Ponder these scenarios.....

[55CrushEm]

#1. IMO, if the seeds remain as they currently are....NE beats the Jags. I also think that PITT BEATS CINCY....yet everyone seems to think that Cincy will win, and come to Denver. I think Pitt wins, sending New England to Denver for our first game. Pitt is playing great defense, and Cincy seems to be sliding a bit.

#2. NE wins their final 2 games of the season, and Cincy loses at KC.....THIS WOULD MAKE NEW ENGLAND THE #3 SEED, not the #4. So, NE beats Pittsburgh......and NEW ENGLAND STILL COMES TO DENVER for our first game.

Bottom line.....everyone keeps saying that Cincy will be our first game.....I BELIEVE IT WILL BE NEW ENGLAND.

** However, New England SHOULD realize that Pitt would be a much tougher game for them than the Jags would.....So, I would think that New England would WANT to remain the #4 seed, and not try to move up to #3.

[orange 4 life]

interesting stuff, though its predicated on pitt beating cinci (or new england beating pitt) and im not sure im on board with either.

cinci sure has been slipping, and they dont have any playoff experience.
that said, they have an explosive offense and this game will be in cinci.

theyve been embarrassed in a couple games (cleveland was a debacle and the game was handed to them on a platter by the refs), and they know it.

i think theyll be ready, and i doubt pitt can shut them down.
that said, i dont think pitt can beat them in a shootout.

in the other scenario, you have new england beating pitt.
could happen, and probably even SHOULD happen, but new england has been peaking as of late, and there's no guarantee that that will continue in the playoffs.
this would likely be a low scoring game, and i think it would be anyones game.

its going to be interesting regardless, but i'd sure love to see new england go into indy.
i wouldnt bet on a new england win, but i think they would be the best 1st game opponent.
i want the afc championship right here.

[ludo21]

NE?? hmm.... that will be a tough game. I cant wait for them to come to Denver to give them another spanking ;D

[RMT]

I'd like to see NE. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. It would be great to be the team to put them out of the playoffs. Plus, it would give the Broncos even more confidence heading into the AFC title game.

[Broncoman13]

#1. IMO, if the seeds remain as they currently are....NE beats the Jags. I also think that PITT BEATS CINCY....yet everyone seems to think that Cincy will win, and come to Denver. I think Pitt wins, sending New England to Denver for our first game. Pitt is playing great defense, and Cincy seems to be sliding a bit.

#2. NE wins their final 2 games of the season, and Cincy loses at KC.....THIS WOULD MAKE NEW ENGLAND THE #3 SEED, not the #4. So, NE beats Pittsburgh......and NEW ENGLAND STILL COMES TO DENVER for our first game.

Bottom line.....everyone keeps saying that Cincy will be our first game.....I BELIEVE IT WILL BE NEW ENGLAND.

** However, New England SHOULD realize that Pitt would be a much tougher game for them than the Jags would.....So, I would think that New England would WANT to remain the #4 seed, and not try to move up to #3.


I'm still counting on this scenario... I've been predicting for about 3 weeks now... its also the most favorable for Denver so consider it a little bit of willful thinking as well!

NE beat Jax in round 1.
Cincy beats Pitt in round 1.

Denver hosts and beats Cincy in round 2.
Indy hosts and GETS BEAT by NE in round 2. (NE is the team to do it IMO. They are playing better ball and have the recipe!)

Denver Hosts the AFC Championship vs the Pats.

[Lidderer]

we match up well vs both the pats and bengals. chad johnson and the bengals fortuitous secondary scare me a bit more than branch and practice squad cb #6 though.

new england won't beat indy. it's nice to hope for and all, but the pats have beaten the jets/bills/and a very overrated bucs team. Nothing special.

[orange crusher]

If Cincy is the #3 seed and hosts Pitt, I'm confident that Cincy will lose. The only reason they beat Pitt in the second game was because they turned the ball over four or five times and Pitt still had a chance to win it in the end. Cincy struggles against the run and that's Pitt's bread and butter. At this point, I agree that it looks like NE is coming to Denver. However, if NE nabs the #3 seed and plays Pitt, I think it's a tossup and we would either play Cincy or NE in Denver.

