Broncos are good but...

[Passepartout]

But really it is also Seahawks, Saints, and Pats week being undefeated along with the Broncos!

 

[SeaWolv]

I'd take Denver over us right now, maybe even at our place. Brady very nearly beat us last year, I think Peyton could. That said, if we get our O performing like they were the back end of last year (plus Harvin) then nobody's beating us.

Not with a pass rush that now includes Avril, Bennett, Clemons and Irvin.

 

[SeaWolv]

The Ravens curbstomped the team we played on Sunday. If they're a shell, then the Baltimore HFA is as good as ours.

Denver has played teams with a combined 4-12 record.

Seattle has played teams with a combined 5-10 record.

Is that really so much of a difference that the beatdowns Denver is laying on teams should be considered inferior to the results we've been seeing with the Seahawks?

Yes, Denver has gotten to play 3 at home so far, and they haven't been playing brutally tough teams. That said, they've been absolutely destroying their opponents. There's legitimate discussion of Denver setting ALL-TIME offensive records this season. That has a tendency to reflect favorably on a team.

See this what I don't get. You, like many in the media, are focusing on raw production numbers without looking even 1 layer beyond. They have an extremely weak schedule and they're capitalizing on it. I would expect the talking heads at ESPN to know the difference. Denver has not played a single team in the top 10 defensively. Seattle, on the other hand, has played played 3 teams in the top 10 and they're doing it without key players and only half of their games have been at home as opposed to 75% for Denver. That says a lot about both teams in my opinion.

 

[volsunghawk]

The Ravens curbstomped the team we played on Sunday. If they're a shell, then the Baltimore HFA is as good as ours.

Denver has played teams with a combined 4-12 record.

Seattle has played teams with a combined 5-10 record.

Is that really so much of a difference that the beatdowns Denver is laying on teams should be considered inferior to the results we've been seeing with the Seahawks?

Yes, Denver has gotten to play 3 at home so far, and they haven't been playing brutally tough teams. That said, they've been absolutely destroying their opponents. There's legitimate discussion of Denver setting ALL-TIME offensive records this season. That has a tendency to reflect favorably on a team.

See this what I don't get. You, like many in the media, are focusing on raw production numbers without looking even 1 layer beyond. They have an extremely weak schedule and they're capitalizing on it. I would expect the talking heads at ESPN to know the difference. Denver has not played a single team in the top 10 defensively. Seattle, on the other hand, has played played 3 teams in the top 10 and they're doing it without key players and only half of their games have been at home as opposed to 75% for Denver. That says a lot about both teams in my opinion.

And what I don't get is that you seem to think that we've played some monster schedule while Denver has only played creampuffs. That, my friend, is simply untrue. It is INCORRECT. The difference in the teams we've played is MINOR. The records say so.

Denver is missing key players, as well. They haven't had Von Miller at all, they've lost their LT for the season, and they lost their starting center before the season even began.

Now, if you want to hang your hat on the fact that Denver hasn't played tough defenses and they've had 1 more home game than us, awesome. That's legit. And if we were beating teams the same way that Denver was - with those considerations - then I could see getting all butthurt over the Broncos being viewed as a better team. But the difference is that Denver has been destroying all comers thus far in a way we simply haven't.

And again, it doesn't hurt Seattle to give credit to Denver for doing what they've been doing. By trying to discredit them, you make yourself look incapable of objectivity.

 

[Popeyejones]

great posts, volsunghawk.

 

[SeaWolv]

The Ravens curbstomped the team we played on Sunday. If they're a shell, then the Baltimore HFA is as good as ours.

Denver has played teams with a combined 4-12 record.

Seattle has played teams with a combined 5-10 record.

Is that really so much of a difference that the beatdowns Denver is laying on teams should be considered inferior to the results we've been seeing with the Seahawks?

Yes, Denver has gotten to play 3 at home so far, and they haven't been playing brutally tough teams. That said, they've been absolutely destroying their opponents. There's legitimate discussion of Denver setting ALL-TIME offensive records this season. That has a tendency to reflect favorably on a team.

And what I don't get is that you seem to think that we've played some monster schedule while Denver has only played creampuffs. That, my friend, is simply untrue. It is INCORRECT. The difference in the teams we've played is MINOR. The records say so.

Denver is missing key players, as well. They haven't had Von Miller at all, they've lost their LT for the season, and they lost their starting center before the season even began.

Now, if you want to hang your hat on the fact that Denver hasn't played tough defenses and they've had 1 more home game than us, awesome. That's legit. And if we were beating teams the same way that Denver was - with those considerations - then I could see getting all butthurt over the Broncos being viewed as a better team. But the difference is that Denver has been destroying all comers thus far in a way we simply haven't.

And again, it doesn't hurt Seattle to give credit to Denver for doing what they've been doing. By trying to discredit them, you make yourself look incapable of objectivity.

Perhaps shell was a bit too strong a word but they're clearly not as good when you consider the talent and leadership they've lost. You can chalk Houston's loss in Baltimore up as nothing more than it's tough to win on the road in the NFL especially coming off an emotional OT win against the Titans.

In the debate over which team is better you have to compare individual units and how they fared against their respective competition. I don't weigh record as highly as I do offensive and defensive statistics. Records can be skewed based on the level of competition. That being said, Philadelphia is ranked dead last in team defense. I think that alone would qualify them as a creampuff.

