. :)

Last time I looked, this thread was about what other AFC teams could play in the Super Bowl, not what teams will beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl.

Seriously, am I the only one that gets sick of this spam?

Simple Jaded
09-10-2014, 03:34 PM
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/1568/robert-mathis

Mathis ruptured his Achilles working out on his own.

Slick
09-10-2014, 03:35 PM
Last time I looked, this thread was about what other AFC teams could play in the Super Bowl, not what teams will beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl.

Seriously, am I the only one that gets sick of this spam?

I don't understand why you and Jaded keep reading Joel's posts if they bother you that bad.

Joel
09-10-2014, 03:38 PM
You're overstating it. The 2013 Seahawks had the 8th ranked offense in the NFL, with 5,424 yards of offense; 3236 passing yards and 2188 yards rushing. That's a majority of your yards through the air, just like every other team: not exactly the '83 Redskins with John Riggins and the Hogs, or the '84 Raiders with Marcus Allen.
The '82 Skins had nearly TWICE as many yards passing (2068) as running (1140,) as did the '83 Raiders (3910 passing, 2240 rushing.) They just didn't live off passing (well, the Raiders kinda did.)

Passing gains roughly 50% more yards and 20% more TDs than rushing—and generates THREE TIMES as many turnovers. It's just not the percentage play; even with a first ballot HoFer completing 70% of passes, a scrub back completes 100% of runs. More to the point, a starting QB who has 6 Ints by Thanksgiving goes to the Pro Bowl; a starting RB who has 6 fumbles goes on waivers. Tripling the risk to turn a 4.2 yd average into 7 just isn't worth it, not when they'll both get a conversion before 4th down.


The 2014 SB is simple. An outstanding defense could get consistent pressure on Manning with only 4 DL and no blitzes. That allowed them to shut down the short passing game without worrying about Peyton throwing over the top for big yards.
Right, but much of that was because Seattle could sell out on stopping Manning and receivers, because they didn't have to fear the run, and knew it. Much was made of Chancellor as 4th LB (like SSs coming up against the run is novel, though Chancellor IS a BIG safety) but he played robber in the SB because he knew neither Moreno nor anyone was any threat behind our line. Those SB Ints didn't just magically happen because of Mannings supposed choking: Seattle made them happen because they ignored the run. That's really too bad, because the run was (and likely is) one of their few weaknesses. Oh, well.

The 2014 SB was simple because our offense was (and sadly is) simple: We pass; if that doesn't work, we pass; if that doesn't work either, we (wait for it...) PASS. Doesn't take a high Wunderlic score to figure out how to defend against that. It's the same with teams that run really well but can't pass, which is why Wilson, Keapernick, Smith and even Flacco have to be at least decent for Seattle, SF, KC and Baltimore to win, even with Pro Bowl backs and elite defenses. Main difference is one-dimensional running offenses lose 10-7; one-dimensional passing offenses lose 41-10.

Valar Morghulis
09-10-2014, 03:43 PM
The 2014 SB was simple because our offense was (and sadly is) simple: We pass; if that doesn't work, we pass; if that doesn't work either, we (wait for it...) PASS. Doesn't take a high Wunderlic score to figure out how to defend against that. It's the same with teams that run really well but can't pass, which is why Wilson, Keapernick, Smith and even Flacco have to be at least decent for Seattle, SF, KC and Baltimore to win, even with Pro Bowl backs and elite defenses. Main difference is one-dimensional running offenses lose 10-7; one-dimensional passing offenses lose 41-10.

There was a lot of retarded defensive coordinators out there then as that simple offence shattered all offensive records

Joel
09-10-2014, 03:55 PM
There was a lot of retarded defensive coordinators out there then as that simple offence shattered all offensive records
Simple=/=easy; knowing WHAT to do doesn't provide the MEANS, and our offense is VERY good at the ONE thing it does well. If someone's caught in an avalanche, it's SIMPLE to say, "don't get buried by snow and rock," but pulling it off isn't EASY, and our passing attack hit most teams like an avalanche, with a lot of fast power from many different angles. Seattle took away the ONE thing we do well though, like good teams do, and we had no Plan B, so that was that.

