Breaking down the AFC West

[CEH]

Originally Posted by KCStud

And how would the 2011 Broncos team do against this years schedule?

What is your point here? How would the 2011 KC Chiefs do against the 2012 Buffalo Bills? Last time I checked they played the Bills loaded and lost 41-7.

So based on your logic I can conclude they will lose again this year to them correct?

Again what is your effing point?

[CEH]

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2003. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2004 or 2005.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2004. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2005 or 2006.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2005. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2006 or 2007.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2006. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2007 or 2008.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2007. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2008 or 2009.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2008. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2009 or 2010.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2009. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2010 or 2011.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2010. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2011 or 2012.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2011. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2012 or 2013.

Originally Posted by Raider9175

All I'm saying is I expect the Raiders offense to be top five in 2012. Eventually this will be the best offense in the game. Will that be 2013 or 2014.

Keep chokin that chickin

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by KCStud

According to this board, Manning + the 2011 Broncos are so great that it doesn't matter that they beat the heavyweights of the losing team status and are facing several talented teams that can beat the Broncos even with Manning.

The 2011 Broncos took advantage of a soft last place schedule and the fortune of good luck throughout the year aka no major injuries except Dawkins (you guys won the division wether Kuper was hurt or not in week 17).

The Chiefs lost their QB midseason, the Raiders lost their QB early and signed signed a QB on the fly who hasn't played in a long time and had a week to learn the playbook midseason, and Phillip Rivers was uncharacteristically bad last year for the first time since 2007.

I don't buy the Broncos roster as a whole. I don't think the Broncos were as good as their 8-8 record indicated. Defensive line (aside from Dumberville rushing the QB) is overrated and none are excellent run stuffers. And I don't buy the OL either. Clady was bad last year and Franklin is not a good pass protector at all. Broncos have the worst running game in the division with Tebow gone and you have no time to gain chemistry early.

All that and yet somehow Denver managed to make playoffs when it would of been easy to mail it in and suck for Luck. I personally think Elway tried that but the team pulled together.

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by KCStud

Who did the Broncos beat last year to get to the playoffs?

That's right. You beat losing teams with devastating injuries or just bad teams.

One of your eight wins came against a winning team and got your asses handed to you when you played elite teams.

This year you play very good teams all year (6 of first 8 games against playoff teams and a MNF game at SD), so the whole "we were 8-8 last year and we got Manning" doesn't help your case.

Who did the NYG beat to make playoffs? That's right using your logic and stat spitting arguments 1 team with winning record.

[Bacillus Anthracis]

DP: see below

[Bacillus Anthracis]

Originally Posted by Mightysmurf

You obviously completely missed the point. The Broncos were 8-8 without Manning. This is a fact. The Colts were 2-14 without Manning. Ergo, last year Denver > Indy. Denver + Manning = good.

Appeal to Probability: assuming that something is likely to happen means that it's certain to happen.

P1: No B* is m*
P2: No C* is m*
P3: All B* is m
Therefore: All B is W*

Being much more generous doesn't help your cause either:

P1: m is W
P2: C is not m*
p3: B is not m*
P4: B is m
Therefore: B* is W*

Either way, both are a f'ing mess and it took some thinking to try and put the best face on it.

In logic, syllogistic arguments have terms that are called distributed and undistributed. Each capital letter must be distributed just once and there can only be one distributed letter on the right hand side of the argument. The stars represent distributed letters.

Also, each letter (upper and lower case) must appear twice and only twice within the framework of such an argument. Notice that in the first argument you have three Bs and a single W. The significance of capital and small letters is that small letters represent specific individuals while upper case letters denote general terms.

For example, the statement, "Some bears live in Alaska" when written as a syllogistic premise is some B is a.

In regard to the arguments outlined above, the lower case m is Manning while the upper case letters are Broncos, Colts, and Winning.

Therefore, additional fallacies include the fallcies of exclusive premises, illicit major, and illicit minor.

I'm not sure you understand any fallacies very well and it's clear you haven't the foggiest idea of what the basic syllogistic rules for logic are.

There's a difference between hypocrisy, equivocation, and assertion and there are different fallacies that accompany each of those. I would suggest you actually learn some of these and be able to articulate them before using them in any kind of argument.

You're welcome.

[BHamita]

Originally Posted by Raider9175

David Ausberry was the top high school recruit in the nation at Wr. He had some injuries at USC. The guy is a beast. A 6'4 265 Te with sub 4.5 speed . (watch what he does in this houston Texans type offense- very Te friendly scheme due to scheme alot of te are going to come free) R Gordon anothyer 6'4 265 with 4.63 is going to also going to have a big year.

