Assorted AFC Thoughts
- Thread starter tims4wins
- Start date
The number one seed is important, but the stranglehold the Patriots have on a bye - halfway through the season - is nuts. The AFC West is wide open at Oakland 6-2, Denver 6-2 and KC 5-2 and any one of them could theoretically pass New England. But the Pats have a two game lead AND the tiebreaker over the AFC South leading 5-3 Texans and a two and a half game lead AND the tiebreaker over the AFC North leading 4-3 Steelers (as well as a tiebreaker over the second place Bengals).
The Super Bowl Champs (who beat the Pats twice last year) who delivered when it mattered (and for whom I do not root for) would beg to differ. Great offenses look great until they don't, until they get slapped around/QB pressured (see old Colts). Hope it doesn't happen, but Denver are the champs and belong in the discussion until they have been beaten (here's hoping it happens soon and often). They are not garbage.Seems like the AFC is over except for seeding
Pats
Steelers
Garbage
3 playoff teams from the west.
If one of the AFC west teams collapses, the Jets could sneak in
I'm not calling the Broncos garbage. The AFC south winner is garbage. I have 3 teams coming out of the west (division winner and both wild cards) and I don't know the seeding.
Pats have Seattle coming off a bye, but after that their schedule isn't bad at all. I like them against Seattle, too, especially if Lewis is back and Michael Bennett is out. If they do get past Seattle, I think 13-3 is their floor, provided they aren't tanking games at the end because the 1 is shored up. I'd love for that Miami game not to matter.
Pats still have some question marks, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word...
1) How will the defense perform against top-tier QBs / passing attacks, where failure to get adequate pressure could be a real liability? The best QBs they've played against this year are Carson Palmer and Andy Dalton. Doesn't look like the regular season will really answer this question, as the two best passing games they'll face in the final 8 games are probably Flacco/Ravens and Wilson/Seahawks. Not elite. In the playoffs, the only complete passing attack in the AFC that is even remotely scary is Pittsburgh with a healty Big Ben. Maybe Carr and the Raiders, but I'm not a convert yet. On the NFC side, Green Bay and, maybe, Atlanta. Maybe Philly.
2) How will the offensive line handle teams that can get pressure with the front 4? This one we will get answers to, against both Seattle and Denver. Wouldn't be surprised to see either / both these teams again the playoffs. Vikings D is legit, and at least by the results so far, so is the Eagles.
Bizarre to be thinking about playoffs already, but as already mentioned, they've got a huge lead on getting a bye. Denver is still a problem for home field until proven otherwise, but the Broncos have 5 of the remaining 8 on the road, including tough games in KC and Oakland, and one could maybe classify New Orleans as a tough road game.
1) How will the defense perform against top-tier QBs / passing attacks, where failure to get adequate pressure could be a real liability? The best QBs they've played against this year are Carson Palmer and Andy Dalton. Doesn't look like the regular season will really answer this question, as the two best passing games they'll face in the final 8 games are probably Flacco/Ravens and Wilson/Seahawks. Not elite. In the playoffs, the only complete passing attack in the AFC that is even remotely scary is Pittsburgh with a healty Big Ben. Maybe Carr and the Raiders, but I'm not a convert yet. On the NFC side, Green Bay and, maybe, Atlanta. Maybe Philly.
2) How will the offensive line handle teams that can get pressure with the front 4? This one we will get answers to, against both Seattle and Denver. Wouldn't be surprised to see either / both these teams again the playoffs. Vikings D is legit, and at least by the results so far, so is the Eagles.
Bizarre to be thinking about playoffs already, but as already mentioned, they've got a huge lead on getting a bye. Denver is still a problem for home field until proven otherwise, but the Broncos have 5 of the remaining 8 on the road, including tough games in KC and Oakland, and one could maybe classify New Orleans as a tough road game.
No Pats fan thinks this team is elite compared to past teams yet is likely a double digit favorite in every playoff game and maybe the super bowl. Because the rest of the league is truly awful.
Pats v Seattle or Dallas it's only 7 points. Maybe.
Pats v Seattle or Dallas it's only 7 points. Maybe.
It's an elite offense but an average defense to this point.
