AFC Divisional Round - Broncos vs Colts

[VonDoom]

Alright, I figured I'd start an all inclusive thread for the talk leading up to the game next week. Let's talk about the Indianapolis Colts. Here were the final offensive and defensive stats for us and them this year:

Broncos - 4th in total offense, 4th in passing, 15th in rushing, 2nd in points; 3rd in total defense, 9th in passing defense, 2nd in rushing defense, 16th in points allowed
Colts - 3rd in total offense, 1st in passing, 22nd in rushing, 6th in points; 11th in total defense, 12th in passing defense, 18th in rushing defense, 19th in points allowed

If you prefer some advanced stats, here are our DVOA ratings:

Broncos - 2nd total DVOA, 3rd in total offense, 3rd in passing offense, 7th in rushing offense; 4th in total defense, 5th in passing defense, 3rd in rushing defense
Colts - 12th total DVOA, 17th in total offense, 13th in passing offense, 27th in rushing offense; 13th in total defense, 10th in passing defense, 19th in rushing defense

The Colts finished 5-3 on the road this year, though I'm hard pressed to find any great wins there. They beat the Texans on that Thursday night, which is the closest I can come; besides that, they beat the Jags, Titans, Browns and Giants on the road, and lost to us, the Steelers, and the Cowboys.

The game we played in week one against them seems like a lifetime ago, and it might as well be. We're obviously a different team from that game, and I suspect they are too, though I don't follow them closely enough to know all the nuances. We led that game 31-10 before a couple of late touchdowns made it close (I believe Chris Harris didn't play much in the second half, as he was still coming back from his injury). We obviously weren't using CJ Anderson at that point, which made our offense look much different. The Colts have a poor rushing game, even if the numbers aren't as bad as I had thought. They had Ahmad Bradshaw putting up some nice numbers (4.7 YPC) before his injury. Richardson is useless and I'm not sold on Boom Herron yet.

Bill Simmons declared the Colts his "bad good team" of the year, meaning that their stats look good, but they can't beat quality opponents. They were 4-5 against teams that finished with winning records this year, beating the Texans twice, the Ravens and the Bengals (and now the Bengals again). They lost to us, the Eagles, the Steelers, the Pats and the Cowboys. Those last three weren't even close, and our game ended up being closer than it should have. They had the benefit of four games against the Jags and Titans as well.

So what do we think about this game? Hilton is good and Vontae Davis always gives us trouble. But really, this team is about Andrew Luck. Luck is turnover prone (he had 16 INT and 8 fumbles this year) so if we can pressure him into making mistakes, we should be golden. I doubt they try to run much against us, considering how ineffective they usually are and how good our run defense is. That leaves our secondary to stop the big plays, and I think they're up to the task. We should be able to run on them, and as long as we throw it away from Davis, I don't think anyone else on that defense should stop us. I see this as a 35-24 win, with a late Colts TD making it look respectable.

I plan to travel to the local Broncos bar in NYC early on Sunday, watch the Packers/Cowboys game, and hopefully be nice and tipsy by kickoff of our game. Should ease the stress.

[GEM]

Nice write up, Von! There are 2 players on the Colts that worry me, Luck and Hilton. Other than those 2, they appear to be paper tigers. We just need to bring our a game and I think we win it.

[Bronco9798]

Broncos pull away early 2nd half and don't look back.......

[Magnificent Seven]

Broncos will have Marshall and Ward back in time and they will going to do some damage on Colts offense. Thanks, Cincinnati for waking us up!

[OrangeHoof]

Colts - 11th in total defense, 12th in passing defense, 18th in rushing defense, 19th in points allowed.

This despite six games total against the Texans, Titans and Jaguars. Give them a schedule like ours and those numbers would have been worse.

[olathebroncofan]

So do you think we will play more nickel packages and trust our front 4 to stop the run with maybe a spy on luck?

The Colts run game is horrid, but luck had been able to keep drives alive with his feet.

Will we have Ward this weekend?

[VonDoom]

In Mike Tanier's weekend wrap up column, he puts a little Broncos/Colts preview in. I like the way he thinks:


The Colts have no chance of beating the Broncos if they play the way they did in their 26-10 win over the Bengals.

Make no mistake: The Colts played well in all three areas of the game. But they exhibited many of the same problems I wrote about in November when explaining why they remain one floor below the Tom Brady-Peyton Manning AFC penthouse. The Colts need to manufacture pass rush on defense, and they are terrible at running the football in high-leverage situations.

The leveraged running problem was evident when Indianapolis settled for field goals on three deep red-zone trips Sunday. Daniel "Boom" Herron did power into the end zone for a touchdown in the first quarter, but the Colts need more than isolated incidents of red-zone rushing.

When they got the ball at the 5-yard line late in the third quarter (after a penalty negated a touchdown), Andrew Luck threw a flat pass to T.Y. Hilton that was nearly picked off. Herron then took a halfhearted inside handoff. Finally, Luck and Herron attempted a shovel pass that was easily sniffed out.

Settling for three points against an opponent with no receivers or tight ends is one thing. Settling for three against the Broncos is a great way to trail 21-9 by halftime.

Lack of pass rush was more the Bengals' problem than the Colts' on Sunday, but Cincinnati illustrated what happens when you give a smart quarterback with tons of weapons lots of time in the pocket. Luck spent his day in the pocket drinking tea, doing crosswords, downloading software updates and checking down to his third or fourth options, particularly Herron (who finished with 10 receptions).

Given all the time in the world, eventually Hilton and other deep threats broke free after overcoming some first-quarter timing issues. The Bengals secondary played well for most of the game, but bad things happen when you have to cover a talented receiving corps for six seconds per play.

The shoe is going to be on the other foot next week. The Broncos can rush the passer, and they know they have no running game to worry about. The Colts defense, whose 41-sack regular-season total is inflated by blitzes and bad opponents (they sacked Jaguars and Titans quarterbacks 15 times, for example), will give Manning too much time to search his contact list for receivers.

It won't be ugly. It will just be a lot like Week 1's not-really-that-close 31-24 Broncos win.

The rest: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2319173-mike-taniers-monday-morning-hangover-colts-cam-cowboys-conspiracy

[broncofaninfla]

I was hoping the Bengals would win mainly because I fear Luck more Dalton. With that said it's time for our entire TEAM to step up. We'll need a huge game from our pass rush and better execution that we've seen in recent weeks on offense. May the best team win.

[Joel]

I like Legwold's take, particularly the part about Luck having to carry their whole offense alone since Bradshaw fractured his arm and Indy only managed 64 rushing yards in their last two games COMBINED (Week 17 their rushing total was A yard.) http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/11107/quick-take-broncos-vs-colts

Anyone who needs to know how much hope even the best QB has with NO run game should rewatch SB XLVIII. Indys D is pretty average (and that's being kind,) so if our line shows up we'll shred them now that we actually HAVE a run game. Demaryius had a good take on their D in another Legwold article: http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/11119/broncos-happy-and-they-hope-healthy-for-colts-matchup
"[The Colts] have got playmakers all over the field and I think the main thing after watching them [Sunday] … it's a lot of … blitzes that they disguise well and we have to pick that up well," Demaryius Thomas said. "Move the ball and try to put some points up."

Blitzing in many deceptive ways is desirable for any D, but critical for one with a patchy secondary who can't cover more than one or two good WRs long. Instead of "bend but don't break," it's a high risk/reward strategy that creates many big plays—often for the offense. For all the common complaints we're too conservative and Del Rio doesn't blitz enough, I suspect that's why we led the NFL in three-and-outs—but gave up the 14th most first downs: All or nothing. The difference is we do it by choice, despite a fine secondary and front four; it's necessity for Indy.

[Mike]

I was hoping the Bengals would win mainly because I fear Luck more Dalton. With that said it's time for our entire TEAM to step up. We'll need a huge game from our pass rush and better execution that we've seen in recent weeks on offense. May the best team win.

I didn't like the way Cincy's dline got pressure on Manning or the way they were able to run so easy against us, I am content with Indy coming to town. I think everything worked out in the Broncos favor this weekend. Baltimore isn't scared to go to NE and punch them in the face and Denver gets to play a team they match up well against.

[tripp]

If Andy Luck beats a defence with 5 pro bowlers, then shame on our Defence.

[Northman]

Well, they drafted Luck #1 for a reason. If there was ever a statement game for Indy to make this would be the one.

[VonDoom]

Well, they drafted Luck #1 for a reason. If there was ever a statement game for Indy to make this would be the one.

It would certainly be a career defining game for Luck. I just don't think that they are a complete team, and he would have to have an otherwordly game to carry them on his own against an upper tier team (like us).

[Northman]

It would certainly be a career defining game for Luck. I just don't think that they are a complete team, and he would have to have an otherwordly game to carry them on his own against an upper tier team (like us).

Could happen, we have been inconsistent all year despite how we look on paper not too mention Elway early in his career carried some pretty average teams to the SB. So anything can happen. Its up to Denver to put their game faces on and make sure we dont have a repeat of what we saw vs the Ravens a couple of years ago. One thing i have learned watching football all these years is it doesnt matter what the matchups look like, it just comes down to execution.

[tripp]

Manning doesn't have to carry the team, Luck does. Colts are so one dimensional, they're going to have to play lights out - Manning does not.

[Northman]

Manning doesn't have to carry the team, Luck does. Colts are so one dimensional, they're going to have to play lights out - Manning does not.

You mean the one dimensional team that beat Cincy who previously had destroyed us on national television? You mean that one dimensional team? lmao

Any Given Sunday.

[tripp]

You mean the one dimensional team that beat Cincy who previously had destroyed us on national television? You mean that one dimensional team? lmao

Any Given Sunday.


That one dimensional team, beat Cinci, being one dimensional, so yeah, that one dimensional team.

[GEM]

The problem with Indy has ALWAYS been...they get a top notch qb and hope to God that is enough to win out. They did it to Manning with a few key players, but not a complete team and they are doing it again with Luck.

[GEM]

You mean the one dimensional team that beat Cincy who previously had destroyed us on national television? You mean that one dimensional team? lmao

Any Given Sunday.

Cincy that was playing in a 5-2-4 alignment on defense because they ran out of LBers to play?

Cincy that has the ever true Red Rover, Red Rover, would you send a real QB over?

Cincy that has Marvin Lewis to always find a way to **** shit up.

They didn't beat an all world team, Northy!

The Bengals won their version of the SB against us a few weeks ago.

[Northman]

Cincy that was playing in a 5-2-4 alignment on defense because they ran out of LBers to play?

Cincy that has the ever true Red Rover, Red Rover, would you send a real QB over?

Cincy that has Marvin Lewis to always find a way to **** shit up.

They didn't beat an all world team, Northy!

The Bengals won their version of the SB against us a few weeks ago.

http://www.quotesworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vin-diesel-win-quote.jpg

[NightTrainLayne]

I never like playing a team again in the playoffs that you beat handily the first time. They gain more knowledge out of the loss than you gain out of the win.

