2016 NFL Playoffs Thread

eagle eye

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Seahawks were 'at full tilt' in week 6 - they held what was not a particularly good offensive performace from the Panthers but fell apart in the fourth quarter for the second week running (they had suffered a similar collapse the previous week against the Bengals) - the 4th quarter defence by the Seahawks was a mess, riddled by miscommunication and blown assignments.

Seattle were lucky to have games against the terrible 49ers and a poor Dallas team (who they beat by 1 point) to follow and they were making progress against the Cowboys but it wasn't until after the bye-week that the actually looked like they got their act together in the loss to the Cardinals.

You can talk all you want about the Seahawks defence being 'at full tilt' in week 6 - and being as good as their rankings - I suspect that Seahawks fans probably wouldn't agree with you on either assertion.

I have made an effort to outline my reasons why I have some confidence that the Broncos defence can contain Newton and the Panthers offence - if you actually have anything to suggest my analysis doesn't have validity then have at it - but enough with the throwaway comment.

It's not a throwaway comment. I told you that Cam Chancellor was missing for the first two weeks whey they gave up the most points they did all during the regular season in any two combined games.

Also the Panthers look very similar, but much better, on offense to the Chiefs and look what they did up in Denver.

Jolly Red Giant

eagle eye wrote: »

Also the Panthers look very similar, but much better, on offense to the Chiefs and look what they did up in Denver.

another throwaway comment -

Manning threw 4 INTs and had a fumble - the Broncos were missing Talib and Ware - Sanders played hurt and shouldn't have played.

The Chiefs had the ball at the Broncos 31, 43, 24 and the Chiefs 49 off of Manning's INTs. For most of the game the Chiefs were starting close to midfield or in the Broncos half

The Broncos defence did a remarkable job forcing the Chiefs to kick field goals. The Chiefs were limited to a total of 303 yards

The Broncos won in Arrowhead earlier in the season when the D picked Smith off twice - returned a fumble - forced two other fumbles - and sacked Smith 5 times.

So if you want to present a cogent argument I would suggest that you try harder.

Denvers d is a bit better den era special teams is better but The panthers offence is wayyyyyyy better denver are rightly huge underdogs because they are the team with the glaring weakness

poldebruin

Extremely rude reaction to a well thought out post eagle eye. You may not agree, but that long post is better than 99% of what is posted on here.

I would like to imagine what jrg has laid out will happen, my fear is that even if it does go that way for Carolina against Denver's defense, they simply do not have to do much of anything to outpace Denver's offense. If they can stretch to a 2 score lead, with Manning in the game it may be all she wrote. Unless Manning throws 3 first half picks he won't be getting hooked.

Without the benefit of a defensive td or return for a score (or possibly a couple of extremely short fields) i just don't see us generati g enough against a talented defense like Carolina. Personally i think we may only score 17 at most, and i can't see that being enough.

It would be nice to see Manning take a couple of shots deep if Carolina try to crowd the line early, he's just missed on a couple of those throws this season, and even the threat might see Carolina back off, though at this stage i don't thunk any team is going to respwct manni gs deep threat.

Intriquing matchup, i actually wouldn't mind seeing Carolina and Newton and Keuchly win the superbowl, only that they are playing the broncos.

D9Male

I would actually agree with a hell of a lot of JRG's post.

I think he is slightly under-estimating Carolina's offence, and possibly slightly over-estimating Denver's defence in that they can be got at, but it is pretty clear to me that Denver should have the better of things on that side of the game.

It is the fact that Carolina's defence is so clearly superior to the Broncos' attack that has me siding with the Panthers.

But JRG's post is a completely valid way of looking at things.

D9Male

I would actually agree with a hell of a lot of JRG's post.

I think he is slightly under-estimating Carolina's offence, and possibly slightly over-estimating Denver's defence in that they can be got at, but it is pretty clear to me that Denver should have the better of things on that side of the game.

