Playoff outlook, three weeks to go
Adam Smith
regular season.
Tiebreakers for teams in the same division are head-to-head, division
record, common-opponents record, conference record in that order. For
teams in different divisions it's head-to-head, then conference
record, then common-opponents record.
AFC Wildcard standings, remaining schedules:
[IND: 14-0]
[SD: 10-3]
[CIN: 9-4]
[NE: 7-5]
*DEN: 8-5 (6-4 conf): OAK, @PHI, KC
*BAL: 7-6 (6-4 conf): CHI, @PIT, @OAK
*MIA: 7-6 (5-4 conf): TEN, HOU, PIT
NYJ: 7-6 (5-5 conf): ATL, @IND, CIN
*JAX: 7-7 (6-4 conf): @NE, @CLE
PIT: 6-7 (4-6 conf): GB, BAL, @MIA
HOU: 6-7 (4-6 conf): @STL, @MIA, NE
TEN: 6-7 (3-7 conf): MIA, SD, @SEA
AFCW race: The Chargers have a tough game against the Bengals this
weekend. If they lose and the Broncos beat the Raiders, then the door
might still be open a teensy bit for the Broncos to win the division.
I'll play out the tiebreakers next week if that happens.
On the other hand, if the Broncos lose to the Raiders then the
Chargers will clinch the division title regardless of whether they
beat the Bengals or not.
Wild card: The bad news is the Broncos lost to the Colts last
weekend. The good news is that they've gotten past the hardest game
left on the schedule and still hold a one-game lead over the rest of
the wild-card pack. The other good news is that the Steelers choked
against the Browns last weekend and the Jaguars generously lost to the
Colts last night.
I'm not going to game out all the scenarios yet (maybe next week) but
the important thing here is that the home games against the Raiders
and Chiefs are much more important than the Eagles game for the wild-
card standings, because aside from head-to-head, conference record is
the most important tiebreaker. Obviously the best thing is for the
Broncos to win out, reach 11-5, and sail into the top wildcard slot.
But if they're going to finish 10-6, it's much better if those two
wins come against the Raiders and Chiefs.
Bottom line this week is that the Broncos need to take care of
business against the Raiders, and it would be really nice if the
Ravens, Dolphins, and Jets all lost.
Cleatarrior
I can't recall a playoff slate that has ever had so much parity of W/L
record and common opponents. This is why you _always_ want to take care
of conference business early, and if you have to drop a few, let it be
against non-divisional teams.
Good analysis, and toss in one coach on the bubble big-time (Kubes) and
another who was close (Fisher) and then ask if Del Rio's starting to get
job scrutiny.
For the distraction factor, Chris Henry in Cinncy, could be a rallying
point.
And Moss vs. Belichik in NE - time for some love there, Bill.
This will be a real interesting December for sure.
Molar
> Update on the Broncos' playoff standing with three Sundays left in the
> regular season.
>
> Tiebreakers for teams in the same division are head-to-head, division
> record, common-opponents record, conference record in that order. For
> teams in different divisions it's head-to-head, then conference
> record, then common-opponents record.
>
> AFC Wildcard standings, remaining schedules:
>
> [IND: 14-0]
> [SD: 10-3]
> [CIN: 9-4]
> [NE: 7-5]
> *DEN: 8-5 (6-4 conf): OAK, @PHI, KC
> *BAL: 7-6 (6-4 conf): CHI, @PIT, @OAK
> *MIA: 7-6 (5-4 conf): TEN, HOU, PIT
> NYJ: 7-6 (5-5 conf): ATL, @IND, CIN
> *JAX: 7-7 (6-4 conf): @NE, @CLE
> PIT: 6-7 (4-6 conf): GB, BAL, @MIA
> HOU: 6-7 (4-6 conf): @STL, @MIA, NE
> TEN: 6-7 (3-7 conf): MIA, SD, @SEA
The thing is...Baltimore is probably going to win out. That puts them
at 10-6, with the tie-breaker over us, in a two way tie. The Jets
will probably lose at Indy, who helped us Thursday night. The
Dolphins could also win out, so you could have Baltimore, Denver, and
Miami at 10-6. Not sure which two of those three would be in if that
happens.
KG
> On Dec 18, 2:13 pm, Adam Smith <adamcsm...@fastmail.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Update on the Broncos' playoff standing with three Sundays left in the
> > regular season.
>
> > Tiebreakers for teams in the same division are head-to-head, division
> > record, common-opponents record, conference record in that order. For
> > teams in different divisions it's head-to-head, then conference
> > record, then common-opponents record.
