If you are right (and I think so), look at it this way.I think Pittsburgh is the team that worries me the most.
Yeah Pats have a phenomenal record at home in the divisional round - only 1 loss ever (2010) vs. wins in 2001*, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Healthier and more time to game plan. I would rather play Pittsburgh in round 2 than round 3 I think, assuming we play them either way
Some stats from Footballdb.com (Brady era)Id rather go to Denver than go to Pittsburgh, but luckily the latter cant happen
The Steelers have a great offense, and that's always dangerous, but they're not trotting the Steel Curtain out on D. I'm not that impressed with shutting down A.J. McCarron and Hasselbeck / Whitehurst the last two weeks. They held the Browns to 9 points but Manziel threw for 372 yards. They allowed 35 points to Oakland and Seattle in their last five games. They do have some good performances on the year, holding Cincy to 16 points and less than 300 yards in Week 8, and holding the Cardinals to 13 points (albeit with big yardage) in Week 6, but I wouldn't anticipate any problems putting up points on them. The Pats scored 28 points Week 1 on 8 real drives, which is extremely efficient.Yeah, I know the stats. Pittsburgh is a better team than Denver as it currently stands by DVOA, Vegas, and IMO eyetest. I expect that gap widens over the next several weeks if the Steelers don't sustain injuries.
I don't really put much weight on small sample sizes over a decade and a half. Pats happened to play in Denver with their three of their four weakest teams of the past decade (Twice in '05, '09, '13 post injuries), lost in Brady's fifth NFL start, and we all saw what needed to happen this year for the Pats to lose. I don't think Duane Starks or Champ Bailey would play a key role in any rematch.
I'd rather just play the worse team if forced to choose. Obviously would rather play Denver at home than in Denver.
DVOA has them back-to-back at #7 and #8, so it's well within rounding - especially since DVOA doesn't account for the myriad factors that may no longer apply (the games Landry Jones and Peyton started earlier in the year, the backup QBs Pittsburgh got to face the last couple weeks, etc.). I think it's more philosophical than anything - would you rather play the team with a great O and a suspect D or the team with a great D and a suspect O?Steelers for sure aren't a great defense. They are, on the whole, a better team than Denver by the metrics I mentioned. Im open to other metrics, but Id just rather play the worse team.
I hope it was the altitude, because otherwise I'd be concerned that Kubiak found a weaknesses in the Pats D late. They piled 23 points on in basically a quarter.I don't worry that much about the altitude. I haven't seen any research that Denver has a better homefield advantage than anyone else. The Pats rotate D Lineman reasonably liberally this year. They lost Hightower mid game and were missing Collins, Im not taking a lot out of that 2nd half defensive performance.
Id obviously much rather play Denver here than in Denver.
And muffed a punt in bad weatherI think the weakness was the Pats didn't have Hightower or Collins on the field.
And the offense wasn't allowed to get first downs, which put the defense right back on the field each time.I think the weakness was the Pats didn't have Hightower or Collins on the field.
I'm sure that didn't help, but I'm concerned if taking away two players makes them go from a pretty good D to the worst defense in the league.I think the weakness was the Pats didn't have Hightower or Collins on the field.
I haven't, but I also haven't forgotten that Denver had to drive 83 yards for a TD in 2.5 minutes with an inexperienced QB and no timeouts and got 75 yards in the first three plays. I also haven't forgotten that they allowed a 48-yard TD game-winning TD run in overtime or a 15-yard run to make it a 7-point game.I mean, have people forgotten the utter shit show that was the final quarter in Denver, between the ST muff and questionable calls?
yea but are we not pretty well decided that it would beso Id rather play Denver in Denver than Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh.
Its a stacking injury involving 2 of the 3 or four best players on the D, one of who they lost in game to injury. Im just inclined to not weight it that much, although that's a judgment call.I'm sure that didn't help, but I'm concerned if taking away two players makes them go from a pretty good D to the worst defense in the league.
I understand this, I do. I have to reach back a dozen effin years for a warm moment at Denver, when we barely beat Danny effin Kannel, 3rd string QB, and then only after BB pulled an intentional safety out of his butt with minutes left. If there is another good memory from that godforsaken place, I forget it.The Steelers are currently ranked 31st against the pass with the Broncos ranked #1. Given the Pats emphasis on the passing game, I am having a hard time seeing how the Denver matchup is preferable even if you ignore historical and recent win/loss records against each opponent.
I get that many of the circumstances surrounding losses at Denver feel like aberrations, but there have been enough of these weird/shitty results for me to feel like playing at Denver is a recipe for disaster.
Wait... Am I missing something?yea but are we not pretty well decided that it would be
"Denver in Denver or Pitt In Foxborough".
What would you take then?
Because the team the Pats beat is better than the team they lost to and they only lost because everything went against them, bad luck, injuries and terrible calls.Wait... Am I missing something?
This year the Patriots have already beaten Pittsburgh in Foxboro.
This year the Patriots have already lost to Denver in Denver.
How can someone argue we would rather play the team we lost to than the team we beat?
See that's the spirit!!I'm rooting for a Denver win over Pitt and then a Pats loss to the Jets just to be super sure Pitt stays out!
But that would be in Santa Clara, so everything's cool.Guess we really should hope we don't play the Eagles in the Super Bowl then.
Ready for a worthless prediction?This is not directly relevant to this thread, but interesting nonetheless:
Pats clinch a first-round bye on Sunday if (1) they win and Denver loses or (2) they win, Cincy loses, and Denver ties.
I've never understood this line of thinking. I'd much rather see the Pats play all the best teams on the way to the Super Bowl.I mean, I'll take my chances with a healthy team against anyone but Id rather just not play the better teams.
I've seen this in several places, and I'm still trying to wrap my hands around this. If the Pats and Denver both tie at the end of the year, how can the Pats claim top seed as Denver wins the head-to-head tie-breaker?This is not directly relevant to this thread, but interesting nonetheless:
Pats clinch a first-round bye on Sunday if (1) they win and Denver loses or (2) they win, Cincy loses, and Denver ties.
He's not talking about the #1 seed, just a bye (meaning at least the #2 seed).I've seen this in several places, and I'm still trying to wrap my hands around this. If the Pats and Denver both tie at the end of the year, how can the Pats claim top seed as Denver wins the head-to-head tie-breaker?
Why? How do the Pats own the tiebreaker over Cincy? Common opponents?One more win clinches HFA
I think so although it may be SoVWhy? How do the Pats own the tiebreaker over Cincy? Common opponents?