Thread: AFC West Standings

Originally Posted by Joel

Johnson's not their whole D, and it's still pretty fierce. They've still got Hali, Houston and Poe as roughly half of a pretty good front seven, plus Berry deep. They've still got Jamaal Charles and a QB who's a better passer than the one who stole his last job; if his WRs hadn't dropped a lot of nicely thrown balls the last time KC played @Denver, that game might've ended much less happily.

I said last year KC's neither as good as their 9-0 start nor as bad as their 2012 last place finish, and stand by that. I think they're still better than SD (whom Seattle should destroy this week) which makes them our strongest AFCW competition, however relatively weak or strong that is. Even if they're not, it's still a game, and a divisional game, which makes it part of the 3rd division tiebreak, 1st-2nd tiebreak vs. Jax and Baltimore and 2nd-3rd tiebreak vs. the 4 AFCN/S teams that play neither of us.

They also have average CB's and average MLB's with the absense of Johnson, although they now have Big Vick for their D-line.

However, they have no talent on offense right now, with the exception of Jamaal Charles, and maybe Travis Kelce. And, their O-line isn't that great. Eric Fisher, their #1 pick from last year, isn't setting the world on fire.

I say that the Broncos beat KC by 25 points, and then they get their butts in gear for the Hawks in Week 3. Better bring their A-game.

Fox-Leave the Schottenheimer BS at home.

Del Rio-Leave the junk zone defenses at home.

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

They also have average CB's and average MLB's with the absense of Johnson, although they now have Big Vick for their D-line.

It's a 3-4: They never HAD a MLB, just a couple ILBs. It's not the same; having a partner lets 3-4 ILBs sit in a soft zone watching for runs or the 4th best receiver unless one of them has his turn to blitz. Look at DJ: He was an outstanding 4-3 WLB and a fine 3-4 ILB—but an AWFUL 4-3 MLB, even in his prime. The Chiefs still have their OLBs, and they're the 3-4s stars; they and the linemen do all the heavy lifting while the ILBs do a 4-3 WLBs job with twice the manpower. They'll be fine; with Vickerson on the line, their front seven might even be BETTER than last year.

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

However, they have no talent on offense right now, with the exception of Jamaal Charles, and maybe Travis Kelce.

And maybe Alex Smith, Dwayne Bowe and Donnie Avery; except for McCluster, their offensive playmakers are pretty much the same as last year, and if Avery and McCluster hadn't dropped a LOT of nice passes from Smith, our Mile High game at least goes into OT.

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

And, their O-line isn't that great. Eric Fisher, their #1 pick from last year, isn't setting the world on fire.

He's good enough they released the guy he replaced last year, along with a good starting G who's also started at OT. It's far from a stellar line, certainly, but Fisher and his opposite are good enough to keep Ryan Harris on the bench even though I'd start him over Clark if I could.

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

I say that the Broncos beat KC by 25 points, and then they get their butts in gear for the Hawks in Week 3. Better bring their A-game.

The AFCWs schedule is the toughest I can recall in 35 years following the NFL: Better bring the A game EVERY week (which is good advice against ANY NFL schedule.)

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

Fox-Leave the Schottenheimer BS at home.

Good teams salt away second half leads with good running that protects possession, kills the clock, keeps Hail Mary slinging QBs impotently sidelined and rests the D so it can keep sprinting downfield to defend those Hail Maries. If a team CAN'T do what good teams do, well....

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

Del Rio-Leave the junk zone defenses at home.

Prevent works unless run too early—or WRONG; Prevents first rule is "guard the sidelines & end zone:" If a team GIVES UP the sidelines & end zone, I don't know what they're running, but it ain't Prevent.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I read it. Have no fear, your efforts weren't wasted.

If you read it, how'd you translate "Seattle came out flat early last year, but it didn't matter, so maybe our flat second half hurts us no more than that hurt them" into Denver bashing?

You doing that thing where you just respond to what you WISH I'd said again? 'Cause I've no obligation to justify anything I never said.

Originally Posted by Joel

If you read it, how'd you translate "Seattle came out flat early last year, but it didn't matter, so maybe our flat second half hurts us no more than that hurt them" into Denver bashing?

You doing that thing where you just respond to what you WISH I'd said again? 'Cause I've no obligation to justify anything I never said.

No. My point still stands. Your responses in this thread show me everything I need to know.

You know what, I will respond to you discussing 2013 Seattle in a thread about the 2014 AFC Weat.

Can you explain to me what last year's Seahawks team has to do with this year's AFC West? I can't think of one thing. You say they started slow (I think that's what you were getting at, although nine times out of 10 you change the bar when called on something), how does that correlate with a Broncos team that didn't start off slow and has a full game lead in the division after one game?

Didn't the Seahawks leave the AFC West back in the 90s? Wasn't that 15 years ago?

This thread is about what matters during the regular season, which is winning a division title. Your doom and gloom, "the Broncos MUST win the Super Bowl, or ELSE!" spam should go somewhere else. Heaven knows you haven't found any lack of places to put it. The least you could do is put it somewhere else.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

You know what, I will respond to you discussing 2013 Seattle in a thread about the 2014 AFC Weat.