[Bronx33]

Bring on any of them, we can beat whomever...

[bpc]

Well... Pitt beat down Cincy early in the year and Cincy beat up on Pitt when they were falling off. Pitt is now streaking again and if Buffalo showed anything... Cincy has major chinks in the armor. The defense can be had easily. That will not matchup well with the Steelers.

I have no doubt Cincy will lose this week and the Pats will win their final two. That would put Pitt at NE in a classic game. I really don't know who will win that game. It would be a battle of two streaking teams and also the third player of rivalries that have became apparent over the past couple years... Pitt vs. NE, NE vs. Indy, and Indy vs. Denver.

Jacksonville will then go to Cincy... Cincy would easily win that even though I think Jacksonville beat them earlier this year.

We would get the higher seed of the winners... which would be NE or Cincy. If PItt beat NE, they would go to Indy which would be an interesting matchup because of how hot they.

The seeds will end up like this:
1. Indy
2. Denver
3. NE
4. Cincy
5. Jacksonville
6. Pitt

I don't know what happens after that... :) Sure will be fun to watch though. I would love to see Jacksonville and Pitt win... that would make our road to the AFC Championship VERY easy. Doubt we will draw that card though.

[broncobum6162]

I'm still counting on this scenario... I've been predicting for about 3 weeks now... its also the most favorable for Denver so consider it a little bit of willful thinking as well!

NE beat Jax in round 1.
Cincy beats Pitt in round 1.

Denver hosts and beats Cincy in round 2.
Indy hosts and GETS BEAT by NE in round 2. (NE is the team to do it IMO. They are playing better ball and have the recipe!)

Denver Hosts the AFC Championship vs the Pats.

I like this scenarioKnowitall

[Paladin]

Tonight on MNF, the guys are sucking up on NE big time, and I think they expect the Pats to win the SB. No questions. I would like to see the Pats go to Indy. To do that, they would need to stay at the fourth seed. Unfortunatly, the bungles wont win in Narrowhead, so the bungles will be getting Jags. Pitt will get NE. Given that, I'd much prefer to see Pitt at Indy, Bungles at Denver. Pitt does have some possibles to beat Indy. I know that when they played earlier, Pitt didn't look so good. But I think they learned something there, and the game could be much closer the next time. Denver should take the Bungles. If Pitt wins, and Denver takes care of business, the Conference finals would be in Denver.

My point here is that we can scheme all sorts of scenarios, but we shall see.......

[Crushaholic]

If New England doesn't have Bruschi anchoring the line, they could have trouble getting out the wild card round. I know the first round will be at Gilette Stadium, but I don't see a Bruschi-less line stopping anybody.

[Blart]

If we don't play the colts, the season just won't seem complete.

Screw the easy road, face your demons!

[Crushaholic]

If we don't play the colts, the season just won't seem complete.

Screw the easy road, face your demons!

Indy would be the only road game we would have before the Super Bowl. Screw "facing your demons". It's not about proving to anyone that Denver can beat the Colts. I want home games for both of our rounds in the playoffs...

[Blart]

If it was Broncos vs Colts in the RCA dome, there would be no reason to watch the super bowl.










I guess you could say that about any AFC Championship matchup.

[Mile High Shack]

I'd much rather play a Cinncy team than a NE team that is for sure

but it probably won't matter, I think if Cinncy beats KC, they will lose to the Steelers at home anyway, so the Steelers would play the Colts and we'd play the Pats

If the Pats get the #3 seed, they will beat the Steelers and we will play them

either way boys and girls, we are going to have to earn our playoff win this year by taking out the defending superbowl champs who are playing really good right now

[Mile High Shack]

I'm still counting on this scenario... I've been predicting for about 3 weeks now... its also the most favorable for Denver so consider it a little bit of willful thinking as well!

NE beat Jax in round 1.
Cincy beats Pitt in round 1.

Denver hosts and beats Cincy in round 2.
Indy hosts and GETS BEAT by NE in round 2. (NE is the team to do it IMO. They are playing better ball and have the recipe!)

Denver Hosts the AFC Championship vs the Pats.

