Broncos' offense not struggling as much as facing good competition

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Let's suppose Demaryius Thomas gets some stick to his buttery fingers.

Suppose, too, Broncos offensive coordinator Adam Gase de-emphasizes the rushing game and his unit regains rhythm through Peyton Manning's precision passing.

Even if all were clicking offensively, the Broncos still would not be likely to repeat their record-setting performance from 2013.

AND


The biggest challenge in the Broncos' 2014 regular season has been a schedule shift in location. Instead of playing all those patsy defenses from last year's NFC East, the Broncos are taking on all those defensive powerhouses in the NFC West.

full article - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26625169/broncos-offense-not-struggling-much-facing-good-competition

[Northman]

In the simplest of terms, it's not always about the points an offense can put up but how many the opposing defense will allow.

Very true. Lets just hope our own defense can match that kind of level. I would love for this defense to actually hold opposing offenses to under 15 points.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Very true. Lets just hope our own defense can match that kind of level. I would love for this defense to actually hold opposing offenses to under 15 points.

I think our defense has the talent to do it. However, if our offense struggles it tends to struggle in a way that kills clock management and puts our defense on the field for long periods of time. This makes it tough to stop other teams if our offense goes an entire quarter with 3 minutes of TOP because we are on and off the field too fast.

[Joel]

I'm reliably and emphatically informed our 2013 schedule was top notch—except when KC played it; anyone THEY beat 11 times MUST suck (but EQUALLING that and sweeping crappy KC proves us elite.)

This years schedule is the toughest I can remember ANY team facing: The other SB team and all THREE other Conference Championship Game teams—2/3 on the road—plus two defending division champs, four games against both AFC wildcards and the unbeaten Cards whose 10 wins against Seattle (2X) SF (2X) Carolina and NO should've made them a playoff berth (and would've in any other division.) That said, we've only played ONE of those NFCW powerhouses so far, Indy doesn't beat people with D and KC was riddled with injuries (plus, as we all know, they suck.)

It's a safe bet reemphasizing the run had a lot to do with facing three elite NFCW Ds that won >30 games last year with sacks, Ints and a LOT of incomplete passes leading to punts. We're not gonna blow out teams like that with air raids—and we can GET blown out trying when our high flying offense throws lots of TD passes, but to the WRONG TEAM. In that sense, the SB blowout explains our refocus on the run because it was a blowout against an NFCW team; the fact it was a SB after a record-setting season just made it sting more and longer.

If we're the posterchild for the modern NFL offense, Seattle and SFs defenses are DESIGNED to beat that; championship offenses adjust and adapt, because they've got the talent and skill to do so rather than just curl up in a corner and die every time they face anyone good enough to take away their favorite toy: One trick Broncos don't win championships. Elway knows that better than anyone, getting blown out in 3 SBs as a first ballot HoF passer with no comparable run game, but winning back-to-back when he DID have that run game.

For us, last weeks game was VERY different than the SB, but for Seattles offense it was identical: They scored 14 pts in both—the difference was our offense only handed them 6 more off a fumble and Int rather than 15 off a safety and a pair of Ints. That's the good news: We stayed in it by not throwing away the game, and would've won handily in regulation if we'd had ANY run game at all; the bad news is we DIDN'T have any run game at all, averaged <2 yds per carry and needed our D to reach OT, where we lost when they ran out of gas.

Still and so, we beat the SB Champs in their own house (one of the NFLs toughest to visit) if our run game is even a LITTLE better, so even that small improvement should net a championship.

As far as facing better defenses this season: Sure, LATER; we lost to the only great D we faced, and the two we beat aren't all that great. Thank heaven for early byes.

[silkamilkamonico]

Denver looks to have the makings of a much more well rounded team than last year, which is the best news. The solid teams were facing now are going to show that down the road.

[TXBRONC]

I'm reliably and emphatically informed our 2013 schedule was top notch—except when KC played it; anyone THEY beat 11 times MUST suck (but EQUALLING that and sweeping crappy KC proves us elite.)

This years schedule is the toughest I can remember ANY team facing: The other SB team and all THREE other Conference Championship Game teams—2/3 on the road—plus two defending division champs, four games against both AFC wildcards and the unbeaten Cards whose 10 wins against Seattle (2X) SF (2X) Carolina and NO should've made them a playoff berth (and would've in any other division.) That said, we've only played ONE of those NFCW powerhouses so far, Indy doesn't beat people with D and KC was riddled with injuries (plus, as we all know, they suck.)

It's a safe bet reemphasizing the run had a lot to do with facing three elite NFCW Ds that won >30 games last year with sacks, Ints and a LOT of incomplete passes leading to punts. We're not gonna blow out teams like that with air raids—and we can GET blown out trying when our high flying offense throws lots of TD passes, but to the WRONG TEAM. In that sense, the SB blowout explains our refocus on the run because it was a blowout against an NFCW team; the fact it was a SB after a record-setting season just made it sting more and longer.