Denver is only 1 game back and their defense still looks really good. What are the odds it's still a 1 game separation between the Pats and Denver at the time of their game in December? That's literally the only drama left.
Yeah at least as of today it looks like Denver has to A) beat the Pats and B) sweep Oakland if they want to pass the Pats. Doesn't seem likely but then again it didn't last year either
edit: wow didn't realize Denver has both KC games plus both Oakland games plus the Pats left on their schedule. 3-2 would be good in those 5 games but it would probably take at least 4-1 to win the AFC 1 seed
Come on the the Texans are only -30 in point differential and 0-3 on the road this year! Somehow they've won 5 games, which is amazing.
I'll take the Pats at home against anyone, but I really want no part of the Steelers in the playoffs if Brown, Ben, and Bell are healthy. I know Pitts'defense isn't anything to write home about, but with the way the team has failed to get pressure for a good part o this season, I'm concerned about their ability to handle a top flight passing attack.
To me, that's the other value of the #1 seed--while Oakland and Kansas City look good, I think it will still come down to Pittsburgh, Denver, and New England. Win the #1 seed and you only have to play one instead of both.
Neither is Denver. At the risk of sounding like a cocky NE fan, nobody in this conference even gives me pause.
Eh. I've seen good Patriots teams lose -- or go down to the wire -- in the playoffs against enough unspectacular regular season teams that I'm not exactly cocky.
At the risk of sounding like an entirely spoiled Pats fan, I'll admit that I am trying not to just assume they've wrapped up #1 seed so I can start worrying about injuries. (The December game threads will be interesting -- "It's after halftime!! Why is Gronk in the game!??!")
KC rarely gets mentioned, but they're probably #2 right now. Beat Oakland this year and even dominated Denver twice last year despite losing one at the end of the game (Andy Reid style!)
17-3 in their last 20 games
17-3 in their last 20 games
Still think this after what we saw tonight?
I think there is a bit of rock - paper - scissors with KC - Denver - Oakland. If they can get their QB situation figured out, and get Charles and Houston back, KC might be the best of the three.
Oakland scares me a little bit with their potential on offense. Carr has some moxie and skill, the WRs have deep speed and that RB Murray is no slacker. And I won't stop worrying about Pittsburgh until I see them suck out loud against a team without "avens" in its name and without a gimpy rapist under center.
Honestly at this point no team scares me. I'll get ahead of myself if they don't make the superbowl vs this competition they have to really fuck it up.
Those are some awfully big "ifs" -- getting the QB situation fixed just won't happen. Oakland is the only of the 3 that should scare the Pats. Has the talent to be a competitor, but so young ...
I think they've had their issues in years when their record - based on schedule, mostly - probably didn't reflect their talent and performance level all that accurately, which have given people cause for jitters. Those years also had better teams in conference.
And yes, injury concerns are always there. But I don't see a team in the AFC that prevents this team from making the Super Bowl, as is.
Once they get there, it's one game, so who knows.
The rest of the playoffs are one game each, as well. You could be an 80% favorite in each game and still less than 50/50 to win the title.
This is true. And yet, if an Andy Reid-coached KC is the team we most need to fear in the AFC, we need fear no team in the AFC.
Anything can happen in a playoff game, but absent injuries or the Steelers getting their act together before the playoffs begin (assuming they get in), it's hard to imagine any team but the Pats representing the AFC in the Super Bowl at this point in time.
The Chiefs gave the Pats a decent game last year in the divisional round but that game wasn't particularly uncomfortable for most of it.
I'm sure once Pittsburgh finds their way into the playoffs and wins in the first round, either on the road or at home, and comes to Foxboro, everyone will be fairly concerned. Seems like an annual occurrence.
I'm sure once Pittsburgh finds their way into the playoffs and wins in the first round, either on the road or at home, and comes to Foxboro, everyone will be fairly concerned. Seems like an annual occurrence.
Agree r-p-s. This is a fun division. I still worry about a healthy Denver team against the Pats. But Oakland does look good and looks to have the most favorable schedule the rest of the way. Denver and KC have two games left with each other. Looking forward to Broncos/Raiders rematch in Denver.