C'mon, man. Our D played FANTASTICALLY, even without considering it was missing half its starters: It started the game with back-to-back goal line stands, and would've had a threepeat if not for a phantom 3rd down PI that gave Seattle 1st and G at our 1. Yet our offense didn't have a FIRST DOWN till the SECOND QUARTER, only scored ONCE (on the 3rd quarters last play) and it was 22-0 at the half. If that's the greatest offense in NFL history, Seattle must be the greatest DEFENSE since Stalingrad, because our offense scored most of their points—THREE TIMES what it scored for us.

Going into the SB I kept saying, "we MUST run; Seattle's not quite a top ten D vs. the run, but it's even more important we don't let them tee off on Manning and manhandle our WRs." So what happened...?

Slick
09-10-2014, 04:04 PM
To answer your question Cugel, I really don't think there's a team that keeps Denver from advancing to the Superbowl. Maybe the Patriots or Colts. I still think the only thing that will keep Denver from getting back would be a rash of injuries or turnovers in the playoffs. I really think this Denver team is better than last years.

Joel, you've made your point my friend. You're taking this thing way off topic.

Simple Jaded
09-10-2014, 07:34 PM
There was a lot of retarded defensive coordinators out there then as that simple offence shattered all offensive records

Joel resents the fact that Denver has a record setting offense, I think it's because he seems to be the only one who truly understands how the 2011 offense was far better equipped to win championships.

tomjonesrocks
09-10-2014, 07:38 PM
Pretty much how i see it. Im sure we will have a great season but if we cant seal the deal this time than it will be disappointing that we allowed the chance last year to slip through out hands.

I really wish I was enjoying it more. Between Rahim Moore and the SB blowout the ends have been so devastating after such promise it's been tough. The end makes it hard to appreciate the good times--not unlike when you catch girlfriend ****-ing your boss.

Whoops--was that off-topic?

Simple Jaded
09-10-2014, 07:52 PM
I really wish I was enjoying it more. Between Rahim Moore and the SB blowout the ends have been so devastating after such promise it's been tough. The end makes it hard to appreciate the good times--not unlike when you catch girlfriend ****-ing your boss.

Whoops--was that off-topic?

Bicth.

I know of a dude that can make her go away, as luck would have it he's recently been fired and is probably available.

VonDoom
09-10-2014, 09:10 PM
Let's not pretend the Patriots aren't still the Patriots just because they lost in week one. By default, they are still the biggest threat in the conference.

Really, the team that can stop the Broncos this year is ... the Broncos. I think we're still the most talented team in the conference, meaning that if we play our best each week, we will win. Of course, that's not how the real world works, so we'll have our ups and downs like everyone else.

Let's also not forget that getting to a Super Bowl is HARD, and just because we're the most talented, doesn't mean we'll get there. A one and done playoff system makes it easy for an element of randomness to come in (see - Ravens, 2012).

Cugel
09-10-2014, 09:40 PM
Right, but much of that was because Seattle could sell out on stopping Manning and receivers, because they didn't have to fear the run, and knew it. Much was made of Chancellor as 4th LB (like SSs coming up against the run is novel, though Chancellor IS a BIG safety) but he played robber in the SB because he knew neither Moreno nor anyone was any threat behind our line. Those SB Ints didn't just magically happen because of Mannings supposed choking: Seattle made them happen because they ignored the run. That's really too bad, because the run was (and likely is) one of their few weaknesses. Oh, well.

The 2014 SB was simple because our offense was (and sadly is) simple: We pass; if that doesn't work, we pass; if that doesn't work either, we (wait for it...) PASS. Doesn't take a high Wunderlic score to figure out how to defend against that. It's the same with teams that run really well but can't pass, which is why Wilson, Keapernick, Smith and even Flacco have to be at least decent for Seattle, SF, KC and Baltimore to win, even with Pro Bowl backs and elite defenses. Main difference is one-dimensional running offenses lose 10-7; one-dimensional passing offenses lose 41-10.

The running game is almost totally irrelevant. The Broncos have Manning. They run to loosen up defenses for the pass. But, the Seahawks were always going to dare the Broncos to run the ball all day. They wouldn't have cared if Moreno rushed for 120 yards. Anything that would have taken the ball out of Manning's hands would be fine with them. Knowshon Moreno was not going to beat them. Manning could beat them if they didn't keep him contained.