This game will not be a blow-out as most are predicting. I wil be content just coming out with the win. I predict that we come out of the gates slow, and out of sync after our bye week, and the Colts will be ready to give us their absolute best shot, especially after hearing about how they have no chance in Denver all week.

We'll need to play an all-around good game to come out with a win.

[GEM]

http://www.quotesworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vin-diesel-win-quote.jpg

Which is exactly what we are going to do on Sunday! :cheers:

[tripp]

I never like playing a team again in the playoffs that you beat handily the first time. They gain more knowledge out of the loss than you gain out of the win.

This game will not be a blow-out as most are predicting. I wil be content just coming out with the win. I predict that we come out of the gates slow, and out of sync after our bye week, and the Colts will be ready to give us their absolute best shot, especially after hearing about how they have no chance in Denver all week.

We'll need to play an all-around good game to come out with a win.

I agree, I think we'll have to weather the storm for the 1st quarter and a bit. We could come out guns blazing, but over the past couple of weeks, that just hasn't been the case. I'm praying to god that we've thrown out the bubble screen.

[VonDoom]

Some notes from today's practice:

Chris Hall ‏@BroncosTV 48m48 minutes ago

After not practicing last week, Peyton Manning back on the field for today's practice. LB Brandon Marshall also out here w/ his helmet.

Troy Renck ‏@TroyRenck 40m40 minutes ago

Main guys back. Bruton and Franklin working on side. Marshall and ward in drills.

Troy Renck ‏@TroyRenck 36m36 minutes ago

Marshall running well. Ward explosive. Good signs Franklin and Bruton have advanced in protocol to do exercise. #broncos

Lindsay Jones ‏@bylindsayhjones 23m23 minutes ago

That Marshall + Ward are practicing today is a very good sign they'll play vs. Colts. Expect Franklin will too. Bruton bigger question.

[pulse]

Here is how I think this is going to play out and why I think this game will be different than week one of the 2014 season.

The Broncos and Colts will exchange scores early in this game, but I think Denver scores three touchdowns before the half to gain an early two score lead. I actually think we let Manning loose and he has two or three TD passes by halftime. We lead 21-13 or 24-10 going into the third quarter. The biggest difference in this game versus the first week is that the Broncos will successfully lean on the ground game to control clock in the second half. Luck is one hell of a playmaker, even under pressure. He's still going to make plays and move the ball. The Colts are going to score some points. But the Broncos defense they faced in the first week of the season got too soft late in the second half. This isn't the same defense. Though I think Luck and Co. do get a few more scores, I think we frustrate them, sack Luck, force turnovers and keep their offense off the field too much in the fourth quarter for the Colts to mount any capable comeback.

Denver - 36
Colts - 23

[Northman]

I would be massively surprised if we win by that score or margin. Im thinking more of a 27-24 type of game.

[GEM]

I would be massively surprised if we win by that score or margin. Im thinking more of a 27-24 type of game.

So you're saying we win! Wooooooooo Northy! :D

[Joel]

It should also be noted before putting too much stock in the Colts beating Cincy when we couldn't that Indy had them at home (where Cincys offense is a consistent disaster) but we were on the road (where they were unbeaten last year before imploding in the playoffs.) If we were in Indy I might be worried (though their D and rushing offense would still suck and our D would still be top five) but doubt they do any better at Mile High than last time; after all, even Brady and Belicheat are 0-2 in Mile High playoffs. Too bad this is probably the last game there this year.

[Northman]

I would be massively surprised if we win by that score or margin. Im thinking more of a 27-24 type of game.

So you're saying we win! Wooooooooo Northy! :D

Lol. I didn't say who would have the winning score.

[GEM]

lol. I didn't say who would have the winning score.

booooooooo!

[weazel]

Broncos defense will hold the Colts, its just up to the Denver offense to get things going. If we don't see the fainting goat, Broncos win.

[Northman]

Just please no turnovers. If you go down, go down because you just got outplayed. But to give it away on turnovers will royally suck.

[VonDoom]

I saw this today:


During the 2014 season the Colts went 0-4 against division winners, 2-4 against playoff teams and 2-5 against 10-win teams. That's 1-5 against 10-win teams and 1-4 against playoff teams if you don't count anything Indy did against the hapless Bengals.

If we look at this even deeper: Six of the Colts' 11 wins in 2014 came against teams that won six or less games. In those six wins, Luck threw a total of 20 touchdown passes and only two interceptions. That means Luck threw 3.3 touchdowns and 0.3 interceptions per game against 'bad' teams.

In the Colts 10 other games, where they went 5-5, Luck averaged two touchdown passes and 1.4 interceptions per game.

The rest: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24936202/broncos-colts-nfl-playoff-preview-first-look-at-manning-luck-iii

I originally saw this linked to IAOFM, who add this commentary:


Taken further: Indy's average score in those six games against Jacksonville, Tennessee, Washington, and the Giants was 37.3-16.3, while their average score against all other opponents was a lackluster 23.4-27.1.

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/prime-cuts/slice/the-2014-colts-have-fattened-up-against-bottomfeeders?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Northman]

Unfortunately all that means nothing come playoff time. Brand new season once the playoffs start.

[GEM]

North, I am having T change your user title to debbie downer for the next week. Man oh man. :laugh: You're killing me, smalls!!

[Mike]

Unfortunately all that means nothing come playoff time. Brand new season once the playoffs start.

No, it does tell you things. Denver should not have a problem with them. Of course, I know the Broncos are fully capable of laying some eggs and playing down to teams so all bets are off. Still, I would expect a win by 10+....but I will be ok with it only being by 1.

[VonDoom]

Unfortunately all that means nothing come playoff time. Brand new season once the playoffs start.

North, I get what you're saying - it's a one game season, and literally anything could happen. It's what makes the NFL playoffs so fun (and excruciating at times). But articles like this are attempting to make predictions based on the 16 games that came before. You're in essence doing the same thing - you think this team isn't winning anything. You must base that on something, no? I would assume it's from watching the regular season.


No, it does tell you things. Denver should not have a problem with them. Of course, I know the Broncos are fully capable of laying some eggs and playing down to teams so all bets are off. Still, I would expect a win by 10+....but I will be ok with it only being by 1.

I'll take the win any way it comes.

[Northman]

North, I am having T change your user title to debbie downer for the next week. Man oh man. :laugh: You're killing me, smalls!!

Bhwahahahahaah, im just trying to keep it realz.

[Northman]

North, I get what you're saying - it's a one game season, and literally anything could happen. It's what makes the NFL playoffs so fun (and excruciating at times). But articles like this are attempting to make predictions based on the 16 games that came before. You're in essence doing the same thing - you think this team isn't winning anything. You must base that on something, no? I would assume it's from watching the regular season.



I'll take the win any way it comes.

Well, just to be clear with you and Gem and whoever else. Im not saying we are going to lose for sure but yes, some of our play this year has left me more than a little concerned about our focus and execution. When we are good we are good, when we are bad, we are Raiders bad and thats the shit that scares me. The Pats struggled early in the season but then got their shit together and pretty much steamrolled the rest of the year. Doesnt mean they will beat the Ravens but if im a Pats fan i would have more confidence in that than i would our team because we have been up and down all year. Doesnt matter where you want to put the blame as im sure there are many different parts that break down here and there. But, as to the link you posted i dont think you can really read too much into who the Colts played (both playoffs teams vs division rivals) as Denver has a losing record this year vs playoff teams and our division for the most part pretty much stunk. I guess for me is i dont really need to look at who the Colts played or how they got here to try and pump myself up as i expect the game to be a dogfight and i just hope that we bring our A game. But you are correct that nothing Denver has done this year has anything to do with this Sunday, just like anything the Colts have done doesnt matter. Its just about who wants it more.

[Joel]

Unfortunately all that means nothing come playoff time. Brand new season once the playoffs start.
It's representative, because it's an overall trend/pattern, as long term as those CAN be in the NFLs 16 game seasons. In this case, it looks a lot like our 2012 pattern, when we went 13-3 and got the #1 seed but only managed to beat TWO winning teams (one being Baltimore, who more than got even when they sent us home from the playoffs winless.)

Offense wins games but defense championships because (especially with the new rules,) racking up tons of points will beat a ton of semi-random regular season teams, and the few losses aren't season-ending: In a single-elimination playoff where EVERYONE's good EVERY week, teams like that flame out fast. It's kinda like Detroit@Dallas: Sure, the Cowboys are going nowhere, as usual, but it's not surprising Detroit got there first, as usual. The BroncoS may lose this game, but the Indianapolis Luck CAN'T win it.

[Joel]

Well, just to be clear with you and Gem and whoever else. Im not saying we are going to lose for sure but yes, some of our play this year has left me more than a little concerned about our focus and execution. When we are good we are good, when we are bad, we are Raiders bad and thats the shit that scares me. The Pats struggled early in the season but then got their shit together and pretty much steamrolled the rest of the year. Doesnt mean they will beat the Ravens but if im a Pats fan i would have more confidence in that than i would our team because we have been up and down all year. Doesnt matter where you want to put the blame as im sure there are many different parts that break down here and there. But, as to the link you posted i dont think you can really read too much into who the Colts played (both playoffs teams vs division rivals) as Denver has a losing record this year vs playoff teams and our division for the most part pretty much stunk. I guess for me is i dont really need to look at who the Colts played or how they got here to try and pump myself up as i expect the game to be a dogfight and i just hope that we bring our A game. But you are correct that nothing Denver has done this year has anything to do with this Sunday, just like anything the Colts have done doesnt matter. Its just about who wants it more.
The Pats started out a trainwreck then came together as a solid team in every facet of the game, while the Broncos started out a bulldozer then fell apart at midseason, and I still think the difference is coaching. Coaching can only scheme and compensate for so much though, and Indys sole viable game plan is "hope Denver can't run and Manning coughs it up more than Luck." Since we have a better run D and a top five D loaded with playmakers, that's a pretty slim hope. Call it a case of "the other team gets overpaid, too." :tongue:

[GEM]

Bhwahahahahaah, im just trying to keep it realz.

No, sir! You are driving a knife through my heart, you're breaking it, North!

Winner winner chicken dinner....we got this damn thing!! ;)

[GEM]

It's representative, because it's an overall trend/pattern, as long term as those CAN be in the NFLs 16 game seasons. In this case, it looks a lot like our 2012 pattern, when we went 13-3 and got the #1 seed but only managed to beat TWO winning teams (one being Baltimore, who more than got even when they sent us home from the playoffs winless.)

Offense wins games but defense championships because (especially with the new rules,) racking up tons of points will beat a ton of semi-random regular season teams, and the few losses aren't season-ending: In a single-elimination playoff where EVERYONE's good EVERY week, teams like that flame out fast. It's kinda like Detroit@Dallas: Sure, the Cowboys are going nowhere, as usual, but it's not surprising Detroit got there first, as usual. The BroncoS may lose this game, but the Indianapolis Luck CAN'T win it.

