Remember when McDaniels came in as a consultant and all of a sudden used Hernandez in a totally different role(even out of the backfield at times)? It's very possible.
Pats' performance in playoffs
- Thread starter amarshal2
- Start date
Doug Kyed weighs in with a healthy dose of, stop panicking Pats fans.
http://nesn.com/2016/01/patriots-struggles-caused-by-injuries-should-be-fixed-for-playoffs/
Well, they've rolled the Colts in the playoffs 2 straight years, over matched Houston the previous year, and whipped the Tebow-led Broncos the year before that so, while it's not super common, i think we have been spoiled and 4 straight years of at least one relative laugher might be clouding our perception of the caliber of playoff teams.
Shaugnessy and his annual "March of the tomato cans" columnm comes to mind
Thank you! My thoughts exactly...if we as fans have no idea what to expect and who can play where, imagine how that team will feel coming in to play them in 2 weeks.
Tangental question - when they play in Denver, do they go out early to adjust to the altitude? I don't recall hearing that they do, but it seems like something they would benefit from.
Hell, I left out Vollmer playing LT which basically moves everyone else around besides Stork. Chandler has been hurt and has seen very, very few snaps lately but add him into the mix along with Michael Williams and suddenly we can block for the newest RB.
Defensively, I don't think we blitzed more than 5 times yesterday. Add Hightower and Jones back in and the run defense and QB pressures increase dramatically. Coverage looked like a lot of cover 3 with a mixture of zone and man underneath. I may be very wrong but I don't think that is what they have done defensively all year. I recall a ton of cover one with McCourty playing CF and Harmon shadowing Ryan's man coverage on opposing teams #1. Butler has played on an island against opposing teams #2. I saw Butler play a fair amount of zone yesterday.
This team is going to look a lot different in two weeks.
Here's the list of Super Bowl champions since 2002 and their records the last 6 weeks of the season
2002: Tampa 4-2
2003: Pats 6-0
2004: Pats 5-1
2005: Steelers 4-2
2006: Colts 3-3
2007: Giants 3-3
2008: Steelers 5-1
2009: Saints 3-3(lost 3 straight to end season but 1 was punted)
2010: Packers 3-3
2011: Giants 3-3(but were 3-5 in last 8)
2012: Ravens 2-4
2013: Seahawks 4-2(2-2 in last 4)
2014: Pats 4-2(punted Week 17)
6-0: 1
5-1: 2
4-2: 4
3-3: 5
2-4: 1
6 of the last 13 SB winners have gone .500 or worse in that same 6 game stretch that Patriots fans are panicking over.
2002: Tampa 4-2
2003: Pats 6-0
2004: Pats 5-1
2005: Steelers 4-2
2006: Colts 3-3
2007: Giants 3-3
2008: Steelers 5-1
2009: Saints 3-3(lost 3 straight to end season but 1 was punted)
2010: Packers 3-3
2011: Giants 3-3(but were 3-5 in last 8)
2012: Ravens 2-4
2013: Seahawks 4-2(2-2 in last 4)
2014: Pats 4-2(punted Week 17)
6-0: 1
5-1: 2
4-2: 4
3-3: 5
2-4: 1
6 of the last 13 SB winners have gone .500 or worse in that same 6 game stretch that Patriots fans are panicking over.
They play cover 1 most often with cover 3 second most often. I'm not sure whether yesterday was out of the norm or not regarding cover 1 vs. 3.
Harmon often played in the nickel for a while because, presumably, they were just getting their 5 best defensive backs on the field with Chung and/or DMC moving into man coverage with Coleman or whoever coming in more less frequently or when they were in dime. In dime I think they were more likely to do what you described but I'm not certain.
Lately (last 3 games or so), to my eye, Johnson has played more in nickel than Harmon although there were some injuries to the safeties in there. That was the case yesterday as Johnson had 47/75 snaps to Harmon's 12 and Richards' 13. Those snaps are quite low for Harmon who was averaging 57% of defensive snaps prior to the game according to FO.