It is the fact that Carolina's defence is so clearly superior to the Broncos' attack that has me siding with the Panthers.

But JRG's post is a completely valid way of looking at things.

poldebruin

poldebruin wrote: »

Extremely rude reaction to a well thought out post eagle eye. You may not agree, but that long post is better than 99% of what is posted on here.

I would like to imagine what jrg has laid out will happen, my fear is that even if it does go that way for Carolina against Denver's defense, they simply do not have to do much of anything to outpace Denver's offense. If they can stretch to a 2 score lead, with Manning in the game it may be all she wrote. Unless Manning throws 3 first half picks he won't be getting hooked.

Without the benefit of a defensive td or return for a score (or possibly a couple of extremely short fields) i just don't see us generati g enough against a talented defense like Carolina. Personally i think we may only score 17 at most, and i can't see that being enough.

It would be nice to see Manning take a couple of shots deep if Carolina try to crowd the line early, he's just missed on a couple of those throws this season, and even the threat might see Carolina back off, though at this stage i don't thunk any team is going to respwct manni gs deep threat.

Intriquing matchup, i actually wouldn't mind seeing Carolina and Newton and Keuchly win the superbowl, only that they are playing the broncos.

Sounds like you would rather Brock o starting at qb is that the case?

TheDoctor

eagle eye wrote: »

JRG why are you twisting things around to make an argument? Why can't you just tell it straight?
We all know that the Seahawks were poor the first two weeks and we all know that a certain Cam Chancellor sat out the first two weeks also.

You come out saying they gave up 27 points or more in four of the first six games. We know they have up more than 27 points in week 1 and then exactly 27 points to the Packers, Panthers and Bengals.

Take out the two weeks where Cam Chancellor sat out and we get a far more impressive picture of exactly where the Seattle D was at.

You have just twisted things around to try and suggest the Seahawks weren't at full tilt when they met the Panthers in week 6 which is just hogwash.

Tell it straight or else please don't bother posting an insufferably long piece of garbage please.

Depends what you mean by "full tilt". In terms of personnel yes we had everyone but we really weren't playing anyway well by week 6 - following the Panthers loss that week we were 2-4 with only wins against the Bears and the Lions at home.

In my opinion the first good game we played this season was week 10 V the Steelers where we still gave up 32 points but the offense was on fire.

Wilson went on his amazing run the next few weeks and the season came together bar one slip against our bogey team, the Rams,

poldebruin

Patrick Better Yoga wrote: »

Sounds like you would rather Brock o starting at qb is that the case?

It's a close call, but i think they owe it to Manning to give him the start and the chance to retire with a sb win. He has looked much improved since he came back from the KC game.

As an offense we looked far more dynamic and capable with Osweiler in the lineup, and came back from large deficits agsinst the bengals and patriots, which i don't think would have been possible with Manning.

So.... tough call, but happy to roll with the old man!

bruschi

I disagree with the notion that if Denver get up a lead that the Panthers wouldnt be able to pull it back. Denver got up a lead against the Patriots and it was left to the defence to keep bending and bending but not to break. They just about managed it by the skin of their teeth and who knows what would have happened if the Pats had to have kicked on any of those 4th down attempts.

On the flip side, if the Panthers get a lead, I can see Denver being able to pull it back, I just cant foresee the game being won by Denver if it is left to Manning to claw back a 7+ point deficit. I could see Carolina reeling that back in. Denver need to get in front early and hope the defence can keep them winning. If Carolina get in front I think they will keep the lead.

Jolly Red Giant

bruschi wrote: »

I disagree with the notion that if Denver get up a lead that the Panthers wouldnt be able to pull it back. Denver got up a lead against the Patriots and it was left to the defence to keep bending and bending but not to break. They just about managed it by the skin of their teeth and who knows what would have happened if the Pats had to have kicked on any of those 4th down attempts.