I like your scenerio, but I just can't see Cinncy beating Pitt right now

in fact I can't even see Cinncy beating KC at KC this weekend

[Broncoman13]

I can, Buffalo was a trap game for the Bungles. They likely viewed it as an easy win and concentrated some efforts on the Chefs with hopes that Denver would lose to SD in the finale. They still have something to play for this weekend, though I don't personally feel there's much difference between the 3 and 4 seed.

Speaking of that, I was thinking about it last night. Have the 3 and 4 seeds ever played each other in the Conference Championship? I'm sure it's happened, but how often? Naturally it's better to have the higher seed, but how much of a difference is there from 3 and 4? There's obviously a big difference from 2 to 3 and from 4 to 5 (Bye and then Home game), but I don't think 3 and 4 are all that different. Both host a home game and both have to go on the road eventually.

[Jens1893]

Speaking of that, I was thinking about it last night. Have the 3 and 4 seeds ever played each other in the Conference Championship? I'm sure it's happened, but how often? Naturally it's better to have the higher seed, but how much of a difference is there from 3 and 4? There's obviously a big difference from 2 to 3 and from 4 to 5 (Bye and then Home game), but I don't think 3 and 4 are all that different. Both host a home game and both have to go on the road eventually.

here´s the championship games ever since the nfl has had 6 playoff teams per conference

90-91

1 buffalo v 2 la raiders
1 san francisco v 2 ny giants

91-92

1 buffalo v 2 denver
1 washington v 2 detroit

92-93

2 miami v 4 buffalo
1 san francisco v 2 dallas

93-94

1 buffalo v 3 kansas city
1 dallas v 2 san francisco

94-95

1 pittsburgh v 2 san diego
1 san francisco v 2 dallas

95-96

2 pittsburgh v 5 indianapolis
1 dallas v 3 green bay

96-97

2 new england v 5 jacksonville
1 green bay v 2 carolina

97-98

2 pittsburgh v 4 denver
1 san francisco v 2 green bay

98-99

1 denver v 2 ny jets
1 minnesota v 2 atlanta

99-00

1 jacksonville v 4 tennessee
1 st. louis v 2 tampa bay


00-01

2 oakland v 4 baltimore
1 ny giants v 2 minnesota

01-02

1 pittsburgh v 2 new england
1 st. louis v 3 philadelphia

02-03

1 oakland v 2 tennessee
1 philadelphia v 2 tampa bay

03-04

1 new england v 3 indianapolis
1 philadelphia v 3 carolina

04-05

1 pittsburgh v 2 new england
1 philadelphia v 2 atlanta

[Jens1893]

and heres the ccg from 74-90 ... dont have any info on seeds before 74, sorry. as you can see, in the past 30 years or so only one team that wasnt seeded 1 or 2 has hosted a ccg.

89-90

1 denver v 2 cleveland
1 san francisco v 5 la rams

88-89

1 cincy v 2 buffalo
1 chicago v 2 san francisco

87-88

1 denver v 2 cleveland
3 washington v 5 minnesota

86-87

1 cleveland v 2 denver
1 new york v 4 washington

85-86

2 miami v 5 new england
1 chicago v 2 la rams

84-85

1 miami v 3 pittsburgh
1 san francisco v 3 chicago

83-84

1 la raiders v 4 seattle
1 washington v 2 san francisco

82-83 strike season, 8 team playoff

2 miami v 6 ny jezs
1 washington v 2 dallas

81-82

1 cincinnati v 3 san diego
1 san francisco v 2 dallas

80-81

1 san diego v 4 oakland
2 philadelphia v 4 dallas


79-80

2 pittsburgh v 4 houston
2 tampa bay v 3 la rams

78-79

1 pittsburgh v 5 houston
1 la rams v 2 dallas

5 team playoff from now on

77-78

1 denver v 4 oakland
1 dallas v 3 minnesota

76-77

1 oakland v 2 baltimore
1 minnesota v 3 la rams

75-76

1 pittsburgh v 2 oakland
2 la rams v 4 dallas

[Archie]

So - out of 30 possible games #1 played #2 19 times. #1 seed played 25 times, and #2 seed played 24 times. Got to like our chances to be in the AFCC Game...