I'm gonna go through a bunch of your "claims"...but I'll start here. On what site was Ausberry the "top high school recruit in the nation"? (Percy Harvin says hello.)

Rivals? Nope. (5th)
Scout? Nope. (6th)
ESPN? Nope. (6th)

Good try...Ausberry wasn't even USC's top WR in 2006.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Am I seriously being questioned for introducing a little logical, fact-based debate into the thread?

Jesus ****ing Christ. The guy can't even get his facts right.

I'm not even arguing against his opine.

Just pointing out a mistake or two.

Jesus ****ing Tebow Christ.

You ****ers.

[Xenos]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

The San Diego Chargers
Last Season: 8-8

Prediction 8-8: It is more likely that Rivers rebounds and plays better than that his poor performance last year was a sign of things to come. Their running game is suspect, and their receivers are new and watered down versions of what was their last year. Even so, Rivers can make it work and I think this will be a year he strings the rest of his team along. The poor special teams and average defense will make for things that even Rivers with good receivers won’t be able to overcome. The easier schedule on the front end means the Chargers might be able to avoid their chronically poor September, but I think on the back end they may have difficulty pulling the big wins out.

Yeah...no. This is incorrect. If the special teams had an abysmal season like 2010 then I can see that, but they were very much improved in 2011. The defense should be better with all the pickups we did in FA and the draft. Plus, you get addition by subtraction with the firing of Manusky.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Bacillus Anthracis

Appeal to Probability: assuming that something is likely to happen means that it's certain to happen.

P1: No B* is m*
P2: No C* is m*
P3: All B* is m
Therefore: All B is W*

Being much more generous doesn't help your cause either:

P1: m is W
P2: C is not m*
p3: B is not m*
P4: B is m
Therefore: B* is W*

Either way, both are a f'ing mess and it took some thinking to try and put the best face on it.

In logic, syllogistic arguments have terms that are called distributed and undistributed. Each capital letter must be distributed just once and there can only be one distributed letter on the right hand side of the argument. The stars represent distributed letters.

Also, each letter (upper and lower case) must appear twice and only twice within the framework of such an argument. Notice that in the first argument you have three Bs and a single W. The significance of capital and small letters is that small letters represent specific individuals while upper case letters denote general terms.

For example, the statement, "Some bears live in Alaska" when written as a syllogistic premise is some B is a.

In regard to the arguments outlined above, the lower case m is Manning while the upper case letters are Broncos, Colts, and Winning.

Therefore, additional fallacies include the fallcies of exclusive premises, illicit major, and illicit minor.

I'm not sure you understand any fallacies very well and it's clear you haven't the foggiest idea of what the basic syllogistic rules for logic are.

There's a difference between hypocrisy, equivocation, and assertion and there are different fallacies that accompany each of those. I would suggest you actually learn some of these and be able to articulate them before using them in any kind of argument.

You're welcome.

get a life.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by Bob's your Information Minister

Am I seriously being questioned for introducing a little logical, fact-based debate into the thread?

Jesus ****ing Christ. The guy can't even get his facts right.

I'm not even arguing against his opine.

Just pointing out a mistake or two.

Jesus ****ing Tebow Christ.

You ****ers.

Awesome.

[DBroncos4life]

I like how he keeps pimping this....

"Two Young explosive Te's both 6'4 265 one has sub 4.5 speed and the other 4.63. One more the reciever and the other the blocker".

Denver has TWO young TE's the exact same size and speed as Oaklands but, they are more talented then ours.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...2011&genpos=TE

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...2011&genpos=TE

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by Xenos

Yeah...no. This is incorrect. If the special teams had an abysmal season like 2010 then I can see that, but they were very much improved in 2011. The defense should be better with all the pickups we did in FA and the draft. Plus, you get addition by subtraction with the firing of Manusky.

You might be improved but you still suck pretty bad.

You guys were tied for sixth in most punt return yards allowed and fourth worst in opponents punt return average.

You guys allowed the second most kickoff return yards in the league last year. You did finish 6th worst in kickoff return average, but when you realize there is only a yard of difference between you and second to worst place, it doesn't look so great anymore.

You were next to worst in punt return yards and sixth worst punting average.

You did climb up to eleventh in your own kick off return yards, and Nick Novak is clearly superior to Nate Kaeding.