But the point being is not that the Pats nearly came back - the point is that the Pats didn't produce a comeback and they didn't because the Broncos defence stopped them.

As for taking FGs instead of going on 4th down - if BB had the slightest expectation that the Pats could win by kicking the FG then he would have kciked the FG. BB felt the best chance for the Pats to win was by going for the 1st down.

bruschi wrote: »

On the flip side, if the Panthers get a lead, I can see Denver being able to pull it back, I just cant foresee the game being won by Denver if it is left to Manning to claw back a 7+ point deficit. I could see Carolina reeling that back in. Denver need to get in front early and hope the defence can keep them winning. If Carolina get in front I think they will keep the lead.

There are two things that will dictate a lot of what will happen (and I don't have the time at the moment to take the same look at the Broncos O V the Panthers D like I did above)

The Panthers thrive on turnovers generated by the defence - they are +20 in the turnover stakes. Most of these turnovers come from INTs when teams are chasing the game. This gives the Panthers offence a significant boost in field position (demonstrated by the game against the Cardinals last weekend).

By contrast the Broncos are -4 in turnovers - predominantly because Manning kept throwing up INTs for the first 10 weeks.

The stat of note is that in the play-offs the Broncos have turned the ball over once (the lateral pass that Hillman didn't jump on when it hit the ground) - Manning has stopped throwing up INTs compared to the 17 he made during the first 10 games. The Broncos are protecting the ball and Manning knows his only chance of winning a ring is by not making any mistakes.

The longer the field the Panthers have to go the bigger the chance that the Broncos D will get to Newton and stop the Panthers O. In particular Newton has a habit of going deep when he has a long field and a tendency to overthrow the deep passes - eating and drinking to the ball-hawks in the Denver secondary.

The second thing has already mentioned - the Broncos will likely need a defence or ST score to win - or at the very least giving Manning a very short field on one or more occasions. I expect that most Broncos fans are confident that the Broncos D are capable of doing this.

There is an assumption among some people that the Carolina offence led by Newton can steamroll Denver - that most definitely will not happen. In my opinion the Panthers offence is good, but overrated. There is also an assumption that the Broncos offence will not be able to move the ball against the Panthers D. Like the offence I am of the opinion that the Panthers D is overrated - particularly in the secondary. They have weaknesses that Manning will be able to analyse at the LOS and hopefully exploit. The Panthers play a lot of zone defence and Manning is very good at dissecting zone defences. On top of that the Panthers are not particularly good at defending the TE and Owen Daniels could be important for Manning.

The Broncos offence is slowly improving - it will probably be at its best in the SB. The OL has been gelling better in post-season than in the regular season.
The Panthers defence is tough against the run and the Broncos have to be able to run the ball - I expect Anderson to get more carries and he can finds holes from the ZBS. The problem for the Broncos is that Anderson is effective when the QB plays under centre - and that is a problem with Manning. It is likely that Kubiak and Dennison will throw in a few kinks to keep the Panthers in the back foot somewhat.

Billy86

D9Male wrote: »

I guess like many people on here, I am struggling to come to terms with the perception I had of Carolina last season. No matter how many times I see Cam rushing like a steamroller or throwing multiple passing TD's or how many times I see the Carolina D returning a pick for a TD or how many times I see Kuechly shutting down a tight end or Josh Norman shutting down a stud WR, I struggle to see how great their results show they are.

I know I am slow on the uptake. I still see the team that was 3-7 or whatever at Thanksgiving last year.

I don't know how the Super Bowl is going to go, all I know is that I shouldn't bet any more on NFL after the hosing I have endured in the past month.

To be fair, their defense was always class - just either banged up or missing a piece or two. This year they've kept mostly healthy, filled the gaps, and seen their young star players really develop. It's the offense that's been the bigger surprise for me, mostly Cam's accuracy (which was shocking at times last season, though he had elbow/ankle injuries if I recall). They've done some job with an extremely limited group of WRs, but outside of that they really do have quality talent almost everywhere else.