Actually it DOES take a "high wunderlic" to know how to deal with Denver's offense, which is why Denver set the all-time records for offensive points, yards, etc.. There is no way to deal with Denver's offense at all unless you can get consistent pressure on Manning using just 4 DL. If you blitz 5 or more defenders someone is going to be open and he'll find them, potentially for a big play. If you cheat down on the receivers by stuffing the box with 6 or 7 defenders, he can throw over the top to guys like DT and Welker, who will make huge plays downfield.

The only scenario where Denver's passing game won't win the game is if Manning doesn't have time to throw because your front 4 gets quick pressure and forces him to throw the ball before his receivers can get open. Then you can cheat down into the box with 7 or 8 guys and clobber the receiver with a defender right in his face the instant the ball arrives. We saw that all afternoon.

Just as the Pats did to Manning in the 2004 AFC Division Playoff where they limited him to 3 points.

And remember in that game the Colts had Edgerrin James, a future Hall of Fame running back! Didn't matter. Pats had the same game plan the Seahawks did and it worked just the same: 3 points for Manning.

The only thing that would have enabled Denver to win that game was NOT a better running game. It would have been better pass blocking by the OL that would have given Manning more time to throw. Then he could have thrown over the top of the defense a few times for big plays. Do that even twice and the Seahawks would have had to drop defenders back into deep coverage and that would have loosened up the underneath passing game.

Everything depended on pass-blocking. And it sucked. That's why they totally re-built the entire OL during the offseason, getting Ryan Clady back, moving Clark to RT, getting rid of Zane Beadles, moving Franklin to LG. That's a LOT of changes for a SB team!

spikerman
09-10-2014, 09:43 PM
I definitely think Denver will have a worse record, but barring injuries will be a better team than last year. I fully expect the Broncos to lose at Seattle, but I want to see them stand up to them a LOT better than in the SB. That will determine a lot.

7DnBrnc53
09-11-2014, 12:20 AM
Frankly, I think the AFCN/E has collapsed so completely and the NFCW/S is so resurgent it looks a lot like most of the SB era: A bunch of really good NFC teams fighting over who gets to pound the crap out of the AFC Champs in the SB. The '9ers and Seahawks even LOOK like most of the first 30 SB champs; the only difference is SF's dueling Seattle for the division instead of the NFCE champs for the conference. Meanwhile, just one or two pass-happy AFC teams look like SB contenders, and they look just as likely to run into a buzz saw against the smash mouth eventual NFC champs.

Maybe SB XLVIII made sense in an NFL that, new pass-friendly rules notwithstanding, is kind of a throwback to the '70s and '80s. The good news is I doubt Wilson or Keapernick is Staubach or Montana.

You compare them to just the first 30 SB winners? What about the 1997-98 Broncos? They could beat either one of these teams. The 49ers are overrated, and the Seahawks, while pretty good, weren't 43-8 better than Denver in February. If they whoop Denver again in Week 3, it will be more mental than physical, I promise you.

Joel
09-11-2014, 03:08 AM
The running game is almost totally irrelevant. The Broncos have Manning. They run to loosen up defenses for the pass. But, the Seahawks were always going to dare the Broncos to run the ball all day. They wouldn't have cared if Moreno rushed for 120 yards. Anything that would have taken the ball out of Manning's hands would be fine with them. Knowshon Moreno was not going to beat them. Manning could beat them if they didn't keep him contained.
We must ask ourselves why the bolded part is true of historys greatest offense. The running game is almost totally irrelevant? Tell that to the last 3 SB Champs. Moreno beat one of last years AFCCG teams Sunday, and nearly beat them singlehandedly in their own house last year.

The running game still matters for the same reason it always has and always will: Because it nearly always gains SOMETHING, avoids turnovers, limits opposing possesions and rests the D. It needs a good enough D opponents can't bury a team early and sideline their run, and over the course of 16 games plus the playoffs a team will eventually find itself down double digits late and need to be able to pass well enough to get back in it. But there's a grave difference between ABILITY to pass and living and dying by it.


Actually it DOES take a "high wunderlic" to know how to deal with Denver's offense, which is why Denver set the all-time records for offensive points, yards, etc.. There is no way to deal with Denver's offense at all unless you can get consistent pressure on Manning using just 4 DL. If you blitz 5 or more defenders someone is going to be open and he'll find them, potentially for a big play. If you cheat down on the receivers by stuffing the box with 6 or 7 defenders, he can throw over the top to guys like DT and Welker, who will make huge plays downfield.

