PDA

View Full Version : Your Denver Broncos are #2 on offense (scoring & yards) and #5 in scoring defense ( #4 in yards)


baja
12-23-2012, 09:12 PM
....and we are getting better with each passing week.

SoCalBronco
12-23-2012, 09:17 PM
It's very, very rare to be in the Top 5 in both offense and defense. Denver is the best team in the league right now. I'm not scared of Houston (who doesnt show up for even semi-big games), or NE (who can't beat us in DEN), or BAL (for obvious reasons) or really anyone. Cincinnati is playing well, but I doubt they could win in DEN. Same for Indy. It's simply a matter of making sure we don't lose the turnover battle. That and injuries are really the only way we can foul this up. Keep your eye on the ball and we'll win the conference.

GB and SEA are playing at a very high level in the NFC, but Denver has done it more consistently and I feel really good right now against any opponent. Just hold on to the ball on offense and stay away from injuries and we should be fine.

Kaylore
12-23-2012, 09:17 PM
But you are still scared of the Chiefs, right SoCal? :)

lonestar
12-23-2012, 09:23 PM
actually as of right now..
defense by yards..
Rk Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost
1 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 20.3 304 889 272.9 4.6 17.0 70 196 36 7 9 78 91 803 27:51 16 7
2 San Francisco 49ers 14 15.6 218 897 293.0 4.6 17.9 57 190 30 13 24 54 84 679 30:09 20 10
3 Denver Broncos 15 19.1 286 967 302.2 4.7 18.6 62 202 31 7 18 39 118 919 29:08 23 8


Defense by points.

Rk Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost
1 San Francisco 49ers 14 15.6 218 897 293.0 4.6 17.9 57 190 30 13 24 54 84 679 30:09 20 10
2 Seattle Seahawks 14 15.6 219 851 303.9 5.0 18.4 71 176 40 1 7 14 82 746 28:60 24 12
3 Chicago Bears 15 16.9 253 958 314.9 4.9 17.7 71 206 34 10 16 62 74 675 28:52 32 17
4 Atlanta Falcons 15 18.5 277 926 365.5 5.9 18.7 74 184 40 6 13 46 81 626 28:56 16 11
5 Denver Broncos 15 19.1 286 967 302.2 4.7 18.6 62 202 31 7 18 39 118 919 29:08 23 8

offense by yards..
Rk Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost TO
1 New England Patriots 15 35.3 529 1,116 426.9 5.7 27.7 102 210 49 6 9 67 91 792 30:37 13 7 +23
2 Detroit Lions 15 23.2 348 1,097 414.2 5.7 24.1 90 214 42 6 15 40 99 915 32:30 21 13 -12
3 New Orleans Saints 15 28.2 423 1,004 408.9 6.1 22.0 87 195 45 6 12 50 99 856 29:11 13 5 +2
4 Denver Broncos 15 29.5 443 1,014 391.9 5.8 23.2
89 201 44 3 5 60 95 775 30:52 21 13 0


offense by points..

Rk Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost TO
1 New England Patriots 15 35.3 529 1,116 426.9 5.7 27.7 102 210 49 6 9 67 91 792 30:37 13 7 +23
2 Denver Broncos 15 29.5 443 1,014 391.9 5.8 23.2 89 201 44 3 5 60 95 775 30:52 21 13 0
3 New Orleans Saints 15 28.2 423 1,004 408.9 6.1 22.0 87 195 45 6 12 50 99 856 29:11 13 5 +2
4 Washington Redskins 15 27.2 408 933 384.7 6.2 21.1 63 179 35 12 17 71 114 965 31:02 25 6 +14
5 Atlanta Falcons 15 26.8 402 959 375.2 5.9 21.9 89 190 47 1 5 20 53 400 31:04 9 4 +12
6 Houston Texans 15 26.7 400 1,030 373.4 5.4 21.5 78 210 37 4 7 57 99 809 34:06 12 4 +14
7 Green Bay Packers 15 26.6 399 981 356.4 5.4 21.1 84 200 42 6 12 50 96 880 30:36 15 7 +8
8 New York Giants 15 25.8 387 910 352.7 5.8 19.7 73 184 40 5 10 50 71 573 29:01 13 6 +13

SoCalBronco
12-23-2012, 09:24 PM
But you are still scared of the Chiefs, right SoCal? :)

Cross your fingers and hope that we don't split as we usually do. :)

DEN should roll by 3 TD or more, but you never know in a Broncos-Chiefs game.

Seriously, this team has an amazing oppurtunity in front of them. I really hope they don't **** it up. It's all right there in front of us. There is tremendous balance between offense and defense that no one else in the NFL has. They need to get it done.

Houshyamama
12-23-2012, 09:31 PM
actually as of right now..
defense by yards..
Rk Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost
1 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 20.3 304 889 272.9 4.6 17.0 70 196 36 7 9 78 91 803 27:51 16 7
2 San Francisco 49ers 14 15.6 218 897 293.0 4.6 17.9 57 190 30 13 24 54 84 679 30:09 20 10
3 Denver Broncos 15 19.1 286 967 302.2 4.7 18.6 62 202 31 7 18 39 118 919 29:08 23 8


Defense by points.