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4789452/patriots-alter-rb-rotation-to-feature-steven-jackson-in-power-role
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/snapcounts
I don't think the record is the primary concern; injuries are, along with the difficulty of projecting the improvement reasonably to be expected in two weeks. Nobody seriously disputes that the team that took the field in recent weeks would be one and done.
Not sure how we'll stack up against 2010 Packers, who won the SB after sending 15 guys to IR and treading water for much of the season.
Not sure how we'll stack up against 2010 Packers, who won the SB after sending 15 guys to IR and treading water for much of the season.
Pats have ~20 guys on IR but it's a worthless stat since something like 10 of them were never on the 53 man roster.
Actual impact on the roster IR includes: Solder, Wendell, Lewis, T. Brown, Blount, Easley, Develin, Dobson, and maybe Chris Jones. Two of those guys are stars (Solder...small stretch, Lewis), two of them are likely starters (Wendell and Brown) and 3 of them would have played 30%+ of snaps due to usage patterns (Blount, Easley) and/or injuries (Dobson).
Other guys who probably make the 53 without injury include Gibson or Tyms (over Harper) and Roberts (over B. Fletcher). Flowers and Johnson were technically on the 53 for like half the season but didn't play much. Not serious losses.
In sum, this team has lost a lot of playing time to injury but not a ton of key guys hit IR. If guys are not near their usual selves in two weeks then it more than competes with the 2010 Packers in that regard.
Actual impact on the roster IR includes: Solder, Wendell, Lewis, T. Brown, Blount, Easley, Develin, Dobson, and maybe Chris Jones. Two of those guys are stars (Solder...small stretch, Lewis), two of them are likely starters (Wendell and Brown) and 3 of them would have played 30%+ of snaps due to usage patterns (Blount, Easley) and/or injuries (Dobson).
Other guys who probably make the 53 without injury include Gibson or Tyms (over Harper) and Roberts (over B. Fletcher). Flowers and Johnson were technically on the 53 for like half the season but didn't play much. Not serious losses.
In sum, this team has lost a lot of playing time to injury but not a ton of key guys hit IR. If guys are not near their usual selves in two weeks then it more than competes with the 2010 Packers in that regard.
Last edited:
All I know is that I am the biggest Steeler or Chiefs fan on the planet when either of those teams play at Denver in two weeks. Playing at Denver is an absolute house of horrors for the Patriots, and I will not be able to tolerate the guaranteed four plus atrocious ref calls in favor of the Broncos at the worst possible moments. Guaranteed. No one can convince me that Peyton and the Broncos won't get every call and then some in Denver against the Patriots. I want nothing to do with that.
My hope is Denver chokes on their good fortune and loses to Pittsburgh or KC.
I hope I'm wrong but right now I can't see the Patriots winning in Denver in an AFCCG.
My hope is Denver chokes on their good fortune and loses to Pittsburgh or KC.
I hope I'm wrong but right now I can't see the Patriots winning in Denver in an AFCCG.
I'm an optimist; the team is banged up but not hopelessly so and I see at least a competitive AFC championship game in the cards, maybe more depending on matchups.
Maybe I'm off on this but I think the Pats' o-line has looked bad over the past six weeks in part because of the number of good defensive lines we've played Which teams have the best DEs and DTs? Based on what I've seen the top ten is something like Denver, KC, Jets, Houston, St. Louis, Seattle, Miami, Philly, Cincy, New England. The bad news is that a lot of these guys are in the playoffs but the good news is that we're not going to play better defensive lines in the playoffs then we've been playing lately.
Maybe I'm off on this but I think the Pats' o-line has looked bad over the past six weeks in part because of the number of good defensive lines we've played Which teams have the best DEs and DTs? Based on what I've seen the top ten is something like Denver, KC, Jets, Houston, St. Louis, Seattle, Miami, Philly, Cincy, New England. The bad news is that a lot of these guys are in the playoffs but the good news is that we're not going to play better defensive lines in the playoffs then we've been playing lately.