The only scenario where Denver's passing game won't win the game is if Manning doesn't have time to throw because your front 4 gets quick pressure and forces him to throw the ball before his receivers can get open. Then you can cheat down into the box with 7 or 8 guys and clobber the receiver with a defender right in his face the instant the ball arrives. We saw that all afternoon.
There's 5 eligible receivers (not counting the passer) so a team can blitz 5, keep a safety deep and STILL cover everyone. It's really NOT complicated to figure out "send 4-5 guys at Manning and drop everyone else in coverage," but it's difficult to EXECUTE that successfully against the talent we have throwing and catching balls. Knowing our run blocking's not good enough for any of our backs to beat a team makes it a lot easier though; in Seattles case, too easy. Their offense was pretty ho hum in the SB, but their D BEAT our offense—badly. Historys best offense, or just historys best PASSING?


Just as the Pats did to Manning in the 2004 AFC Division Playoff where they limited him to 3 points.

And remember in that game the Colts had Edgerrin James, a future Hall of Fame running back! Didn't matter. Pats had the same game plan the Seahawks did and it worked just the same: 3 points for Manning.
The Pats' SB "wins" are practically Exhibit A for why it's hard to beat opponents who know a teams playcalls; they've been far less impressive since losing their camera man. Plus Indys awful defenses gave NEs plenty of rest, but if we've got a much better D, we don't have James nor even Addai, and don't have Jeff Saturday or Dylan Gandy either. Clady's as good as Tarik Glenn—but there's only one of him.


The only thing that would have enabled Denver to win that game was NOT a better running game. It would have been better pass blocking by the OL that would have given Manning more time to throw. Then he could have thrown over the top of the defense a few times for big plays. Do that even twice and the Seahawks would have had to drop defenders back into deep coverage and that would have loosened up the underneath passing game.

Everything depended on pass-blocking. And it sucked. That's why they totally re-built the entire OL during the offseason, getting Ryan Clady back, moving Clark to RT, getting rid of Zane Beadles, moving Franklin to LG. That's a LOT of changes for a SB team!
Totally rebuilt?! We still have 4/5 starters: We just moved one to replace a guy who left for a big FA payday, and made up the difference with the guy who filled in for Clady in the SB. BADLY, as you may recall; Clark's got great strength against bull rushers, but anyone with any quickness leaves him chasing his tail. At least Manning can see it coming from the right, but as long as Manning's our whole offense, every team we play will keep concentrating on him to the exclusion of all else. The run's not irrelevant—but OURS is; "historys best one-dimensional offense" is a contradiction in terms.

Bottom line: If you want to slow down the pass rush and force safeties up on the line to open up the deep ball, give that pass rush a run threat to contain so they can't just sprint into the backfield at the snap while a back blows by them, and safeties a run threat that draws an eighth man into the box. Run to establish the pass, same as it ever was.

Canmore
09-11-2014, 03:32 AM
The running game is almost totally irrelevant. The Broncos have Manning. They run to loosen up defenses for the pass. But, the Seahawks were always going to dare the Broncos to run the ball all day. They wouldn't have cared if Moreno rushed for 120 yards. Anything that would have taken the ball out of Manning's hands would be fine with them. Knowshon Moreno was not going to beat them. Manning could beat them if they didn't keep him contained.

Actually it DOES take a "high wunderlic" to know how to deal with Denver's offense, which is why Denver set the all-time records for offensive points, yards, etc.. There is no way to deal with Denver's offense at all unless you can get consistent pressure on Manning using just 4 DL. If you blitz 5 or more defenders someone is going to be open and he'll find them, potentially for a big play. If you cheat down on the receivers by stuffing the box with 6 or 7 defenders, he can throw over the top to guys like DT and Welker, who will make huge plays downfield.

The only scenario where Denver's passing game won't win the game is if Manning doesn't have time to throw because your front 4 gets quick pressure and forces him to throw the ball before his receivers can get open. Then you can cheat down into the box with 7 or 8 guys and clobber the receiver with a defender right in his face the instant the ball arrives. We saw that all afternoon.