Rk Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost
1 San Francisco 49ers 14 15.6 218 897 293.0 4.6 17.9 57 190 30 13 24 54 84 679 30:09 20 10
2 Seattle Seahawks 14 15.6 219 851 303.9 5.0 18.4 71 176 40 1 7 14 82 746 28:60 24 12
3 Chicago Bears 15 16.9 253 958 314.9 4.9 17.7 71 206 34 10 16 62 74 675 28:52 32 17
4 Atlanta Falcons 15 18.5 277 926 365.5 5.9 18.7 74 184 40 6 13 46 81 626 28:56 16 11
5 Denver Broncos 15 19.1 286 967 302.2 4.7 18.6 62 202 31 7 18 39 118 919 29:08 23 8

offense by yards..
Rk Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost TO
1 New England Patriots 15 35.3 529 1,116 426.9 5.7 27.7 102 210 49 6 9 67 91 792 30:37 13 7 +23
2 Detroit Lions 15 23.2 348 1,097 414.2 5.7 24.1 90 214 42 6 15 40 99 915 32:30 21 13 -12
3 New Orleans Saints 15 28.2 423 1,004 408.9 6.1 22.0 87 195 45 6 12 50 99 856 29:11 13 5 +2
4 Denver Broncos 15 29.5 443 1,014 391.9 5.8 23.2
89 201 44 3 5 60 95 775 30:52 21 13 0


offense by points..

Rk Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost TO
1 New England Patriots 15 35.3 529 1,116 426.9 5.7 27.7 102 210 49 6 9 67 91 792 30:37 13 7 +23
2 Denver Broncos 15 29.5 443 1,014 391.9 5.8 23.2 89 201 44 3 5 60 95 775 30:52 21 13 0
3 New Orleans Saints 15 28.2 423 1,004 408.9 6.1 22.0 87 195 45 6 12 50 99 856 29:11 13 5 +2
4 Washington Redskins 15 27.2 408 933 384.7 6.2 21.1 63 179 35 12 17 71 114 965 31:02 25 6 +14
5 Atlanta Falcons 15 26.8 402 959 375.2 5.9 21.9 89 190 47 1 5 20 53 400 31:04 9 4 +12
6 Houston Texans 15 26.7 400 1,030 373.4 5.4 21.5 78 210 37 4 7 57 99 809 34:06 12 4 +14
7 Green Bay Packers 15 26.6 399 981 356.4 5.4 21.1 84 200 42 6 12 50 96 880 30:36 15 7 +8
8 New York Giants 15 25.8 387 910 352.7 5.8 19.7 73 184 40 5 10 50 71 573 29:01 13 6 +13

Maybe it's just my iPad, but your tables are misaligned and hurt my brain.

baja
12-23-2012, 09:32 PM
You are correct Lonestar NFL.com must have not been up to date when I checked.

baja
12-23-2012, 09:40 PM
Cross your fingers and hope that we don't split as we usually do. :)

DEN should roll by 3 TD or more, but you never know in a Broncos-Chiefs game.

Seriously, this team has an amazing oppurtunity in front of them. I really hope they don't **** it up. It's all right there in front of us. There is tremendous balance between offense and defense that no one else in the NFL has. They need to get it done.

What is amazing about this team is we could have scored a lot more points and held opponents to much less points if we did not go so conservative in the second half with the lead.

I hate watching teams put up late game points because we go conservative.


I wish we had a little stronger running game but we are acceptable and will be better when Kupe returns. Really like the Hester pick up too. Hillman gets more comfortable every week too. Moreno is solid.

Agamemnon
12-23-2012, 09:56 PM
Cross your fingers and hope that we don't split as we usually do. :)

DEN should roll by 3 TD or more, but you never know in a Broncos-Chiefs game.

Seriously, this team has an amazing oppurtunity in front of them. I really hope they don't **** it up. It's all right there in front of us. There is tremendous balance between offense and defense that no one else in the NFL has. They need to get it done.

They would have to **** up in epic proportions to lose to the Chiefs at home. I could see things going a little sideways and the game being closer than it should, but to lose? That would be one of the biggest **** ups in franchise history.

SoCalBronco
12-23-2012, 10:04 PM
I wasnt referring to the Chiefs game in particular, Agamemnon, but rather to the possibility of losing in the AFC playoffs at some point. There's really no excuse for it. Even HOU has been exposed in primetime games. I think there is a good chnace they lose to INDY which would hand us the No. 1 seed. Certainly in that instance, there's no excuse for not making it to the SB. DEN has been LIGHTS OUT at home since the Houston game and all of these other teams (even NE) SHOULD have an uphill battle to beat DEN in DEN.