Detroit lost in Dallas because Suh is a dirty jackass and karma is a bitch that wears a black and white shirt. :D

[Northman]

No, sir! You are driving a knife through my heart, you're breaking it, North!

Winner winner chicken dinner....we got this damn thing!! ;)

Im sorry babydoll. I will hug you and keep you warm, comfort you, and nestle my head between your ta-tas. :)

[VonDoom]

Well, just to be clear with you and Gem and whoever else. Im not saying we are going to lose for sure but yes, some of our play this year has left me more than a little concerned about our focus and execution. When we are good we are good, when we are bad, we are Raiders bad and thats the shit that scares me. The Pats struggled early in the season but then got their shit together and pretty much steamrolled the rest of the year. Doesnt mean they will beat the Ravens but if im a Pats fan i would have more confidence in that than i would our team because we have been up and down all year. Doesnt matter where you want to put the blame as im sure there are many different parts that break down here and there. But, as to the link you posted i dont think you can really read too much into who the Colts played (both playoffs teams vs division rivals) as Denver has a losing record this year vs playoff teams and our division for the most part pretty much stunk. I guess for me is i dont really need to look at who the Colts played or how they got here to try and pump myself up as i expect the game to be a dogfight and i just hope that we bring our A game. But you are correct that nothing Denver has done this year has anything to do with this Sunday, just like anything the Colts have done doesnt matter. Its just about who wants it more.

I'm always nervous about my team, especially when it comes to playoff time (hence my plan to drink heavily before/during Sunday's game).

I suspect in many ways that the Pats fans are the exception to the rule, since they've enjoyed so much success. Even still, it's been ten years since they've won anything. And while they turned it on this year (largely due to coaching, I think, as Joel alluded to), they still didn't look invincible. Wouldn't you be concerned after the escape against the Jets? That happened right near the end of the season. One of my best friends is a Pats fan, and I think he gets just as nervous as I do - he sent me this text after the Raven/Steelers game - "Well, shit. Ravens look scary." And after yesterday's games, "Is there any chance of anyone [1 or 2 seeds] other than the Pats losing next weekend?"

[pulse]

"Is there any chance of anyone [1 or 2 seeds] other than the Pats losing next weekend?"

Exactly. If you've got a good team, there's no reason to not be confident that you can win your playoff game. But in the playoffs, any team can be beaten that should otherwise win. Competition, emotion, energy, tenacity, all those things go way up in the playoffs. Players lay it on the line to win. Sometimes your "better team" simply gets outplayed. Clearly, any fan should be somewhat nervous about any playoff game. But of all the games this coming weekend, it's the Patriots vs. Ravens game that has me thinking upset. I mean, I don't even know that I would call it an upset. The Ravens never seem intimidated by playing in Foxboro. And they generally play their best football against them. Pats fans have got to be nervous as hell or they're in denial if they're not.

[Joel]

Detroit lost in Dallas because Suh is a dirty jackass and karma is a bitch that wears a black and white shirt. :D
Detroit lost in Dallas because instead of the better team winning, the worse team lost. It's not like those two amateur hour acts don't blow as many double digit leads as they overcome; a few years ago, it was the other way around: Dallas led Detroit 27-3 at the end of the 3rd, but kept passing anyway and wound up blowing it when Romo started throwing pick-sixes and their D left early.

We all knew one—probably BOTH—those teams would yet again explode on the postseason launchpad; Detroit just happened to blow it worst. Since my dad raised me on Landry the Lions are the Raiders with less ancient SB wins, that's fine by me. :) If Suh wants to make a career out of trying to win big games via injury, he deserves to leave playoff games crying.


I'm always nervous about my team, especially when it comes to playoff time (hence my plan to drink heavily before/during Sunday's game).

I suspect in many ways that the Pats fans are the exception to the rule, since they've enjoyed so much success. Even still, it's been ten years since they've won anything. And while they turned it on this year (largely due to coaching, I think, as Joel alluded to), they still didn't look invincible. Wouldn't you be concerned after the escape against the Jets? That happened right near the end of the season. One of my best friends is a Pats fan, and I think he gets just as nervous as I do - he sent me this text after the Raven/Steelers game - "Well, shit. Ravens look scary." And after yesterday's games, "Is there any chance of anyone [1 or 2 seeds] other than the Pats losing next weekend?"
That Jets escape (a divisional road game, which is always tough) was the last before NE completed their turn around and never looked back, which means it was also 3 months ago. They ironically lost AT HOME to the Jets Week 17 (something commentators keep reminding us AFC teams have done to Brady less than half a dozen times in his CAREER,) but only because they'd already clinched the bye and benched all most starters after the first quarter; it still went down to the wire even with Janeane Garafolo under center.

[VonDoom]

That Jets escape (a divisional road game, which is always tough) was the last before NE completed their turn around and never looked back, which means it was also 3 months ago. They ironically lost AT HOME to the Jets Week 17 (something commentators keep reminding us AFC teams have done to Brady less than half a dozen times in his CAREER,) but only because they'd already clinched the bye and benched all most starters after the first quarter; it still went down to the wire even with Janeane Garafolo under center.

No, they lost to the Bills in a meaningless week 17 game. The Jets game I was referring to was the week earlier in NJ. Both Jets games were escapes for the Pats but that one was more recent

[GEM]

Detroit lost in Dallas because instead of the better team winning, the worse team lost. It's not like those two amateur hour acts don't blow as many double digit leads as they overcome; a few years ago, it was the other way around: Dallas led Detroit 27-3 at the end of the 3rd, but kept passing anyway and wound up blowing it when Romo started throwing pick-sixes and their D left early.

We all knew one—probably BOTH—those teams would yet again explode on the postseason launchpad; Detroit just happened to blow it worst. Since my dad raised me on Landry the Lions are the Raiders with less ancient SB wins, that's fine by me. :) If Suh wants to make a career out of trying to win big games via injury, he deserves to leave playoff games crying.


That Jets escape (a divisional road game, which is always tough) was the last before NE completed their turn around and never looked back, which means it was also 3 months ago. They ironically lost AT HOME to the Jets Week 17 (something commentators keep reminding us AFC teams have done to Brady less than half a dozen times in his CAREER,) but only because they'd already clinched the bye and benched all most starters after the first quarter; it still went down to the wire even with Janeane Garafolo under center.

It just broke my widdle heart watching Suh cry. :laugh:

[Joel]

No, they lost to the Bills in a meaningless week 17 game. The Jets game I was referring to was the week earlier in NJ. Both Jets games were escapes for the Pats but that one was more recent
Right you are; I stand corrected, so your initial point's very valid. As it happens, my neighbor directly across the street's a Broncos fan from Boulder, as I learned when he saw me shoveling snow in my Broncos jacket they day of that Jets game, and he optimistically noted (also correctly) the Jets always play NE tough, so might help us out there; he was nearly right.

Maybe they were just worn down by the Lambeau loss, but on the other hand that game had me thinking GBs D is far better than I previously believed: Maybe it's not, and NE's just finally running out of steams after being invincible for 3 months. It's hard to be unbeatable every week forever, which is why peaking entering the playoffs is often more important than earning a bye or even homefield. I'd certainly rather play a revenge AFCCG vs. Baltimore in Denver than play it on the road in NE; still doubt that'll happen, but it's not impossible.

[VonDoom]

Right you are; I stand corrected, so your initial point's very valid. As it happens, my neighbor directly across the street's a Broncos fan from Boulder, as I learned when he saw me shoveling snow in my Broncos jacket they day of that Jets game, and he optimistically noted (also correctly) the Jets always play NE tough, so might help us out there; he was nearly right.

Maybe they were just worn down by the Lambeau loss, but on the other hand that game had me thinking GBs D is far better than I previously believed: Maybe it's not, and NE's just finally running out of steams after being invincible for 3 months. It's hard to be unbeatable every week forever, which is why peaking entering the playoffs is often more important than earning a bye or even homefield. I'd certainly rather play a revenge AFCCG vs. Baltimore in Denver than play it on the road in NE; still doubt that'll happen, but it's not impossible.

I don't want to side track this thread into a discussion about how good the Patriots are; it just seems like us as Bronco fans often look to them as a model franchise, good or bad. I get the sense that most Pats fans don't spend as much time worrying about their team as we do (my friend excepted).

As to your last point ... no matter what teams are playing, I would certainly rather have the AFCCG at home. If you're one of the last two teams in your conference standing, you deserve to be there, so if we're in the wonderful position of playing the Ravens, I don't think anyone would expect a dominant victory. But I'll take my chances against that team at home instead of NE on the road ten times out of ten, if given the choice. Of course, we're not given that choice, and we'll have 24 hours to think about a potential next opponent before we even play our current opponent. As I often say, as long as the TEAM isn't overlooking anyone, that's the important thing.

[Runamok]

I wish I could be more convinced that the Ravens have a shot of upsetting NE this week, but aside from their long-ago success in Foxbro, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that will happen.

NE's defense has been absolute shut-down for most of the season, stifling far better offenses than the Ravens are liable to put on display. Despite some ups and downs, Brady has been outstanding when he gets his protection up front. All of NE's main weapons will be on the field on Saturday and collectively, they are too much for the Ravens to handle.

Baltimore was 1-6 this season against winning teams! That is atrocious. They lost to Cinci TWICE. They lost to Houston! And they lost to the Chargers. Forget all the hype, they aren't going to beat NE at home.

Brady is due, once again, to get that offense cranked up, and he'll have the guys to do it. Nice to dream, but it would be a major, major meltdown if the Pats fail to advance.

Same can be said about the Broncos. They should be able to handle Indy with relative ease. So, I'm planning on watching these two face off again for the AFC Championship!

[Bronco9798]

I wish I could be more convinced that the Ravens have a shot of upsetting NE this week, but aside from their long-ago success in Foxbro, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that will happen.

NE's defense has been absolute shut-down for most of the season, stifling far better offenses than the Ravens are liable to put on display. Despite some ups and downs, Brady has been outstanding when he gets his protection up front. All of NE's main weapons will be on the field on Saturday and collectively, they are too much for the Ravens to handle.

Baltimore was 1-6 this season against winning teams! That is atrocious. They lost to Cinci TWICE. They lost to Houston! And they lost to the Chargers. Forget all the hype, they aren't going to beat NE at home.

Brady is due, once again, to get that offense cranked up, and he'll have the guys to do it. Nice to dream, but it would be a major, major meltdown if the Pats fail to advance.

Same can be said about the Broncos. They should be able to handle Indy with relative ease. So, I'm planning on watching these two face off again for the AFC Championship!

Throw all the regular season stuff out. It's about how you play "that day" now.

[Shazam!]

I wish I could be more convinced that the Ravens have a shot of upsetting NE this week, but aside from their long-ago success in Foxbro, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that will happen.