here´s the championship games ever since the nfl has had 6 playoff teams per conference

90-91

1 buffalo v 2 la raiders
1 san francisco v 2 ny giants

91-92

1 buffalo v 2 denver
1 washington v 2 detroit

92-93

2 miami v 4 buffalo
1 san francisco v 2 dallas

93-94

1 buffalo v 3 kansas city
1 dallas v 2 san francisco

94-95

1 pittsburgh v 2 san diego
1 san francisco v 2 dallas

95-96

2 pittsburgh v 5 indianapolis
1 dallas v 3 green bay

96-97

2 new england v 5 jacksonville
1 green bay v 2 carolina

97-98

2 pittsburgh v 4 denver
1 san francisco v 2 green bay

98-99

1 denver v 2 ny jets
1 minnesota v 2 atlanta

99-00

1 jacksonville v 4 tennessee
1 st. louis v 2 tampa bay


00-01

2 oakland v 4 baltimore
1 ny giants v 2 minnesota

01-02

1 pittsburgh v 2 new england
1 st. louis v 3 philadelphia

02-03

1 oakland v 2 tennessee
1 philadelphia v 2 tampa bay

03-04

1 new england v 3 indianapolis
1 philadelphia v 3 carolina

04-05

1 pittsburgh v 2 new england
1 philadelphia v 2 atlanta

[Elway 4 Life]

I think cincy will give us the most trouble in the bunch but we can still beat em at home. Indy has lost it's luster and I dont think they can get it back. I think we have a real good chance at making the big game. If that happens we will be champs. Nobody from the NFC can beat us.

[orinjkrush]

of all the coaches that could do us damage....rank dungy and bellicheck one and two.

[Rock Chalk]

Seattle is going to be our toughest game.

[loborugger]

Seattle is going to be our toughest game.


Ah, an optimist.

Funny, I was thinkin that if we could get thru the AFC, the SB should be a formality. I think that the tables have completely turned from 10 years ago when the SB was decided in the NFC title game to now when the NFC lamb is offered up to the AFC god on the slab that is the national viewing audience.

[The Big E]

Seattle is going to be our toughest game.
rep

[Elway 4 Life]

I think all the teams representing the AFC in the playoffs can beat every NFC team. The NFC is the weaker conference. I'm not sold on seattle yet. I want to see them face someone tough and until then I think they are just a good team nothing more.

[Rock Chalk]

Hassleback is playing fantastic football. Alexander is a freakin beast and their defense hasn't been horrific like in years past.

If you people are not "sure about Seattle" yet, or you dont think they are every bit as good as the best of the AFC you are fooling yourselves.

Seattle would have a similar record playing in teh AFC, of that I am certain.

[Elway 4 Life]

Hassleback is playing fantastic football. Alexander is a freakin beast and their defense hasn't been horrific like in years past.

If you people are not "sure about Seattle" yet, or you dont think they are every bit as good as the best of the AFC you are fooling yourselves.

Seattle would have a similar record playing in teh AFC, of that I am certain.

I guess we will see. They got lucky in two common opponents (giants,cowboys). They looked just marginal in both those games. I'm just not sure how good they are because they dont have the strongest schedule. When they play someone tough in a game that means something then I might change my mind. Until then I'm not sold.

[Old Dude]

Sorry, Alec, I'm not convinced. Seattle's a good team, but I strongly doubt they'd be 13-2 in the AFC.

They've had the advantage of playing in the NFC West this year.

Arizona (5-10) has a mediocre defense, has not been able to establish a running game against anyone all year, and has had injury problems in its secondary and on both the offensive and defensive lines.

St. Louis (5-10) has played poorly on defense all year, especially against the pass, and the offense went south for the winter when Bulger got hurt.

The 49ers (3-12) are one of the worst teams in the NFL.

Six of the Seahawk wins came against those three divisional patsies.

Against the NFC East, they were lucky to draw the two best teams at home and beat each of them by a FG. They lost on the road to the Redskins. They did beat the daylights out of a Philly team that was in total chaos.

Against the AFC, they clobbered the Texans (but who didn't?), they lost to the Jags, they beat the Colt backups in a meaniingless game, and they barely beat the Titans.