I will say this - the thought of playing Denver in Mile High makes every Pats fan look like a Harbaugh/Tomlin coming into Foxboro. Our record in Denver has everything thing to do with the Pats playing like crap out there and nothing else. They win this year as long as Harper simply fields a punt. At the end of the day, Manning's floating passes would be there for the taking. It's been a long time since the Pats had a signature road playoff win but these wins happen all the time. We've just been spoiled with all these #1 seeds.
In 2013, the Pats were a shell of themselves and playing a better Broncos team than the 2015 version. And even with that, they had their chances to win. At the end of the day, unless the offense pukes all over the field, the Pats would have a great chance of winning if they stop the run. It doesn't matter what kind of calls you get if you're letting CJ Anderson and Hillman rip off long gains.
In 2013, the Pats were a shell of themselves and playing a better Broncos team than the 2015 version. And even with that, they had their chances to win. At the end of the day, unless the offense pukes all over the field, the Pats would have a great chance of winning if they stop the run. It doesn't matter what kind of calls you get if you're letting CJ Anderson and Hillman rip off long gains.
This is where I'm at, Denver is a true house of horrors for this team and this franchise. The names may change, but the results are the same, as in 3-17 in franchise history and 0-3 in the playoffs. They always seem to have one nutpunch moment that turns the whole game around, whether it be the sure handed Mosi Tatupu fumbling, Eason getting strip sacked, Brady throwing a 100 yard PIC 6, Welker getting taken out of the game early on a cheap shot or a muffed punt when up by two touchdowns.
A lot of things can happen over the next two weeks, but a trip to Denver IMO for the AFCCG and this team is toast.
And as mentioned upthread, going to Denver early to get used to the altitude is a waste of time unless you do it three to six weeks or so prior to the game.
So no chance.
I'm not all that concerned about the offensive line - they've been a shit-show since about week 3, and I just really don't think one player coming back or going out makes all that much of a difference - they're a mess either way.
The thing is, the offense still worked - because Edelman, and for a time, Deion Lewis were getting open almost immediately all the time - and Brady was getting the ball out to them in 2 seconds. When Edelman went down, nobody was getting open quickly, Brady's release times went up to 3.5+ seconds, and they had to pull Gronk in to mostly block. When they lost Edelman, they basically lost their two best targets. If the line was better, the Edelman injury wouldn't have been such a big deal. But it ain't, and it ain't gonna be.
So because of the Oline - Edelman is the linchpin- if he comes out and looks fine and has his typical 7+/70+ day that we've become accustomed to - it means Brady is getting rid of the ball quickly again, and they win big. If they come out and he looks like Gronk did in the playoffs a couple years ago, they get killed.
The defense is good, but not good enough to keep them in a game against a playoff team if the offense does what it did Sunday
The thing is, the offense still worked - because Edelman, and for a time, Deion Lewis were getting open almost immediately all the time - and Brady was getting the ball out to them in 2 seconds. When Edelman went down, nobody was getting open quickly, Brady's release times went up to 3.5+ seconds, and they had to pull Gronk in to mostly block. When they lost Edelman, they basically lost their two best targets. If the line was better, the Edelman injury wouldn't have been such a big deal. But it ain't, and it ain't gonna be.
So because of the Oline - Edelman is the linchpin- if he comes out and looks fine and has his typical 7+/70+ day that we've become accustomed to - it means Brady is getting rid of the ball quickly again, and they win big. If they come out and he looks like Gronk did in the playoffs a couple years ago, they get killed.
The defense is good, but not good enough to keep them in a game against a playoff team if the offense does what it did Sunday
On top of all the injuries in 2013, Denver couldn't have gotten any luckier with the weather for Peyton. It was so warm there that day.
I think another reason that the OL has looked bad is because Mr Edelman has been out. With him on the field not only does every receiver move down a notch but also the ball comes out seconds faster. I think Edelman is the obvious key. If he plays well I take the pats against anyone.
