SeaWolv":w1g7fd0o said:
Several sites, including ESPN now, have the Broncos as #1 over the Seahawks. I'm not going to sit here and say they aren't good but are they really better than than the Hawks? Looking at who've they've played compared to Seattle and I don't finite at they've done as impressive. The Seahawks have beaten two very good teams in SF and Houston. Who have the Broncos really played? The Ravens are a shell if their former selves. The Giants are imploding the Raiders haven't been relevant for a while. Who have they played that justifies all the love they're getting over our Seahawks?
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 hey, were the 2005 Seahawks a lesser team just because they played some pretty weak competition? If you got irritated when people would downplay our '05 squad because of the strength of schedule, then you should want to avoid using that same faulty criticism of this year's Broncos.
In any case, why does it even matter? Denver getting props from the media doesn't lessen what the Seahawks have done this season. It doesn't hurt their chances of a #1 seed. It doesn't make that breathtaking comeback against the Texans any less thrilling. It's just pixels on a screen.