So improved? Sure. Much improved? I suppose since 2010 was the worst special teams in the NFL in the last thirty years, then sure. I'll give you that. But just because it seems a lot better than it was, doesn't mean it isn't still bad. You still suck on special teams and that's going to hurt you. It's not epic legendary suck, but you suck.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

get a life.

I'm actually arguing for probability, and therefore everything he said, while correct, doesn't even matter.

[Bacillus Anthracis]

Originally Posted by Mightysmurf

I'm actually arguing for probability, and therefore everything he said, while correct, doesn't even matter.

Throughout this thread you've used the term "logical fallacy" quite a few times. So it's not a stretch to gather that validity and soundness seem to matter to you very much, despite committing gross fallacies yourself in the very next sentence.

The use of logic doesn't belong in speculation about sports. That was the secondary point of my post. The use of terms a person doesn't understand but attempts to appear like they do in order to seem smarter than they really are was the primary.

[KCStud]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

Who did the NYG beat to make playoffs? That's right using your logic and stat spitting arguments 1 team with winning record.

Horrible argument. NYG have something surrounding their Manning that you don't have surrounding your Manning: legit talent.

[KCStud]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

How many of those teams had 8-8 records because we beat them? Not saying that Denver was a great team but we beat who we were supposed to and an 8-8 team is only a few breaks away from 12-4.

No. You weren't. You were a few lucky breaks away from being 5-11.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Bacillus Anthracis

Appeal to Probability: assuming that something is likely to happen means that it's certain to happen.

P1: No B* is m*
P2: No C* is m*
P3: All B* is m
Therefore: All B is W*

Being much more generous doesn't help your cause either:

P1: m is W
P2: C is not m*
p3: B is not m*
P4: B is m
Therefore: B* is W*

Either way, both are a f'ing mess and it took some thinking to try and put the best face on it.

In logic, syllogistic arguments have terms that are called distributed and undistributed. Each capital letter must be distributed just once and there can only be one distributed letter on the right hand side of the argument. The stars represent distributed letters.

Also, each letter (upper and lower case) must appear twice and only twice within the framework of such an argument. Notice that in the first argument you have three Bs and a single W. The significance of capital and small letters is that small letters represent specific individuals while upper case letters denote general terms.

For example, the statement, "Some bears live in Alaska" when written as a syllogistic premise is some B is a.

In regard to the arguments outlined above, the lower case m is Manning while the upper case letters are Broncos, Colts, and Winning.

Therefore, additional fallacies include the fallcies of exclusive premises, illicit major, and illicit minor.

I'm not sure you understand any fallacies very well and it's clear you haven't the foggiest idea of what the basic syllogistic rules for logic are.

There's a difference between hypocrisy, equivocation, and assertion and there are different fallacies that accompany each of those. I would suggest you actually learn some of these and be able to articulate them before using them in any kind of argument.

You're welcome.

another nerd talking football..

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by KCStud

Horrible argument. NYG have something surrounding their Manning that you don't have surrounding your Manning: legit talent.

What is the difference between them beating one winning team and us? I'm just pointing out your stat arguing is flawed and can be skewed however you want it. NY is obviously better.

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by KCStud

No. You weren't. You were a few lucky breaks away from being 5-11.

We were I agree. Giants were an iced your own kicker from missing playoffs. Instead they win the Superbowl.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Originally Posted by lonestar

another nerd talking football..

Nothing wrong with nerdiness. I was just trying to talk some smack... And this new dude takes this stuff way too seriously.

[CEH]

Originally Posted by KCStud

Who did the Broncos beat last year to get to the playoffs?

That's right. You beat losing teams with devastating injuries or just bad teams.

[.

Who did the Denver Broncos beat in the 2011 playoffs. That's right the defending AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers

Not sure they qualify as a bad nor losing team.

Care to explain how Pittsburgh is a bad team?

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by CEH

Who did the Denver Broncos beat in the 2011 playoffs. That's right the defending AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers

Not sure they qualify as a bad nor losing team.

Care to explain how Pittsburgh is a bad team?

If he does it will be with stats.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

If he does it will be with stats.

He'll say they were 9-7 two years ago. He's into saying what you were two seasons ago.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Mightysmurf

Nothing wrong with nerdiness. I was just trying to talk some smack... And this new dude takes this stuff way too seriously.

I guessed that from your responses..

The nerd should mix in a bit of football lingo.. atleast pretend to know something about the game..