Re: the D.. After I saw Jones and Hightower were out this week I thought that the Pats were resting players for the playoffs or were in trouble.
The way they played the game it seemed like they were playing not to get hurt... How many times did Brady hand off to start the game? Seemed like a preseason game to me. The drive to start the second half seemed far more mixed... Everything else seemed vanilla... Do you think the pats will ever run 3rd and 15 in the playoffs? Miami seemed like I hope we win game but it's better to keep everyone upright kind of game.
In 2012 and 2014 the Broncos lost at home in the Divisional Round to teams that most felt had no chance to win. Moreover, nothing that has happened in the past 15 years has convinced me to take Peyton Manning over Tom Brady in a playoff game.
Denver is a tough place to play, but there's no more magic there than the Toilet in the Bronx. Just another notch waiting for Brady's belt.
Did you already forget about the multiple BS calls that lead to the NE loss in DEN this year? Gronk OPI ring a bell? That is the problem with playing in denver, you need to beat DEN and the refs.
The pats are almost certainly going to be on the short end of the officiating stick regardless this playoffs but it will be down right criminal what will happen in DEN. At least if they play the AFCCG in NE the refs will not be quite as bad.
Edelman is important, but I think his injury marked the "tipping point" with injuries and the real problem has been the general health of the offense.
Edelman went down Week 10. At the time, Solder and Lewis (and Wendell, who may or may not have played a role) were already out for the year. Vollmer, Cannon, Jackson, and Martin were all inactive for that game with short-term injuries.
Since then:
- Brady has been healthy up until last game
- Edelman hasn't played (not healthy now)
- Amendola got hurt Week 11 and has played only one full game since, missing two games (not healthy now)
- Chandler went on the injury report just before Week 13 and has barely played since then (not healthy now)
- Blount went on IR
- Dobson went on IR
- Martin returned Week 12 and has been healthy since. LaFell is presumably healthy. Gronk and Williams each missed a game but appear to be OK
- Kline got hurt Week 13 and hasn't played a full complement of snaps since, missing two games (not healthy now)
- Vollmer got hurt in Week 16 and hasn't played or practiced since (not healthy now)
- Andrews, Mason, Fleming, Cannon (returned Week 11), Jackson (Week 12), have been healthy and presumably are healthy. Stork missed a game but presumably is healthy now
It's a bit of a tipping point/straw that broke the camel's back thing- but when it comes down to it Edelman is unique for the Patriots - he gets open significantly faster than any of the other receivers on the roster. When you remove him, Brady has to hold onto the ball much longer, and then the quality of the offensive line becomes much more relevant - and Gronk gets pulled back to block way more often.
I think getting Edelman back is more important any of the other guys, and maybe more important than all of them.
The biggest wound that day was self-inflicted. Yes, there were some crap calls but there are always going to be crap calls whether we're home or away. Obviously sounds cliche but if the Pats go out and play their "A" game, there is nothing the refs can do to change the outcome. All they would be changing is the margin of victory.
Now, I will say that it was incredibly frustrating to watch nearly every big 2nd half play taken back by some ticky tack penalty. If this game materializes and it happens again, I'll join the chorus.
I didn't. There were terrible calls made and not made. But I also remember that had Harper not muffed that very difficult punt (or if the defense had made a play) we would have won.
If the Pats play the way they're capable of, they can beat anyone anywhere. If the injuries are too much to overcome, they can lose to anyone anywhere.
And last year is a silver lining no matter what happens in an injury ravaged season.
I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the ride, whatever the playoffs bring is out of my control. I'm just happy they are where they are all things considered injurywise, it's incredible to me the number of players they have who have been placed on IR or have missed multiple games, or are playing but are at less than 100%.
Understood injuries are all part of the game, but I cannot recall a Patriots team this banged up; the year they lost Tippett, Lippett and Veris for the year all in the last exhibition game comes to mind, but that's nothing compared to this.