Just as the Pats did to Manning in the 2004 AFC Division Playoff where they limited him to 3 points.

And remember in that game the Colts had Edgerrin James, a future Hall of Fame running back! Didn't matter. Pats had the same game plan the Seahawks did and it worked just the same: 3 points for Manning.

The only thing that would have enabled Denver to win that game was NOT a better running game. It would have been better pass blocking by the OL that would have given Manning more time to throw. Then he could have thrown over the top of the defense a few times for big plays. Do that even twice and the Seahawks would have had to drop defenders back into deep coverage and that would have loosened up the underneath passing game.

Everything depended on pass-blocking. And it sucked. That's why they totally re-built the entire OL during the offseason, getting Ryan Clady back, moving Clark to RT, getting rid of Zane Beadles, moving Franklin to LG. That's a LOT of changes for a SB team!

Exactly. Well said. We will have to wait for the results.

Canmore
09-11-2014, 03:36 AM
We must ask ourselves why the bolded part is true of historys greatest offense. The running game is almost totally irrelevant? Tell that to the last 3 SB Champs. Moreno beat one of last years AFCCG teams Sunday, and nearly beat them singlehandedly in their own house last year.

The running game still matters for the same reason it always has and always will: Because it nearly always gains SOMETHING, avoids turnovers, limits opposing possesions and rests the D. It needs a good enough D opponents can't bury a team early and sideline their run, and over the course of 16 games plus the playoffs a team will eventually find itself down double digits late and need to be able to pass well enough to get back in it. But there's a grave difference between ABILITY to pass and living and dying by it.


There's 5 eligible receivers (not counting the passer) so a team can blitz 5, keep a safety deep and STILL cover everyone. It's really NOT complicated to figure out "send 4-5 guys at Manning and drop everyone else in coverage," but it's difficult to EXECUTE that successfully against the talent we have throwing and catching balls. Knowing our run blocking's not good enough for any of our backs to beat a team makes it a lot easier though; in Seattles case, too easy. Their offense was pretty ho hum in the SB, but their D BEAT our offense—badly. Historys best offense, or just historys best PASSING?


The Pats' SB "wins" are practically Exhibit A for why it's hard to beat opponents who know a teams playcalls; they've been far less impressive since losing their camera man. Plus Indys awful defenses gave NEs plenty of rest, but if we've got a much better D, we don't have James nor even Addai, and don't have Jeff Saturday or Dylan Gandy either. Clady's as good as Tarik Glenn—but there's only one of him.


Totally rebuilt?! We still have 4/5 starters: We just moved one to replace a guy who left for a big FA payday, and made up the difference with the guy who filled in for Clady in the SB. BADLY, as you may recall; Clark's got great strength against bull rushers, but anyone with any quickness leaves him chasing his tail. At least Manning can see it coming from the right, but as long as Manning's our whole offense, every team we play will keep concentrating on him to the exclusion of all else. The run's not irrelevant—but OURS is; "historys best one-dimensional offense" is a contradiction in terms.

Bottom line: If you want to slow down the pass rush and force safeties up on the line to open up the deep ball, give that pass rush a run threat to contain so they can't just sprint into the backfield at the snap while a back blows by them, and safeties a run threat that draws an eighth man into the box. Run to establish the pass, same as it ever was.

With Manning there is a HUGE difference between sending four or five.

CrazyHorse
09-11-2014, 04:04 AM
The Broncos could definitely keep themselves out of the Super Bowl.

Joel
09-11-2014, 05:21 AM
With Manning there is a HUGE difference between sending four or five.
Not for a team that doesn't have to double cover anyone (though they can still double one WR even sending 5 and keeping a safety deep.) That was a lot of the problem in the SB, too: Seattle has an excellent (if dirty) secondary and all their LBs are good in coverage, so the ol' no-step drop didn't work, and Manning had no time to wait. But if we could run, Seattles linemen couldn't just come charging in, because they'd have to keep looking over their shoulder for Moreno (or Ball, or whomever) and Chancellor would've come up to provide insurance instead of lurking for a hasty pressured pass.

When a team's a one-trick pony, it better be one HELL of a trick if they want to win a champioship, because by the SB their opponent has at least 18 tapes of it.