NUB
12-23-2012, 10:26 PM
I still think Denver is prone to getting scored on. That's my only qualm. In their losses and in the game against San Diego, Denver's defense was getting flattened. Those losses weren't even close until the 4th quarter. Philip Rivers imploded, and I think we all knew that sort of win/loss was the kind that changes seasons (it totally reminded me of the season shift when the 4-4 Raiders came to Denver in 2002). No team really scares me except New England -- and that's because Tom Brady is the only QB that can hang with Peyton Manning. People suggesting we bail on the #1 seed are being idiots. Homefield advantage is gonna be a huge difference maker in who makes the Superbowl out of DEN/HOU/NE. The Broncos can handle Houston in Houston, but I sure as hell don't want to be going to New England and running into Belichick/Brady/the weather.

enjolras
12-23-2012, 10:36 PM
I still think Denver is prone to getting scored on. That's my only qualm. In their losses and in the game against San Diego, Denver's defense was getting flattened.

The defense is pretty drastically different in terms of alignment and personnel at this point. Brooking, Carter (I have no doubt he'll be back on the active roster), Harris as a primary corner, DJ is back, etc....

All of those examples you cited happened in the first 6 weeks of the season as well. Since the end of the first half of that Chargers game this has been right near the top in terms of best defenses in football. They've shutdown some pretty good offenses (Saints and Ravens in particular). They force turnovers in bunches...it's just a really good defense.

I'm really interested to see how this defense stacks up against a New England or Houston now. I'm positive their a much better unit. I have no idea if they've improved enough to hold those offenses in check, it's going to be really interesting to find out.

lonestar
12-23-2012, 11:20 PM
What is amazing about this team is we could have scored a lot more points and held opponents to much less points if we did not go so conservative in the second half with the lead.

I hate watching teams put up late game points because we go conservative.


I wish we had a little stronger running game but we are acceptable and will be better when Kupe returns. Really like the Hester pick up too. Hillman gets more comfortable every week too. Moreno is solid.

I agree I hate it when we start playing around instead of stepping on their throats when we can.

Run the damned score up take no hostages. Being the Seahawks and put up 50+ each week.

as for Kuper coming back. Rumor has it it is both ankles.

I get this feeling he will not be back. Maybe ever.

Maybe Kupes Dad can give us the real skinny.

But in the mean time do not hold your breath about him riding in to save the day.

Bacchus
12-23-2012, 11:24 PM
They would have to **** up in epic proportions to lose to the Chiefs at home. I could see things going a little sideways and the game being closer than it should, but to lose? That would be one of the biggest **** ups in franchise history.

Denver lost last year at home against the Chiefs the final game of the season.

lonestar
12-23-2012, 11:24 PM
Let me add it see,Ed to me we jumped into zone coverage opposed to man during the game and all of sudden they started moving the ball.
Do what we do best and stay with it.

maher_tyler
12-23-2012, 11:48 PM
Whats the status on McGahee and Kuper?

cutthemdown
12-23-2012, 11:52 PM
Whats the status on McGahee and Kuper?

I thought Mcgahee was IR? Kuper I think returns at some point by playoffs.

SoCalBronco
12-23-2012, 11:54 PM
It was noted previously that McGahee could come back around the second round, even though he was placed on IR.

cutthemdown
12-23-2012, 11:54 PM
Denver lost last year at home against the Chiefs the final game of the season.

Always a risk playing a team that hates you, that has nothing to lose or gain. They often go for it on 4th down in the 1st quarter, try fake punts, etc whatever it takes to spoil it for the rival.

Still though the qbs stink there. The only player I could see making big plays is Charles and we are pretty good vs the run.

cutthemdown
12-23-2012, 11:56 PM
It was noted previously that McGahee could come back around the second round, even though he was placed on IR.

Pretty unlikely a rb tears a ligament late in the yr, then makes it back by playoffs. I'd say its even possible McGahee done in Denver. What is he 32? coming off a bad injury on a team with Hillman just drafted and Moreno surging. I could see Broncos signing a younger vet back, or drafting another RB, and letting McGahee go.

I love him just saying it could happen.

cutthemdown
12-23-2012, 11:57 PM
Throw in all his fumbles and I think McGahee in a bit of trouble for next yrs roster.

maher_tyler
12-24-2012, 12:06 AM
It was noted previously that McGahee could come back around the second round, even though he was placed on IR.

Looks like the 3rd round according to this article. I was just wondering how his rehab has been coming along. Sunday would have made it week 5 of a 6-8 week injury.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8660419/denver-broncos-eye-title-game-return-willis-mcgahee

enjolras
12-24-2012, 03:25 AM
as for Kuper coming back. Rumor has it it is both ankles.

Citation?

gunns
12-24-2012, 06:09 AM
The stat I still worry about is T/G. We're 18th. All of the other stats read very nicely. We are #1 in scoring differential and #3 in yard differential. If we improve on that T/G we are unstoppable.

ScottXray
12-24-2012, 06:20 AM
Let me add it see,Ed to me we jumped into zone coverage opposed to man during the game and all of sudden they started moving the ball.
Do what we do best and stay with it.

Yesterday we also had Porter in ( who immediately got dinged and went out in the 1st quarter), and Carter was not active ( a BAD decision). When Cleveland started moving the ball it was mostly passes to their left...wide open. Carter will be back on the field next week ( I doubt Porter plays again),
and the miscommunication we saw yesterday should not be happening.