The way I look at it, to beat the Seahawks, you have to stop Alexander and the running game.

Amazingly, the Seahawks did not play a single game this year against any of the league's top ten rushing defenses. They did play the 11th ranked team (and lost) and the 12th ranked team (and lost again). I don't think that's a coincidence that their two losses came against the two highest ranked rushing Ds that they happened to play.

(And interestingly enough, two of their most narrow wins came over rushing defenses ranked 14th and 15th.)

[Mile High Shack]

I think Chicago can give Seattle fits with that defense, but that is the only team I see in the NFC that can beat the Hawks

If they were in the AFC, I think the Colts, Broncos, Pats, Jags, Steelers could all beat them b/c they can stop the run...well Colts can't but they can outscore you

[Rascal]

Actually to stop Seattle you just have to stop their run left behind Walter Jones. You stop that and you've practically eliminated 80% of their offense.

Doing that is something else though.

[Rock Chalk]

Sorry, Alec, I'm not convinced. Seattle's a good team, but I strongly doubt they'd be 13-2 in the AFC.

I said similar record, not exact. Perhaps they would not be 13-2, but they would be 12-3 at worst.

They've had the advantage of playing in the NFC West this year.

Yes, but ten they have manhandled most teams they have faced.

Arizona (5-10) has a mediocre defense, has not been able to establish a running game against anyone all year, and has had injury problems in its secondary and on both the offensive and defensive lines.

St. Louis (5-10) has played poorly on defense all year, especially against the pass, and the offense went south for the winter when Bulger got hurt.

The 49ers (3-12) are one of the worst teams in the NFL.

And Indy got a favorable schedule too but no one doubts their greatness.

Six of the Seahawk wins came against those three divisional patsies.

Against the NFC East, they were lucky to draw the two best teams at home and beat each of them by a FG. They lost on the road to the Redskins. They did beat the daylights out of a Philly team that was in total chaos.

Yes, they have beaten the daylights out of a lot of teams

And need I remind you we barely won against the Redskins in our own house.

Against the AFC, they clobbered the Texans (but who didn't?), they lost to the Jags, they beat the Colt backups in a meaniingless game, and they barely beat the Titans.

They beat the Colt backups? They sat like 6 starters, but Manning and Edge both played. Not only did they beat them, they manhandled them. Meaningless or not, when you manhandle a team, its a sign.

The way I look at it, to beat the Seahawks, you have to stop Alexander and the running game.

Funny, that's how you "beat the Broncos" too and yet we keep winning even when they stop our run game. Hasslebac is playing great football this year and will beat you on his own.

Amazingly, the Seahawks did not play a single game this year against any of the league's top ten rushing defenses. They did play the 11th ranked team (and lost) and the 12th ranked team (and lost again). I don't think that's a coincidence that their two losses came against the two highest ranked rushing Ds that they happened to play.

Perhaps Old Dude, but oddly enough do you really believe that the best rushing defenses are going to have that much success against Alexander? We couldnt stop Larry Johnson and he isnt anywhere near the back Alexander is.

(And interestingly enough, two of their most narrow wins came over rushing defenses ranked 14th and 15th.)
But they won.

We barely scrapped by the Ravens, Redskins, lost a heartbreaker to New York and go handed to us by Miami.

Meanwhile, Seattle has beat all but two of their opponents and didnt get blown out in any loss like we have. Yet there are doubts? Get real.

[bendog]

How's bruskie's leg,and didn't NE have another injury or two?

[Elway 4 Life]

Perhaps Old Dude, but oddly enough do you really believe that the best rushing defenses are going to have that much success against Alexander? We couldnt stop Larry Johnson and he isnt anywhere near the back Alexander is.


I think johnson is a better back than alexander. Seattle has manhandled there division and a bunch of weak opponents. If the indy game was earlier in the year there is no doubt it would have been a game. Indy was playing for nothing and it showed. It's obvious that you see some sort of magic in those seachickens. I think the bears if the two play will hand them there ass. I'm more worried about da bears than seattle.

