Broncos have a better chance if they start Osweiller desu

>>65072756
yeah but then there's no manning-brady "hype"/marketing

yeah and New England will have a better chance with a sideline camera and deflated footballs

Yes. Peyton is a washed up has been.

I wonder if they have the balls to bench him if he starts fucking up, imagine Peyton ending his career by being benched in a AFC championship game

belichick now has tape on osweiller and knows what he likes to do. he'd take advantage of this and the fact that he's inexperienced, and force him into making bad decisions or being ineffective.

true

>>65077357
good point alfredo

>>65072756
Its funny how Broncos fans have such faith in HGH right now and they'll all be calling for his release once he floats 2 ducks into the arms of Devin McCourty

>>65077357
>bill constantly makes manning look like shit and this is his best defense in years
>people understand how to stop osweiller now and know his weaknesses
>pats offense is back in gear and one of those shitters is going to need to go toe to toe with brady in a shootout to have a chance

>>65082263
>bill constantly makes manning look like shit

yeah that's a dank meme and all of that i know, but the reality is that brady/belichick manning are 5-5 in their last 10 meetings. if you take out the first 6 times they played (10 years ago) this series is pretty balanced and the outcome is anything but certain

>>65082627
>if we take out over the half of the games that he lost then his record is not so bad
ye, no. fuck off. If we only count them from 2010 to now then Patriots are 4-1 vs Manning. I can cherrypick too

why doesn't Denver just start both Osweiler and Manning (take out one of the linemen). That would they could make who the ball snaps to unpredictable and Manning could block for Osweiler on some plays or serve as a decoy.

>>65082747
>Manning could block for Osweiler on some plays or serve as a decoy.
KEK

>>65082747
>Manning could block
I chuckled. good one, anon

Weather in denver around kickoff is going to be 38 degrees with snow that doesn't stick to the ground. The passing game is going to be fucked all day.

Broncos 43- Patriots 8

File: 1447294601526.jpg (13KB, 240x150px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 240x150px

>>65082627
>if you take out the first 6 times they played (10 years ago)
...why would you do that?

>>65082815

Lmao look at the record of Beyton in cold weather and Brady in cold weather and get back to me.

There's still time for you to not look like a fucking retard, but it's running out!

File: 1398965206844.jpg (94KB, 544x479px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 544x479px

>>65082815
>brady losing to manning in cold weather
38 isn't even that cold. i swear to god denver "fans" are the dumbest motherfuckers on this board

>>65082698
>too insecure to accept the fact that the series hasn't been a blow out through the last 10 years
>too choked up on brody's dick to realized this sentence "bill constantly makes manning look like shit and this is his best defense in years" is factually wrong
stick to your premier shit and boring ass rugby, britbong. seriously

>>65083150
>too insecure to accept the fact that the series has been blow out through the last 5 years
>too choked up on manning's dick to realise that the arbitrary "last 10 years" timeframe is retarded

>>65082831
cause this: bill constantly makes manning look like shit, only applies to 10 plus years ago and 20 yo manning

>>65083196
but it also applies to 2010-now Manning

what now?

>>65082747

Nice proxy Australia

>>65083175
ok retard i'll try to make it simple for you.
some guy brings up a dank opinion "bill constantly makes manning look like shit"
i bring up a fact to counter that opinion "5-5 in their last 10 meetings".
you get all hissy fit-sy in your panties because my comment doesn't have enough brady's dick flavoring in it and bring up a fact that neither proves the first opinion nor disproves my fact but somehow someway you think it did

>>65083222
if you wanna call a 5-5 record "CONSTANTLY look like shit" go right ahead. can't argue with this special kind of retard

>>65083880
But it's not a 5-5 record. it's only a 5-5 record after applying your "my arbitrary time period is more important than yours" criteria. What makes a game played in 2005 relevant to that match up but a game played in 2004 not?

>>65083880
I mean, why 10? What makes a 10 game sample better than the full 16? Or 7? Or 5?

>>65083880
No one is falling for your cherrypicked examples fuckboy.