As to the D being scored on. Yeah it has been happening and is somewhat worrisome. But the references to the first SD game were wrong. The defense really only allowed 7 points and one drive in the first half, and got put in BAD positions by the offense ( 17 points off turnovers). Down 24 -0
they stepped it up even more and shut out SD in the 2nd half.

The one thing that I do think is finally evening out is turnovers. We are finally receovirng fumbles ( both ours and theirs) and are getting more than giving mostly.

Gutless Drunk
12-24-2012, 07:40 AM
Number 1 in Sacks

31931

lonestar
12-24-2012, 09:44 AM
Yesterday we also had Porter in ( who immediately got dinged and went out in the 1st quarter), and Carter was not active ( a BAD decision). When Cleveland started moving the ball it was mostly passes to their left...wide open. Carter will be back on the field next week ( I doubt Porter plays again),
and the miscommunication we saw yesterday should not be happening.

As to the D being scored on. Yeah it has been happening and is somewhat worrisome. But the references to the first SD game were wrong. The defense really only allowed 7 points and one drive in the first half, and got put in BAD positions by the offense ( 17 points off turnovers). Down 24 -0
they stepped it up even more and shut out SD in the 2nd half.
M
The one thing that I do think is finally evening out is turnovers. We are finally receovirng fumbles ( both ours and theirs) and are getting more than giving mostly.

was not aware carter was not active. Did not follow it that close. That would explain it.

As for stats before the bye they are IMO meaningless, most of the players on either side of the LOS were babies in the schemes still trying to figure out where the door for the urinals were at.

I had really not had any expectations to win but one game maybe two if we got really lucky before the bye week.. Mainly due to the complexity of the schemes figured they would not be hitting on all cylinders till at least the end of the bye week if at all this year.

In Mannnings case it took years to have that mental mind meld with his recievers. Lots of his guys never got it till they had been in the scheme for 2-3 years and that was whennthey exploded.

As for JDR and his schemes I figured by the bye they would be doing much better than the O as defensive schemes are not as "team" oriented and more individual except for the back four maybe seven.

So I figured the first games were down the toilet. I was amazed at how fast it all came together. But before the bye lots of folks were making bad decisions and or mistakes, in route running or over estimating arm strength.

We have been good this year, but now comes the real teams the best of the best and in the past (decade) have folded like a cheap tent, because we were pretenders fattening up on inferior opponents during the regular season.

We were not mentally tough, or physically good enough to play with the big boys in the play offs and it showed in the scores of the games. When playing teams that were mentally tough and not beat up we got our asses kicked.

Let hope with Manning here and good tough coaching that is all in the past.

lonestar
12-24-2012, 09:47 AM
Number 1 in Sacks

31931

Which is great but note only three playoff teams are in that mix. Maybe four if MIN gets in.

Sometimes stats are for loser fans. Something they can crow about in the off season.

Kaylore
12-24-2012, 10:26 AM
I don't get Indy. They are 7th in offense and 20-something in defense. I really think teams don't take them seriously or something and let them sneak-beat them. They are all emotion.

CEH
12-24-2012, 10:31 AM
This the the most TDs Manning has throw in his career (and not done yet) except for 49 in 2004 Pretty impressive . Gotta think next year will even be better when we add the explosive slot WR

ZONA
12-24-2012, 11:32 AM
Number 1 in Sacks

31931

The announcer during the Bengals game Sunday said the Bengals were #1 in sacks. What a tool. I guess they were, but only for a few hours, lol. Man would I love to have Geno Atkins on this Defense. How often do you see those kind of sack totals from a DT?

lonestar
12-24-2012, 11:36 AM
I don't get Indy. They are 7th in offense and 20-something in defense. I really think teams don't take them seriously or something and let them sneak-beat them. They are all emotion.

every week for their opponents is a trap game..

while Luck is pretty good, I think you are correct they are running on Pagano emo..

troyjbath
12-24-2012, 12:24 PM
What I find remarkable is the fact that the Broncos are #1 in 3rd down defense and #4 in 3rd down offense. This team is in the top 5 in just about every statistic that matters.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
12-24-2012, 12:59 PM
May I offer a ads of caution. Back in the days of yore. 1996 Denver was ranked top ten in both offense and defense. With a second seed and first round bye on the playoffs, THE EFFFFFFFFFFING JACKSONVILLE JAGOFFS CAME TO MILE HIGH AND KICKED OUR ASSES! Guys this isn't baseball where stats came help predict the future. This is football and it bounces fun sometimes. Besides stats have a way of trucking you sometimes. Look at last year. We faced the number one pass defense in Pitt. Yet teebs passed 316 yards on them. Why? Pitt had to stack the box and left their corners one on one. Then there was the Pats last ranked pass defense. Considering Pats had a powerful offense other teams fell behind often. This forced other teams to pass on them more often resulting in giving up more yards. But you guys know all this. All I'm saying is each game is its own chess match not a continuation of a single match.

SoCalBronco
12-24-2012, 01:07 PM
Good point, Hobo.