[lookin' glass]

Seattle belongs up there with Denver, Cincy et al. They can be beat also. They do what good teams are supposed to do, smash the light weight opposition and compete against the heavies. Looking at their season I agree with Alec on this one.

[Old Dude]

Yes, but [then] they have manhandled most [of the NFC West] teams they have faced..

I put more weight on how a team performs against good competition than how they perform against stiffs.


And Indy got a favorable schedule too but no one doubts their greatness...

True to a certain extent. Indy at least has some competition with the Jags in their division, though (and they swept them), and they easily beat the Patriots, the Bengals and the Steelers, who are all playoff caliber teams.


Yes, they have beaten the daylights out of a lot of teams...

But not any good ones. Other than the Colts game (which doesn't count because the Colts sat their starters) the Hawks biggest margin of victory over any team with a winning record was 3 points.



And need I remind you we barely won against the Redskins in our own house....

No. You don't have to remind me, but what's your point? That not every single team team that Seattle played was a patsie? Okay, fine. But they only played four quality teams all year and lost half of those games. And no, I'm not counting the Colts game.


They beat the Colt backups? They sat like 6 starters, but Manning and Edge both played. Not only did they beat them, they manhandled them. ....

Manning, Edge, Wayne & Harrison only played for part of the game. Just like last year, here in Denver. We beat them easily in that situation. Fat lot of good it did.


Meaningless or not, when you manhandle a team, its a sign.....

It's a sign that you can beat another team's backups. Big deal.


Funny, that's how you "beat the Broncos" too and yet we keep winning even when they stop our run game. Hasslebac is playing great football this year and will beat you on his own.....

He's playing good football. Seattle has a good team. But if you stop their running game, they aren't that hard to beat. And they haven't played any elite rushing defenses. The teams with better-than-average-rush D's have consistently beaten them.


Perhaps Old Dude, but oddly enough do you really believe that the best rushing defenses are going to have that much success against Alexander? ......

Why wouldn't they? What makes you think that if Seattle can't run the ball on the Cowboys or the Skins, that they would suddenly have success against teams with even better rush defenses like San Diego, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Chicago, Carolina, Denver, etc? ......[/QUOTE]


We couldnt stop Larry Johnson and he isnt anywhere near the back Alexander is......

We stopped him solid in the first game, and stripped the ball from him like he was a baby. We've had good success stopping rushers like Tomlinson and Barber. I don't see why we couldn't stop Alexander.

...


We barely scrapped by the Ravens, Redskins, lost a heartbreaker to New York and go handed to us by Miami.

Meanwhile, Seattle has beat all but two of their opponents and didnt get blown out in any loss like we have. Yet there are doubts? Get real.

I am real. The Seahawks have a had a cushy schedule and have shown that they are extremely vulnerable to teams with good rushing defenses. If they played in the AFC West, they would have at least two more losses - - probably three.

[Rock Chalk]

I put more weight on how a team performs against good competition than how they perform against stiffs.


Like how we played against Miami??


True to a certain extent. Indy at least has some competition with the Jags in their division, though (and they swept them), and they easily beat the Patriots, the Bengals and the Steelers, who are all playoff caliber teams.

And also got to play Houston twice. Beat the Pats when they were depleted by injuries, beat teh Steelers when Big Ben coming back from injury and was clearly rusty and barely squeaked by the Bengals whose defense is a mess.


But not any good ones. Other than the Colts game (which doesn't count because the Colts sat their starters) the Hawks biggest margin of victory over any team with a winning record was 3 points.

A win is a win. Our stiffest competition put up a helluva fight with us too or have you forgotten the SD game and the game in KC? The KC game in Denver was minus their best player (Roaf) whose impact was very critical to their early season failures.



No. You don't have to remind me, but what's your point? That not every single team team that Seattle played was a patsie? Okay, fine. But they only played four quality teams all year and lost half of those games. And no, I'm not counting the Colts game.

Manning, Edge, Wayne & Harrison only played for part of the game. Just like last year, here in Denver. We beat them easily in that situation. Fat lot of good it did.


Why not the Colts game? Manning and Edge and Stokely and Wayne all played. Harrison and a few defensive starters didn't but they didnt even show anything that merits that they could stop Seattle. Right, they only played part of the game and still didn't do ****.