If we're the posterchild for the modern NFL offense, Seattle and SFs defenses are DESIGNED to beat that; championship offenses adjust and adapt, because they've got the talent and skill to do so rather than just curl up in a corner and die every time they face anyone good enough to take away their favorite toy: One trick Broncos don't win championships. Elway knows that better than anyone, getting blown out in 3 SBs as a first ballot HoF passer with no comparable run game, but winning back-to-back when he DID have that run game.

For us, last weeks game was VERY different than the SB, but for Seattles offense it was identical: They scored 14 pts in both—the difference was our offense only handed them 6 more off a fumble and Int rather than 15 off a safety and a pair of Ints. That's the good news: We stayed in it by not throwing away the game, and would've won handily in regulation if we'd had ANY run game at all; the bad news is we DIDN'T have any run game at all, averaged <2 yds per carry and needed our D to reach OT, where we lost when they ran out of gas.

Still and so, we beat the SB Champs in their own house (one of the NFLs toughest to visit) if our run game is even a LITTLE better, so even that small improvement should net a championship.

As far as facing better defenses this season: Sure, LATER; we lost to the only great D we faced, and the two we beat aren't all that great. Thank heaven for early byes.

Why the emphasis on facing the NFC West LATER. That's kind of a silly comment since it doesn't matter when Denver faces them. If you can count four which I'm rolling the dices that you just might be able to count to at least four then you'll know Denver hasn't even played a quarter of the season just yet. This Sunday makes the fourth game of season for them. If you can count to at least eight which again I'm rolling the dice that you can you'll know that Denver will have faced three of the four NFC West before they reach the halfway point in their season.

You seem to "forget" big chunks of information that doesn't fit your whine and cheese fests. According schedule makers Denver's was considered one of the harder ones BEFORE the season started. You do understand what the word before means don't you? It means they hadn't played a single game yet. Seriously that's what it means. As a season plays out an opponent might be either stronger or weaker depending on what transpires BEFORE the Broncos face them.

There is absolutely nothing to prove that if Denver's run game had been better that they would have won in Seattle. Would it have given them better chance to win? I would like to think so but was still in their house and so the advantage was still theirs. Saying that Denver would have won handily is silly because there is no way to prove that. :welcome:

[tripp]

Yes we have faced 3 good teams - 3 play off teams. However, there isn't much excuse for going 3 and out on multiple drives, draining minimal time on the clock and allowing teams to get back into the game. I've given the defence a lot of slack since I think that they've been on the field a whole lot more than the Offence. We can see what the Offence is trying to accomplish by establishing the run game, however, I think the run game is disrupting the flow of our pass game, which is our bread and butter. We all knew how tough this season's schedule is, so it shouldn't be a surprise that we're not blowing teams out of the water, however, it's still a shock that we're struggling offensively. I think I'm just spoiled.

[Joel]

Why the emphasis on facing the NFC West LATER.
Because the articles whole argument is "our offensive production's fallen because of all the great NFCW Ds we play this year." Yeah, that might work if we'd played more than ONE of them, but our offense wasn't off against Indy because of the great D Indy doesn't have, and wasn't off against KC because of the Pro Bowl defenders on the sideline watching the game in casts and street clothes.


That's kind of a silly comment since it doesn't matter when Denver faces them.
It does when we're comparing this seasons first three games to last seasons: The only NFCW teams relevant to that are the ones we HAVE played; what happens later is anyones guess.


If you can count four which I'm rolling the dices that you just might be able to count to at least four then you'll know Denver hasn't even played a quarter of the season just yet. This Sunday makes the fourth game of season for them. If you can count to at least eight which again I'm rolling the dice that you can you'll know that Denver will have faced three of the four NFC West before they reach the halfway point in their season.
And if our offense is 9 TDs behind its 2013 pace THEN (i.e. three times more games=three times the difference) citing all the top NFCW defenses we PLAYED will be relevant to explaining the difference—but saying a games we play in October explain scoring less in September "forgets" temporal causality. It's like saying getting blown out in the SB caused us to break all those scoring records.


You seem to "forget" big chunks of information that doesn't fit your whine and cheese fests. According schedule makers Denver's was considered one of the harder ones BEFORE the season started. You do understand what the word before means don't you? It means they hadn't played a single game yet. Seriously that's what it means. As a season plays out an opponent might be either stronger or weaker depending on what transpires BEFORE the Broncos face them.
Everyone who knows how NFL scheduling works knew before the SB ours would brutal, because it locks each conferences division winners into playing all the rest, and both AFC wildcards were from our division, so that's 4 more; the only thing that might've snuck up on anyone was that it's the AFCWs turn to play the NFCW, so footballs two toughest 2013 divisions were set to square off in 2014. It's not like I just woke up on Labor Day and realized that all of a sudden; it's one of the reasons I didn't want to come up short in the SB: Because I knew it would only get (much) harder.