They had a banged up secondary in 2004, losing Ty Law for the year in the Pittsburg game and cobbling together a patch work secondary all the way to a Super Bowl win.
If they run the table and win another Super Bowl, this may be the greatest of all of their wins and that's saying something.
Anything on the positive side of the ledger that happens going forward is a bonus, just enjoy it as a fan and be happy that you've been in the middle of this incredible 15 year run, as a lifelong Patriots fan, they owe me nothing at this point.
That said, go win another one.
Understood injuries are all part of the game, but I cannot recall a Patriots team this banged up; the year they lost Tippett, Lippett and Veris for the year all in the last exhibition game comes to mind, but that's nothing compared to this.
They had a banged up secondary in 2004, losing Ty Law for the year in the Pittsburg game and cobbling together a patch work secondary all the way to a Super Bowl win.
If they run the table and win another Super Bowl, this may be the greatest of all of their wins and that's saying something.
Anything on the positive side of the ledger that happens going forward is a bonus, just enjoy it as a fan and be happy that you've been in the middle of this incredible 15 year run, as a lifelong Patriots fan, they owe me nothing at this point.
That said, go win another one.
Super Nomario.. This post above is what I meant. I think Edelman hides a lot of the weaknesses of the o line.. Because he's open quick or he allows for someone else to be open quick.
SN... I'm interested in what you saw on Sunday... Because it seemed to me that they were running a very basic offense... Was Gronk covered all game or were they not trying to get him open... Or was Brady so under duress that he couldn't find him?
I tend to think that they played a basic scheme against Miami in the hopes of winning, but didn't really break out their true playoff game plan.
I tend to be an optimist so I feel like the team we see in two weeks will be very different.
I like the way our defense is playing. Past two games the offense has pretty much shit the bed and the D has spent a lot of time picking up the slack. We get Hightower back and some of the others, Chung/DMC, get toward 100% I think the D can keep us close. Even a small pickup in offense will pay dividends. We have the best QB and kicker in the game. I like us in tight, gut wrenching games where a fifth of scotch is involved and I banish everyone from the house except my dog. I think Ghost is going to be the difference in all three games.
They are probably going to lose.
Every team (viewed independently) is probably going to lose.
The OL is not, was not, and will not be good.
This team, with Eddleman, Amendola, Gronk, Lewis, and what seemed like five revolving doors, went into the Bills and Jets games and put up 70 points on a pair of elite D-lines with a gameplan approximately summed up as "to hell with the run game."
Brady's apparent leg injury is a huge wildcard, but with him and all the other players we are getting back, the Patriots are better equipped than anyone to score points behind a shoddy line, and I will take them over any other team in this conference.
Every team (viewed independently) is probably going to lose.
The OL is not, was not, and will not be good.
This team, with Eddleman, Amendola, Gronk, Lewis, and what seemed like five revolving doors, went into the Bills and Jets games and put up 70 points on a pair of elite D-lines with a gameplan approximately summed up as "to hell with the run game."
Brady's apparent leg injury is a huge wildcard, but with him and all the other players we are getting back, the Patriots are better equipped than anyone to score points behind a shoddy line, and I will take them over any other team in this conference.
The Patriots are a fumbled punt return in a snowstorm by a practice squad player away from having the 1 seed. Let's just be honest.
As for pass attempts, @Dogman2 ? I looked it up. Brady's 21 pass attempts are tied for the 9th lowest of his career (in a start). Removing the opener of 2008, it's 8th. Removing the season finales in previous years where he was pulled early? 5th. And since they won the Super Bowl against Carolina?
It's the least pass attempts in a game for him. All the rest of the games ahead are from 2001 or 2004.
I don't think this is a coincidence.
As for pass attempts, @Dogman2 ? I looked it up. Brady's 21 pass attempts are tied for the 9th lowest of his career (in a start). Removing the opener of 2008, it's 8th. Removing the season finales in previous years where he was pulled early? 5th. And since they won the Super Bowl against Carolina?