EDIT: Something else that slipped my mind till now is that many DEs are quick and fast but (relatively) small; elite pass rushers but liabilities vs. the run (e.g. Mathis, though we won't face him specifically this year.) A strong running game keeps those guys on the sideline and away from the QB; the less often we have 3rd and long, the less Manning need worry about guys who only play 3rd down.

7DnBrnc53
09-11-2014, 07:54 AM
We must ask ourselves why the bolded part is true of historys greatest offense. The running game is almost totally irrelevant? Tell that to the last 3 SB Champs. Moreno beat one of last years AFCCG teams Sunday, and nearly beat them singlehandedly in their own house last year.

The running game still matters for the same reason it always has and always will: Because it nearly always gains SOMETHING, avoids turnovers, limits opposing possesions and rests the D. It needs a good enough D opponents can't bury a team early and sideline their run, and over the course of 16 games plus the playoffs a team will eventually find itself down double digits late and need to be able to pass well enough to get back in it. But there's a grave difference between ABILITY to pass and living and dying by it.


There's 5 eligible receivers (not counting the passer) so a team can blitz 5, keep a safety deep and STILL cover everyone. It's really NOT complicated to figure out "send 4-5 guys at Manning and drop everyone else in coverage," but it's difficult to EXECUTE that successfully against the talent we have throwing and catching balls. Knowing our run blocking's not good enough for any of our backs to beat a team makes it a lot easier though; in Seattles case, too easy. Their offense was pretty ho hum in the SB, but their D BEAT our offense—badly. Historys best offense, or just historys best PASSING?


The Pats' SB "wins" are practically Exhibit A for why it's hard to beat opponents who know a teams playcalls; they've been far less impressive since losing their camera man. Plus Indys awful defenses gave NEs plenty of rest, but if we've got a much better D, we don't have James nor even Addai, and don't have Jeff Saturday or Dylan Gandy either. Clady's as good as Tarik Glenn—but there's only one of him.


Good point about the running game. If it is so irrelevant, then why don't we have a SB ring with Peyton? Why didn't Dan Marino ever win? Or Dan Fouts?

All this "QB Driven League" nonsense that the NFL Network parrots is propaganda to a huge degree. Manning only has one ring, and Brady hasn't won anything since the offense became more and more about passing.

Also, speaking of Brady, good points about the Cheatriots. That was one of the reasons that they beat the Steelers in 2001, too. Hines Ward said that it seemed like they knew where Bettis was going.

The man behind the Pats' cheating is a guy named Ernie Adams.

Adams got Belicheat his second coaching job in Denver (for a year in 1978). Then, the next year, after this Football Savant got in good with new HC Ray Perkins, he got Bill hired with the Giants in 1979, where he stayed for 12 seasons.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that Belicheat and Ernie Adams tried to cheat during a 1980 Charger game, but that may have been hearsay.

After Ernie worked on Wall Street for a few years, he joined Bill in Cleveland in 1991, and continued his mysterious football duties. Art Modell said that he would pay someone 10,000 dollars if they could tell him what Ernie Adams did.

Eventually, he joined Bill in New England, and they had a systematic program of illegal videotaping and alternative radio frequencies (in Brady's helmet) going on until they were caught, at least, and still may be going on today.

Ernie's title is the Football Research Director for the Patriots. No other team has that position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Adams_%28American_football%29

MOtorboat
09-11-2014, 10:38 AM
All this "QB Driven League" nonsense that the NFL Network parrots is propaganda to a huge degree.

No it's not.

slim
09-11-2014, 10:40 AM
The Denver Broncos

Cugel
09-11-2014, 02:08 PM
The Seahawks don't have an elite QB. IF they had Peyton Manning, they would throw as much as the Broncos do. It's not a weakness, it's a strength. Lots of fans are obsessed with running the ball. The Broncos averaged 3.2 yards per rush in 2013, and 8.3 per pass. Even the best rushing team in football, the Jets, averaged 6.2 yards. If the Broncos improved to an average running team (they're never going to be elite because their offense isn't geared that way), they'd average 4.5 yards/rush.

Why give up 3.8 yards per play to run the ball more? The Broncos short passing game substitutes for a running game and does it better.

As for the Super Bowl, the Broncos didn't lose because they couldn't run the ball. They lost because their offensive line couldn't block the Seahawks pass-rushers and they couldn't execute their plays.