Denver may have lost their starting center, LT and LB but Seattle has lost their LT, LG, played without Unger in Houston as well and were without Clemons and Irvin for most of the season so far not to mention being without Percy Harvin. Big difference.

Please don't confuse my post as saying the Broncos suck because that would be foolish. All I'm saying is that it's a bit early to start planning Denver's coronation.

As far as the characterization that Denver is destroying everyone is a bit hyperbolic. A 16 point win over lowly Oakland is not what I would call destroying someone. Now they did destroy Philly but considering that D I would expect that.

 

[volsunghawk]

Please don't confuse my post as saying the Broncos suck because that would be foolish. All I'm saying is that it's a bit early to start planning Denver's coronation.

As far as the characterization that Denver is destroying everyone is a bit hyperbolic. A 16 point win over lowly Oakland is not what I would call destroying someone. Now they did destroy Philly but considering that D I would expect that.

I don't think Denver should have any kind of early coronation, either. There's still 75% of the season left, and Denver will face tougher competition. And as several folks have pointed out, Manning and the Broncos don't have some great track record in December and the postseason. But what they're doing right now... it's incredible, regardless of competition.

As for Oakland, come on now. That 16 point win was a 23 point lead with a minute and a half to go. Denver spent all but about 3 minutes of the entire second half up by 20+. The Broncos are winning games by 3 scores. That's huge and deserving of the praise they're receiving.

Now, that doesn't mean I think Denver is a better team than Seattle is. I think both squads, fully healthy, are among the league's very best. I think the Seahawks are better built for postseason success, and I hope to see that play out in January and February. But you've got to give credit where it's due, and right now, no team is playing better football than the Broncos... us included.

 

[Exittium]

Yup I'm going to say it and use it because well in a way it does matter:
2012 (preseason - OMG I said it..) Sea VS Den - 30 -10 Before they lose maybe a few key players due to either agent's fax machine issues and whatever else i.e. trades Oh and thatw as at Mile High!
2013 (Preason -Oh sh!t I said it again) Sea Vs Den 40 - 10 After they get their "golden boy" Welker After losing: McGahee and Dumervil

And Yes being preseason games there wasn't much BUT as I recall both team let their 1st strings Play up until what? The middle of the 3rd Qtr?

So I guess what I'm saying is ..

We've beat them before .. we'll beat them again, and if it takes an "Easy schedule" for them to get to where they need to be to meet us so be it, They'll be in for a shock when they realize the opponent they're facing is some monster from hell ready to just devour everyone on that field that isn't wearing blue and green to Hoist that lombardi. After all I'll admit our schedule when we went to the SB in 06 wasn't necessarily the hardest.. so when we faced the Steelers (regardless of the sh!t calls) I think they were a bit taken by surprised of the level they'd have to play at

 

[Dismas]

First off, let me state I have bo issue with Denver being considered the best in the league, they have rolled every team they play, and made it look easy.

More power to them, imo.

I do think it is amusing, though, that Denver beating marginal teams in 2013 earns them the praise and admiration of the masses, while Seattle, who trounced questionable competition in 2005, was routinely met with statements of "Who have they played?" and "I'LL buy into Seattle when they beat someone good"

So, again, I think Denver deserves the "best" title until someone takes it from them, but the dichotomy of perceptions, based on popular assumptions, amuses me.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Having a truly elite QB that everyone admires, even if they're jealous of the team that has him, makes a big difference, Dismas. What can we say? At least DangeRuss appears to be on that path.

 

[volsunghawk]

Yup I'm going to say it and use it because well in a way it does matter:
2012 (preseason - OMG I said it..) Sea VS Den - 30 -10 Before they lose maybe a few key players due to either agent's fax machine issues and whatever else i.e. trades Oh and thatw as at Mile High!
2013 (Preason -Oh sh!t I said it again) Sea Vs Den 40 - 10 After they get their "golden boy" Welker After losing: McGahee and Dumervil

And Yes being preseason games there wasn't much BUT as I recall both team let their 1st strings Play up until what? The middle of the 3rd Qtr?

So I guess what I'm saying is ..

We've beat them before .. we'll beat them again, and if it takes an "Easy schedule" for them to get to where they need to be to meet us so be it, They'll be in for a shock when they realize the opponent they're facing is some monster from hell ready to just devour everyone on that field that isn't wearing blue and green to Hoist that lombardi. After all I'll admit our schedule when we went to the SB in 06 wasn't necessarily the hardest.. so when we faced the Steelers (regardless of the sh!t calls) I think they were a bit taken by surprised of the level they'd have to play at

Dude. Preseason. Manning was gone by the middle of the 2nd quarter this year.

The Broncos barely beat the Rams in the 3rd game (you know, the "this is the most like a regular season game we'll see in the preseason" game). They lost to the Cards. In 2008, the Lions won all 4 preseason games, some of them by big margins. Went 0-16 in the regular season. You simply can't use preseason results as anything other than talent evaluation for roster spots... the final scores mean exactly jack.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

The thing I do agree with here is how for 2005 ALL we ever heard was how soft our schedule was and now Denver is being glorified and no one cares how soft their schedule is.

That said, we were correct back then and it is correct now to not judge Denver by how easy their schedule is. They're having a historic start to their season per DVOA.

I think we'll see which team is better come the Super Bowl. I hope both are undefeated going into it. I'm sure Peyton will look like this after the game:

 

[RolandDeschain]

Broncos may have just lost LB Danny Trevathan.

http://www.macsfootballblog.com/2013/10 ... d-off.html