I dont think anyone is taking anything for granted. Certainly anything can happen, but we're just saying that at present, this looks like the best team out there. Is it concievable that a red hot Bengals could upset us in Round 2? Sure, but I think we'd need to seriously lose the turnover battle and/or have key injuries. No one is counting chickens. We know quite well what kinds of things can happen in the playoffs and we have the scars to prove it. I just think this is the best team we've had since 98, so I'd really be pissed off if they weren't in the SB. They ARE the AFC's best team. I'm not saying it is a lock they will get there, just that I'll be pissed off if they arent there due to how good they look and more importantly how consistently good they've been for months now.

lonestar
12-24-2012, 01:21 PM
May I offer a ads of caution. Back in the days of yore. 1996 Denver was ranked top ten in both offense and defense. With a second seed and first round bye on the playoffs, THE EFFFFFFFFFFING JACKSONVILLE JAGOFFS CAME TO MILE HIGH AND KICKED OUR ASSES! Guys this isn't baseball where stats came help predict the future. This is football and it bounces fun sometimes. Besides stats have a way of trucking you sometimes. Look at last year. We faced the number one pass defense in Pitt. Yet teebs passed 316 yards on them. Why? Pitt had to stack the box and left their corners one on one. Then there was the Pats last ranked pass defense. Considering Pats had a powerful offense other teams fell behind often. This forced other teams to pass on them more often resulting in giving up more yards. But you guys know all this. All I'm saying is each game is its own chess match not a continuation of a single match.

:thumbs: something I have been saying all year..

Kaylore
12-24-2012, 01:24 PM
May I offer a ads of caution. Back in the days of yore. 1996 Denver was ranked top ten in both offense and defense. With a second seed and first round bye on the playoffs, THE EFFFFFFFFFFING JACKSONVILLE JAGOFFS CAME TO MILE HIGH AND KICKED OUR ASSES! Guys this isn't baseball where stats came help predict the future. This is football and it bounces fun sometimes. Besides stats have a way of trucking you sometimes. Look at last year. We faced the number one pass defense in Pitt. Yet teebs passed 316 yards on them. Why? Pitt had to stack the box and left their corners one on one. Then there was the Pats last ranked pass defense. Considering Pats had a powerful offense other teams fell behind often. This forced other teams to pass on them more often resulting in giving up more yards. But you guys know all this. All I'm saying is each game is its own chess match not a continuation of a single match.

The thing about this is we've been playing better every week and still have areas to improve. If there's one thing this team has done it's showed up for big games. since things clicked for them during the Chargers game.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
12-24-2012, 01:26 PM
Good point, Hobo.

I dont think anyone is taking anything for granted. Certainly anything can happen, but we're just saying that at present, this looks like the best team out there. Is it concievable that a red hot Bengals could upset us in Round 2? Sure, but I think we'd need to seriously lose the turnover battle and/or have key injuries. No one is counting chickens. We know quite well what kinds of things can happen in the playoffs and we have the scars to prove it. I just think this is the best team we've had since 98, so I'd really be pissed off if they weren't in the SB. They ARE the AFC's best team. I'm not saying it is a lock they will get there, just that I'll be pissed off if they arent there due to how good they look and more importantly how consistently good they've been for months now.

Thanks.

For me this is the worst time to start feeling confident. Before the media just ignored us. Which is fine. It lets us fly under the radar. Now everybody is looking at us and they are looking to set us up to smack us down. I think we all need to be like Manning and not look to far ahead. I swear to you that guy doesn't look pass the next door he's so focused.

Kaylore
12-24-2012, 01:41 PM
Thanks.

For me this is the worst time to start feeling confident. Before the media just ignored us. Which is fine. It lets us fly under the radar. Now everybody is looking at us and they are looking to set us up to smack us down. I think we all need to be like Manning and not look to far ahead. I swear to you that guy doesn't look pass the next door he's so focused.

We can look ahead all we want. We're not playing in the game.

baja
12-24-2012, 02:24 PM
Does anyone think this team looks as dominant as the 96 team? the 97 team? the 98 team?

lonestar
12-24-2012, 03:41 PM
Does anyone think this team looks as dominant as the 96 team? the 97 team? the 98 team?

Defense is better overall. Maybe not as great n the middle of the dline but better DEs. Better LBs and DBs.

Better overall on offense but at RB and maybe TE but instead OM one back then we have two that Maybe add up to sharpe.

The key on this team is they are going to get better. Those teams were built with 1-2 year rentals.

troyjbath
12-24-2012, 03:47 PM
Does anyone think this team looks as dominant as the 96 team? the 97 team? the 98 team?