The fallacy is that if Denver ran the ball more, Seattle would have backed off to stop the run and allowed Denver to throw more effectively down field. That's wrong. They wouldn't have cared if Denver rushed the ball because that would keep it out of Peyton Manning's hands. They were not going to change their defensive philosophy to stop the run!

They basically came out in that game and said "we're going to rush only 4 guys and drop 7 into coverage to fill the box and crush the short-passing game, and defy you to run and defy you to throw over the top of our defense. We don't think you can do it and we're not going to change anything to adapt to your offense. We're going to force you to adapt to our defense and we don't think you can do that either." And they were right.

The only thing that would have forced them to change their defense would have been to give Peyton time to throw deep and complete some long passes to get behind their defense. No team can tolerate that for long because it means big gains. Do that 2 or 3 times and they'd have to back off.

I saw an analysis of the game after the Super Bowl on ESPN and the commentators pointed out that Denver's receivers like Demaryius and Decker beat their coverage and got open for some big gains at points, but Peyton didn't have time to find them. Everything stemmed from that failure.

And that is why the Broncos totally revamped their OL this off-season: to get better pass protection for Peyton.

7DnBrnc53
09-11-2014, 02:57 PM
No it's not.

Yes, it is, in some ways. You have the "great" Tom Brady (the most overrated player of all time in any sport), whose team won three rings when he was a game manager, but when the team was more and more about him, they haven't won anything.

You have Peyton, with only one ring, and the victim of a devastating loss last year.

You also have other great QB's, like Marino, Favre, and Fouts, with one ring or less.

Also, look at Elway. He didn't win until he got a team around him.

QB play is important, but it isn't the be all, end all.

BroncoJoe
09-11-2014, 02:58 PM
The Denver Broncos

Best. Answer. Ever.

Cugel
09-13-2014, 11:53 AM
Yes, it is, in some ways. You have the "great" Tom Brady (the most overrated player of all time in any sport), whose team won three rings when he was a game manager, but when the team was more and more about him, they haven't won anything.

You have Peyton, with only one ring, and the victim of a devastating loss last year.

You also have other great QB's, like Marino, Favre, and Fouts, with one ring or less.

Also, look at Elway. He didn't win until he got a team around him.

QB play is important, but it isn't the be all, end all.

I don't think many people believe it's an accident that only 3 teams in the last 20 years won the Super Bowl without an Elite QB (at least a QB who was playing at an elite level that season like Eli Manning, even though he started sucking afterwards, or Joe Flacco who sucked in 2013 but might be playing better this year). Those teams were the 2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer, the 2003 Bucs with Brad Johnson and the 2014 Seahawks with Russell Wilson (and that's assuming you don't think Wilson is or will be an elite player, which I don't).

Those three teams had one thing in common: they were the #1, #2 and #3 scoring defenses since the '85-'86 Bears.

Their offenses were designed not to lose. They won with all-time great defenses.

The problem with that formula is that it's impossible to keep such a defense together under the salary cap for any length of time. For example, the Seahawks this off-season had to give Earl Thomas a $45 million contract with a $9.5 million signing bonus, and Richard Sherman a 5 year, 58.7 million contract with $40 million guaranteed and a $10 million signing bonus.

They can't re-sign everybody. This year Russell Wilson will earn only $662,000. Next year is his last year and they are going to have to re-negotiate his contract because you don't franchise your franchise QB. He'll earn close to $20 million a year because that's what SB winning QBs earn in the NFL. He's certainly not going to agree to earn a lot less money than Jay Cutler!

Something is going to have to give in that salary cap structure. Teams that try and keep everybody together enter salary cap hell and explode like the Tennessee Titans did after their narrow SB loss against the Rams.

The Patriots have been among the elite teams in the league for 12 seasons despite picking at the bottom of the draft every year because Belichick has imposed ruthless salary cap discipline on the team. They identify which handful of players they will pay big money to and fill the rest of the team with lower salary guys. Brady (5 years, $60 million), Gronk (8 years $55 million), Jerod Meyo 7 years, $50 million and Revis 1 year, $12 million including a $10 million signing bonus) are the big $ guys. Nobody else has more than $8 million in guaranteed money.

When those lesser guys' contracts come up for renewal they either agree to less money or the Pats cut them loose. They did this just weeks ago with their best G Logan Mankins who refused to take a pay-cut and got traded for a wad of used gum.

