Broncos are good but...

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?

I know we're better, therefore I don't care who else thinks they are or aren't on an opinion poll.

Who cares who's better in September. The best of the NFL rise to the top in the cold of November and December. Right now we're just two thoroughbreds sizing each other up at the quarter pole. Peyton has an established history of fading in the cold and particularly in the playoffs. If we're lucky, they end up seeded against smash mouth physical teams in the postseason. Those kinds of teams traditionally give Peyton fits.

Offensive fireworks garner the headlines. But this game is at it's core, a hitting league. And nobody hits harder than we do. If we do navigate the postseason and end up matched up in the SB, then the venue couldn't be more tailor made for our success this year.

The Donkos have blown out every single one of their opponents. So what? It's early. How they're playing doesn't affect how our team plays; it only affects national perception. We're still listed at #2, above a very good Saints team who is a more immediate threat.

One bad game from Manning hoses that team, and it's most likely to happen as the weather gets colder and the playoffs arrive.

SeaWolv":os159e7s 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?

Click to expand...

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.

They are playing better at the moment. I have no problem admitting that. Their offense has been unstoppable. Lets see how they do when the bad weather rolls in.

I tried to give people a heads up about this on Sunday...guess it doesn't matter. People still get offended by the Seahawks getting dropped in the rankings.

The Broncos have looked better to the eye test so far. It's not even worth debating. They are going to be ranked #1. The Seahawks offense has not looked great, and so when people are looking at rankings they see the Broncos as better. And right now maybe they are. No big deal.

Ohhh the Broncos....

I don't give a damn about them, haha.

The other thread pretty much nailed it in terms of why they are a good 1B and an even better 2 (in terms of best in the league right now).

volsunghawk":w1g7fd0o said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Good Post, and I Agree with you.

The Fans here in Denver, (My wife included) are pretty in tune with the fact that they havent played anybody yet, and that their defense needs some work.

Hey we should meet up and watch some time soon! Cheers!

Sarlacc83":15wh9e7r said:

The Donkos have blown out every single one of their opponents. So what? It's early. How they're playing doesn't affect how our team plays; it only affects national perception. We're still listed at #2, above a very good Saints team who is a more immediate threat.

One bad game from Manning hoses that team, and it's most likely to happen as the weather gets colder and the playoffs arrive.

Click to expand...

Seattle would have beaten those by similar margins maybe even bigger ones. They haven't played anyone yet.

I'll only be pissed if their cupcake schedule gets them 16-0 in the regular season. The Patriots had the 3rd-hardest schedule in the league when they did it, Broncos started this year with the 32nd-hardest. As long as they lose at least one game, I don't care, because the playoffs are what matter.

The Broncos have the best offense in the league, slightly above NO IMO, that's sexy to the networks, bottom line.

Defense win you championships, offense wins you national admiration. Let's see how the Broncos do against a defense like Texans or SF or Seattle for that matter, then we can talk best team in the league. until then, IMO they are the best offense in the league, not best team...

SeaWolv":18uaj09f said:

Sarlacc83":18uaj09f said:

The Donkos have blown out every single one of their opponents. So what? It's early. How they're playing doesn't affect how our team plays; it only affects national perception. We're still listed at #2, above a very good Saints team who is a more immediate threat.

One bad game from Manning hoses that team, and it's most likely to happen as the weather gets colder and the playoffs arrive.

Click to expand...

Seattle would have beaten those by similar margins maybe even bigger ones. They haven't played anyone yet.

Click to expand...

I think you're assuming our offense is working on a level that it's not. I'm in the "Panthers, Texans, 49ers have amazing defenses" camp, but our offense is far from peaking at this point, yet.

Sarlacc83":k2lj8zd2 said:

The Donkos have blown out every single one of their opponents. So what? It's early. How they're playing doesn't affect how our team plays; it only affects national perception. We're still listed at #2, above a very good Saints team who is a more immediate threat.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Week 4 ranking don't mean much. It's too small of a sample. With the way the Donkeys and Saints are dominating, I'm surprised we're not 3. I think we should be 3 right now, but I'm sure we'll be 1 by the end of the year and end of the playoffs.

I think looking at the rankings in tiers makes more sense this early, especially since you see huge fluctuations each week.