It's the least pass attempts in a game for him. All the rest of the games ahead are from 2001 or 2004.
I don't think this is a coincidence.
This is something I've wondered about. Would being out there for five or six days before the game help with the altitude adjustment? My guess is that the consensus is that it's simply not enough time to make a material difference. Otherwise, the Pats or other teams would have done it, I think. On the other hand, there are benefits to an extended road trip (see the SD game last year) so maybe it's worth a try. And sometimes the consensus is wrong.
I am. I mean, I'm of course not concerned about those players per se, but that visiting teams, and the Pats in particular, have had so much trouble winning in Denver over the years is something that concerns me a lot. I think a lot of it has to do with the altitude and the fact that visiting players are routinely sucking wind by the end of the game.
The Pats all time are 9-20 there. OK, so even if you discount or ignore prior eras, since BB arrived, they are 3-6 there, and the 3 total includes a win in 2000 when Tom was not the QB. And they lost 11 straight there before BB took over, for whatever that's worth.
Winning there would indeed be sweet for many reasons, but there's no venue I want to avoid more.
Source: http://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl/new-england-patriots/teamvsteam?opp=10&ha=A
A few anecdotal points on the altitude advantage:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8480201/nfl-hot-read-best-home-field-advantage-no-5
Last edited:
The Pats have a bad record in Denver because in many of the games played there they were by far the inferior team. Let's consider the Belichick/Brady era: In 2001, the Pats lost an October game in Denver. That was a Patriots team that was still finding itself. It was also Brady's 5th career start, and he threw 5 picks.
In 2003, an outstanding Patriots team beat a solid Denver team fair and square.
In 2005, the Pats defense had slipped mightily from their perch the prior year, and a vastly superior Denver team justifiably beat NWE twice, once in the playoffs.
The 2009 Adalius Thomas led Patriots remain by far my least favorite team of the entire Belichick/Brady era, and that team's performance has no bearing whatsoever on any potential upcoming playoff matchup in 2016.
The Patriots crushed the Tebow's in 2011.
The 2013 Pats didn't have Gronk, Amendola was hurting, and lost their only reliable corner early in the game. And that Denver team was actually, you know, pretty good.
The 2015 game has been discussed and dissected. It's one of those "what if" games that sometimes happens.
As for the acclimation, I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is some benefit to getting out there a couple of days early, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats did go out on Friday for a Sunday game (or Thursday for a Saturday game). However, to completely acclimate would take a matter of weeks, not days, so there's not much more visiting teams can do to combat Denver's climate.
In 2003, an outstanding Patriots team beat a solid Denver team fair and square.
In 2005, the Pats defense had slipped mightily from their perch the prior year, and a vastly superior Denver team justifiably beat NWE twice, once in the playoffs.
The 2009 Adalius Thomas led Patriots remain by far my least favorite team of the entire Belichick/Brady era, and that team's performance has no bearing whatsoever on any potential upcoming playoff matchup in 2016.
The Patriots crushed the Tebow's in 2011.
The 2013 Pats didn't have Gronk, Amendola was hurting, and lost their only reliable corner early in the game. And that Denver team was actually, you know, pretty good.
The 2015 game has been discussed and dissected. It's one of those "what if" games that sometimes happens.
As for the acclimation, I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is some benefit to getting out there a couple of days early, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats did go out on Friday for a Sunday game (or Thursday for a Saturday game). However, to completely acclimate would take a matter of weeks, not days, so there's not much more visiting teams can do to combat Denver's climate.
I did not mean to suggest that this is a binary issue. Or that the 2015 Pats cannot win there because of the altitude. Denver did not go unbeaten at home this season. And your points about those Pats games are understood.
That said, I can't ignore the many quotes I've read and interviews I've heard over the years about how hard it is to play there (like Bruschi's in the article I linked from ESPN). The level headed Troy Brown said in an interview a few years agot hat it catches up to players by the late third quarter and it's very hard to breathe from that point on. And even though there are understandable explanations for many or all of the losses, that the BB/Brady Pats have gone 2-6* there still stands out in my view.