I know "befores" meaning: I worried about the toughest schedule I can recall long BEFORE Opening Day, and we can't excuse weak offenses with great NFCW defenses BEFORE we play them.


There is absolutely nothing to prove that if Denver's run game had been better that they would have won in Seattle. Would it have given them better chance to win? I would like to think so but was still in their house and so the advantage was still theirs. Saying that Denver would have won handily is silly because there is no way to prove that. :welcome:
Seriously? Even averaging 1.9/carry and with a TON of three-and-outs our D STILL got us to OT—you honestly don't think averaging even a pitiful 3 yds/carry would've won it? 50% more than what got us to OT wouldn't have won it? That sounds like arguing just for the sake of arguing even when it means "forgetting" what one knows is self-evident.

[Bronco9798]

So I guess the Chiefs area a good team? The team we struggle with and very well could of lost. Guess I missed something. We made them look better than they were. They aren't that good and they are facing a very average New England Team tonight. I think our coaching so far has hurt us more than the other teams we have faced. Our coaching has been sub par, in my opinion.

[Northman]

So I guess the Chiefs area a good team? The team we struggle with and very well could of lost. Guess I missed something. We made them look better than they were. They aren't that good and they are facing a very average New England Team tonight. I think our coaching so far has hurt us more than the other teams we have faced. Our coaching has been sub par, in my opinion.

I think he is talking mainly about last year. The Chiefs started off 9-0 and Joel was convinced they were the real deal. I kept telling him they were paper tigers but he wouldnt listen. lol

[Joel]

So I guess the Chiefs area a good team? The team we struggle with and very well could of lost.
It seems to depend on whom one asks and what angle they're working. For what it's worth, I think the Chiefs WERE a good team last year, so sweeping them was a big accomplishment (as well as being our biggest and second biggest regular season wins,) but injuries and FA have decimated them since, so beating them by a TD at home doesn't mean what it did a year ago.


Guess I missed something. We made them look better than they were. They aren't that good and they are facing a very average New England Team tonight. I think our coaching so far has hurt us more than the other teams we have faced. Our coaching has been sub par, in my opinion.
At least that's consistent, which is more than most around here can say: If people want to say KC sucks and not back down from it after realizing they were the best team we beat in 2013, that's fair.

After that we have Seattle, who beat us (again) and only needed OT because our D played so amazingly well it almost made up for our nonexistent running, and Indy, whose D isn't much better than when Manning was there, and maybe not even THAT good since Mathis is suspended. When we DO play SF and Arizona, we'll be facing MUCH better defenses, so our offense must be proportionately better for us to win. If not, well, it's worth noting SDs sole loss was by a SINGLE point on the road against the NFCWs unbeaten Cardinals.

The good thing about the NFL compared to other pro sports is there are so few games they ALL count; the bad thing is there are so few games they ALL count....

[Bronco9798]

I think he is talking mainly about last year. The Chiefs started off 9-0 and Joel was convinced they were the real deal. I kept telling him they were paper tigers but he wouldnt listen. lol

Oh I didn't read all that non sense. When I see a novel, I normally skip right over it. Too much to read. It's a football game, most things can be explained a few sentences, not a chapter.

[Bronco9798]

It seems to depend on whom one asks and what angle they're working. For what it's worth, I think the Chiefs WERE a good team last year, so sweeping them was a big accomplishment (as well as being our biggest and second biggest regular season wins,) but injuries and FA have decimated them since, so beating them by a TD at home doesn't mean what it did a year ago.


At least that's consistent, which is more than most around here can say: If people want to say KC sucks and not back down from it after realizing they were the best team we beat in 2013, that's fair.

After that we have Seattle, who beat us (again) and only needed OT because our D played so amazingly well it almost made up for our nonexistent running, and Indy, whose D isn't much better than when Manning was there, and maybe not even THAT good since Mathis is suspended. When we DO play SF and Arizona, we'll be facing MUCH better defenses, so our offense must be proportionately better for us to win. If not, well, it's worth noting SDs sole loss was by a SINGLE point on the road against the NFCWs unbeaten Cardinals.

The good thing about the NFL compared to other pro sports is there are so few games they ALL count; the bad thing is there are so few games they ALL count....

I live in Missouri. I have Sunday Ticket to watch every Bronco game. I get every Chief game. I watch them all, even if I have to watch two TV's No, the Chiefs weren't very good last year. They played back up QB's week in and week out. They hit every team at the right time last year. They won on bizarre or strange plays a few times. They got lucky a few times. When they got into the hard part of their schedule they won 2 of their last 7. They stunk against teams down the stretch. Those last nine games were who the Chiefs were last year. I can sit here and tell you about each of their first nine games and tell you exactly how each one went. I sat in disbelief for many of them as they would pull off wins against poor teams or teams decimated with injuries. Seriously, they weren't a very good team last year.