NE's defense has been absolute shut-down for most of the season, stifling far better offenses than the Ravens are liable to put on display. Despite some ups and downs, Brady has been outstanding when he gets his protection up front. All of NE's main weapons will be on the field on Saturday and collectively, they are too much for the Ravens to handle.

Baltimore was 1-6 this season against winning teams! That is atrocious. They lost to Cinci TWICE. They lost to Houston! And they lost to the Chargers. Forget all the hype, they aren't going to beat NE at home.

Brady is due, once again, to get that offense cranked up, and he'll have the guys to do it. Nice to dream, but it would be a major, major meltdown if the Pats fail to advance.

Same can be said about the Broncos. They should be able to handle Indy with relative ease. So, I'm planning on watching these two face off again for the AFC Championship!

You'd probably feel better about Baltimore's chances if you watched the Pitt game.

[Runamok]

Throw all the regular season stuff out. It's about how you play "that day" now.

No kidding? I never thought of that.

I was talking about likely scenarios.

Since your comment applies to both teams, what exactly would make anyone think it is more likely that NE, at full strength and at home, will lie down for a team they handled, most recently a year ago, 41-7 in a game the Ravens absolutely, positively needed to get a PO spot?

Of course it could happen. But it's probably as likely as NE beating them 55-6.

[tripp]

No kidding? I never thought of that.

I was talking about likely scenarios.

Since your comment applies to both teams, what exactly would make anyone think it is more likely that NE, at full strength and at home, will lie down for a team they handled, most recently a year ago, 41-7 in a game the Ravens absolutely, positively needed to get a PO spot?

Of course it could happen. But it's probably as likely as NE beating them 55-6.

The Jets are one of the worst teams in the NFL, yet each game they played NE, was close, really close.

Ravens are a better team, especially on the offence side of the ball. I see no reason why this game won't be close. Flacco performs extremely well on the road. He is 10-4 in the playoffs since 2008, he has won 7 road games. That's the best record by an active QB in the NFL.

This won't be a blow out, far from it.

[Runamok]

You'd probably feel better about Baltimore's chances if you watched the Pitt game.

I did watch the Steelers-Ravens, but I'm having trouble finding your point.

Are you saying the Steelers =/> NE and beating them is the same as beating the Patriots? I don't think so.

Steelers-Ravens was a toss up, the spread being the home field advantage. Sure, the Ravens mixed it up pretty good and brought some exotic pass rushes. But don't confuse Mike Tomlin with Bill Belichick. NE will figure it all out. Plus, the Steelers had no viable run game on Saturday.

All the talk about Baltimore being "unafraid" of going into NE to face the Patrits is media hogwash. Of course they're not afraid about that. But the smoking that NE laid on them last season when all their chips were on the table should give them pause, if anything does.

Occasionally it seems, a team will sneak up and surprise NE at home. But damned few have done it twice. More likely, Brady is due for another breakout day and will torch the Ravens. So let's just hope he blows his wad against them and has nothing left for the AFCCG.

[Runamok]

The Jets are one of the worst teams in the NFL, yet each game they played NE, was close, really close.

Ravens are a better team, especially on the offence side of the ball. I see no reason why this game won't be close. Flacco performs extremely well on the road. He is 10-4 in the playoffs since 2008, he has won 7 road games. That's the best record by an active QB in the NFL.

This won't be a blow out, far from it.

You must have only skimmed my comment. I didn't suggest it would be a blowout. In fact, I suggested just the opposite!

Again, the point is "of course the Ravens could win" , but I question why anyone would think it is MORE LIKELY than NOT. Aside from wishin' and hopin'.

It's no different than delusional Colts fans talking about taking Denver down in their own house next week. Yeah, it could happen.....but really, how likely is it?

[tripp]

You must have only skimmed my comment. I didn't suggest it would be a blowout. In fact, I suggested just the opposite!

Again, the point is "of course the Ravens could win" , but I question why anyone would think it is MORE LIKELY than NOT. Aside from wishin' and hopin'.

It's no different than delusional Colts fans talking about taking Denver down in their own house next week. Yeah, it could happen.....but really, how likely is it?

Because they did it before. I honestly look at that matchup as almost even than anything, but for the sake of argument, I'll give the slight edge to the Ravens. Why? Because whether the Patriots will admit it or not (my guess is no), they're all thinking about the last time the Ravens came to town. Ravens have a lot of momentum going into this game after beating their biggest division rival who WON their division, and are coming into this game with not a lot to lose. It's like a different Ravens team shows up to the playoffs. I think Dumervil and Ngata tear up the shaky Patriots O-line, which I do believe this is where the game is won or lost for both teams. Ravens are a physical team, and they're going to terrify Edelman, Gronk, and Vereen when they do their crossing routes. Call me crazy, but this was the matchup I wanted for the Patriots prior to week 17 kicking off.


One thing for sure is, whoever wins this game, I think they're both going to walk away with some bruises.

[BroncoJoe]

I don't want anyone to get hurt, but it wouldn't upset me if the Pats and Ravens really, I mean REALLY beat up on each other.

[VonDoom]

In case people were curious, our referee on Sunday will be ... Bill Leavy. FYI, Vinovich is doing Pats/Ravens.

http://www.footballzebras.com/2015/01/06/12264/

[NightTrainLayne]

In case people were curious, our referee on Sunday will be ... Bill Leavy. FYI, Vinovich is doing Pats/Ravens.

http://www.footballzebras.com/2015/01/06/12264/

So, Vinovich is one of the "all star" refs for the playoffs. .. . Great we don't have him this week. .. .what about next week?

[BroncoWave]

So what are the gripes about how vinovic officiates other than "Peyton is 0-6 in games he officiates"? If he was chosen as one of the all-star refs, he can't be that bad of an official. The people who grade those refs know the ins and outs of the rules way better than any of us (other than spike maybe) do, and they have the benefit of looking at multiple replays to give those grades. This is one of the cases where I tend to defer to the people paid to make these calls instead of letting my own biases get in the way.

[GEM]

So what are the gripes about how vinovic officiates other than "Peyton is 0-6 in games he officiates"? If he was chosen as one of the all-star refs, he can't be that bad of an official. The people who grade those refs know the ins and outs of the rules way better than any of us (other than spike maybe) do, and they have the benefit of looking at multiple replays to give those grades. This is one of the cases where I tend to defer to the people paid to make these calls instead of letting my own biases get in the way.

I think it's more of like the players that wear the same stinky socks week in and week out. You just want the things that appear to give your team the best chance and even something as silly as a ref who has a bad record with your qb is something you don't want to have to worry about on Sunday.There may not be anything really to it, but it's enough of a superstition that you just don't want it around.

[VonDoom]

So, Vinovich is one of the "all star" refs for the playoffs. .. . Great we don't have him this week. .. .what about next week?

One of the four refs this weekend will work the Super Bowl. That crew will be the only one that works twice during the playoffs.

[Mike]

So what are the gripes about how vinovic officiates other than "Peyton is 0-6 in games he officiates"? If he was chosen as one of the all-star refs, he can't be that bad of an official. The people who grade those refs know the ins and outs of the rules way better than any of us (other than spike maybe) do, and they have the benefit of looking at multiple replays to give those grades. This is one of the cases where I tend to defer to the people paid to make these calls instead of letting my own biases get in the way.

Maybe, maybe not. Could mean that he is a ref the league feels they can depend on to influence games a certain way. :tinfoil hat off:

I can say this...with Mannings win%, the likelihood of him going 0-6 with a specific ref seems improbable. The only arugment that I could think of to argue that would be the caliber of team and when he reffed the game (i.e. big matchup/playoff matchup), games where Manning is know to struggle.

As far as deferring to the people who get paid....maybe I could have once bought that line. But there are way to many bad calls and questionable calls made during important moments of the game to buy that anymore. The league needs to change up their officiating system. More and more people are beginning to think the league is fixed now. It's not that far from people losing interest once that becomes a popular opinion.

[BroncoWave]

Maybe, maybe not. Could mean that he is a ref the league feels they can depend on to influence games a certain way. :tinfoil hat off:

I can say this...with Mannings win%, the likelihood of him going 0-6 with a specific ref seems improbable. The only arugment that I could think of to argue that would be the caliber of team and when he reffed the game (i.e. big matchup/playoff matchup), games where Manning is know to struggle.

As far as deferring to the people who get paid....maybe I could have once bought that line. But there are way to many bad calls and questionable calls made during important moments of the game to buy that anymore. The league needs to change up their officiating system. More and more people are beginning to think the league is fixed now. It's not that far from people losing interest once that becomes a popular opinion.

My point about the people who get paid are the people who review and grade the refs. Yeah refs mess up on the field a bunch but if one grades out highly, that comes from people with the benefit of getting to look at multiple replays of every play. I'm sure those guys aren't prefect, but it's probably a more accurate grading system that what fans see week to week.

[Joel]

I wish I could be more convinced that the Ravens have a shot of upsetting NE this week, but aside from their long-ago success in Foxbro, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that will happen.

NE's defense has been absolute shut-down for most of the season, stifling far better offenses than the Ravens are liable to put on display. Despite some ups and downs, Brady has been outstanding when he gets his protection up front. All of NE's main weapons will be on the field on Saturday and collectively, they are too much for the Ravens to handle.

Baltimore was 1-6 this season against winning teams! That is atrocious. They lost to Cinci TWICE. They lost to Houston! And they lost to the Chargers. Forget all the hype, they aren't going to beat NE at home.

Brady is due, once again, to get that offense cranked up, and he'll have the guys to do it. Nice to dream, but it would be a major, major meltdown if the Pats fail to advance.

Same can be said about the Broncos. They should be able to handle Indy with relative ease. So, I'm planning on watching these two face off again for the AFC Championship!
The highlighted part has been my go-to bellwhether a while, and an understandably reliable one. The AFCN didn't just coincidentally have ALL its teams in playoff contention right till the end: Scheduling matched them against the NFCS where ALL teams were LOSERS, plus the AFCS where half the teams were dueling Tampa for the #1 overall pick. With that on their side, anyone who managed a division record >.500 was practically guaranteed a playoff spot, which is pretty much how it went. Cincy and Carolina BOTH have their tie to thank for making the playoffs, but does that suggest either belongs there?

Baltimore couldn't even finish in the top HALF of a division that could've phoned it's whole season and still had a WINNING season. Says a lot about them, and winning yet another road division game says little. If they'd managed that more than ONCE in the regular season (by just 2 pts @the AFCNs only NON-playoff team) they'd have hosted that game, but they didn't, so they're lucky to be in the playoffs at all, let alone advance. It's win or go home for everyone in the second season, sure, and "any team on any given Sunday," especially with the new "most Hail Maries wins" rules.

Bet on the GOOD team at home against the bad one though, every day of the week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday.