PS: Even apart from the altitude, the Denver defense in 2015 is a good enough reason in my mind to want to avoid a trip to Denver. Never mind the benefit of playing the AFC Championship game (if they can get past the Jan 16 game) in Foxboro.
* Corrected, thanks Lex.
Last edited:
One thing is pretty clear from watching some NFL Network and ESPN: the Pats are basically an afterthought. No one is even talking about them. It's kind of amazing really. Defending champ, bye, getting some key guys healthy, and no chatter.
For all the pessimists in this thread, who do you consider the favorite in the AFC? I am not exactly optimistic about this team and all of the injuries scare the shit out of me (including the sprained ankle for TB courtesy of Marcus Cannon) but you look at the rest of the AFC and every other team has so many holes/problems its tough to put a lot of faith in any of them.
When every team has such a myriad of problems, I have confidence putting my faith in the best QB and head coach in NFL history.
When every team has such a myriad of problems, I have confidence putting my faith in the best QB and head coach in NFL history.
They've gone 2-6 in Denver under Brady/Belichick, not 2-9.
Don't disagree that Denver's altitude gives it a pretty strong home field advantage, and that the Pats blew a chance to have their entire playoff schedule be played in the stadium where the home team has had the best record in the NFL over the past decade-plus. But Denver does lose at home, including two times this season. Right now both Denver and the Pats have to win their opening games before I get overly concerned about this, and neither is really guaranteed. Denver would have to potentially get by KC in the opening round, a team that beat Denver already this season. And the Pats may have a healthy Cincinnati team to contend with.
While there's no clear cut favorite, both Cincy and Denver have outstanding (and quick) defenses that could give New England trouble. Being concerned about the impact of the Patriots injuries is not being overly pessimistic either. We don't really know exactly how effective Edelman, Chandler Jones, Amendola, etc. will be in 2 weeks.
I'm OK with being labelled a pessimist at this point. The Pats O-line has been pretty horrible for a while and as much as I think having Edelman back will be huge, if Brady is constantly under siege and they cannot open holes for the runners, I think it's hard to see the Pats winning three in a row. With Tom and Bill and the other talented members of their team, it's definitely possible. And the FU to the doubters and haters would be delicious. But having watched Brady having to rush passes and even rushing some when he did not have to because of the anticipated pass rush, and the lack of separation by the receivers for whatever reason, over the last part of the season, I am not that optimistic.
That said, there is no clear cut favorite in my book. If forced to choose, I would take Denver. But Peyton often sucks in the playoffs and I could see them losing in the first round.
That said, there is no clear cut favorite in my book. If forced to choose, I would take Denver. But Peyton often sucks in the playoffs and I could see them losing in the first round.
I don't think so either. They gameplanned to show nothing. Again, two shovel passes, 2 screens, 8 jump balls, every run between the tackles. I don't recall a guard pulling once. Like I said, this is going to be a very different team on both sides of the ball on 1/16/16.
This is what I keep coming back to. As Pats fans we're naturally focused on our team's weaknesses, but if you look around at the competition they all have significant flaws -- with arguably less up-side.
Wingo said on local radio this morning that he could see any team but Houston making the SB, and he may not be far off. There is no dominant team. WRT the hot teams, you can't easily shrug off Seattle's loss at home to the Rams or Pittsburgh's loss at Baltimore. Division rivalries be damned, those losses are too recent. In Pittsburgh's case, the game was critical; in Seattle's, the outcome was contrary to everything Carroll was trying to accomplish in closing out the year.
WRT the Pats, the sentiment probably stems from a concern that too many things have to break right for them from a health and performance standpoint to go on a run. As we get closer to game day, I expect that concern to recede. In any case, this is probably a year to go bold in the playoff prediction thread.