[Joel]

I think he is talking mainly about last year. The Chiefs started off 9-0 and Joel was convinced they were the real deal. I kept telling him they were paper tigers but he wouldnt listen. lol
No, this time I'm talking about this year, because the article's seeking excuses for our 2014 offense underperforming our 2013 offense through the first three games, and the best it can do is pretend next months games somehow affect this months scores. The three games in question are:

@Seattle (a loss where our D forced OT while our offense did NOTHING except for the final 0:59 of regulation.)
vs. KC (a TD win against a team that lost it's two best offensive linemen and best CB to FA, then lost its NT, a Pro Bowl LB and its Pro Bowl RB before playing us, then lost its SS during the game.)
vs. Indy (a TD win against a great offense with a poor defense, especially since its only really good player is suspended for PEDs.)

I still think last years Chiefs were for real, though not as good as their 11-5 record (but not as bad as their previous 2-14 finish) yet they're a MUCH weaker team now. What looked like it would be a pretty good team if it added ANY decent WRs failed to do so, lost its two best blockers, has NO secondary while Berry's hurt, and didn't have it's one-man offense against us either. Yet we barely won—AT HOME.

Jamaal Charles should be healthy when we play @Arrowhead. Putting that in orange should save some trouble: Objective people will know and not dispute the implications; those in opaque-colored glasses won't SEE (and therefore also won't dispute) it.

[Joel]

I live in Missouri. I have Sunday Ticket to watch every Bronco game. I get every Chief game. I watch them all, even if I have to watch two TV's No, the Chiefs weren't very good last year. They played back up QB's week in and week out. They hit every team at the right time last year. They won on bizarre or strange plays a few times. They got lucky a few times. When they got into the hard part of their schedule they won 2 of their last 7. They stunk against teams down the stretch. Those last nine games were who the Chiefs were last year. I can sit here and tell you about each of their first nine games and tell you exactly how each one went. I sat in disbelief for many of them as they would pull off wins against poor teams or teams decimated with injuries. Seriously, they weren't a very good team last year.
I'd be interested in hearing that, 'cause I admit I watched practically none of their games except against us (I think I may have caught the end of one other.) My main impression was a bunch of Denver fans insisting KC "just got lucky because of turnovers" without bothering to admit any team that averages 3 TO/gm for NINE SOLID WEEKS is creating and exploiting turnovers by design rather than just playing 9 different butter fingered teams and being in the right place every time each one hands them the ball.

Connie Mack said, "Luck is the residue of design;" what he didn't say is it's also the most popular excuse for just getting beaten by a better team (even more popular than "correctable mistakes.")

[Bronco9798]

I'd be interested in hearing that, 'cause I admit I watched practically none of their games except against us (I think I may have caught the end of one other.) My main impression was a bunch of Denver fans insisting KC "just got lucky because of turnovers" without bothering to admit any team that averages 3 TO/gm for NINE SOLID WEEKS is creating and exploiting turnovers by design rather than just playing 9 different butter fingered teams and being in the right place every time each one hands them the ball.

Connie Mack said, "Luck is the residue of design;" what he didn't say is it's also the most popular excuse for just getting beaten by a better team (even more popular than "correctable mistakes.")

The last 5 games of that 9 game schedule they played against back up QB's. The combined records of those first 9 games was 52-92, compared to 62-50 for the final 9 games. When the competition got better and the QB play got better, the Chiefs lost. The last 7 games when they went 2-5 was a true testament of what the Chiefs really were. I'm not going to analyze every single game but when you look at their first 9 opponents and then throw in 5 back up QB's it's not a hard task to go 9-0 when you are a very mediocre team yourself. Anyway, trust me, the Chiefs weren't a very good team last year. They had huge breaks along the way to that 9-0 start.

[Joel]

The last 5 games of that 9 game schedule they played against back up QB's. The combined records of those first 9 games was 52-92, compared to 62-50 for the final 9 games. When the competition got better and the QB play got better, the Chiefs lost. The last 7 games when they went 2-5 was a true testament of what the Chiefs really were. I'm not going to analyze every single game but when you look at their first 9 opponents and then throw in 5 back up QB's it's not a hard task to go 9-0 when you are a very mediocre team yourself. Anyway, trust me, the Chiefs weren't a very good team last year. They had huge breaks along the way to that 9-0 start.
Well, y'know what the SECAA says: "We can only play our schedule." We can look at the losses instead, but those 5 are hardly awful: They got swept by us, but we were way better than pretty much anyone but Seattle, so there's no shame in that, and they lost to Indy, who beat also beat us and the OTHER SB teams, so that doesn't prove them pretenders either. The other two losses were getting swept by SD (by a FG each time, one in OT on the road) who beat us once as well and made the playoffs, where they crushed Cincy on the road before we won the rubber game to reach the AFCCG.