I think we can put them in the same category as those teams, but its hard to say that this team is better or worse. I've re watched games from 96-98 in the past month and it opened my eyes to just how much the NFL has changed in the past 15 years. A lot of people forget that Elway only threw for 120 yards in super bowl 32. The Broncos relied heavily on Davis at RB and Elway's ability to get out of the pocket and make plays during that time. Comparing the offense from that era to the 2012 Broncos is like comparing apples to oranges. I'd like to think the 2012 defense is just as good as those in the late 90's run, but again it's hard to compare because the game has changed so much when it comes to bumping and making contact with receivers. Just my 2 cents.

baja
12-24-2012, 03:55 PM
I think we can put them in the same category as those teams, but its hard to say that this team is better or worse. I've re watched games from 96-98 in the past month and it opened my eyes to just how much the NFL has changed in the past 15 years. A lot of people forget that Elway only threw for 120 yards in super bowl 32. The Broncos relied heavily on Davis at RB and Elway's ability to get out of the pocket and make plays during that time. Comparing the offense from that era to the 2012 Broncos is like comparing apples to oranges. I'd like to think the 2012 defense is just as good as those in the late 90's run, but again it's hard to compare because the game has changed so much when it comes to bumping and making contact with receivers. Just my 2 cents.

Well the question was 'as dominant as' so you need not compare the teams to one another but rather decide if they dominate the rest of the teams in the league to the degree the 96/97/98 teams dominated the teams of their era.

troyjbath
12-24-2012, 04:16 PM
Well the question was 'as dominant as' so you need not compare the teams to one another but rather decide if they dominate the rest of the teams in the league to the degree the 96/97/98 teams dominated the teams of their era.

I'd like to think so, but my objective opinion would be no. The 2012 Broncos haven't proven that they can beat elite teams as of yet. I hope they change my tune in January.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
12-24-2012, 05:08 PM
Does anyone think this team looks as dominant as the 96 team? the 97 team? the 98 team?

I think this team is better than the '97, '96 and '98 on defense. Solid in coverage and you don't need to do all those crazy a$$ blitzing. On offense this team is better than both '96 and '97, but not '98. Just the fact the '98 team got out of the gate with 7, 14, 21 point leads before the half Heck they pulled Terrell Davis for the second half of games. .

kupesdad
12-24-2012, 05:43 PM
I agree I hate it when we start playing around instead of stepping on their throats when we can.

Run the damned score up take no hostages. Being the Seahawks and put up 50+ each week.

as for Kuper coming back. Rumor has it it is both ankles.

I get this feeling he will not be back. Maybe ever.

Maybe Kupes Dad can give us the real skinny.

But in the mean time do not hold your breath about him riding in to save the day.

it's both ankles, his back, his right arm, his fathers left and right shoulders and assorted bruises, c-sections, and tumors in his neighborhood.

baja
12-24-2012, 05:47 PM
it's both ankles, his back, his right arm, his fathers left and right shoulders and assorted bruises, c-sections, and tumors in his neighborhood.

Good one.

Do you think he will play any time soon?

Action
12-24-2012, 06:00 PM
Number 1 in Sacks

31931

Cinci has forced 16 fumbles and recovered all 16.

Must be nice.

Agamemnon
12-24-2012, 06:00 PM
Does anyone think this team looks as dominant as the 96 team? the 97 team? the 98 team?

The '96 and '97 teams yes, but that '98 team was one of the most dominant teams I've ever seen. They let up late in the season and dropped some games they shouldn't have, but really when they were motivated no one had a chance.

ScottXray
12-24-2012, 06:21 PM
it's both ankles, his back, his right arm, his fathers left and right shoulders and assorted bruises, c-sections, and tumors in his neighborhood.

Merry Christmas to Kupe, you, and yours Dad.

I get the feeling your post was in jest, and hope so. If not then,
tell him to rub some dirt on it ( he would end up really filthy if it's as bad as you say), and avoid that neighborhood for the reminder of his career.

And stop carrying shopping bags for the "Wimmen" of the family until after the playoffs are over, to heal up those backs, arms, and shoulders.

You may get a few more "bruises" from them for being anuses, but they will heal fast.

Anyway, we hope to see Kupe back on the field soon , and hope he is just resting up so it gets as healed up as possible before we need him in there for the post season.

Rock Chalk
12-24-2012, 06:25 PM
it's both ankles, his back, his right arm, his fathers left and right shoulders and assorted bruises, c-sections, and tumors in his neighborhood.

Rub some god damn 'tussin on it and get the hell out there. Mission not yet accomplished.

Bacchus
12-24-2012, 06:27 PM
May I offer a ads of caution. Back in the days of yore. 1996 Denver was ranked top ten in both offense and defense. With a second seed and first round bye on the playoffs, THE EFFFFFFFFFFING JACKSONVILLE JAGOFFS CAME TO MILE HIGH AND KICKED OUR ASSES! Guys this isn't baseball where stats came help predict the future. This is football and it bounces fun sometimes. Besides stats have a way of trucking you sometimes. Look at last year. We faced the number one pass defense in Pitt. Yet teebs passed 316 yards on them. Why? Pitt had to stack the box and left their corners one on one. Then there was the Pats last ranked pass defense. Considering Pats had a powerful offense other teams fell behind often. This forced other teams to pass on them more often resulting in giving up more yards. But you guys know all this. All I'm saying is each game is its own chess match not a continuation of a single match.

Teams that finish 13-3 also have lost 9 of the last 12 first round playoff games. Or something like that. Denver finished 13-3 in 1996 as well.

