Who has the best chance at beating NE in the SB?

[Oldschool739]

As far as I'm concerned NE is already going to the SB. Now I'd prefer Seattle not make it again because I don't want them to win either but I made them a choice because they're a dangerous team. I just want someone to knock off NE even if that's....sigh...Cam.

Arizona would be near a lock to beat them but the Broncos will be playing the Cards in the SB, they will lose also but at least we won't have to hear all the drama queens from NE with their excuses why they lost...
It's the refs, it's the weather, it's Goodell, it's a conspiracy , shoot, just make your own trophy and put it in your stadium, no one respects the jokes that are there anyway... ****

 

[Broncos6482]

Your statements are in direct conflict with one another.

No they aren't.

I'll give you an example: in 2013, a factor in the Broncos beating the Patriots in the AFC Championship game was the fact that Gronk was injured. But you didn't hear Brady mention that in the post game, because he knows better. Complaining about injuries is a loser's lament.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Arizona would be near a lock to beat them but the Broncos will be playing the Cards in the SB, they will lose also but at least we won't have to hear all the drama queens from NE with their excuses why they lost...
It's the refs, it's the weather, it's Goodell, it's a conspiracy , shoot, just make your own trophy and put it in your stadium, no one respects the jokes that are there anyway... ****

I feel better now OS your predictions are right there with Handicappers and Tgann

 

[NEhomer]

No they aren't.

I'll give you an example: in 2013, a factor in the Broncos beating the Patriots in the AFC Championship game was the fact that Gronk was injured. But you didn't hear Brady mention that in the post game, because he knows better. Complaining about injuries is a loser's lament.

In as much as teams that win don't bother to mention injuries, you're correct. However, you may not claim that Gronk's injury was at once, both a factor in the outcome of a game and an invalid excuse. The excuse is either valid or it is not.

 

[Broncos6482]

In as much as teams that win don't bother to mention injuries, you're correct. However, you may not claim that Gronk's injury was at once, both a factor in the outcome of a game and an invalid excuse. The excuse is either valid or it is not.

I didn't say it was invalid, I said it was a loser's lament. And it is, because it ignores a million other factors on the game, especially injuries to the other team that kept some of their player's out. Plus you can't assume a different outcome if all injured players were healthy.

So using the we would have won if so and so was healthy is pathetic excuse making. It just comes across as being a sore loser.

 

[NEhomer]

So a valid excuse is pathetic.

Right.

 

[Broncos6482]

So a valid excuse is pathetic.

Right.

It may be valid, it may not be. Like I said, we don't know what the outcome would be with the injured players.

That's why it's pathetic.

 

[Oldschool739]

I feel better now OS your predictions are right there with Handicappers and Tgann

And as suspected, yours are locked into the homer zone with Neputz and Fat boy Racer....
I tell it like I see it, no matter who it is.....If the Cards can take down that Panthers D at their house, NE don't have much of a chance on a level playing field, and the Broncos don't have enough O to beat their stout D....
I picked Zona weeks ago to win it all, I've seen nothing to change my mind.....We'll see !!

 

[NEhomer]

It may be valid, it may not be. Like I said, we don't know what the outcome would be with the injured players.

That's why it's pathetic.

When it's not valid, then call it pathetic. When it's valid, it's not pathetic. I simply don't understand the sheer lack of logic, you're applying here.

Like the example I used earlier, if the Pats had lost the Superbowl this past year and I tried to blame it on losing Jerod Mayo to IR, then I might rightfully be taken to task. Of course you have to get past a few injuries to replaceable players.

If we win but lose Brady, Edleman and Gronk this weekend, the result of the Superbowl will be pretty much pre-determined. Some excuses are valid while some are not.