I don't believe in "quality losses" whether OT@Seattle and OT@NE or OT@SD, but if there were such a thing, those would be them. The difference between us and KC in 2013 was teh sweep plus us losing @NE while they lost twice as many to SD, which proves us the better team, but doesn't prove them a BAD one; it's not like we buried them by halftime in either game.

All that said, you saw their games and I didn't, which puts you in a better position to judge, so I can't dispute your conclusion.

[MOtorboat]

There are some serious contradictions going on here...

[thunndarr]

So...The Chiefs...good/bad?

[Bronco9798]

So...The Chiefs...good/bad?

Last year, they were a bad team playing with lucky breaks and facing really bad QB play. This year I think they play good at a few good games and lose some they shouldn't. They are going to be a .500 team probably. You really can't say much else about them.

[BroncoNut]

Oh I didn't read all that non sense. When I see a novel, I normally skip right over it. Too much to read. It's a football game, most things can be explained a few sentences, not a chapter.

this post was funny. especially the first sentence. sorry that I had to remove the salute, but I am very pro-Joel for some reason. but like you not because I've read much of what he posts. I skim it.

[Bronco9798]

this post was funny. especially the first sentence. sorry that I had to remove the salute, but I am very pro-Joel for some reason. but like you not because I've read much of what he posts. I skim it.

I have no problem with him at all. I think he could enjoy the games more if he wasn't looking for so much and being so complicated with his assessments. Much of his stuff could be condensed and not be long and drawn out. I skim it and try to find anything interesting. He makes good points. To me, he makes watching the games a job and not what it is, a game. He's knowledgeable though. Good for him!!

[Ravage!!!]

So I guess the Chiefs area a good team? The team we struggle with and very well could of lost. Guess I missed something. We made them look better than they were. They aren't that good and they are facing a very average New England Team tonight. I think our coaching so far has hurt us more than the other teams we have faced. Our coaching has been sub par, in my opinion.

Yeah.. but then, you aren't a coach.

I mean, I get it. Peopel want to bitch and moan about the coaching. They want to think they know the plays, and call plays, better than the coaces. Yet, its absurd. The coaches know so much more. They not only know the game, itself, much more...but they know their personnel much better. They know what has worked and what hasn't at practices. They know they have watched game film, and they know the game plan they put together to match up with personnel and the other team's tendencies.

We as fans, just like to "Feel" like we would have done better because we have the HUGE benefit of callng the game AFTER the game. "We should have done that".... easy to say when you know the results of what happened. Easy to second guess a coach when you wouldn't have been second guessing on all they things they did right. Its SOOO easy to try and blame the "coaching"...when the facts are very VERY real that you don't have a clue as to what goes into coaching.

I can see when execution on the field has been bad because the QB misses the pass or the receiver drops the ball. THAT stuff is obvious. It's obvious that Manning isn't sharp right now. Its obvious that DT isn't sharp right now. But is that really coaching? I don't think so at all.

[Bronco9798]

Yeah.. but then, you aren't a coach.

I mean, I get it. Peopel want to bitch and moan about the coaching. They want to think they know the plays, and call plays, better than the coaces. Yet, its absurd. The coaches know so much more. They not only know the game, itself, much more...but they know their personnel much better. They know what has worked and what hasn't at practices. They know they have watched game film, and they know the game plan they put together to match up with personnel and the other team's tendencies.

We as fans, just like to "Feel" like we would have done better because we have the HUGE benefit of callng the game AFTER the game. "We should have done that".... easy to say when you know the results of what happened. Easy to second guess a coach when you wouldn't have been second guessing on all they things they did right. Its SOOO easy to try and blame the "coaching"...when the facts are very VERY real that you don't have a clue as to what goes into coaching.

I can see when execution on the field has been bad because the QB misses the pass or the receiver drops the ball. THAT stuff is obvious. It's obvious that Manning isn't sharp right now. Its obvious that DT isn't sharp right now. But is that really coaching? I don't think so at all.

Sure, sounds good. It was just my opinion. I wasn't making a case for anything. I watch every game. Just my observation. Didn't mean for you to get all technical, it's just a game. I hear complaints about coaching from sports radio, TV, forums, etc., Not like I'm the first person to make an observation about coaching. And, no, I'm not a coach.

[BroncoNut]

I have no problem with him at all. I think he could enjoy the games more if he wasn't looking for so much and being so complicated with his assessments. Much of his stuff could be condensed and not be long and drawn out. I skim it and try to find anything interesting. He makes good points. To me, he makes watching the games a job and not what it is, a game. He's knowledgeable though. Good for him!!

there's a lot of wisdom in this short post. I approach Joel the same way. well said

[silkamilkamonico]

Chiefs are solid. So are the Chargers.