I like this Raiders team and hope they do well. However, they still have all three of their away division games left, plus four "hard to know which team will show up" teams (HOU, CAR, BUF, IND) at home. I think 12 wins is their ceiling. As a growing fan of their team, I hope they are the #2 seed and lose the AFC championship game in Foxborough
It's tough enough as a fan to accept that the season will come down to 10-12 drives per game at least 3 playoff games in a row. Tough to imagine coming to terms with that at this level as a player or coach.
I think the bolded is quite correct. I certainly felt that in 2009 (Ravens), 2012 (Ravens again), 2013 (Denver), and 2015 (Denver), the Pats faced a better team in the conference final and simply lost to the better team. Two of those losses were arguably helped by untimely injuries to key Pats players (Gronk in 2012, Gronk/Talib in 2013), but that's just the nature of this sport. (Side note: the Pats did not have Welker in that 2009 playoff game, but that Patriots team just wasn't that good).
The only exception among conference playoff games would be 2010, where the Pats probably were a better team than the Jets, and probably would win that matchup 80% of the time. Then again, that team's pass defense was suspect, and the Jets were able to exploit the Pats Achilles heel that game. But of all Patriot playoff losses, that one still annoys me the 2nd most, even more than the fiascoes of 1976 and 1978 (and I'll refrain from mentioning the one that annoys me the most; it should be obvious to all).
I think there is a real chance that Denver is going to make the playoffs.
6-3 right now, brutal schedule coming up:
@NO
KC
@JAX
@TEN
NE
@KC
OAK
I see 2 almost certain wins there in the AFC South games, but beyond that? This team is more limited than last year's, their defense when healthy is excellent though probably not quite as dominant, but the running game and pass protection have suffered, their QB is not better. I could see them losing NE, both KC, and one of the NO/OAK games. 9-7 probably isn't making the playoffs this year.
6-3 right now, brutal schedule coming up:
@NO
KC
@JAX
@TEN
NE
@KC
OAK
I see 2 almost certain wins there in the AFC South games, but beyond that? This team is more limited than last year's, their defense when healthy is excellent though probably not quite as dominant, but the running game and pass protection have suffered, their QB is not better. I could see them losing NE, both KC, and one of the NO/OAK games. 9-7 probably isn't making the playoffs this year.
It's definitely possible that they lose 3, or even 4 more games, but who else from the AFC is going to knock them out of a playoff spot? Not Baltimore. Not Buffalo. Even 9-7 could be enough.
We've come a long way towards jman saying the Broncos are a 14-15 win team. Because while that defense is solid enough, that offense is a disaster. In the end they'll have 10 wins and make the playoffs and come to Gilette at some point.
Will the Pats-Jets game on 11/27 be flexed out of the SNF slot? Other games that day include Arizona at Atlanta and Kansas City/Denver.
I mentioned this in the gamethread last night, but Denver's defense is on the field way too much to survive the season even remotely healthy. Near the end of the game NBC threw up a time of possession graphic that had Oakland at 36 minutes and Denver with 18. If the offense can't figure things out, that defense could be decimated by the time NE comes to town.
Is anyone else starting to get flashbacks to the "Denver doesn't scare me, even in Denver" braggadocio from last year?
It's fine to talk about this stuff but everyone should recognize that the team will look totally different in four weeks and then again four weeks after that. Injuries are inevitable and often the super bowl representative from each conference is the one that stayed the healthiest.
No. The Denver offense is a serious step down from last year. Which is kind of an impressive feat
Im not sure I agree with that. They're a bad offense, 21st by DVOA heading into yesterday, but they were a bad offense last year too and didnt do much on offense even in the playoffs. I dont think the offense is much worse than what we saw a year ago.
Looks to me like they've regressed more on the other side of the ball. The defense, in part because they have lost depth/got banged up, gone from otherworldly to just really, really good. Particularly against the run, where they've morphed from a top defense to just a decent one. Add in the fact that Denver was pretty lucky in close games last year and we're left with a pretty good team, but one that's closer to fighting for a playoff berth than the one seed.