Significant injuries to key players most definitely change the outcome of games

 

[sonnyblack65]

And as suspected, yours are locked into the homer zone with Neputz and Fat boy Racer....
I tell it like I see it, no matter who it is.....If the Cards can take down that Panthers D at their house, NE don't have much of a chance on a level playing field, and the Broncos don't have enough O to beat their stout D....
I picked Zona weeks ago to win it all, I've seen nothing to change my mind.....We'll see !!

Nah not so much I don't suck the Patriots dick or go homer l. I don't get caught up with this shit or the "cheating" homos on here, leave it for the kids. If Pats win, I don't get a ring or a check from it. I have never predicted a Pats victory or talk like it's "my" team

 

[Broncos6482]

When it's not valid, then call it pathetic. When it's valid, it's not pathetic. I simply don't understand the sheer lack of logic, you're applying here.

Like the example I used earlier, if the Pats had lost the Superbowl this past year and I tried to blame it on losing Jerod Mayo to IR, then I might rightfully be taken to task. Of course you have to get past a few injuries to replaceable players.

If we win but lose Brady, Edleman and Gronk this weekend, the result of the Superbowl will be pretty much pre-determined. Some excuses are valid while some are not.

Significant injuries to key players most definitely change the outcome of games

My point is, we don't know whether it's valid or not because we can't replay the game with the injured players. That's why it's a pathetic excuse.

 

[NEhomer]

My point is, we don't know whether it's valid or not because we can't replay the game with the injured players. That's why it's a pathetic excuse.

Sorry bro, you're simply digging in your heels.

Your heels are too entrenched to answer but I'll ask anyway. Would a Pats team without Brady Gronk and Edleman beat the Cards or Panthers?

No. The simple answer is no, they would not.

 

[Duffman]

A healthy Denver team struggled to beat an injured Pittsburgh team but ya sure I'll buy that the same team can beat a a healthy New England team.

 

[Broncos6482]

Sorry bro, you're simply digging in your heels.

Your heels are too entrenched to answer but I'll ask anyway. Would a Pats team without Brady Gronk and Edleman beat the Cards or Panthers?

No. The simple answer is no, they would not.

First, you can't assume that. You just don't know. Probably a lot of people in 2001 didn't think the Patriots could win a Super Bowl without Drew Bledsoe, and we all know how that worked out.

Second, we don't know if a Pats team with Brady, Gronk, and Edelman would beat the Cards or Panthers.

 

[NEhomer]

First, you can't assume that. You just don't know. Probably a lot of people in 2001 didn't think the Patriots could win a Super Bowl without Drew Bledsoe, and we all know how that worked out.

Second, we don't know if a Pats team with Brady, Gronk, and Edelman would beat the Cards or Panthers.

Correct, we don't know that but we do know thed's lose without them. You should try conceding a point some time. It's not that hard to do.

 

[Broncos6482]

Compelling argument. You've nearly convinced me.

 

[Keystone]

Sorry bro, you're simply digging in your heels.

Your heels are too entrenched to answer but I'll ask anyway. Would a Pats team without Brady Gronk and Edleman beat the Cards or Panthers?

No. The simple answer is no, they would not.

I'll ask another question. At beginning of this season would anybody have thought the Broncos would finish the season 12-4 and be playing for the conference championship this weekend knowing beforehand the stats Manning would have?

Simple answer is no...

 

[Broncos6482]

Correct, we don't know that but we do know thed's lose without them. You should try conceding a point some time. It's not that hard to do.

You don't know that. You can't possibly know that. You may think it's likely, and I'd probably agree with that, but that's not the same as saying something you know.

 

[Dude]

To coin a mundane phrase: It is what it is. Let's have fun, and wait for the games to play out before jumping to conclusions... On any given Sunday...

 

[Oldschool739]

Nah not so much I don't go homer . I don't get caught up with this shit or the "cheating" homos on here, leave it for the kids. If Pats win, I don't get a ring or a check from it. I have never predicted a Pats victory or talk like it's "my" team

And you had to send a blizzard to teach me a lesson ?????....