IMHO, at this point, Denver is the clear cut best team in the AFC. I actually don't think it's even really close.

I think Chiefs, Chargers, Bengals, and maybe Ravens are in that next tier. Of all these teams, Bengals worry me the most, although I think they will continue to get better, I think Denver does too so I'm not that concerned as long as Denver takes care of their game.

Who's in that next tier? Colts, Patriots, Texans, Steelers?

The AFC just might be worse than last year IMHO.

[Bronco9798]

Chiefs are solid. So are the Chargers.

IMHO, at this point, Denver is the clear cut best team in the AFC. I actually don't think it's even really close.

I think Chiefs, Chargers, Bengals, and maybe Ravens are in that next tier. Of all these teams, Bengals worry me the most, although I think they will continue to get better, I think Denver does too so I'm not that concerned as long as Denver takes care of their game.

Who's in that next tier? Colts, Patriots, Texans, Steelers?

The AFC just might be worse than last year IMHO.

Don't let a Monday night game against New England give you false hopes about Kansas City or the game against us. They usually have a few good games a year. Smith has been sacked somewhere around 13 times already. Their O line isn't very good at all. They have no depth at Receiver at all. Bowe is a No#2 on any other team. When they get off the big stage (to Them MNF is a big stage) and hit the road again they will return to the Chiefs we all know. The secondary is actually horrible, although it looked good against New England, but who wouldn't with those receivers. Plus Berry (safety) is out for a few games. Just my opinion, as the season moves along, you'll see that KC is not in the tier you put them in. Move the Colts up and mover the Chiefs down!! Chiefs should end up about 8-8 or 9-7.

[Northman]

IMHO, at this point, Denver is the clear cut best team in the AFC. I actually don't think it's even really close.



Em yea, cant agree there.

[silkamilkamonico]

Don't let a Monday night game against New England give you false hopes about Kansas City or the game against us. They usually have a few good games a year. Smith has been sacked somewhere around 13 times already. Their O line isn't very good at all. They have no depth at Receiver at all. Bowe is a No#2 on any other team. When they get off the big stage (to Them MNF is a big stage) and hit the road again they will return to the Chiefs we all know. The secondary is actually horrible, although it looked good against New England, but who wouldn't with those receivers. Plus Berry (safety) is out for a few games. Just my opinion, as the season moves along, you'll see that KC is not in the tier you put them in. Move the Colts up and mover the Chiefs down!! Chiefs should end up about 8-8 or 9-7.

Every team has their issues. Kansas City is a good solid team that has very good players on both sides of the ball.


Em yea, cant agree there.

Who? Or do you think Denver is the best team in the AFC by a little and just not a lot?

[PatriotsGuy]

Every team has their issues. Kansas City is a good solid team that has very good players on both sides of the ball.



Who? Or do you think Denver is the best team in the AFC by a little and just not a lot?

Cincy

[silkamilkamonico]

Cincy

Cincy would be the only team I would be concerned about as the season goes on depending. But right now they only have 1 impressive win and as a team that has never done anything in the playoffs in this millenium I'm not buying them being better than Denver unless they show they are capable in the playoffs. But they might this year who knows.

[Bronco9798]

Every team has their issues. Kansas City is a good solid team that has very good players on both sides of the ball.



Who? Or do you think Denver is the best team in the AFC by a little and just not a lot?


Talent wise, on both sides of the ball, the Broncos are a better team than Cincy. Not by a whole lot though. I think Denver is the clear favorite to win the AFC cause of the experience from the last several years and you have Peyton at QB. I would get into coaching, but I was already told i wasn't a coach, so I won't talk about it, lol. I think Broncos could use better coaching though. :-)

[silkamilkamonico]

Talent wise, on both sides of the ball, the Broncos are a better team than Cincy. Not by a whole lot though. I think Denver is the clear favorite to win the AFC cause of the experience from the last several years and you have Peyton at QB. I would get into coaching, but I was already told i wasn't a coach, so I won't talk about it, lol. I think Broncos could use better coaching though. :-)

Yea I don't think any team is keeping Denver from the SuperBowl except Denver.

Bengals look to be the most well rounded. They also haven't won a playoff game since 1990. How often do teams that don't know how to win in the playoffs have magical runs to the SuperBowl - Never? I don't know I'm asking.

Cincinatti could go 16-0 with HFA advantage and I still wouldn't be shocked if they lose their first playoff game. That happens in the NFL.

[Bronco9798]

Yea I don't think any team is keeping Denver from the SuperBowl except Denver.

Bengals look to be the most well rounded. They also haven't won a playoff game since 1990. How often do teams that don't know how to win in the playoffs have magical runs to the SuperBowl - Never? I don't know I'm asking.

Cincinatti could go 16-0 with HFA advantage and I still wouldn't be shocked if they lose their first playoff game. That happens in the NFL.