Can you explain to me what last year's Seahawks team has to do with this year's AFC West? I can't think of one thing. You say they started slow (I think that's what you were getting at, although nine times out of 10 you change the bar when called on something), how does that correlate with a Broncos team that didn't start off slow and has a full game lead in the division after one game?

Nearly blowing a 24 pt lead counts as a slow start to me. Sure, it's a win; Seattle won @Houston last year—they just needed OT do it, even with Schaubs lottery impersonation (i.e. weekly pick sixes.) And when the dust settled, it made absolutely NO difference; they still finished with playoff homefield, still rode it to the SB, and still curbstomped us from start to finish. THAT'S the comparison; you're right, the AFCW doesn't have any competition like SF nor even Arizona, but that just makes our job easier: The point is a slow start didn't slow DOWN a popular preseason SB pick.

As to the rest, maybe just showing up to be utterly humiliated and abused in front of literally the entire world is enough for some Denver fans; if so, I don't begrudge them the many "pleasures" of SBs XII, XXI, XXII, XXIV and XLVIII. I want more though, and would expect the same of everyone left crying in their beer after 5 SB beatings—not just losses; Cincy lost: Denver was DESTROYED in EVERY loss. All FIVE of them. For those with Stockholm Syndrome, SB XLVIII secured our place ahead of Minnesota and Buffalo as the SB team to watch, but I enjoyed SBs XXXII and XXXIII far more. YMMV.

And the response: More Seahawks and Super Bowls from 30 years ago.

It's 2014. This is a discussion about the AFC West. In 2014.

Is this the thread to discuss the NFC west in the 80's? San Fran sure kicked our butts 25 years ago eh MO?

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

And the response: More Seahawks and Super Bowls from 30 years ago.

It's 2014. This is a discussion about the AFC West. In 2014.

The AFCW has more Seahawks in 2014; more '9ers and Cards, too. But hey, as long as we win the division, that's as good as the 7-9 Seahawks did in 2010, and plenty good enough for a defending Conference Champ with a first ballot HoFer under center, right? Aim low enough and ANYTHING counts as success; good plan.

Originally Posted by Joel

The AFCW has more Seahawks in 2014; more '9ers and Cards, too. But hey, as long as we win the division, that's as good as the 7-9 Seahawks did in 2010, and plenty good enough for a defending Conference Champ with a first ballot HoFer under center, right? Aim low enough and ANYTHING counts as success; good plan.

There's a whole other discussion forum for NFC West discussion.

Now **** off unless you want to discuss the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by Timmy!

Is this the thread to discuss the NFC west in the 80's? San Fran sure kicked our butts 25 years ago eh MO?

Well, you know. Had we not lost big to the 49ers in 1991, we wouldn't have lost big to the Seahawks in 2013.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

There's a whole other discussion forum for NFC West discussion.

Now **** off unless you want to discuss the topic of this thread.

News flash: Every team in the AFCW plays every team in the NFCW this year. And the smart money says the eventual AFC Champs (hopefully us) will face SF or Seattle in the SB.

If we must talk about the AFCW to the exclusion of teams the WHOLE DIVISION PLAYS, yeah, we should repeat as champs, so if we blow the postseason yet again we can just act like Chargers fans and pat ourselves on the back for being a preseason SB favorite that managed to make the playoffs before our season abruptly ended. Oh, I'm pretty sure the Broncos are the best football team in Denver, too, and probably CO, so, y'know, good enough for a team stacked with talent and coming off a SB appearance.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Well, you know. Had we not lost big to the 49ers in 1991, we wouldn't have lost big to the Seahawks in 2013.

Do you think we will ever win a super bowl, or even have a winning season?

Originally Posted by Timmy!

Do you think we will ever win a super bowl, or even have a winning season?

We might have a winning season, but every team we beat isn't that good and if they do win games against good teams it's because they are lucky.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

We might have a winning season, but every team we beat isn't that good and if they do win games against good teams it's because they are lucky.

Hey, I wasn't the one running around last year ranting about how overrated KC was; I think sweeping them was a pair of quality wins, and said so. But maybe it's possible we beat a bunch of great teams even if KC WAS overrated last year; after all, we beat an Eagles team that won its dog division, beat the Bolts once and... ... sorry, can't think of another WINNING team we beat last regular season. We sure smacked around the Raiders, 'Skins and Cowboys though. Even if Washington led us 21-7 on our own field at the start of the 4th qtr, and we needed Romos one and only pick to beat Dallas by a FG.

Well. THIS schedule has 8 games against playoff teams, plus another against a Cardinals team that would've made the playoffs in any other division, so whatever our record, no one can claim our schedule's soft. That doesn't matter though, because I'm apparently only allowed to talk about the games against SD, KC and Oakland, one of whom's garbage and another of whom's apparently overrated AGAIN, so hopefully Denver improves from .500 against the only decent team we're allowed to discuss.