[NightTrainLayne]

I'm not a tin-foil hat guy, but I am in a business that deals with statistics a bunch. And stats that stick out are indicators of something strange going on.

Since Manning has come to the Broncos, we have gone 38 - 10 for a 79.16% winning percentage.

Vinovich's crews account for 4 of those 10 losses and none of the wins. That is an absurd anomoly. And I believe Manning's career win/loss stats aren't much different, and he's 0-6 lifetime with Vinovich's crews.

Then, when you consider that all four of the losses referenced above are all by less than one score, and two decided in overtime. . .. You have to wonder.

[Runamok]

Because they did it before. I honestly look at that matchup as almost even than anything, but for the sake of argument, I'll give the slight edge to the Ravens. Why? Because whether the Patriots will admit it or not (my guess is no), they're all thinking about the last time the Ravens came to town. Ravens have a lot of momentum going into this game after beating their biggest division rival who WON their division, and are coming into this game with not a lot to lose. It's like a different Ravens team shows up to the playoffs. I think Dumervil and Ngata tear up the shaky Patriots O-line, which I do believe this is where the game is won or lost for both teams. Ravens are a physical team, and they're going to terrify Edelman, Gronk, and Vereen when they do their crossing routes. Call me crazy, but this was the matchup I wanted for the Patriots prior to week 17 kicking off.


One thing for sure is, whoever wins this game, I think they're both going to walk away with some bruises.



No, these Ravens didn't do it to these Patriots before. That was two different teams you're referring to that met in 2012.

For example, on Saturday, there will be no Ed Reed, no Ray Lewis, no Anaquan Boldin, no Dennis Pitta and no Ray Rice suiting up for the Ravens.

On the other side of the line of scrimmage, there will be a healthy Gronkowski and a healthy Edelman (these two did not play in 2012 due to injuries), a couple of star LBs (Hightower played single digit snaps in 2012 and Collins hadn't been drafted), both of whom have made huge contributions to the NE defense this season. Revis was on IR in NY and Browner was in Seattle. Nobody should be relying on the outcome of a game played 2 years ago to predict what night happen this time around.

It's possible that the Ravens front seven could "tear up" the NE offensive line, but there was a stretch there in the Pats' season, starting in week 5 when they settled on a starting five, where the NE o line was more than able to keep a lot of very good d fronts at bay and off Brady. Connolly is back and they may very well stifle the Ravens pass rush as they did during their 5-1 run against some pretty good eventual PO teams.

I've watched a few Pats games over the past two years and I can assure you neither Gronk nor Edelman will be intimated or 'terrified' by anyone. Both seem to be fearless.

Yes, the Ravens matchup is probably the toughest of the three possibilities, but that's because NE utterly destroyed the other two already this season!

[Joel]

Right, these Ravens aren't those Ravens, and it doesn't seem to matter much who's on the field for NE. I still think the overall rosters as undertalented (particularly on the all-important lines, and their WR depth's poor, too) as it looked at the start of the season: It still won 13 games and homefield advantage despite phoning in a Week 17 loss with its backups—and it was STILL close. Belicheat may be a hardass and rules lawyer, but for SOME reason that wins his teams a slew of games every single year. Could have something to do with Coach Not Too Shabbys record against him, too.

[BroncoWave]

I'm not a tin-foil hat guy, but I am in a business that deals with statistics a bunch. And stats that stick out are indicators of something strange going on.

Since Manning has come to the Broncos, we have gone 38 - 10 for a 79.16% winning percentage.

Vinovich's crews account for 4 of those 10 losses and none of the wins. That is an absurd anomoly. And I believe Manning's career win/loss stats aren't much different, and he's 0-6 lifetime with Vinovich's crews.

Then, when you consider that all four of the losses referenced above are all by less than one score, and two decided in overtime. . .. You have to wonder.

I mean if rain Moore doesn't screw up and if Manning doesn't shit his pants against cincy, we're 2-2 in those games. 3-1 if we win a coin toss in Seattle. It is an odd anomaly for sure, but I have a hard time imagining it's anything more than that.

[Northman]

I mean if rain Moore doesn't screw up and if Manning doesn't shit his pants against cincy, we're 2-2 in those games. 3-1 if we win a coin toss in Seattle. It is an odd anomaly for sure, but I have a hard time imagining it's anything more than that.

Maybe the ref paid Moore off? I mean, if we are going with conspiracy theories. lol

[weazel]

I mean if rain Moore doesn't screw up and if Manning doesn't shit his pants against cincy, we're 2-2 in those games. 3-1 if we win a coin toss in Seattle. It is an odd anomaly for sure, but I have a hard time imagining it's anything more than that.

Wave, it was the SD game that Manning shit his pants. Oh you didnt mean literally, just figuratively... okay.

BTW, that Rahim Moore game... if Manning doesn't throw the INT, Moore doesnt have to make that play. If Champ Bailey doesn't let people run by him all game for giant gains, the game isn't close. That game wasn't lost by Rahim Moore.

[VonDoom]

Wave, it was the SD game that Manning shit his pants. Oh you didnt mean literally, just figuratively... okay.

BTW, that Rahim Moore game... if Manning doesn't throw the INT, Moore doesnt have to make that play. If Champ Bailey doesn't let people run by him all game for giant gains, the game isn't close. That game wasn't lost by Rahim Moore.

Not to open old wounds, but the only interception that Manning threw in regulation of that Ravens playoff game was the one where Decker got mugged and they didn't call PI. So a) hardly Manning's fault and b) damn you Vinovich! See how it comes full circle in this thread?

[BroncoWave]

Wave, it was the SD game that Manning shit his pants. Oh you didnt mean literally, just figuratively... okay.

BTW, that Rahim Moore game... if Manning doesn't throw the INT, Moore doesnt have to make that play. If Champ Bailey doesn't let people run by him all game for giant gains, the game isn't close. That game wasn't lost by Rahim Moore.

Oh I totally agree that game wasn't all on Moore. Just the quickest/easiest example to make. You can also throw in Fox being a ***** and having us sit on the ball to end regulation.

[weazel]

Not to open old wounds, but the only interception that Manning threw in regulation of that Ravens playoff game was the one where Decker got mugged and they didn't call PI. So a) hardly Manning's fault and b) damn you Vinovich! See how it comes full circle in this thread?

meh, I dont let facts get in the way of a good excuse!

[NightTrainLayne]

Not to open old wounds, but the only interception that Manning threw in regulation of that Ravens playoff game was the one where Decker got mugged and they didn't call PI. So a) hardly Manning's fault and b) damn you Vinovich! See how it comes full circle in this thread?

I was just about to point this out.

Also, Manning had the fumble which appeared to be a clear case of the tuck rule, but ruled a fumble by this crew.

Plus a bunch of other calls. . .Decker mugged and no call, but late in the game Champ was called on a critical 3rd down for pass interference on a play that rarely draws a pass interference penalty.

[pulse]

I was just about to point this out.

Also, Manning had the fumble which appeared to be a clear case of the tuck rule, but ruled a fumble by this crew.

Plus a bunch of other calls. . .Decker mugged and no call, but late in the game Champ was called on a critical 3rd down for pass interference on a play that rarely draws a pass interference penalty.

That game was badly officiated and it does open wounds... ;(

[Joel]

The D didn't just give up game-tying TD bombs in the final seconds of the second half, but the end of BOTH halves—the first aided by great Ravens field position when Prater kicked THE GROUND before the ball on a 50 yd FG try that should've given us a 10 pt locker room lead. Without that 10 pt swing, the many disasters by seemingly everyone BUT Manning over the next 60:00 of play would've been irrelevant. Up 17 instead of 7 with <0:40 in regulation, Moore blowing the most basic defensive play doesn't matter.

Or if Hillman manages more than 5 yds on 3 runs at the end our last regulation possession. Manning was right to call those runs (as he's on record saying he did) because it burned Baltimores final TO and left them with about half a minute to go 80 yds and save their season, but if Hillman managed just ONE yard more per carry those last three plays, the next would've been a kneel down to host the AFCCG.

A lot of folks did a lot of things wrong that day, but Manning's WAY down the list, if he's even on it. He's just a convenient scapegoat because of his career narrative, the deep long hatred created by shelling Shannys teams out of the playoffs twice, and the fact he's merely a mercenary rather than a "real" Bronco to many. Hopefully that doesn't sum up his whole Denver tenure.

[Joel]

As to fixing, I'm unconvinced the NFL does it, per se, but DO believe the League Office tells each ref what to call tight/loose before each game, which naturally helps one team more than the other.

Whether it's a true fix or just another attempt at artificial parity may be in the eye of the beholder, but I AM convinced that's why (based solely on the eye test) we got called for offensive PI so much more than everyone else the past few years: Refs figured our opponents needed help, and we didn't need to get away with stuff. I'm sure it had much to do with Stabby Lewis' swan song SB in 2011; I thought their game against Indy reeked of fish long before they got to Denver, but quit watching after: The Baltimore Rays were obviously winning another SB no matter WHAT they did on or off the field.

[Northman]

It is a sad sad day when Bronco fans start blaming officials for losses.

[Joel]

It is a sad sad day when Bronco fans start blaming officials for losses.
It's not that cut and dried, but I'll give another example: Know how people always scream Miler's held EVERY down but it's NEVER flagged? There's probably some truth to that, because refs cut your average lineman or RB slack against an All Pro DRoY. But when FRANKLIN holds, it's like "hey, ya'll barely average 1 sack/GAME: You don't need to hold, and we're not letting you." It sucks, because it basically penalizes the best teams for BEING the best, which is the exact opposite of a level playing field, but I'm sure it happens, if only subconsciously (or for ratings.) Makes Seattle even harder to explain though....

If we and NE both won next week and Manning announced retirement Monday, I bet Browner would be EJECTED from the AFCCG, and Franklin wouldn't get flagged once. ;)

[Northman]

It's not that cut and dried, but I'll give another example: Know how people always scream Miler's held EVERY down but it's NEVER flagged? There's probably some truth to that, because refs cut your average lineman or RB slack against an All Pro DRoY. But when FRANKLIN holds, it's like "hey, ya'll barely average 1 sack/GAME: You don't need to hold, and we're not letting you." It sucks, because it basically penalizes the best teams for BEING the best, which is the exact opposite of a level playing field, but I'm sure it happens, if only subconsciously (or for ratings.) Makes Seattle even harder to explain though....

If we and NE both won next week and Manning announced retirement Monday, I bet Browner would be EJECTED from the AFCCG, and Franklin wouldn't get flagged once. ;)

Then why do you or those that agree with you even watch? Seriously. If you think its rigged and only done for ratings why bother? To me that would totally kill the sport for me but thankfully i just dont believe in conspiracy theories. But believe me, if there is ever a day that it comes out that the NFL is rigged you can bet i wont be watching any longer. But until that day happens im still a football fan and understand that officials are not perfect, and even the best teams dont always playe their best on gameday and lose to teams they shouldnt. The NFL consists of the best of the best that college football has to offer so the notion that only the best teams should go undefeated every year is null. If the league was rigged or if it was just about "ratings" as you say than we would of won the SB last year. Know why? Because Peyton Manning getting a championship after everything he has been through is a WAAAAAY better story than the Seahawks winning.