Bacchus
12-24-2012, 06:42 PM
Rub some god damn 'tussin on it and get the hell out there. Mission not yet accomplished.

in the old days they just rubbed dirt on it!!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
12-24-2012, 09:46 PM
Teams that finish 13-3 also have lost 9 of the last 12 first round playoff games. Or something like that. Denver finished 13-3 in 1996 as well.

I'm a Libra. What's your point?

Bacchus
12-24-2012, 10:29 PM
I'm a Libra. What's your point?

I would start at the beginning, but I think I need to go farther back.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
12-25-2012, 12:09 AM
I would start at the beginning, but I think I need to go farther back.

:thumbs:

enjolras
12-25-2012, 12:45 AM
Teams that finish 13-3 also have lost 9 of the last 12 first round playoff games. Or something like that. Denver finished 13-3 in 1996 as well.

You know that's not super surprising. 13-3 almost always gets you a bye week, and those divisional games are usually really competitive. That's why I refuse to acknowledge a bye-week team as being "one and done", it's something better than that.

bpc
12-25-2012, 05:23 AM
Does anyone think this team looks as dominant as the 96 team? the 97 team? the 98 team?

This team is definitely better than the 96' team. 97' & 98'? That's going to be tough to argue. I think Manning is better than Elway BUT, Elway could still move and escape and make you pay with his legs. Manning is a statue, albeit a damn great one. Running game goes to 97'/98' Broncos. TD was the best player in the league at that time. I think those teams were stronger at WR, TE, and OL as well. DT is good, but Rod and Ed were great in all faucets of the game and never dropped passes. They weren't as soft as Decker either. Our OL this year is just ok.

The defense this year is legitimately better than those previous years but we did have some great players on those teams. Push comes to shove, I think the 97'/98' Broncos team beats this years team, reason being is the running game. I think those defenses would take away our paltry threat in KM, and this year's team has only been tested slightly in the run game. We got flat out exposed vs. NE though. Every other time, they have played with the lead. I saw Cleveland gash us a few times. The positive news is Manning most likely will give us a lead in future games, so that could continue to be concealed.

lonestar
12-25-2012, 10:33 AM
it's both ankles, his back, his right arm, his fathers left and right shoulders and assorted bruises, c-sections, and tumors in his neighborhood.

Just noticed this.
I was afraid that it was more than the Friday injury report was saying.
Thanks for the update yoi have been a good poster and you give us the real stuff when you can.

Let all hope he can get back on the field soon with all his skill. Without it he should stay back and heal up.

I've always been a long term planner and we need him back at damned near full strength down the road. Coming back to soon could cause permanent damage.

Let hope he is with us for the next decade as a starter.

SeedReaver
12-25-2012, 11:27 AM
it's both ankles, his back, his right arm, his fathers left and right shoulders and assorted bruises, c-sections, and tumors in his neighborhood.
I'm going to tell all my friends that my 'inside source' on Kuper says he has lingering issues from a secret c-section from years ago.

Atwater His Ass
12-25-2012, 04:49 PM
It's difficult to compare the '96 - '98 team to this one. I would say on offense the 90's team was better at pretty much every position. QB is a wash, but OL was miles better, TD vs. KM? lol. WR is one spot the current team may be better at. On defense though, I'd give the nod to this year's squad as a unit, but I think the DL of Neil Smith, Alfred Williams, Trevor Pryce and Keith Traylor were a much better group than what we currently have to offer.

Lastly, the '96 team was a lot better than it gets credit for. People are (my self included) just too bitter about the JAX game which makes it hard to look objectively at what they accomplished during the regular season. In the end, the current team will suffer that same fate if they don't win the SB.

Agamemnon
12-25-2012, 05:09 PM
WR is one spot the current team may be better at.

Sorry but I'd take Rod Smith and McCaffrey over DT and Decker. Mainly due to having much more reliable hands.

barryr
12-25-2012, 05:48 PM
It is so great having a defense that can actually make stops and help win the battle of field position. It's been years since that was really the case and having a strong pass rush is also a welcome thing too. The bye weeks are tricky in that some teams lose momentum and do not get it back and come out flat in their first game and it costs them.

broncocalijohn
12-25-2012, 05:55 PM
:thumbs: something I have been saying all year..

Dude, you say this **** before every game! You don't ever come out and feel confident before a game. You think that we have a trap game or we cant be confident yet we have won 10 games in a row.
Why don't you let us know how you feel about the Chiefs game?

broncocalijohn
12-25-2012, 06:58 PM
Well the question was 'as dominant as' so you need not compare the teams to one another but rather decide if they dominate the rest of the teams in the league to the degree the 96/97/98 teams dominated the teams of their era.

Our division was better then and I believe we had less weaknesses in 96-98. We added Neil Smith to put any doubt of how superior that team was in that time. We might not have had the DT back then but Sharpe made up for that as the H Back.

TonyR
12-25-2012, 07:32 PM
#1 overall at Advanced NFL Stats (#3 offese, #3 defense)

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2012/12/team-efficiency-stats-week-17.html

TonyR
12-25-2012, 07:37 PM
#2 at Football Outsiders (#2 offense, #6 defense)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/week-16-dvoa-ratings

TonyR
12-25-2012, 07:38 PM
#3 Sagarin

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl12.htm

baja
12-25-2012, 08:30 PM
For what it's worth we were not SB favorites in 96 and we were 14 points underdog to GB in 97. We were favored in 98 all the way.