As much as a lot of people are remembering that they were 7-8-1 last year (and I am sure many 'remember' it as worse than that due to their poor start) a lot of people have also forgotten that the Panthers were 12-4 the year previous. In fact, if you take away the 6 game losing streak from last season (iirc when Cam's injuries were at their worst), the Panthers are 34-7-1 since the start of 2013 (and 3-2 in the playoffs)! :eek:

Billy86

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Do Carolina have a better defence than the Pats?

Possibly

Well they did kind of allow less points. And less rushing yards. And less passing yards. And less yards per pass attempt. And less yards per rush attempt. While having more fumble recoveries. And more interceptions.

Now don't get me wrong, I agree with what you said about the match ups later on in your post, and Denver's defense is surreal this year. But a lot of people are overlooking the fact that Carolina have an incredible defense themselves (second to Denver in a lot of categories, and first quite comfortably for turning the ball over), sure only last week they forced SEVEN against the best offense in the league for yards and second best for points (behind Carolina) - that could be a major issue for Manning & co.




Personally I see Carolina edging it but would be happy with either team to be honest. I'm expecting a close one (then again I was expecting the same in the NFC game last week!) and really don't have a dog in the fight.

Realt Dearg Sec

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is an assumption among some people that the Carolina offence led by Newton can steamroll Denver -

No there isn't.

Jolly Red Giant

Billy86 wrote: »

Well they did kind of allow less points. And less rushing yards. And less passing yards. And less yards per pass attempt. And less yards per rush attempt. While having more fumble recoveries. And more interceptions.

Now don't get me wrong, I agree with what you said about the match ups later on in your post, and Denver's defense is surreal this year. But a lot of people are overlooking the fact that Carolina have an incredible defense themselves (second to Denver in a lot of categories, and first quite comfortably for turning the ball over), sure only last week they forced SEVEN against the best offense in the league for yards and second best for points (behind Carolina) - that could be a major issue for Manning & co.

The danger with stats is that they can distort how good or not so good an offence or defence actually is.

To start with a defence that operates opposite a good offence gets better stats because they have more advantages and can attack in different ways. The Panthers defence is good but its stats have benefited from a good offence that jumped out to leads which then helped the defence who were able to pin back and go after the QB.

Take last week - the Panthers jumped out to a big lead on a TD from an end around that saw half a dozen missed tackles and then another from an 86 yard pass where the DB blew coverage. From then on ARI were playing catch-up and the perennial choker at QB kept tossing up INTs. It is easy to get 7 turnovers when the opposition is down 3 or 4 TDs. The contrast is the previous week when the Panthers also jumped out to a lead on the back of two plays at the start of the game - against Seattle the Panthers nearly blew it with their offence moribund and their defence giving up a ton of yardage and big plays.

The reason why the Broncos defence is better than the stats is because they have had to fight for every yard in every game. Every last one of the 14 games the Broncos have won this year has been won by the defence. The Broncos defence has spent the majority of time in every game on the field and they have had to repeatedly bail out an offence that was being strangled by Manning's bad play. If the Broncos had anything approaching a half decent offence during the regular season the Broncos D stats would have been off the charts.

I have previously outlined how the Broncos defence matches up well with the Panthers offence. It is also a case that the Broncos offence (limited as it is) matches up well against the Panthers D - particular in the passing game. The Panthers do match up well against the Broncos run game and that could be the key to the entire SB.

Billy86

On the other hand, having an offense that scores more points can also cause the team to switch off - Carolina had a few games they were dominating at the half where they allowed a lot of points afterward (GB, IND back to back spring to mind... and SEA in the wild card). The Panthers did get turnovers after getting the lead last week, but you can't discount the role of the defense in holding the best offensive in the league for yards/2nd best for points (behind Carolina) to 0 points and 38 yards in the first quarter/their first three drives. Calling Palmer "the perennial choker" is a bit of a reach by the way.