Let's try this a whole other way.
Fly the team down to Peru. Train for the week in Cuzco (altitude = 11000 feet) and then fly down to Denver. Boom. Altitude advantage, reversed.
I've posted this elsewhere, but I moved from New Hampshire to Denver a few months ago. In my experience here I've come to realize that there's nothing more more overblown than the affect the altitude has on players. It's a mental game that Broncos play with opposing teams that is a minimal factor in reality.
Altitude seems to affect people who aren't in shape; not people who workout regularly and are in good cardiovascular health. I mean, that's not to say there isn't a SLIGHT noticeable difference, but not nearly enough to stop a well-conditioned "better" team from beating the Broncos who are "used to it" (what does that even mean?).
In reality, the REAL factor in Denver is the dryness. You have to drink a shit ton of water when you're spending time here or you'll find yourself easily getting dehydrated, which is why a lot of muscle strains (which happened to me) and cramps happen during professional sporting events here. It's true that many people get hammered here after, like, three beers because they don't account for their already-dehydrated state before starting to booze.
If the Patriots' conditioning coaches make sure to hammer into players' heads that they need to work on being extra hydrated the week leading up to a game in Denver, they'll be fine. Every other "factor" is a bunch of overblown BS.
Are you a trainer, it do you have a background as a professional coach or athlete?
I ask because some people who have played this game at the highest level feel differently and have said so on the last few broadcasts of Denver games I have taken in.
I'm not educated on this. But it is not hard for me to be open to an argument that when you are taking about slim differences between pro teams to begin with, this could be a decisive factor. All it would take is one of your guys to be out of it on a handful of plays -- or even one play. And it's not as if Denver's opponent is likely to go out there and get acclimated for a week.
As I mentioned, there is a SLIGHT difference. But these teams play at 5,200 feet; it's not like they're playing atop a 14,000-footer.
The actual affect on the game is not what you think it is. Players buy into the hype and use it as an excuse for poor play. It's definitely there, but it's very minimal and affects the Broncos just as much as the visiting team.
I live here. I experience "it" every day. Obviously it's a "factor" because science(!), but it's not what people on the outside looking in think it is.
The much bigger factor is hydration.
And not living somewhere high does not make you personally feel the affect it has.
I am obviously not a pro athlete, but I workout and run a LOT. The first day I moved to Denver I ran five miles at literally the exact same pace I did before leaving NH.
It's not as bad as you think it is. There is a slight difference (as I keep saying), but it's very, very minimal of you have a well-conditioned body. I have personally experienced the minimal affect it had multiple times. I travel out of Denver all the time for work for sometimes weeks at a time, when I come back home, I don't notice the altitude when I get back outside or in the gym for my workouts.
Also, the Broncos travel regularly to play teams outside of Colorado. Are they then less conditioned to play in higher humidity and lower altitude locations half of their season, year in and year out?
I'm not denying a slight affect, it's just not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. If you're well-conditioned, it's hardly noticeable.
Pretty much exactly this. Just about every playoff team has laid at least one serious egg this year.
At various points over this season, the Patriots, Broncos, Packers (early), Seahawks (late), Steelers, Cardinals, Bengals, and Panthers were viewed as top 5 teams/teams no one wanted to play in the post season. And now that the Chiefs have been so hot, you can't completely discount them either. That's part of the reason I would not be shocked if 8 of those 10 teams made the Superbowl (not buying the Redskins argument). The best team they beat this year were the Bills or Rams.
Look, you don't think it's a big deal based on your experience. Cool. Unfortunately that's not interesting or informative when it comes to understanding what is going to happen in a pro football game. I was at a similar altitude for a week doing cardio activities as recently as 3 days ago but I'm not posting about it as evidence. Beyond that, inside your ultimate point of "I really don't think it's a big deal," you've made some statements that are factually incorrect ("the Broncos are equally affected," when they are not, particularly when they'll have been at home for weeks and weeks come a division playoff game) and you've done it all without a source.