Looks to me like they've regressed more on the other side of the ball. The defense, in part because they have lost depth/got banged up, gone from otherworldly to just really, really good. Particularly against the run, where they've morphed from a top defense to just a decent one. Add in the fact that Denver was pretty lucky in close games last year and we're left with a pretty good team, but one that's closer to fighting for a playoff berth than the one seed.
I'll concede, the luck this team ran into last year was legendary. But, again, citing DVOA as your only source for making your decision is a poor one. It's one point of reference, and the flaws of using football advanced stats have been pointed out ad nauseum over the years.
I'd love to read it, though. I'm sure there's tons of technical depth that doesn't rely on lazily looking up what other people tell me.
OK, why don't we try another tact. Explain why you think/what shows Denver's offense is significantly worse than last year? Because you may not like DVOA, which in this case agrees with pretty much every other statistic out there that the Denver offense is better at passing, worse at running, not very different overall than last year, but you don't seem to really have offered any explanation of your statement.
Pretty much every conventional and advanced statistic also shows the defense is really good, but not quite as good as last year, particularly against the run.
Pretty much every conventional and advanced statistic also shows the defense is really good, but not quite as good as last year, particularly against the run.
I am far from someone who can accurately scout a football team but this has been glaring. To my eye, they lose contain a lot and have been particularly gashed on misdirection-type runs. The only teams they've kept under 100 yards on the ground are Tampa and Indy (and technically SD @ 99 yards).
I think there are a ton of similarities to the 2000-2001 Ravens.
In 2000, the Ravens had one of the best defenses of all time; scored 333 points (14th in the NFL); gave up 165 points, and went 12-4.
In 2001, the Ravens D regressed to merely excellent; scored 303 points (18th in the NFL); and gave up 265 points (ranking 4th in the league). They went 10-6, and lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs.
Edit: by most metrics it seems like the Denver offense is pretty much at the same level as last year, while the D has regressed. However, we might expect some regression from the offense due to the RB situation.
In 2000, the Ravens had one of the best defenses of all time; scored 333 points (14th in the NFL); gave up 165 points, and went 12-4.
In 2001, the Ravens D regressed to merely excellent; scored 303 points (18th in the NFL); and gave up 265 points (ranking 4th in the league). They went 10-6, and lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs.
Edit: by most metrics it seems like the Denver offense is pretty much at the same level as last year, while the D has regressed. However, we might expect some regression from the offense due to the RB situation.
My biggest concern on offense if I'm Denver is the run game. Last year they were a bit above middle of the league in YPA (13th) at 4.2, this year they are 27th at 3.8. It's tough to win when you can't run the ball and have a below average passing game. They can't control TOP at all, and that defense is starting to wear down accordingly.
Add in the big drop off in run defense, and this seems like a much weaker team than last year.
Add in the big drop off in run defense, and this seems like a much weaker team than last year.
Because things don't happen in a vacuum, Stitch. You know that.
First, seasons ebb and flow. Always have, always will. Who a team was 6 weeks ago doesn't make them the same team today. The Broncos DVOA offense is anchored by the first four 4 games of the season where they averaged 28 points a game. In their last 5 games, they're averaging 20 points a game. Against defensive juggernauts like the Texans, Falcons, Chargers, and Raiders. You know, teams that are in the bottom half or potentially bottom 5 defenses in the league.
Why they've slowed is a combination of a ton of things, but none of them are pertinent to this discussion. What is pertinent is that the 20 points a game is a solid 2+ points lower then what the Denver offense averaged last year.
Again, things don't happen in a vacuum. The passing game is below average this year. It was bad last year. In both situations, a below average or bad passing team needs a solid running game to bail them out. Going from a borderline top 10 rushing team to a borderline bottom 5 rushing team is a big fucking deal. Its an even bigger deal when you have a shitty passing offensive that needs to be bailed out by that running game.
"Their running game is worse, but their passing game is better, so...even tradeoff!" is a super oversimplification, and one that doesn't work. It's a solid example why using DVOA in a vacuum is disingenuous at best and offensively lazy at worst. I don't blame you for not wanting to spend several hours breaking down film to make your point to some random schmuck online. But using a generic measurement with little context doesn't provide much more value then "a one lined unsourced post".