Dr. Z's preseason breakdown of AFC West

[Atlas]

He didn't do too bad really. He missed big time on Broncos but he had some decent takes on the teams.

SoCals Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...anation/5.html

AFC WEST
1. CHIEFS (9-7)

A controversial pick, KC over last year's Cinderella Chargers, but here's what I think. They've addressed the defensive issue, but never the right way. Speed kills...actually the lack of it. Now they brought in some fast guys, CB Patrick Surtain, top draft LB Derrick Johnson, Kendrell Bell, who once was a highly explosive linebacker (don't get too close to him). And if this doesn't hold up, then we'll just have to find another copout next year.

2. CHARGERS (9-7)

They had the Jets on the ropes in the first round of the playoffs. New York was tired, sagging. LaDainian Tomlinson was catching little check-down passes and running over people. One more first down, maybe two, chippie field goal, and it's out of the wild-card weekend and into the divisionals. So what do they do? Pull in their horns and stuff it inside. Set up camp where they are. Forty-yard field goal? Sure, that's close enough. Except that they missed it. And thus a magnificent season went into the dumper on a coach's choke. Sorry, but I don't like this kind of leadership.

3. BRONCOS (7-9)

I don't really think they're bad, I just think that the people they'll be playing have improved more than they have. Their personnel decisions continue to mystify me. Wasting a third-round draft choice on Clarett? C'mon now. Ron Dayne? Well, this Giants reject ran for big numbers in the preseason. I was anxious to see how he did it, just running over a bunch of seconds and thirds, or really thriving on some sort of coaching magic, so I watched Denver's Week 3 game. Wouldn't you know it? He didn't carry the ball. And why that transplanted Browns' D-line? I'm asking fan type questions. Adding no insight. Peter King would scold me severely for lack of effort in getting these queries answered. I apologize, Peter. Waddya say we have dinner?

4. RAIDERS (7-9)

Once we get past all the smirky one-liners about Randy Moss finally finding the team he always belonged on...make that the team on which he always belonged ... let's look at one intriguing aspect of this situation. Norv Turner is a devotee of the true West Coast Offense -- the Sid Gillman, Don Coryell, Mike Martz thing that says let's stretch the defense, let's go deep. In Dallas he had Alvin Harper for that. Made some great long catches, but not enough of them. In Washington ... well, Michael Westbrook was supposed to be the guy, but he tanked. Al Davis hired Norv because he was sick of the dink-dunk offense, even though it got him into the Super Bowl. He wanted to go back to his roots, Sid Gillman football. He hired his type of guy. And now his guy, Norv, has his type of flyer. Should be very very interesting.

[OrangeShadow]

rofl 7-9

[Paladin]

In retrospect, I guess you really cannot blame the pundits for their skepticism about the Broncos' fortunes. There were a number of reasons to doubt them, and the last playoff game was no small thing in their minds. Plus, I think there had been a strong anti-Shanahan feeling: 1) he didn't draft the way the media wanted him to, 2) he traded for "losers", 3) he "lost" a couple of "key" players, and 4) he defended his players' blocking and hits with passion against the media. The Broncos do not have a marquee Offensive player. While Champ and Lynch and Wilson are marquee players, they play D and they don't sell subscriptions or single edition papers. Plus, you got your basic idiots on TV and the whole media nut-suckers hanging on Favre, Manning (two of them), and Tuna and other hyped types.

Given all these issues, it is understandable why some of the "Intellectual Snobs of the Media" become the nattering nabob of negativity - to borrow a phrase - when it comes to Shanahan and the Broncos.

Some have eaten their crow. Others will just be huffy and forget about the whole thing, and concentrate on reporting minutia and irrelavent events.

In short, it feels good to stick it to them, doesn't it?

[Rausch]

Outside of the Raiders who......well.....are the Raiders, this was a tough-as-nails division.

Week 15 there were 3 teams in this division with winning records and 3 teams that could have won it.

Year in and year out the AFCW is a brutal division and for YEARS we've been sending one team or another to the super bowl. Why this division still gets no respect is beyond me...

[RMT]

I'm no more surprised that the skeptics picked us to finish 7-9 than I am to see the Broncos with a 12-3 record today. While we fans don't always agree with the moves our team makes, Shanahan and company are fierce competitors who aren't afraid to take risks to make it beyond the first round of the playoffs. I'm excited about this year's team and its chances.

[Moon§hiner]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Outside of the Raiders who......well.....are the Raiders, this was a tough-as-nails division.

Week 15 there were 3 teams in this division with winning records and 3 teams that could have won it.

Year in and year out the AFCW is a brutal division and for YEARS we've been sending one team or another to the super bowl. Why this division still gets no respect is beyond me...

If the Rams played in the AFC west, Dick Vermiel would still be ringless and would have never been hired by the Chiefs IMO

[Garcia Bronco]

full on 500 ball...way to go on a limb...this pink pony rider is the reason RG ain't in the HOF. **** him and his family.