>>65083880
I might as well say that with the exception of the 05-09 seasons, Brady and Bill are 10-1 vs Manning. But I won't because that's stupid and irrelevant.

You're so retarded I needed 3 straight posts to fully absorb it

>>65083913
>>65083926
belichik is kinda famous for owning young qbs. he shows things they've never seen before and gets in their heads. i'd say that fits the first few meetings: manning was still young and was nowhere near the field general that has become over the years. you might argue that doesn't apply to all the first 6 games. let's say it only applies to the first 3 meetings it'd still be a 5-8 record which to me is hardly "constantly make look like shit" considering peyton led offenses scored around 30 points on those tough defenses on most occasions

>>65083996
here's your (you) edgy 12yo

>>65084209
No matter how you try to rationalise it, you're still cherrypicking completely irrelevant time periods. Even if the whole Brady/Belichick dominance over Manning was just a result of Belichick owning young QBs as you're trying to claim, it's easily disproven by another "fact". Manning is just 1-4 vs the Patriots in his last 5 games.

The point is, any cherrypicked timeframe is irrelevant. No matter if you choose to include 10 games, 5 games, 1 game or 12 games, your argument will always boil down to "if you don't count the times he lost then he didn't lose all that much"

>healthy receivers and defense

Pats 27-13

Anyone who thinks peyton will have a good game is a moron

>>65084522
Anyone who thinks Brady will have a good game at Mile High is a moron

File: 1363139808638.gif (1MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x150px

>>65085007
>le football field has magic properties argument
nice one

>>65084308
>No matter how you try to rationalise it, you're still cherrypicking completely irrelevant time periods
except i gave you a reason why at least a couple of the first few match ups skew those numbers, unless you wanna claim mid 20s peyton manning who has faced a bill bilichick defense twice is as experienced as 30s peyton manning who knows bill better than anyone else

>Even if the whole Brady/Belichick dominance over Manning was just a result of Belichick owning young QBs
>the whole Brady/Belichick dominance was just
>THE WHOLE
>JUST
i've never said that, learn to read

>as you're trying to claim
wrong

>disproven by another "fact". Manning is just 1-4 vs the Patriots in his last 5 games
does the 4-1 record manning holds over belichick in the late 2000s prove that he made belichick look like shit during that period too?
since your so fixated over this last 5 games here's another stat: out of the last 5 games 4 have been played in foxborough and 1 in denver. guess who won which games, and guess where the miraculous second half 24 points pats comeback + ot win happened.

> any cherrypicked timeframe is irrelevant.
it depends on the criteria you use and what you're trying to point out.
examples: if you say the chiefs are 10 in their last 10 games after starting 1-5 you're trying to point out that the team might have improved and is playing better than when it was 1-5.
the pats started 10-0 and ended the season 2-4, same thing, the team started but is now struggling
manning-brady started 0-6 but has since been 5-5, what once was a blow out and a given has since turned into an entertaining and unpredictable match up.

>your argument will always boil down to "if you don't count the times he lost then he didn't lose all that much"
yeah whatever ignore the reasoning. what's your argument? bill constantly makes peyton look like shit and by constantly i mean except the last 10 years or exclusively in the last 5 years(after being made look like shit)

>>65085549
>except i gave you a reason why at least a couple of the first few match ups skew those numbers
Which was a stupid reason not backed by any facts. inb4 he has a good record vs young quarterbacks - Brady and Belichick have a good record in 99% of scenarios. There is nothing "skewed" about those games, Manning played badly and he lost.

>unless you wanna claim mid 20s peyton manning who has faced a bill bilichick defense twice is as experienced as 30s peyton manning who knows bill better than anyone else
No, unless you want to claim that the 2015 version of Peyton Manning is as good a quarterback as 03-09 version of Peyton Manning. And I'm quite sure there are a few people who know Bill better than Peyton does.

>i've never said that, learn to read
You heavily implied it. You said that if we don't count the first 6 games they played then the match up is very even. So by discounting those games you took it from Brady/Belichick dominance to a tie (no dominance) and the only reason you gave was "Bill is good vs young QBs". So you pretty much attributed the entire dominance of this matchup to some unverified claim. I mean, yea, he is good vs young QBs but Bill is good vs pretty much anything so it's not something that skews the statistics, it just shows what a good coach he is.

