Thread: Broncos would have gotten their butts kicked in New England

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Pats probably win by 7-10 points in NE.

conjecture based on absolutely ZERO evidence, especially what was demonstrated on the actual field of play. There was NOTHING about their offense that was scary to us. THis is nothing but a NE based bias that has no actual substance whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Slick

I'm glad we didn't have to find out. Denver's pass rushers were much healthier than KCs but I don't think they get that kind of pressure on the road. Watching Brady getting pummeled was glorious. You could tell he was aggravated from the first offensive series of the game. He never got comfortable back there.

Not that the crowd noise hurt a bit (just the opposite,) but I'm convinced the big difference between our rush and KCs was that our secondary and coverage LBs are a lot better. Both starting CBs and both starting OLBs mentioned it during the week: Against a 0-step guy like Brady, Manning or Rodgers, the coverage has to buy the rush a little time, because THEY know their lines suck, too, and the rush can't make the coverage blanket Gronk and Edelman all day.

It's complementary football all the way down.

meh, we'll never know... The Pat's couldn't win enough games to get home field advantage, so how were they the better team?

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

conjecture based on absolutely ZERO evidence, especially what was demonstrated on the actual field of play. There was NOTHING about their offense that was scary to us. THis is nothing but a NE based bias that has no actual substance whatsoever.

The Cheats are living in the same Hell Manning's been in since he got here: NO run support, NO protection, so go win ALONE—and FAST, 'cause here they come....

As Ric Flair used to say....to be the man, you have to beat the man. The man got beat over and over and over.

First of all, Florio has a hard on for the Pats, and he doesnt like the Broncos because we beat them a lot more than we lose to them.

But hey, I guess if you want to blame someone New England, then blame Miami. You remember them? They would have lost to you in Foxboro too, right?

Home field would have let you demoralize them.

Miami sucks.

And youre gonna watch us do our thing on Superbowl sunday.

oh, shut up! we beat new england twice this year, eff those losers-- we're the better team. . .

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

conjecture based on absolutely ZERO evidence, especially what was demonstrated on the actual field of play. There was NOTHING about their offense that was scary to us. THis is nothing but a NE based bias that has no actual substance whatsoever.

Just my opinion man. So yes, that would in fact be conjecture. Not claiming to have any facts behind it. Just what I think would have happened. You are free to disagree.

Originally Posted by dogfish

oh, shut up! we beat new england twice this year, eff those losers-- we're the better team. . .

Yea, one of the many expert comments I heard last week was that 'nobody beats new england twice in the same season "

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Probably so. One of the big advantages we had was that Miller and Ware were able to time the snap because it was too loud for Brady to use a hard count. Some of the Pats (notably Gronk) were starting to get gassed in that altitude as well. It was also like 20 degrees in NE, which is not good for Peyton.

I think they win handily if the game is in NE. Getting that 1 seed was HUGE for us.

New England might have one in Foxborough but I don't think it would have been a blowout.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

New England might have one in Foxbourgh but I don't it would have been a blowout.

Maybe. But I just don't get the "they probably would have beaten us there" line of thinking. Why would they have beaten us? Our crowd is worth 10 points? What did the patriots show? Would the colder weather have caused turnovers? What about the game made it appear as though EVERYTHING would have been different? This just sounds like *patriot fans grasping. I mean, I heard alllllll week long that since they had Edelman and Gronk healthy, that they were just "unstoppable" (Edelman who?) So now what? The stadium was the difference maker for and "unstoppable" team? I'm just dumbfounded by this line of thinking.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Maybe. But I just don't get the "they probably would have beaten us there" line of thinking. Why would they have beaten us? Our crowd is worth 10 points?

Are you just trying to be obtuse on purpose?

Originally Posted by Slick

Are you just trying to be obtuse on purpose?

No. Is our crowd worth 10 points? Is that an obtuse question, slick?

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Maybe. But I just don't get the "they probably would have beaten us there" line of thinking. Why would they have beaten us? Our crowd is worth 10 points? What did the patriots show? Would the colder weather have caused turnovers? What about the game made it appear as though EVERYTHING would have been different? This just sounds like *patriot fans grasping. I mean, I heard alllllll week long that since they had Edelman and Gronk healthy, that they were just "unstoppable" (Edelman who?) So now what? The stadium was the difference maker for and "unstoppable" team? I'm just dumbfounded by this line of thinking.

I get that too and I don't deny it would have give the ****Pasties a huge advantage but blowing Denver out doesn't seem realistic. If Denver had played at Foxborough it still would not have been a shock to if walked away with a win. Keep this in mind up until two season ago the ****Patsies hadn't played a road playoff game in like five or six season. ****Belicheat and Shady understand it's huge advantage.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

No. Is our crowd worth 10 points? Is that an obtuse question, slick?

Our crowd doesn't have to be worth 10 points. We won by 2.