I think the Chargers are a pretty good team this year. I wouldn't be surprised to see them win 10 or 11 games. Rivers is playing really good. I used to hate him. I actually like watching him play. He's a winner and he plays hard.

[BroncoNut]

I always liked Andrew Dalton and figured he'd be leading a good team into the playoffs soon. If you care to, check out some of my posts on Andy in the 2011-13 seasons.

[Joel]

Last year, they were a bad team playing with lucky breaks and facing really bad QB play. This year I think they play good at a few good games and lose some they shouldn't. They are going to be a .500 team probably. You really can't say much else about them.
They're a defensive running team with its best pass rusher out for the year and best CB plus BOTH Charles' starting guards lost to FA: However good they were/n't last year, they're significantly worse NOW.

Also, however easy their schedule was/n't last year, it's brutal now: Both SB teams (one twice) plus a third that just missed the SB, Arizona and a pair of games against a Bolts club that looks scary so far. The good news (for KC) is they've already lost one of those games—the bad news is they could easily lose 5-6 more, and the Bills and Dolphins look much better, while the last vs. last format has them facing much improved Texans. 6-10 is a real possibility.

[Joel]

I have no problem with him at all. I think he could enjoy the games more if he wasn't looking for so much and being so complicated with his assessments. Much of his stuff could be condensed and not be long and drawn out. I skim it and try to find anything interesting. He makes good points. To me, he makes watching the games a job and not what it is, a game. He's knowledgeable though. Good for him!!
Overanalyzing games is much of the fun for me; I just have to remember certain folks consider it above my pay grade. :tongue: There's a reason my Madden seasons last longer than ACTUAL seasons. :redface:

[Bronco9798]

They're a defensive running team with its best pass rusher out for the year and best CB plus BOTH Charles' starting guards lost to FA: However good they were/n't last year, they're significantly worse NOW.

Also, however easy their schedule was/n't last year, it's brutal now: Both SB teams (one twice) plus a third that just missed the SB, Arizona and a pair of games against a Bolts club that looks scary so far. The good news (for KC) is they've already lost one of those games—the bad news is they could easily lose 5-6 more, and the Bills and Dolphins look much better, while the last vs. last format has them facing much improved Texans. 6-10 is a real possibility.

Thier best pass rushers are Houston and Hali. You must be talking about Derrick Johnson, out with the achilles? Thomas is a good pass rusher but I personally think Hali and Houston are their best pass rushers as far as causing pressure and being around the QB. Eric Barry is also out right now with a bad ankle. He's probably the best athlete/player on the team. I agree the Chiefs, like us, have a tough road ahead. People look at the Monday night game and start freaking out cause they win a game on MNF against a sub par Patriots team. Chiefs were up for that game. They don't get many of those. Remember, them Titans beat them week 1. It wasn't on a big stage and had all the festivities surrounding it. Their big moment for the year is gone and they will settle back into mediocrity as they always do.

[Joel]

Houston and (maybe) Hali may be better pass rushers (honestly not sure,) but Thomas is a better all around LB. I think it's more likely Houston and Hali just get more sacks because they play outside, and the OLB's the 3-4s star the same way DEs are the 4-3s. Don't mistake more opportunities for more ability though, nor overlook everything Thomas brings to the table in addition to being a fine pass rusher.

Berry's a fine DB, but not a CB; Sean Smith had a decent game Monday, but Flowers was a lot better, is gone now, and, as I'm often reminded, it's a passing league. Except in KC, where it's the Charles and Davis show with Smith scrambling a lot because he's only got ONE quality WR, and even HE drops lots of nice passes just like all the others. That kind of offense needs the top starting guards KC let walk because $2 million/year is overpaying for any lineman who's not a top pass blocking OT; Charles, Davis and their whole offense will suffer the consequences of that against this murderous schedule.

8-8 if they're lucky; 6-10 (or worse) still looks more likely to me.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Houston and (maybe) Hali may be better pass rushers (honestly not sure,) but Thomas is a better all around LB. I think it's more likely Houston and Hali just get more sacks because they play outside, and the OLB's the 3-4s star the same way DEs are the 4-3s. Don't mistake more opportunities for more ability though, nor overlook everything Thomas brings to the table in addition to being a fine pass rusher.

Berry's a fine DB, but not a CB; Sean Smith had a decent game Monday, but Flowers was a lot better, is gone now, and, as I'm often reminded, it's a passing league. Except in KC, where it's the Charles and Davis show with Smith scrambling a lot because he's only got ONE quality WR, and even HE drops lots of nice passes just like all the others. That kind of offense needs the top starting guards KC let walk because $2 million/year is overpaying for any lineman who's not a top pass blocking OT; Charles, Davis and their whole offense will suffer the consequences of that against this murderous schedule.