As far as dominating I would say this Manning lead team is more dominating than the 96 & 97 team but not as complete as the 98 team the difference being TD and Sharpe but this year's defense is playing better. I keep expecting for them to fall back to earth but they haven't.

SoCalBronco
12-25-2012, 10:12 PM
For what it's worth we were not SB favorites in 96 and we were 14 points underdog to GB in 97. We were favored in 98 all the way.

.

We absolutely were SB favorites in 96, at least to the extent of being expected to get there. We were far and away the best team in the AFC and secured the No. 1 seed. We had destroyed eventual AFC Champ NE in NE by the score of something like 34-8 (and it could have been alot worse), that was ofcourse the famous Sharpe "Call the President because we're killing the Patriots" game. We were THE team in the AFC that year. It is unclear if we would have been favored against GB had we advanced to SBXXXI. They had beaten us pretty badly in GB earlier that season but we had rested alot of key personnel in that game because we already secured the top seed, (including Elway) so that result wasnt really indicative of anything..

GB didn't exactly throttle a weak NE team and we had absolutely destroyed them in their place earlier. Had we defeated JAX, I would have felt pretty confident about winning the title that year. We were absolutely favored to get to the big day at the very least.

baja
12-25-2012, 11:10 PM
We absolutely were SB favorites in 96, at least to the extent of being expected to get there. We were far and away the best team in the AFC and secured the No. 1 seed. We had destroyed eventual AFC Champ NE in NE by the score of something like 34-8 (and it could have been alot worse), that was ofcourse the famous Sharpe "Call the President because we're killing the Patriots" game. We were THE team in the AFC that year. It is unclear if we would have been favored against GB had we advanced to SBXXXI. They had beaten us pretty badly in GB earlier that season but we had rested alot of key personnel in that game because we already secured the top seed, (including Elway) so that result wasnt really indicative of anything..

GB didn't exactly throttle a weak NE team and we had absolutely destroyed them in their place earlier. Had we defeated JAX, I would have felt pretty confident about winning the title that year. We were absolutely favored to get to the big day at the very least.


The 1996 Green Bay Packers were 14 point favorites in the SB. They would have been the favorites over the Broncos as well.

The 2012 Broncos are currently the favorites to win the Super Bowl.

extralife
12-25-2012, 11:35 PM
no way in hell this team is better than '98. that's the most underrated team in modern NFL history. at no point was I ever in doubt of that team winning the super bowl. the 97 team was obviously almost the same, they are better in retrospect than they were then. and the 97 playoff road was supremely difficult

extralife
12-25-2012, 11:36 PM
The 1996 Green Bay Packers were 14 point favorites in the SB. They would have been the favorites over the Broncos as well.

The 2012 Broncos are currently the favorites to win the Super Bowl.

we may be the favorites statically, but I'd bet you the world we won't be favored by more than the home spread (3 points) against NE in round 2, should it come to pass.

cutthemdown
12-26-2012, 12:01 AM
Broncos were outright disrespected by every talking head on every network going into that Superbowl in 97 vs the Packers. It was outright Broncos have no chance and will get blown out again. I was in Vegas the week before the Superbowl and the Superbowl bets i made paid for the trip when Broncos won the next week. I remember people laughing at me as i bet the Broncos to win straight up.

Then they came around the next yr and most picked us to beat the Falcons. What is funny is that a lot still picked falcons. They still refused to believe they Broncos at that point were unbelievabley good. Count up the HOF and pro bowlers and it gets silly.

Broncos4Life
12-26-2012, 12:49 AM
Broncos were outright disrespected by every talking head on every network going into that Superbowl in 97 vs the Packers. It was outright Broncos have no chance and will get blown out again. I was in Vegas the week before the Superbowl and the Superbowl bets i made paid for the trip when Broncos won the next week. I remember people laughing at me as i bet the Broncos to win straight up.

Then they came around the next yr and most picked us to beat the Falcons. What is funny is that a lot still picked falcons. They still refused to believe they Broncos at that point were unbelievabley good. Count up the HOF and pro bowlers and it gets silly.

Word!

I remember a Pack fan telling me the game was fixed! ****in sore loser!
I didn't know a single Broncos fan that thought we wouldn't win that game.

Traveler
12-26-2012, 07:36 AM
The stat I'm amazed by is Denver, has scored 30+ points or more in 10 games. All wins! I can only imagine next year when this offense should be a more well oiled machine.

Next year is when all the comparisons to the 97-98 teams would be more suitable IMO.

Kaylore
12-26-2012, 08:12 AM
it's both ankles, his back, his right arm, his fathers left and right shoulders and assorted bruises, c-sections, and tumors in his neighborhood.

:rofl: So does tumors in his neighborhood mean there are cancer patients on his block, or do elements of his neighborhood have turmors, like does the cul-de-sac have a benighn growth on the curb?