Tier 1: Broncos, Saints, Seahawks
Tier 2: Pats, Colts, 49ers, Chiefs
Tier 3: Packers, Bengals, Bears, Lions
Tier 4: Falcons, Ravens, Texans, Titans, Chargers, Cowboys
...

Sarlacc83":k2lj8zd2 said:

One bad game from Manning hoses that team, and it's most likely to happen as the weather gets colder and the playoffs arrive.

Click to expand...

Good point. If Manning ever goes down, that's a team that can go from 13-3 to 9-7 or worse very easily. The Seahawks are very even across the board (aside from O-line).

Let's worry about traversing the NFC and making it to the superbowl. Whoever awaits us is who awaits us.

RolandDeschain":39jj9k3d said:

I'll only be pissed if their cupcake schedule gets them 16-0 in the regular season. The Patriots had the 3rd-hardest schedule in the league when they did it, Broncos started this year with the 32nd-hardest. As long as they lose at least one game, I don't care, because the playoffs are what matter.

Click to expand...

Eh, Football Outsiders ranked the Pats' schedule in 2007 as 10th. Pro Football Reference had them about middle of the pack.

As for this year and Denver, FO doesn't have any data on schedule rank yet, but PFR has 7 teams listed with a schedule as easy or easier than the Broncos (including the Chiefs and most of the NFC North).

RolandDeschain":3ktz1k3b said:

I'll only be pissed if their cupcake schedule gets them 16-0 in the regular season. The Patriots had the 3rd-hardest schedule in the league when they did it, Broncos started this year with the 32nd-hardest. As long as they lose at least one game, I don't care, because the playoffs are what matter.

Click to expand...

It's only week 4, so a lot can change in a few games.

The Donkeys still play @Indy, @NE, @KC, KC, and @Hou. Tenn, Dal, and Wash have a slight chance to beat Denver.

The Saints play @Chi, @NE, SF, @Atl, and @Sea. @Car, Dal, and Car seem like ok teams left on the schedule.

The Hawks only have @Indy, @Atlanta, NO, and @SF left with Tenn as the only ok team left.

Honestly, I feel that Seattle has the best chance to end the season with the best record, but it really depends which teams fix their problems and can avoid the injury bug the most.

I'd take a number 1 defense over a number 1 offense any day of the week...

Caveat- I am a Broncos fan, maybe a little biased:

The rankings are not relevant. A lot can also change between now and playoff time. We may not play this year at all.

Nobody is going to pretend that Denver's schedule has been impressive (I won't) but the rankings reflect the fact that Denver has simply toyed with each one of their opponents. It has truly looked like a varsity high school team vs. the pop warner squad throughout most of their games. Even when the score was close, it was always clear who was going to win. And let's be honest, Seattle was outplayed by Houston...but I still think Seattle is the second best team in the NFL... those games happen, and I'm sure they will happen to us this year. We probably have the top two home field advantages in the NFL and if we play it will be on neutral grounds. Denver can't control their schedule, but they can (and have) dictated the games. Peyton Manning is doing ridiculous things...he was 28/34 and 32/37 in the last two games, and probably half those incompletions were on the receiver. Denver's D is playing good when it matters...a lot of passing yards/points in garbage time, but we are still #1 against the run including playing Ray Rice, Darren McFadden, and LeSean McCoy...part of this is that teams can't run a lot on us after build a lead, but the yards per carry from most of the games wasn't impressive either. Only McCoy topped 4 ypc, McFadden had 0.75 yard per carry. The defense was a top 5 unit last year with Von Miller and Champ Bailey in the mix, and no reason they can't be just as good as a Seattle or KC unit. They are stacked with talent all over the board.

That said, I think only two teams in the NFL can threaten Denver: Seattle and NE. Depends on who makes less mistakes, game-planning etc.

volsunghawk":zschsuwj said:

Eh, Football Outsiders ranked the Pats' schedule in 2007 as 10th. Pro Football Reference had them about middle of the pack.

As for this year and Denver, FO doesn't have any data on schedule rank yet, but PFR has 7 teams listed with a schedule as easy or easier than the Broncos (including the Chiefs and most of the NFC North).

Click to expand...

I was comparing how hard they were based on the prior year, i.e. rankings before the seasons finished. They are never 100% accurate, and sometimes turn out to be very inaccurate, but since this year isn't done yet we can't compare how hard they really were against each other for another 13 weeks.