I also don't buy the claim that "The Broncos defence has spent the majority of time in every game on the field" when Denver has averaged over 30 minutes/50% possession per game this year (90 seconds per game Carolina's).

I'm not saying Denver's defense is anything less than incredible, but some people seem to be overlooking Carolina's because of the attention their offense has been receiving this year, especially as the season has worn on. And like Denver, it's not a one-off either - they only allowed 10 more points than the SB winning Seahawks defense in 2013 (a unit that might do down with the 85 Bears, 2000 Ravens, etc), and outside of the middle 8 games or so last season (where they temporarily fell off a cliff) were also allowing very few points.

Billy86

On the other hand, having an offense that scores more points can also cause the team to switch off - Carolina had a few games they were dominating at the half where they allowed a lot of points afterward (GB, IND back to back spring to mind... and SEA in the wild card). The Panthers did get turnovers after getting the lead last week, but you can't discount the role of the defense in holding the best offensive in the league for yards/2nd best for points (behind Carolina) to 0 points and 38 yards in the first quarter/their first three drives. Calling Palmer "the perennial choker" is a bit of a reach by the way.

I also don't buy the claim that "The Broncos defence has spent the majority of time in every game on the field" when Denver has averaged over 30 minutes/50% possession per game this year (edit: 90 seconds per game less than Carolina's).

I'm not saying Denver's defense is anything less than incredible, but some people seem to be overlooking Carolina's because of the attention their offense has been receiving this year, especially as the season has worn on. And like Denver, it's not a one-off either - they only allowed 10 more points than the SB winning Seahawks defense in 2013 (a unit that might do down with the 85 Bears, 2000 Ravens, etc), and outside of the middle 8 games or so last season (where they temporarily fell off a cliff) were also allowing very few points.

adrian522

Billy86 wrote: »

On the other hand, having an offense that scores more points can also cause the team to switch off - Carolina had a few games they were dominating at the half where they allowed a lot of points afterward (GB, IND back to back spring to mind... and SEA in the wild card). The Panthers did get turnovers after getting the lead last week, but you can't discount the role of the defense in holding the best offensive in the league for yards/2nd best for points (behind Carolina) to 0 points and 38 yards in the first quarter/their first three drives. Calling Palmer "the perennial choker" is a bit of a reach by the way.

I also don't buy the claim that "The Broncos defence has spent the majority of time in every game on the field" when Denver has averaged over 30 minutes/50% possession per game this year (90 seconds per game Carolina's).

I'm not saying Denver's defense is anything less than incredible, but some people seem to be overlooking Carolina's because of the attention their offense has been receiving this year, especially as the season has worn on. And like Denver, it's not a one-off either - they only allowed 10 more points than the SB winning Seahawks defense in 2013 (a unit that might do down with the 85 Bears, 2000 Ravens, etc), and outside of the middle 8 games or so last season (where they temporarily fell off a cliff) were also allowing very few points.

Yeah Giants game as well, I think they were up 35-7 or something and NY ended up getting right back into it and Carolina won it late.

eagle eye

TheDoctor wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "full tilt". In terms of personnel yes we had everyone but we really weren't playing anyway well by week 6 - following the Panthers loss that week we were 2-4 with only wins against the Bears and the Lions at home.

In my opinion the first good game we played this season was week 10 V the Steelers where we still gave up 32 points but the offense was on fire.

Wilson went on his amazing run the next few weeks and the season came together bar one slip against our bogey team, the Rams,

I was talking about your D only not the offense or special teams.

JCTO

Funny thing is about this whole thread is that and something JRG actually said is that ""The Super Bowl is a one off game - anything can happen"". The Pats were heavy favorites in 2007 and lost and everyone Pats fans or non Pats fans were doing what this thread is doing, Comparing Offense Vs Offense, Defense vs Defense, Offense vs Defense etc etc but all of that actually means nothing this week.