[orange 4 life]

Originally Posted by Paladin

In retrospect, I guess you really cannot blame the pundits for their skepticism about the Broncos' fortunes.

yeah, i think you can.

it was a COMPLETE lack of knowledge that led to the many so called "experts" making similar predictions to this clowns.

they ALL mentioned the clarrett draft, the signing of the browns, and the addition of jerry rice.

they also ALL forgot to notice ANYTHING else that happened, like:

1) we were 10-6 both the previous two years
2) we had reasonably tough schedules in both those years also
3) we were battered in the secondary when we got waxed by the colts
4) ian gold was on his way back home to make an already great lb crew better.
5) plummer was going into his 3rd year in the system, and had been extremely good in his first two seasons (gotta actually have a brain and look beyond the 20 int's in '04)
6) trevor pryce was coming back, which was a huge oversight
7) the browns lineman played on a terrible team, but were actually one of the best parts of that bad team.
8) mike anderson was coming back healthy, which is another huge oversight considering he's a more powerful runner than reuben and he is also a big leader in the locker room
9) tatum bell was poised to break out and once again give us a homerun threat in the run game.

thats enough reasons for now.

these tools never looked past the surface, and thats their damn job, so i do blame them for their idiocy.

.....and yes, it feels good to stick in their faces.

jake

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Paladin

In retrospect, I guess you really cannot blame the pundits for their skepticism about the Broncos' fortunes. There were a number of reasons to doubt them, and the last playoff game was no small thing in their minds. Plus, I think there had been a strong anti-Shanahan feeling: 1) he didn't draft the way the media wanted him to, 2) he traded for "losers", 3) he "lost" a couple of "key" players, and 4) he defended his players' blocking and hits with passion against the media. The Broncos do not have a marquee Offensive player. While Champ and Lynch and Wilson are marquee players, they play D and they don't sell subscriptions or single edition papers. Plus, you got your basic idiots on TV and the whole media nut-suckers hanging on Favre, Manning (two of them), and Tuna and other hyped types.
?

You can blame them because they never watched Denver in the preseason. Everybody here watched Denver play. We all saw how Denver's first team matched up with other teams. I mean how many people here weren't impressed when Denver's starters totally dominated Peyton and the Colts for the first half of their game. What I have noticed is that the EXPERTS come out with their predictions in training camp and basically they don't watch the preseason games unless they are on national TV.

I believe anyone who watched Denver would have understood how good this team could have been. I mean afterall most of us had their record from 10-6 to 13-3. Maybe because we were homers or maybe because we actually saw a team that was going to be good and we called it as such.

[Paladin]

O4L: Can't disagree with your statement. However, you have committed a serious fault in logic. You are assuming that the pundits actually think or even care about looking at the real changes wrought by the Broncos in the last off season.

The point is: the Rice thing, the Clarett thing, and the Cleveland thing were major stories for them. The laugh track was being warmed up. Once those stories were printed and said, there was nothing else coming out of Denver that made any difference. The new stories were all about Manning(s), the chuggers, and anything from the East Coast, and Tuna. If you are caught up in a zeitgeist that limits your vision, then that is the way the world is defined and your media takes will reflect that view.

Actually, I read a lot of posts here that were pleased as punch about flying below the radar. Well, it happened, and the Broncos stuck it to them.

The most satisfying thing about this is that the trolls will not use the old "Yeah, but what have the Broncos done since Elway retired?" Damm, it feels good!!!

[Willynowei]

Forward looking statements in the NFL = useless.

[Paladin]

Atlas: You cannot make the argument that pre-season games mean nothing and then claim that they mean a great deal. Can't have it both ways. True it was the third game. But not one of those pundits are gonna give you the argument that the Broncos beat the "real" Colts team. Peyton left early. Yep, we talked about the matchups, but that is not what the pundits "saw", if you will.

In any case, it doesn't matter. No national pundit will have a hill of beans to say about the Broncos now, either, but it doesn't matter. The Broncos will talk for themselves. I do not know if they will, in fact, get to the SB. But they really have an excellent chance of getting there, IMO. And itf they get there to play the Giants and the Broncos stick it to them, then I would feel a great deal of satisfaction with that.

It is particularly gratifying to stick it to the trolls.

[Bronco Rob]

Kreskin dr.z ain't.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Atlas: You cannot make the argument that pre-season games mean nothing and then claim that they mean a great deal. Can't have it both ways. True it was the third game. But not one of those pundits are gonna give you the argument that the Broncos beat the "real" Colts team. Peyton left early. Yep, we talked about the matchups, but that is not what the pundits "saw", if you will.


It is particularly gratifying to stick it to the trolls.

What I was trying to say is that you can learn a lot about a team watching preseason games. The EXPERTS however put little stock into preseason and unless the game is on national TV they will not watch the teams play.
Thus the EXPERTS had no clue to how good Denver was going to be because they had their preconcieved notion on the Denver team and that's what they stuck with.