[Joel]

Again, I'm not sure it's exactly rigged, but am pretty sure it's often heavily tilted for ratings sake. Seattle got plenty of ratings from people wanting to see them loses; ask pro "wrestling" how good heels are for ratings, even (especially) when they win: Now we all spend the whole season eagerly watching for someone to knock them back down where they belong. And I have no proof of anything, just suspicions and impressions; with a smoking gun, I'd bail as fast as you, but without one I'm not bailing on the sport I was raised on and the only one I care about even slightly.

Why do I still watch despite even unconfirmed suspicions? Probably because I'm from TX, where even HS football's a religion. College-only fans make a good argument for loyalty and love of the game untainted by greed, backroom deals and the old boy network; it's a pity the BCS makes such a huge steaming pile of hypocrisy out of it. Maybe I should watch second tier college ball, if only because they have a TRUE National Champion who EARNS it on the field in a contenders tournament (sorry, the old boys network ELECTING four potential champions instead of one's still not a playoff.)

[VonDoom]

If the league was rigged or if it was just about "ratings" as you say than we would of won the SB last year. Know why? Because Peyton Manning getting a championship after everything he has been through is a WAAAAAY better story than the Seahawks winning.

I don't think even the refs could have helped us in that game :laugh:

[ShaneFalco]

The refs have dissapointed me a bit in the playoffs this year.

Normally when they "let them play". They let both teams play agressive and get away with some penalties. I rewatched the Detroit + Dallas game on NFL network. And the refs were letting the Cowboys "play" and get away with some PI, but when the Lions tried to do the same, there was always a flag.

I just hope the refs either let both teams do it, or dont at all this weekend. I hate when they become a factor during playoffs.

[pulse]

I don't think even the refs could have helped us in that game :laugh:

Yeah, no, that was a disaster from the start. Honestly, that's why I wish there could be a Denver vs. Seattle rematch Super Bowl. I want to play them again so we can get our man cards back.

[Mike]

It is a sad sad day when Bronco fans start blaming officials for losses.

I won't blame them for a loss, but anyone who has watched a game can see that there are shady calls/descisions that heavily influence games. I didn't give it much thought until the Denver/Jets game this year. The game was kept within the point spread thanks to a lot of penalties against the Broncos. I am not sure if I remember correctly, but I want to say there should have been a safety against Geno that would have busted the spread and it was ruled not a safety, then Denver got a pick 6 anyways the next play. Vegas lost millions.

The refs have a lot of power in the outcome of a game. We all know that penalties happen on pretty much every play. I have no problem if they call a game tight or loose as long as it is called that way for both teams. It hasn't been that case lately and seems to be more and more obvious.

I don't believe the league is fixed (but I am more skeptical than I once was). I believe they need to find a way to fix the system though. Too many complicated rules and subjective calls that have big impacts on the games.

[Northman]

I don't believe the league is fixed

See, you say that but then say they have massive influence over the games and even imply that the purposely keep games within a point spread. That to me would indicate you believe it is indeed fixed. But my question to you is the same i gave to Joel, why do you continue to watch if you believe this? I mean, i know if i believed that it just wouldnt give me the satisfaction anymore if i felt everything was already a given.

[Mike]

See, you say that but then say they have massive influence over the games and even imply that the purposely keep games within a point spread. That to me would indicate you believe it is indeed fixed. But my question to you is the same i gave to Joel, why do you continue to watch if you believe this? I mean, i know if i believed that it just wouldnt give me the satisfaction anymore if i felt everything was already a given.

Right now, I think point shaving or corrupt officials (Vegas or other unnamed organizations ;)) is more probable than a league-wide conspiracy. I am not saying I believe it without a doubt, but I can't discount it anymore either. I still enjoy the game is the reason that I watch it, but uneven officiating is making it less enjoyable for me.

[Northman]

I dont know, i dont see what you do. I mean, bad calls happen and sometimes some teams get hit harder than others (think Raiders for a very long time). I mean, bad calls have been going on for years dating way back to the 80's when i started watching professional football. I have not seen anything different than i have back then aside from the rule changes themselves. Perhaps that is why there seems to be more "questionable" calls is because the rules have changed so dramatically. I really dont think personally it has anything to do with point shaving, etc but i guess thats just me. Like even though i know the odds of Denver beating NE in NE is rare i still dont think it would boil down to any kind of predetermined outcome. At that point the NFL would become no better than the WWE. lol

[7DnBrnc53]

Again, I'm not sure it's exactly rigged, but am pretty sure it's often heavily tilted for ratings sake. Seattle got plenty of ratings from people wanting to see them loses; ask pro "wrestling" how good heels are for ratings, even (especially) when they win: Now we all spend the whole season eagerly watching for someone to knock them back down where they belong. And I have no proof of anything, just suspicions and impressions; with a smoking gun, I'd bail as fast as you, but without one I'm not bailing on the sport I was raised on and the only one I care about even slightly.

Why do I still watch despite even unconfirmed suspicions? Probably because I'm from TX, where even HS football's a religion. College-only fans make a good argument for loyalty and love of the game untainted by greed, backroom deals and the old boy network; it's a pity the BCS makes such a huge steaming pile of hypocrisy out of it. Maybe I should watch second tier college ball, if only because they have a TRUE National Champion who EARNS it on the field in a contenders tournament (sorry, the old boys network ELECTING four potential champions instead of one's still not a playoff.)

Heck, even football for eight year olds is a religion in Texas (sad as that is):

http://superfraud.blogspot.com/2012/08/and-another-example-of-ugly-american.html

[Northman]

Guess i will need to rewatch the championship years and see how calls and gifts we got. That will certainly cheapen things. lol

[VonDoom]

Bruton and Franklin are practicing today after clearing protocol. They should both play. Broncos are practicing in full pads.

[Joel]

I don't believe the league is fixed (but I am more skeptical than I once was). I believe they need to find a way to fix the system though. Too many complicated rules and subjective calls that have big impacts on the games.
^That, and it doesn't require or create a conspiracy, but DOES create an environment where favoritism and/or a desire for close (i.e. marketable) games can change who wins them.


Right now, I think point shaving or corrupt officials (Vegas or other unnamed organizations ;)) is more probable than a league-wide conspiracy. I am not saying I believe it without a doubt, but I can't discount it anymore either. I still enjoy the game is the reason that I watch it, but uneven officiating is making it less enjoyable for me.
I doubt there's a "fix" or "conspiracy," but can easily see the League Office nudging officiating crews one way or the other before big games. There's a policy of reviewing stuff and revising instructions each and every week for each and every crew, and it's a small step from "you're calling this too much/little" or "you're interpreting this rule wrong" to handicapping winners and throwing losers a bone to serve the same marketing-derived parity goals that spawned the draft 70 years ago. "Any team can beat any other on any given Sunday," but that's not just a coincidence every single season:

The NFL MAKES it happen.

I can't be sure tweaking officiating week to week is one of the means, but know it DOES tweak officiating weekly, and makes parity a high priority for obvious reasons.Conspiracy? Only of circumstance.


Heck, even football for eight year olds is a religion in Texas (sad as that is):

http://superfraud.blogspot.com/2012/08/and-another-example-of-ugly-american.html
Depends on circumstances; I used to know a guy who played for one of the four Round Rock, TX middle schools and said his coach outright taught and encouraged not just inflicting pain, but injuring their fellow pre-teens on the other side: Game ball to whoever snaps the the rival QBs leg! We all know that kind of dirty crap happens a lot in college and the NFL, but where does it start? Where the kids start.

HOWEVER, none of that's the same as coaches expecting eight-year-olds and everyone else who plays any league sport to put as much effort into it as they get enjoyment out of it, and if that ENDS their enjoyment, yes, they should stay in the stands. It's not fair to all the other eight-year-olds on their club who DO believe there's a qualitative difference between winning and losing, and are committed to BEING that difference, not just in one game or sport, but life. That most certainly test and refines raw mettle and builds character and discipline on and off the field in the men of tomorrow.

There's nothing wrong with taking football or any other sport seriously at even very young ages. Practically every great athlete in history only BECAME great because of that. Gretskys dad said Wayne could skate before he could walk, and had to be forced to leave the ice long after dark, or even take OFF his skates indoors; when Gretsky went pro at the age most kids are scouting prom dates, his dad took over his agent to ensure pro owners didn't screw over a teenager: Does that make him an awful dad, or a "great one"?

There's nothing wrong (and much right) with teaching kids to leave it all on the field even in practice, playing hard and HITTING hard; overcoming tough circumstances certainly includes physical toughness, and that's a positive thing as long as we're talking about playing through PAIN rather than INJURIES inflicted by kids taught playing dirty is a good thing and "if you're not cheating, you're not trying." It certainly shouldn't turn into The Last Boyscout at any level, and too often does because it too often starts young. But that's not some Boolean black-or-white absolute in the pros nor anywhere.

[Joel]

Bruton and Franklin are practicing today after clearing protocol. They should both play. Broncos are practicing in full pads.
Fantastic news; Franklin still doesn't (favorably) impress me, but he's also still the closest thing we have to a starting LG: I'm sure Ben Garland's a smart hard worker (else he wouldn't have gotten a congressmans recommendation to the Air Force Academy, let alone graduated to accept his commission) and an all around great guy, but I don't want a converted DT who's barely played pro ball STARTING A PLAYOFF GAME. Bruton's a ST teams stud who earned his captaincy and played well when Ward went down, so I'm glad he's back, too.

[Ravage!!!]

Again, I'm not sure it's exactly rigged, but am pretty sure it's often heavily tilted for ratings sake. Seattle got plenty of ratings from people wanting to see them loses; ask pro "wrestling" how good heels are for ratings, even (especially) when they win: Now we all spend the whole season eagerly watching for someone to knock them back down where they belong. And I have no proof of anything, just suspicions and impressions; with a smoking gun, I'd bail as fast as you, but without one I'm not bailing on the sport I was raised on and the only one I care about even slightly.

Why do I still watch despite even unconfirmed suspicions? Probably because I'm from TX, where even HS football's a religion. College-only fans make a good argument for loyalty and love of the game untainted by greed, backroom deals and the old boy network; it's a pity the BCS makes such a huge steaming pile of hypocrisy out of it. Maybe I should watch second tier college ball, if only because they have a TRUE National Champion who EARNS it on the field in a contenders tournament (sorry, the old boys network ELECTING four potential champions instead of one's still not a playoff.)

I think you need to put back on your tin-foil hat, because honestly, its a pretty absurd belief. So they just randomly choose the Seahawks after all these years? Why wouldn't the NFL pick the two largest markets to be in the Super Bowls if this were the case? Takes a lot more money and a lot more effort to try and "build interest" in teams that don't have much of a national following..