We could go another 10 pages trying to justify who has the better team but it really doesn't matter. Hell Broncos fans should know how that goes also. Everyone thought the Broncos would do better against the Seahawks a couple of years ago and the comparisons were made and the game was a blowout and we all got it wrong.

This Bowl could go either way and comparing what has happened before next weeks game is fruitless because it probably wont matter.

Billy86

JCTO wrote: »

Funny thing is about this whole thread is that and something JRG actually said is that ""The Super Bowl is a one off game - anything can happen"". The Pats were heavy favorites in 2007 and lost and everyone Pats fans or non Pats fans were doing what this thread is doing, Comparing Offense Vs Offense, Defense vs Defense, Offense vs Defense etc etc but all of that actually means nothing this week.

We could go another 10 pages trying to justify who has the better team but it really doesn't matter. Hell Broncos fans should know how that goes also. Everyone thought the Broncos would do better against the Seahawks a couple of years ago and the comparisons were made and the game was a blowout and we all got it wrong.

This Bowl could go either way and comparing what has happened before next weeks game is fruitless because it probably wont matter.

By that logic, isn't speculating over any game (e.g. one of the main functions of this forum) pointless?

Realt Dearg Sec

Billy86 wrote: »

By that logic, isn't speculating over any game (e.g. one of the main functions of this forum) pointless?

Football's so great.

Billy86

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Football's so great.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy football!

Realt Dearg Sec

Bye weeks! Bronko Nagurski didn't get no bye weeks! And now he's DEAD...well, maybe they're a good thing.

Billy86

Realt Dearg, I like your hustle. That's why it was so hard to cut you.

JCTO

Billy86 wrote: »

By that logic, isn't speculating over any game (e.g. one of the main functions of this forum) pointless?

You missed my point. I never said you can't speculate and yes speculating can be pointless but show me where I even said we can't speculate or debate. And I hate when people use the line "By that Logic" and then go in and take a post out of context and make up their own context.

Billy86

So what was I to take from "We could go another 10 pages trying to justify who has the better team but it really doesn't matter" and "This Bowl could go either way and comparing what has happened before next weeks game is fruitless because it probably wont matter" ?

JCTO

Billy86 wrote: »

So what was I to take from "We could go another 10 pages trying to justify who has the better team but it really doesn't matter" and "This Bowl could go either way and comparing what has happened before next weeks game is fruitless because it probably wont matter" ?

You are the only one who seems to have an issue with it. Why even bother? It is clear 3 people understood what I was getting at and probably more but either way I could care less what you think at this point. Seems like you are just looking for an argument.

Billy86

JCTO wrote: »

You are the only one who seems to have an issue with it. Why even bother? It is clear 3 people understood what I was getting at and probably more but either way I could care less what you think at this point. Seems like you are just looking for an argument.

Sweet Laaawwwwwdddd someone got out of the wrong side of the bed! I simply pointed out that if it is pointless to speculate on games that haven't happened yet, that would make this forum, well, rather pointless in itself. I'm not looking for an argument here, it was a light hearted observation, there is no need to be defensive, we are all friends here.

Friends!
Football friends!!

JCTO

Billy86 wrote: »

Sweet Laaawwwwwdddd someone got out of the wrong side of the bed! I simply pointed out that if it is pointless to speculate on games that haven't happened yet, that would make this forum, well, rather pointless in itself.

That old chestnut. Of course I must be angry or pissed off right? Actually I am having a great day today and had a wonderful day yesterday. I wasn't saying people shouldn't post and i wasn't saying people shouldn't speculate and I wasn't saying people shouldn't debate. My point was again that there was people some strong opinions being pushed as if they were fact or the right opinion and my point was none of it really matters our opinions and what we think we know could all go out the window. But you decided to pick on it and I responded and you got it wrong. But I am off to go smash up things and shout at old people and children because I am angry....