After winning a SB everybody is a hero and everybody wants to cash in. And they can't afford to pay everybody. They've kept their most important players this year and they'll keep Chancellor and Sherman and Thomas long term. But the rest of them will start to go elsewhere for bigger paydays.

It's just much easier to pay your QB $20 million than to pay 11 elite defensive players what they're worth.

The league wants it that way, they structure the rules to ensure this is an offensive minded passing league. Once in a while a team can win the SB going against the trend but not very often and not for long.

Teams might want to emulate Seattle, but nobody has that kind of overall defensive talent on their roster and nobody is likely to in the next 5-10 years either.

7DnBrnc53
09-13-2014, 01:14 PM
I don't think many people believe it's an accident that only 3 teams in the last 20 years won the Super Bowl without an Elite QB (at least a QB who was playing at an elite level that season like Eli Manning, even though he started sucking afterwards, or Joe Flacco who sucked in 2013 but might be playing better this year). Those teams were the 2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer, the 2003 Bucs with Brad Johnson and the 2014 Seahawks with Russell Wilson (and that's assuming you don't think Wilson is or will be an elite player, which I don't).

Those three teams had one thing in common: they were the #1, #2 and #3 scoring defenses since the '85-'86 Bears.

Their offenses were designed not to lose. They won with all-time great defenses.

The problem with that formula is that it's impossible to keep such a defense together under the salary cap for any length of time. For example, the Seahawks this off-season had to give Earl Thomas a $45 million contract with a $9.5 million signing bonus, and Richard Sherman a 5 year, 58.7 million contract with $40 million guaranteed and a $10 million signing bonus.

They can't re-sign everybody. This year Russell Wilson will earn only $662,000. Next year is his last year and they are going to have to re-negotiate his contract because you don't franchise your franchise QB. He'll earn close to $20 million a year because that's what SB winning QBs earn in the NFL. He's certainly not going to agree to earn a lot less money than Jay Cutler!

Something is going to have to give in that salary cap structure. Teams that try and keep everybody together enter salary cap hell and explode like the Tennessee Titans did after their narrow SB loss against the Rams.

The Patriots have been among the elite teams in the league for 12 seasons despite picking at the bottom of the draft every year because Belichick has imposed ruthless salary cap discipline on the team. They identify which handful of players they will pay big money to and fill the rest of the team with lower salary guys. Brady (5 years, $60 million), Gronk (8 years $55 million), Jerod Meyo 7 years, $50 million and Revis 1 year, $12 million including a $10 million signing bonus) are the big $ guys. Nobody else has more than $8 million in guaranteed money.

When those lesser guys' contracts come up for renewal they either agree to less money or the Pats cut them loose. They did this just weeks ago with their best G Logan Mankins who refused to take a pay-cut and got traded for a wad of used gum.

After winning a SB everybody is a hero and everybody wants to cash in. And they can't afford to pay everybody. They've kept their most important players this year and they'll keep Chancellor and Sherman and Thomas long term. But the rest of them will start to go elsewhere for bigger paydays.

It's just much easier to pay your QB $20 million than to pay 11 elite defensive players what they're worth.

The league wants it that way, they structure the rules to ensure this is an offensive minded passing league. Once in a while a team can win the SB going against the trend but not very often and not for long.

Teams might want to emulate Seattle, but nobody has that kind of overall defensive talent on their roster and nobody is likely to in the next 5-10 years either.

Only three non-elite SB winning QB's in the last 20 years? I don't think so.

1. I don't consider Aikman elite (QB of 95 Cowboys). Good, but not elite.

2. Brady wasn't elite when the Pats won. He didn't lose the game, but he didn't win it, either.

3. Big Ben is elite, but didn't really have elite performances in those games.

4. Kurt Warner is close, but not quite. Same with Drew Brees.

5. Eli Manning isn't elite. He sort-of rode the Giants to two SB wins.

6. Flacco isn't elite, either. He won because of the Ray Lewis Christmas gift program sponsored by the refs in Denver two years ago.

Russell Wilson is more elite than some of those guys.

And, as far as the Pats are concerned, they have been disciplined in the salary cap, but playing in the weakest division ever during that time hasn't hurt, though.