As far as the NCAA playoffs. If it wasn't for the playoffs we have now, it probablly would have been a Florida State vs Alabama national title. Can't have all the colleges play in a tournament like March Madness.

[GEM]

^That, and it doesn't require or create a conspiracy, but DOES create an environment where favoritism and/or a desire for close (i.e. marketable) games can change who wins them.


I doubt there's a "fix" or "conspiracy," but can easily see the League Office nudging officiating crews one way or the other before big games. There's a policy of reviewing stuff and revising instructions each and every week for each and every crew, and it's a small step from "you're calling this too much/little" or "you're interpreting this rule wrong" to handicapping winners and throwing losers a bone to serve the same marketing-derived parity goals that spawned the draft 70 years ago. "Any team can beat any other on any given Sunday," but that's not just a coincidence every single season:

The NFL MAKES it happen.

I can't be sure tweaking officiating week to week is one of the means, but know it DOES tweak officiating weekly, and makes parity a high priority for obvious reasons.Conspiracy? Only of circumstance.


Depends on circumstances; I used to know a guy who played for one of the four Round Rock, TX middle schools and said his coach outright taught and encouraged not just inflicting pain, but injuring their fellow pre-teens on the other side: Game ball to whoever snaps the the rival QBs leg! We all know that kind of dirty crap happens a lot in college and the NFL, but where does it start? Where the kids start.

HOWEVER, none of that's the same as coaches expecting eight-year-olds and everyone else who plays any league sport to put as much effort into it as they get enjoyment out of it, and if that ENDS their enjoyment, yes, they should stay in the stands. It's not fair to all the other eight-year-olds on their club who DO believe there's a qualitative difference between winning and losing, and are committed to BEING that difference, not just in one game or sport, but life. That most certainly test and refines raw mettle and builds character and discipline on and off the field in the men of tomorrow.

There's nothing wrong with taking football or any other sport seriously at even very young ages. Practically every great athlete in history only BECAME great because of that. Gretskys dad said Wayne could skate before he could walk, and had to be forced to leave the ice long after dark, or even take OFF his skates indoors; when Gretsky went pro at the age most kids are scouting prom dates, his dad took over his agent to ensure pro owners didn't screw over a teenager: Does that make him an awful dad, or a "great one"?

There's nothing wrong (and much right) with teaching kids to leave it all on the field even in practice, playing hard and HITTING hard; overcoming tough circumstances certainly includes physical toughness, and that's a positive thing as long as we're talking about playing through PAIN rather than INJURIES inflicted by kids taught playing dirty is a good thing and "if you're not cheating, you're not trying." It certainly shouldn't turn into The Last Boyscout at any level, and too often does because it too often starts young. But that's not some Boolean black-or-white absolute in the pros nor anywhere.

Had a coach tell one of my boys to go for the knees play after play after play. I walked down to that coach and told him if he told my boy to go for a 6th graders knees one more time I would take his knees out. :laugh: Yes, that is a play they should know and use sparingly in the NFL, no place for it in pee wee.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Had a coach tell one of my boys to go for the knees play after play after play. I walked down to that coach and told him if he told my boy to go for a 6th graders knees one more time I would take his knees out. :laugh: Yes, that is a play they should know and use sparingly in the NFL, no place for it in pee wee.

No you did not! What did he say?

:laugh:

[GEM]

No you did not! What did he say?

:laugh:

He told me I wasn't allowed to tell him how to coach...so I told him not teach him to be a bitch on the field. I am not down with making a 6th grader need an acl surgery.

[7DnBrnc53]

Depends on circumstances; I used to know a guy who played for one of the four Round Rock, TX middle schools and said his coach outright taught and encouraged not just inflicting pain, but injuring their fellow pre-teens on the other side: Game ball to whoever snaps the the rival QBs leg! We all know that kind of dirty crap happens a lot in college and the NFL, but where does it start? Where the kids start.

HOWEVER, none of that's the same as coaches expecting eight-year-olds and everyone else who plays any league sport to put as much effort into it as they get enjoyment out of it, and if that ENDS their enjoyment, yes, they should stay in the stands. It's not fair to all the other eight-year-olds on their club who DO believe there's a qualitative difference between winning and losing, and are committed to BEING that difference, not just in one game or sport, but life. That most certainly test and refines raw mettle and builds character and discipline on and off the field in the men of tomorrow.

There's nothing wrong with taking football or any other sport seriously at even very young ages. Practically every great athlete in history only BECAME great because of that. Gretskys dad said Wayne could skate before he could walk, and had to be forced to leave the ice long after dark, or even take OFF his skates indoors; when Gretsky went pro at the age most kids are scouting prom dates, his dad took over his agent to ensure pro owners didn't screw over a teenager: Does that make him an awful dad, or a "great one"?

There's nothing wrong (and much right) with teaching kids to leave it all on the field even in practice, playing hard and HITTING hard; overcoming tough circumstances certainly includes physical toughness, and that's a positive thing as long as we're talking about playing through PAIN rather than INJURIES inflicted by kids taught playing dirty is a good thing and "if you're not cheating, you're not trying." It certainly shouldn't turn into The Last Boyscout at any level, and too often does because it too often starts young. But that's not some Boolean black-or-white absolute in the pros nor anywhere.

Joel, I have no problems with what Gretzky's dad did for him (switching entertainment fields, Brooke Shields' mom was also very protective of her, and wouldn't let some POS screw with her daughter). He did the right thing.

However, as far as youth tackle football is concerned, I don't think that there should be any. They shouldn't be playing organized tackle until they are 14 or 15 because of concussion risk. They should be playing flag until then.

I also think that a lot of that "builds character" stuff is BS in some ways because football players in HS, college, and the pros get away with a lot of crap. Teaching character doesn't involve people not having to face the consequences of their actions.

[VonDoom]

Some playoff previews in today's articles. Andy Benoit:



Colts offense vs. Broncos defense

It’s considered bad form in football to admit that you’re incapable of running the ball; old-schoolers interpret this as unaggressive and impure. But the Colts have been so inept on the ground that even the defensive-minded Chuck Pagano and somewhat old-school coordinator Pep Hamilton have had to find euphemistic ways to politely tell the media “we can’t run.” Hamilton, through his play selection, has unequivocally told everyone the Colts can’t run. He went to the air on 20 of the first 25 snaps against the Bengals last week, even with Dan Herron actually running well on the opening series.

Herron seems to have emerged as the feature back, with undrafted rookie Tipton Zurlon serving as the No. 2, mercifully relegating Trent Richardson to bench-warming duties (something that, frankly, should have happened long ago). Herron was proficient as a check-down receiver in that wild-card win, and he’ll have to be again this Sunday. With no running game to worry about, the Broncos will keep two safeties back in man coverage. That’s the most difficult defensive look to throw downfield against, especially when it’s the Broncos, given their talent at cornerback.

The rest: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/08/nfl-playoff-preview-patriots-ravens-seahawks-panthers-packers-cowboys-broncos-colts/4/

Also on MMQB this morning is an interesting look at how to slow down the Pats, with plenty of quotes from Jets DC Dennis Thurman. That's not relevant for our game, but I thought it was a good read.

Mike Tanier also previews the games, and he tries to play Devil's Advocate for the each road team this weekend:


The Broncos have two great cornerbacks in Chris Harris Jr. and Aqib Talib and a serviceable one in rookie Bradley Roby, but they are very reluctant to use four cornerbacks in their "dime" package, inserting veteran backup safety David Bruton as their sixth defensive back whenever possible. There are exploitable matchups here—speedy Donte Moncrief against Bruton, veteran Hakeem Nicks against the young Roby—that make much more sense for the Colts than pretending they are serious about the Boom Herron rushing threat.

Players like Moncrief and Nicks will also have to pick up some slack for tight ends Coby Fleener and Dwayne Allen, who will be forced to help block Von Miller and DeMarcus Ware on passing downs, which are all downs for the Colts. Allen will do most of the blocking, because he is actually good at it, but the Colts cannot afford to be obvious in their tendencies. The Incredible Vanishing Richardson may make a return this week, because he's at least a serviceable pass protector, while Herron is a mess. Keep Richardson in to block, and the Colts can get three receivers and a tight end into the pass pattern. Andrew Luck will find someone if Miller and Ware don't get to him first.

The rest: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2322164-nfl-divisional-playoff-picks-paths-to-victory-for-four-road-underdogs

[7DnBrnc53]

On 104.3 The Fan, D-Mac was saying yesterday on The Drive that the Colts can go undefeated next year. This team is almost as overrated as the Patriots. I am pulling so hard for the Ratbirds and our Broncos so I can go off on different boards.

[Ravage!!!]

However, as far as youth tackle football is concerned, I don't think that there should be any. They shouldn't be playing organized tackle until they are 14 or 15 because of concussion risk. They should be playing flag until then.

I also think that a lot of that "builds character" stuff is BS in some ways because football players in HS, college, and the pros get away with a lot of crap.

I disagree with all of this.

[spikerman]

So what are the gripes about how vinovic officiates other than "Peyton is 0-6 in games he officiates"? If he was chosen as one of the all-star refs, he can't be that bad of an official. The people who grade those refs know the ins and outs of the rules way better than any of us (other than spike maybe) do, and they have the benefit of looking at multiple replays to give those grades. This is one of the cases where I tend to defer to the people paid to make these calls instead of letting my own biases get in the way.

I subscribe to a magazine called "Referee" and they're predicting that Vinovich gets the SB.

[VonDoom]

I subscribe to a magazine called "Referee" and they're predicting that Vinovich gets the SB.

Football Zebras has it down to Vinovich or Steratore. They have writers make a case for each of them - the user comments on Vinovich are great, though:

http://www.footballzebras.com/2015/01/07/12276/

[spikerman]

Football Zebras has it down to Vinovich or Steratore. They have writers make a case for each of them - the user comments on Vinovich are great, though:

http://www.footballzebras.com/2015/01/07/12276/
You're right. I might have been thinking of footballzebras.

[NightTrainLayne]

I subscribe to a magazine called "Referee" and they're predicting that Vinovich gets the SB.

Well. .. . that will be a great time for Manning to get his first win with Vinovich!

[NightTrainLayne]

Football Zebras has it down to Vinovich or Steratore. They have writers make a case for each of them - the user comments on Vinovich are great, though:

http://www.footballzebras.com/2015/01/07/12276/


You're right. I might have been thinking of footballzebras.

This comment, which is a top-ten list of comments from the day of that Broncos/Ravens playoff game:


Bill

January 7, 2015 at 5:21 pm


Go back and rewatch that Broncos-Ravens game. It was an absolute abortion from an officiating standpoint. From the comments of the live blog on this very site at the time:

— “These officials made this game one of the worst viewable contests for any fan that knows the rules of football. This crew missed several pass interference calls that ended drives, made phantom holding calls on short yardage situations, the above mentioned face mask call and way too many more to count. This is the best the NFL has to offer? … Disappointing display of ineptitude.”