It's a sign that you can beat another team's backups. Big deal.

What does having to get a lucky break from a tipped 2 point conversion in your own house against a supposed inferior NFC team mean then?


He's playing good football. Seattle has a good team. But if you stop their running game, they aren't that hard to beat. And they haven't played any elite rushing defenses. The teams with better-than-average-rush D's have consistently beaten them.

That's the same with every team. The problem is, you cant stop Alexander anymore than you can stop LT (unless of course, you are Schotty, he's the only one that stops LT). What are the Colts without Edge keeping defenses honest about the run? You think because their schedule didnt have any "top notch" run defenses that they can't play against them?


Why wouldn't they? What makes you think that if Seattle can't run the ball on the Cowboys or the Skins, that they would suddenly have success against teams with even better rush defenses like San Diego, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Chicago, Carolina, Denver, etc? ......
Well, for most of those teams they wont need to since SD isnt in the playoffs, Pitt wont make it to the Superbowl. Chi-town has no real offense unless you think Rex Grossman is going to lead them to the promised land and Tampa cannot win in Seattle. As for Carolina, they are chokers this year and you also have to keep in mind that Seattle has homefield advantage throughout the playoffs and their homefield advantage is pretty damn strong.



We stopped him solid in the first game, and stripped the ball from him like he was a baby. We've had good success stopping rushers like Tomlinson and Barber. I don't see why we couldn't stop Alexander.

...

We couldnt stop Patrick Pass for pete's sake. Or Larry Johnson or Tomlinson. Facts are facts, teams throw on us, no because they cant run, but because we are up by a lot of points in most cases. The Raiders came out running adn we had to stack the box deep just to stop Zach Crockett...not exactly a name that strikes fear into opposing defenses unless its 3rd and 1.

Oh and btw, these teams ahve better rush defenses than Denver (rushing yards per carry as not every team gets run on as much).
San Diego, Pittsburg, Chicago, Tampa, New ENgland, Seattle, Carolina, Philly, Miami, Baltimore, SF, and Minnesota. (OK, Minny, Oak, Jax and NYJ are all tied at 3.9 yards per rush against).

SF twice, Philly and New England all could not stop Alexander. (People run a lot on SF and Philly, but their yards per rush is low, conversely people run very little against Denver (average of TEN carries a game difference) and we still give up more yards per rush).

Seattle is far better than most realize IMO.

I am real. The Seahawks have a had a cushy schedule and have shown that they are extremely vulnerable to teams with good rushing defenses. If they played in the AFC West, they would have at least two more losses - - probably three.
I just showed you that not every team they faced had a crap rush defense and they managed to win those games too.

[Rohirrim]

All I want in the playoffs is two home games. I don't care who the opponents are.

[Old Dude]

... I just showed you that not every team they faced had a crap rush defense and they managed to win those games too.

They didn't face a single one of the top ten rush defenses.

They played against the 11th and 12th ranked rush defense and lost both times.

They are in a pussy division that handed them six easy wins. Arizona, San Francisco and St. Louis are a combined 13-33. Take away the six times Seattle beat them and they are still only 13-27. That's less than a .333 winning percentage. That's like getting to play the Oakland Raiders six times in a season.

The game against the Colts meant nothing. Bronco fans, of all people, should know better than that.

Take out that game, and they only played 5 teams with winning records all year. In three of those games, they won by the margin of a FG, and twice they lost. I see no evidence that Seattle has the ability to "dominate" or "manhandle" a decent team.

Maybe they are better than I think. I'm just saying that haven't shown me anything yet.

[TailgateNut]

Here's my scenario: Divisional game in Denver (don't care who)
AFC Chamionship in Denver (don't care who)
SB in Detroit (my # picked for tix) (don't care who)
Celebration in Denver!

[Orange_Beard]

Seattle is going to be our toughest game.
That's what I am talking about.....


Can't wait for it to start, bring on the Pats.

[watermock]

We are a little banged up. Three weeks for the walking wounded will do wonders.

[Arkie]

My scenario for Denver:

New England at home
at Indy
Chicago in the Super Bowl