Of course losing to New England doesn't mean anything, because then you'd have turn around and give the Broncos credit for coming back and beating them in the AFC Championship game. And we know you won't do that.
Of course losing to New England doesn't mean anything, because then you'd have turn around and give the Broncos credit for coming back and beating them in the AFC Championship game. And we know you won't do that.
Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. —Jaded
Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
Love can't be coerced. —Me
Except we blew out most of those losers, and KC barely beat them with the help of some extremely lucky bounces and a running back accounting for ~33% of their offense. Entirely different situation.
KC is a below average team and they're already on track to proving that this season.
A win's a win; no one's asking Seattle how much they beat us by Sunday. The Chiefs aren't built to blow people out anyway; ground-and-pound offense complemented by Tenacious D wins lots of games, but they're more often the 10-7 than 73-0 variety, because ball control offense doesn't lend itself to fast drives or lots of them. So Charles is 33% of their offense; what percentage of ours is Manning?
They're a team already decimated by injuries by Week 2 that added several more big ones against us. They're also the best team we beat last regular season, so if they suck....
Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. —Jaded
Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
Love can't be coerced. —Me
Andy Benoit has a new article up at MMQB about the injury toll on every team so far this season (he ranks every team - with the Chargers being the most damaged by injury - but lists the Broncos, Pats and Browns as having "no significant injuries". I guess Trevathan doesn't count?)
Anyway, he also has a few quick points in the rest of the article, one a look at the film from the Seahawks game and how the Broncos attacked Seattle's Cover 3:
Makes you wonder why we didn't do this more during the rest of the game, right?
The rest, if you're interested: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/09/24/nfl-injuries/
Trevathan's injury is significant but he is coming back maybe that's why Benoit is saying Denver doesn't have any significant injuries. Woodhead on the other is done for the year if I'm not mistaken.
As far as attacking the Seahawks cover 3 I heard the reason Denver stayed away from it was counteract Seattle's pass rush which still hit Manning eight time and one sack (I think). Then again in hindsight maybe they should have done it sooner.
Last edited by TXBRONC; 09-25-2014 at 11:23 AM.
I agree about Trevathan; I just figure if you're going to rank all the injured teams, we should at least be acknowledged for that.
As for the Seattle game, it goes back to the argument of whether we were too conservative against that team, whether because we were "playing scared" or whatever. I liked the game plan that we came in with, but it wasn't working after a while and we were behind 17-3. I would have liked to see them open it up in the second half but they really only came out firing on the last couple of drives.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)