8-8 if they're lucky; 6-10 (or worse) still looks more likely to me.

Johnson, Derrick Johnson. Derrick Thomas is deceased.

Derrick is a good Mike, but Hali and Houston are one the top pass rushing pairs in the NFL. The loss of Houston towards the end of last year was one of the key reasons they tailed off near the end of the season.

[Joel]

Johnson, Derrick Johnson. Derrick Thomas is deceased.

Derrick is a good Mike, but Hali and Houston are one the top pass rushing pairs in the NFL. The loss of Houston towards the end of last year was one of the key reasons they tailed off near the end of the season.
Sorry, that's twice I did that; in my defense, I was lured into it this time. ;) As to the rest, again: They're 3-4 OLBs; of course they get tons of sacks, but a 4-3 ILB's not a Mike in the usual sense; we could call him a Jack just as easily. He's not the focus of their front seven the way he would be in a 4-3, but still a darned good LB vs. the run, in coverage and rushing the passer, and in that sense he's closer to the prototypical Mike than either Hali or Houston. He's certainly a bigger leader on their D, even if he doesn't put up the video game stats that go with playing OLB in a 3-4.

Anyway, the point is the Chiefs team that went 11-5 last season lost multiple Pro Bowlers and has a MUCH tougher schedule this year, so I expect a decline of >3 wins.

[Simple Jaded]

"The Broncos suck and to prove it I'll spam every thread with constantly changing parameters until they 3-peat and justify trading Tim Tebow for Peyton Manning and his giant contract #JonKitna" <-- that's Joel's knowledgeable posts in a sentence or less.

:burp:

:fart:

:golfclap:

[Joel]

It takes a special kind of pettiness to get mad someone else got a compliment. You two gonna throw nail polish on my locker and tell everyone I screwed the science teacher? :tongue:

[Hawgdriver]

Please tell me the science teacher is Mrs. BJ. I want this to escalate.

[BroncoJoe]

Please tell me the science teacher is Mrs. BJ. I want this to escalate.

Wut?

[Bronco9798]

Science teacher is a male, just saying.

[Joel]

Science teacher is a male, just saying.
Pretty sure Mean Girls don't care; I'm just hoping they don't go full blown Heathers on anyone. ;)

[MOtorboat]

So KC is basically Joel's 1960s wet dream, but for some reason he shits all over them too.

Interesting.

[Joel]

So KC is basically Joel's 1960s wet dream, but for some reason he shits all over them too.

Interesting.
Dumping not one but TWO All Pro guards but expecting RBs to singlehandedly win games without them is hardly my blueprint for success. Seattle sadly looks more like my ideal roster and philosophy.

Y'know, except for all the 'roids and cheap shots. ;)

[Canmore]

Dumping not one but TWO All Pro guards but expecting RBs to singlehandedly win games without them is hardly my blueprint for success. Seattle sadly looks more like my ideal roster and philosophy.

Y'know, except for all the 'roids and cheap shots. ;)

Seattle wouldn't be Seattle without the PEDs. Not my idea of a dream roster.

[Joel]

Seattle wouldn't be Seattle without the PEDs. Not my idea of a dream roster.
Or the cheap shots; I keep thinking of that article last year about how they run every practice with every legal area padded so the DBs and LBs learn where/how to legally rupture organs and snap bones.

In terms of the basic philosophy though, they look like what I like: Run-first, throw long or not at all, cover instead of blitzing and keep the LBs in a mid-zone where they don't have to go far to come up and stop the run or drop back and help against deep floods. Arizona and SF are better designed for it, IMHO, because a 4th LB makes the defensive side of that far easier as long as the OLBs truly ARE LBs rather than just DEs who don't have a hand in the dirt. It can be done, and well, without need of Seattles juiced dirty hits.

[silkamilkamonico]

Seattle's my ideal philosphically. Carroll is the best coach in the NFL right now and I don't think it's even close.

[Bronco9798]

Seattle's my ideal philosphically. Carroll is the best coach in the NFL right now and I don't think it's even close.

Carroll was 7-9 and 7-9 and he was one Matt Flynn start away from being fired. Then they found this little gem named Russell Wilson that came in and saved Pete Carrolls ass. That's the only thing that saved his job. To call him the best coach in the NFL is really reaching and kind of hard to understand.

[Simple Jaded]

When did KC have "not one but TWO All Pro G's" to dump anyway?

Btw, you will never run the ball like Seattle with a QB like Manning, not happening.

[CrazyHorse]

Do we consider the Cardinals to be "good" competition?

[7DnBrnc53]

Seattle's my ideal philosphically. Carroll is the best coach in the NFL right now and I don't think it's even close.

I wouldn't go that far. I agree with what the above poster said. He is a good coach, but Wilson saved his butt, and his team is a PED fest. Also, their SB win seems to be proven to be a mirage after what I saw in Week 3.