>
> > AFC Wildcard standings, remaining schedules:
>
> > [IND: 14-0]
> > [SD: 10-3]
> > [CIN: 9-4]
> > [NE: 7-5]
> > *DEN: 8-5 (6-4 conf): OAK, @PHI, KC
> > *BAL: 7-6 (6-4 conf): CHI, @PIT, @OAK
> > *MIA: 7-6 (5-4 conf): TEN, HOU, PIT
> > NYJ: 7-6 (5-5 conf): ATL, @IND, CIN
> > *JAX: 7-7 (6-4 conf): @NE, @CLE
> > PIT: 6-7 (4-6 conf): GB, BAL, @MIA
> > HOU: 6-7 (4-6 conf): @STL, @MIA, NE
> > TEN: 6-7 (3-7 conf): MIA, SD, @SEA
>
> The thing is...Baltimore is probably going to win out.
<snip>
Probably?
They're not *that* good. I don't see a greater than 50% chance of them
winning 3 in a row.
Adam Smith
That's actually the one scenario I tried to game out. (I think I
agree with Cleat that the Ravens will more likely finish 9-7 than
10-6, but a three-way tie at 10-6 is probably the most likely
"problem" scenario for the Broncos.) It goes like this:
All three teams would be from different divisions. Since the Dolphins
didn't play the Broncos or Ravens this year, there's no head-to-head
tiebreaker (HtH only counts for 3-way ties if one team swept the other
two.)
If the Dolphins and Ravens both win out, they'll have 8-4 conference
records. If the Broncos finish 10-6, their conference record will be
either 8-4 if they lose to the Eagles, or 7-5 if they lose to the
Raiders or Chiefs (again, this is why those games are more important).
So, if we get to a 3-way tie at 10-6/8-4, the next tiebreaker is the
record against common opponents, which in this case is the Patriots,
Colts, Chargers, and Steelers. In this scenario the Ravens would be
3-2 against those teams, while the Broncos and Dolphins would both be
2-3. So, the Ravens would get the first wild-card slot.
The Broncos and Dolphins would then revert to the beginning of the two-
team tiebreakers. There would be no HtH here. Conference record
would still be tied. The Broncos and Dolphins have no extra common
opponents beyond the ones they share with the Ravens, so that would
still be tied. The next tiebreaker would be something called
"Strength of victory" which is the total winning percentage of all the
opponents each team has beaten. That gets tricky because past
opponents are still playing games every week, so for example a team
you've already beaten could take a nosedive in the last few weeks and
kill your SoV number. That's where I gave up and decided to wait for
next week. But, what the hell:
Right now, the Dolphins have wins over the Bills (5-8), Jets (7-6),
Bucs (1-12), Patriots (8-5), and Jaguars (7-7) (I'm assuming you only
count each team once, so e..g, the Dolphins don't count the Jets'
record twice even though they swept the home-and-away series). Under
this win-out scenario they'd also beat the Titans (6-7), Texans (6-7),
and Steelers (6-7). The total record of those teams right now is
46-59, for a SoV of 0.438 based on those team's records right now.
The Broncos have wins over the Bengals (9-4), Browns (2-11), Raiders
(4-9), Cowboys (9-5), Patriots (8-5), Chargers (10-3), Giants (7-6)
and Chiefs (3-10). Under this scenario they wouldn't beat any teams
they haven't already beaten, so the total records of teams they've
beaten would be 52-53 for a SoV of 0.495 based on current records, for
a very narrow lead for that last wildcard slot.
But again, those numbers can change based on future games that don't
involve the Broncos or the Dolphins. It's only a 6-win margin, so one
or two teams streaking or collapsing at the end of the season could
change this easily.
Also, this is why the Dolphins are the worst AFC East team for the
Broncos to match up against for the wild-card slot. If the Jets win
out, their conference record will only be 7-5. If the Patriots take a
loss and give the division to the Dolphins, their conference record
will only be 7-5 (which would matter in a 3-way tie).
So there you have it.
Cleatarrior
I tend to agree, but they certainly face the more "damaged" teams, but a
game @ Pitt is always a tough venue.
Cleatarrior
I think I've become a J-E-T-S fan...
Adam Smith
Heh.
Dolphins and Jets both losing was about the best thing that could have
happened for us in the early games. The Patriots losing would have
been nice, but it's probably irrelevant now. If the Broncos lose to
the Raiders, then the worst that can happen is the Ravens will win and
the Broncos will fall into the second wild-card slot with only a one-
game lead over the cluster of 7-loss teams.
Obviously beating the Raiders would be much, much better.
Cleatarrior
But it's looking kind of...grim...so far.
Props to Tony Carter and David Bruton though.
And our rag arm?
Sigh...
Biff
wrote:
>> Obviously beating the Raiders would be much, much better.
>
>But it's looking kind of...grim...so far.
>
>Props to Tony Carter and David Bruton though.
>
>And our rag arm?
>
>Sigh...
our rag arm that played better than the guy he replaced?
--
biff [hr14...@sneakemail.com]
(put "blackcherry" in the subject line to get through)
_______ ____
| /----/ (____)
c (.).) |Budw|
( (_)) (_)(__)
\ . | | (__)
\___/ | (__)
----
Words of Wisdom for Saturday, October 17, 2009...
Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful,
beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful
sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak,
and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his
feet. And also, you're drunk.
Molar
5) Baltimore 8-6, (at Pitt, at Oak)
6) Denver 8-6, (at Phi, KC)
Still in the hunt at 7-7:
Jax (at NE, at Cle)
Mia (Hou, Pit)
NYJ (at Ind, Cin)
Pit (Bal, at Mia)
Ten (SD, at Sea)
Hou (at Miami, NE)
Thankfully, the Broncos still have a chance despite the embarrassment
yesterday, even if they lose at Philly.
Cleatarrior
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:34:59 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>> Obviously beating the Raiders would be much, much better.
>> But it's looking kind of...grim...so far.
>>
>> Props to Tony Carter and David Bruton though.
>>
>> And our rag arm?
>>
>> Sigh...
>
> our rag arm that played better than the guy he replaced?
>
Biff
wrote:
surely you're not going to attribute our weak ass running game and
porous defence on lack of respect for the long ball.
Molar
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:36:55 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Biff wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:34:59 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> Obviously beating the Raiders would be much, much better.
> >>> But it's looking kind of...grim...so far.
>
> >>> Props to Tony Carter and David Bruton though.
>
> >>> And our rag arm?
>
> >>> Sigh...
>
> >> our rag arm that played better than the guy he replaced?
>
> >But not well enough to get any long ball respect from Jokeland...
>
> surely you're not going to attribute our weak ass running game and
> porous defence on lack of respect for the long ball.
The running game I can blame, but the D didn't allow *that* many
points.
> --
> biff [hr14kb...@sneakemail.com]
Molar
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Biff wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:34:59 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> Obviously beating the Raiders would be much, much better.
> >>> But it's looking kind of...grim...so far.
>
> >>> Props to Tony Carter and David Bruton though.
>
> >>> And our rag arm?
>
> >>> Sigh...
>
> >> our rag arm that played better than the guy he replaced?
>
> >But not well enough to get any long ball respect from Jokeland...
>
> surely you're not going to attribute our weak ass running game and
> porous defence on lack of respect for the long ball.
Actually I can partly blame our weak ass running game on lack of
respect for the deep ball.
> --
> biff [hr14kb...@sneakemail.com]
Cleatarrior
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:36:55 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>> Biff wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:34:59 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Obviously beating the Raiders would be much, much better.
>>>> But it's looking kind of...grim...so far.
>>>>
>>>> Props to Tony Carter and David Bruton though.
>>>>
>>>> And our rag arm?
>>>>
>>>> Sigh...
>>> our rag arm that played better than the guy he replaced?
>>>
>> But not well enough to get any long ball respect from Jokeland...
>
> surely you're not going to attribute our weak ass running game and
> porous defence on lack of respect for the long ball.
> --
Surely you're not going to deny they had the box packed and thus Moreno
had no room to run and the slants, screens, and other short dumps
weren't swarmed?
Cleatarrior
> On Dec 21, 9:03 pm, Biff <hr14kb...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:36:55 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Biff wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:34:59 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Obviously beating the Raiders would be much, much better.
>>>>> But it's looking kind of...grim...so far.
>>>>> Props to Tony Carter and David Bruton though.
>>>>> And our rag arm?
>>>>> Sigh...
>>>> our rag arm that played better than the guy he replaced?
>>> But not well enough to get any long ball respect from Jokeland...
>> surely you're not going to attribute our weak ass running game and
>> porous defence on lack of respect for the long ball.
>
> The running game I can blame, but the D didn't allow *that* many
> points.
Until they melted when it counted...but otherwise, you're right.
Nice day for Vonnie, he literally owned on full possession.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Surely you're not going to deny they had the box packed and thus Moreno
>had no room to run and the slants, screens, and other short dumps
>weren't swarmed?
That's coaching. There's no guarantee that putting in a bigger,
stronger running back would change things - without doing something to
make the defense think twice.
Part of coaching is having the right personnel, part is getting the
right play, and part is getting the right execution.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Cleatarrior
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:40:18 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>> Surely you're not going to deny they had the box packed and thus Moreno
>> had no room to run and the slants, screens, and other short dumps
>> weren't swarmed?
>
> That's coaching. There's no guarantee that putting in a bigger,
> stronger running back would change things - without doing something to
> make the defense think twice.
>
> Part of coaching is having the right personnel, part is getting the
> right play, and part is getting the right execution.
Which means don't try to implement a power running game with OL-men who
excel at trap and zone blocking. The Faiders ran what used to be our
ground game against us and made Bush look like a monster. Hello Ayers,
someone has to stay home.
THEY seemed to grasp that if McFadden wasn't producing it was a good
idea to look elsewhere.
We pile Moreno into stop after stop and forget Hillis is 240 lbs. of
runaway truck, bizarre.
But yeah, if we're unable to get the D back out of the box with some
post routes there isn't a whole lot that will work. Orton does not have
that arm, and Brandon Marshall has been mostly wasted on him.