I'd be stunned if the AFC West winner had less than six losses, and I'd also be surprised if the Patriots were in position to catch the Colts, given the Colts already have a two-game edge and relatively soft schedule. They might be in competition with the Steelers, but hardly a lock.
They were 2-0 two years ago...game 3 was against Indy...Once again Indy is in the Texans way to get 3 over .500.
really? the broncos are 6-1 so far...you'd be stunned if they went better than 4-5 down the stretch after going 6-1 in their first 7?
The Broncos have the Steelers, Patriots, Giants, Chargers, & the Eagles remaining on their schedule. There is still a chance that they end up 10-6 esp if they lose to the Raiders, Redskins, or Chiefs along the way.
Combination of tough schedule remaining plus really, really good luck in the early going. They won the Patriots game by virtue of a coin flip... the Cowboys game they were one yard from overtime... the Chargers game had three special teams touchdowns, I think... the Bengals game was a loss if not for the most miraculous touchdown (STOKLEY... DOWN THE SIDELINE... WOW!!!!!!) in the history of the league. I give them props for competing, but to win all of those games is fairly fortunate, and luck like that tends to balance out over time. I think 4-5, considering that schedule, seems realistic.
Agreed. You hate to discredit a team that's played hard and worked their way to 6-1, but at the same time you know they're likely not as good as their record indicates. They have all the makings of a one-and-done team in the playoffs: rookie coach, fumble prone rookie RB, QB that can't throw, etc.
Only a 16 game season. In basketball and baseball an average/below average team can start the season 10-6 or 11-5. But over the course of a long season they'll finish .500 or under.
I think if you asked any Broncos fan before the year, they'd be thrilled with being a one-and-done playoff team. I don't see how that's a knock on a team that was supposed to be terrible this year.
I see what you're saying and I totally agree that they've been a pleasant surprise. Just saying, right now they're considered one of the top teams by virtue of their record but will likely continue to expose themselves and make it blatantly obvious that they were just overachieving. But for right now, they're still 6-1 and at least on pace to make the playoffs. I'll give them a few more games before I officially I pull the plug on their legitimacy.
why people question the broncos record, and not the record of teams like the giants, that had 4 very easy teams (KC, OAK, TB, WAS) and their only win against a .500 team was against the cowboys just for a field goal in the end, and a lot of mistakes of the cowboys.
david_rocket has a point though because the NFL media was slurping big time on Eli and the Giants right before the Saints game. Nobody is high on them right now but I don't think anybody should have been based on that early schedule.
Matt Mosley agrees with you http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/tag/_/name/dangerous-player-09 [rquoter]I believe that DeSean Jackson is the most dangerous player in the NFL right now. He's not the best receiver or the best punt returner -- but his ability to strike from anywhere on the field makes him one of the most potent weapons we've seen in years. Wide receivers such as the Cardinals' Larry Fitzgerald and the Texans' Andre Johnson are going to make a ton of plays, but Jackson's the type player who only needs a couple of touches to change the course of a game. [/rquoter]