— “Well we know who is making the Super Bowl with the help of the Officials. It’s going to be a Ravens/49ers rigged Super Bowl because they want high rating with Harbaugh Bowl. It’s disgusting that the NFL likes to fix stuff like this.”

— “When is it ok for a kicker to practice a winning field goal on the field when the game is still going on? Why did the refs allow this? … Bill Vinovich should go back into retirement.”

— “I have not seen a worse officiated game since Seattle was fleeced in the Super Bowl vs Pittsburgh.”

— “This crew deserves the opportunity to look for new employment. That game looked less like a professional sport and more like a staged soap opera. WWE and Days of our Lives had an illegitimate love child and it’s name was Bill Vinovich.”

— “I appreciate the fact that Vinovich worked his way back from illness but I didn’t see anything last night that made him better than some sitting at home.”

— “I felt this was one of the WORST officiated games I have ever seen especially a playoff game. It almost looked like it was a conspiracy to have the Ravens win with at least three pass interference calls not made against Baltimore enabling them at least one undeserved touchdown and preventing a Bronco touchdown. Did referee Vinochich make $$$$ in Las Vegas bets? It’s worth investigating.”

[TXBRONC]

This one was the funniest of the bunch: :lol:



"This crew deserves the opportunity to look for new employment. That game looked less like a professional sport and more like a staged soap opera. WWE and Days of our Lives had an illegitimate love child and it’s name was Bill Vinovich.”


Anyway, before this can even something to worry about Denver has to take care of business in the playoffs starting with the Colts.

[Bronco9798]

Broncos win big Sunday. Pull away early and the Defense plays awesome.

[7DnBrnc53]

Quote Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53 View Post
However, as far as youth tackle football is concerned, I don't think that there should be any. They shouldn't be playing organized tackle until they are 14 or 15 because of concussion risk. They should be playing flag until then.

I also think that a lot of that "builds character" stuff is BS in some ways because football players in HS, college, and the pros get away with a lot of crap.


I disagree with all of this.

Look at FSU and Jameis Winston (along with other players getting away with crimes). Look at Penn State and the cover-up of the child rape. Look at Ray Lewis and Ray Rice. Those people really weren't held accountable for their actions as much as they should have been (if at all). Football seems to mean that you can get away with anything you want in this country. That isn't character.

Also, as far as the concussion thing is concerned, watch League of Denial.

[BroncoWave]

Football Zebras has it down to Vinovich or Steratore. They have writers make a case for each of them - the user comments on Vinovich are great, though:

http://www.footballzebras.com/2015/01/07/12276/

I like Steratore. He's also one of the top college basketball refs. He would be a good choice for the Super Bowl IMO.

[VonDoom]

Barnwell has his preview of the Sunday games up, and as usual, has a well thought out bit on Manning's health:


Truthfully, Manning hasn’t slipped all that much. His QBR has fallen over these two periods, but only from third (at 80.0) through the Rams game to eighth (at 70.9) over the six games since. That’s a decline, but is it really such an obvious decline that it couldn’t have happened by chance? Consider that, over the same time splits, Andrew Luck posted the league’s seventh-best QBR through Week 11 and fell all way to 21st afterward, posting a QBR worse than Geno Smith, Kyle Orton, and Drew Stanton. Was that inherently a sign that Luck was injured or wouldn’t be able to push things forward once the playoffs began? If you saw Luck dismantle the Bengals last week, you know the answer to those questions is no.

Instead, I think there’s probably a combination of factors that led the Broncos to move toward a run-happy approach. One was the absence of Julius Thomas, which left Manning without a critical intermediate option and actually had a far more tangible impact on Manning’s performance than any other number I can find. Through that Rams game, Manning posted a 97.1 QBR in the red zone, the best figure in football. Julius Thomas was obviously the primary weapon on those throws, as he led all players in red zone receptions (13), yards (94, tied with Demaryius Thomas), and touchdowns (nine) through the Rams game.

Afterward, with Julius Thomas inactive or ineffective because of his ankle injury, Manning’s red zone QBR fell all the way to 56.8, which was 15th in the league. The Broncos went away from throwing the ball in the red zone, after having passed more frequently than any team besides the Bears inside the opposition 20 through that Rams game. Since then, they’ve run the ball 42.5 percent of the time in the red zone, which is right around league average (45 percent). Julius Thomas wasn’t anywhere near 100 percent when he returned late in the season, so if he’s made it back closer to his so-easy self, it could be all the impetus Manning needs.

and



I’ll buy the idea that Manning had a bit of a dead arm, that he needed to be saved from a ridiculous workload, that he isn’t going to be the same player he was at his peak. Sure. But the evidence that he’s got some sort of neck, arm, shoulder, or elbow injury just really isn’t there in spades the way that the stories make it out to be. If Manning’s injured, we’ll know more about it this time next week. And if he’s not — and keep in mind that we were all sure Cam Newton was injured and needed to go on IR at the beginning of December — the Colts are in trouble.

The rest: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nfl-divisional-playoffs-cowboys-packers-broncos-colts/

[VonDoom]

Also at Grantland, Robert Mays looks at the games and tries to find under the radar players who will make a difference. He picked CJ Anderson for us, so he's obviously not getting too obscure (I would've picked Brandon Marshall) but obviously CJ will be big here. Also an interesting fact about CJ as a receiver against this defense:


Building the offense around Anderson wouldn’t necessarily mean handing him the ball 25 times, either. As good as the rest of the Colts pass defense has been, their linebackers have a rough time in coverage. Indy finished 31st in DVOA against opposing running backs, and Denver has already shown it’s willing to flip Anderson the ball when the situation calls for it. He has two games with at least eight catches this year, and he’s averaging a healthy 9.5 yards per reception.

The rest: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nfl-playoffs-vontae-davis-will-hill-cliff-avril-rolando-mcclain/

FYI, he picks Vontae Davis as the potential game changing player for the Colts. Hard to argue with that.

[weazel]

I am certain that the league does not fix games. Point shaving by ref's is another story, I believe ref's attempt to sway the score often... players not so much. Point shaving is done to either win money or to pay off debts and the players are paid way too much now for that to be a major problem.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

We will drop the hammer on the Colts...book it. We are not as weak as some think; in fact we're easily one of the 4 best teams in the league (NE, SE, GB). The idea that the Cowboys are better than the Broncos is laughable.

[pulse]

We will drop the hammer on the Colts...book it. We are not as weak as some think; in fact we're easily one of the 4 best teams in the league (NE, SE, GB). The idea that the Cowboys are better than the Broncos is laughable.

I just think the St. Louis and Cincinnati losses are still fresh on the minds of a lot of folks. Denver did play like shit in those games and looked very mediocre at best. Also, we really evolved from a quick scoring high-powered passing attack to more of a running team the last quarter of the season. Peyton throwing TD bombs three and four times a game looks far more impressive to a lot of people than a slower-paced ground attack. The thing is, though, you're absolutely right about Denver not being weak. They've had two weeks of rest and preparation. If the Broncos offense is clicking and the defense continues playing well, we should beat any team, period. Denver can do just about anything it wants with this football team. We can pound the rock and if need be manage the clock. We can sling it and score quickly. We can pressure the QB. We can shut down receivers. The talent and experience is there to take Denver all the way. The best out of that potential is an NFL Championship. I'm also pretty confident that Manning may be back to his old way of things. He could just as easily go bonkers this postseason and throw 10 TDs. Whatever it takes to get a three game winning streak! That's all that matters.

[Ravage!!!]

Look at FSU and Jameis Winston (along with other players getting away with crimes). Look at Penn State and the cover-up of the child rape. Look at Ray Lewis and Ray Rice. Those people really weren't held accountable for their actions as much as they should have been (if at all). Football seems to mean that you can get away with anything you want in this country. That isn't character.

Also, as far as the concussion thing is concerned, watch League of Denial.

So you give me a few examples and believe that to be the consensus for all the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of other players, really?? (not to mention, your "child rape" example had to so with the Coaches and administration, not the players)

Plus, I think 14-15 is WAYyyyy too late to start to learn how to tackle properly. Bythat time, they can create enough speed and momentum to hurt themselves. Waiting UNTIL that age for them to actually learn how to tackle the correct way, is waiting toooooo late.

Then there is the "building character" thing is BS comment that you threw out there. I'm guessing you never played sports. Teamsports absolutely builds character, in many different facets that you don't get from other social events. If you think that the examples you give proves otherwise, then you are COMPLETELY ignoring all the great things that professional athletes do for our communities and foundations. Perhaps you just want to ignore those things because your biased perception doesn't want to see them?

Then there is the concussion thing. Sensitive subject and many unknowns in the science. Maybe you think youths should start playing more soccer? I only ask because that was the BIG GIANT UPROAR after the NFL concussion case. "Parents are taking their kids to soccer." Ironically, they are now finding that the average head-ball in soccer is worse than the average hit in football. CTE cases are popping up all over from soccer players, now that parents/coaches/doctors know what to look for.

I suppose we just start having everyone start playing more tennis and bowling.

[Ravage!!!]

I just think the St. Louis and Cincinnati losses are still fresh on the minds of a lot of folks. Denver did play like shit in those games and looked very mediocre at best. Also, we really evolved from a quick scoring high-powered passing attack to more of a running team the last quarter of the season. Peyton throwing TD bombs three and four times a game looks far more impressive to a lot of people than a slower-paced ground attack. The thing is, though, you're absolutely right about Denver not being weak. They've had two weeks of rest and preparation. If the Broncos offense is clicking and the defense continues playing well, we should beat any team, period. Denver can do just about anything it wants with this football team. We can pound the rock and if need be manage the clock. We can sling it and score quickly. We can pressure the QB. We can shut down receivers. The talent and experience is there to take Denver all the way. The best out of that potential is an NFL Championship. I'm also pretty confident that Manning may be back to his old way of things. He could just as easily go bonkers this postseason and throw 10 TDs. Whatever it takes to get a three game winning streak! That's all that matters.

I hope you are right. I haven't thought Manning has looked as good (for Manning) all season long. The last few games, Manning has looked off in many aspects....especially accuracy.

Another worry I have, is that Manning's (and I know its a team sport) record in the playoffs, coming off a bye, is NOT good. I personally was hoping we wouldn't get the bye. Manning's only Super Bowl win was when not getting a bye. Sounds a bit silly, and superstitious (can't argue with that one bit), but just seems that our offense hasn't just slowed down to be a "running" team...but has slowed down its ability to score. That ability to score, and force other teams to keep up with us, was our bread and butter. Its why we have pass rushers and man-to-man CBs.

So its going to be a rough couple of games, for sure. BUT.. its the playoffs and that is what its supposed to be!! Go Broncos!!