>does the 4-1 record manning holds over belichick in the late 2000s prove that he made belichick look like shit during that period too?
How many times do I have to repeat that cherrypicked timeframes prove nothing? I'm only "fixating" on those 5 games to show you how easy it is to make a flawed argument by cherrypicking a timeframe.

peyton had to inject himself with the rest of his hgh supply to hide the evidence. his turtle shell stomach is going to carry him through the playoffs. 7 TDs minimum for the broncos against the pats

>>65085549
>if you say the chiefs are 10 in their last 10 games after starting 1-5 you're trying to point out that the team might have improved and is playing better than when it was 1-5. the pats started 10-0 and ended the season 2-4, same thing, the team started but is now struggling
I remember arguing the same thing before the divisional round and being told that "well, the Chiefs won 11 straight games, they only started badly because they faced good teams, they're better than the Patriots". How did that work out for the Chiefs?

>manning-brady started 0-6 but has since been 5-5, what once was a blow out and a given has since turned into an entertaining and unpredictable match up.
Manning-Brady started 0-6, then went 4-1, before going 1-4. What was a clear victory for Manning in 05-09 (coincidentally 05 and 09 were some of the worst teams of the Brady/Belichick era), was a blowout in any other period. I can use the same stats to paint an entirely different picture and I have a reason for that too (a stupid one, just like yours) - Patriots late 00s teams were pretty bad, except for the 07 one that beat Manning's Colts.

>yeah whatever ignore the reasoning
your reasoning is dumb. my argument is that Brady and Belichick hold the upper hand over Manning in a head to head matchup, this is categorically true.

>>65085520
>Players can't have mental blocks that stop them from playing well in certain places

>>65086206
They're professional football players, not nine year olds at the school play. Those statistics only exist so marketers and sportcasters can have something to talk about and create a storyline. Stop being a fucking retard

>>65085963
so your argument isn't bill constantly makes manning look like shit yet you had to come out of the woodwork to prove a point that no one is disputing (historically Brady and Belichick hold the upper hand over Manning in a head to head matchup), because me mentioning that the series is at 5-5 over the last 10 years and the outcome has literally been a toss up since 2005 (which is still true regardless of how you feel about it) upsets you because it doesn't show "teh dominance of teh brady".
i honestly couldn't care less of teh dominance of brady or teh stats of manning, i'm embarrassed i let a fan boy drag into this long winded argument about nothing because i dared not genuflect hard enough to your hero, despite having you figured out from the get go >>65083150

>>65086366
You are implying that Matt Schaub didn't develop a mental block that caused him to throw INTs.

or that the Denver Broncos had a positive one that made them think they could win during Tebow Time

or that Aaron Rodgers really likes women

>>65086696
dude just fucking stop. Brady has Manning's number, the only times Manning beat brady was off of the goddamn defenses back. Why don't you pull up some stats from those victories cocksucker

>>65086696
FAGGOT
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4621195-tom-brady-vs-peyton-manning-record-stats-patriots-broncos-afc-colts-best-head-to-head

>
Brady has 4,013 passing yards, 32 touchdowns and 14 interceptions in those matchups. Manning has 4,809 passing yards, 33 touchdowns and 22 interceptions.

>>65082815
>38 degrees
>snow

Are you insane?
It'll be boiling out there

>>65074291
>sideline camera
The difference between "legal filming" and "illegal filming" was less than 10 feet. Get the fuck over it.

>deflated footballs
>I can't into the ideal gas law

Fuck off.

>>65085549
>Belichick is good at making young QBs look like shit, let's ignore Pey Pey's early games v Brady
>Pey Pey beat Bill a lot while he was still young
You really need to pick one.

>>65087064
>or that Aaron Rodgers really likes women
It's okay to inflate balls over regulation.

>>65087766
Double dubs confirms. Italy is a faggot.

>>65082815
Brady's deflated footballs will have the advantage over your HGH.

>>65087729
you goddamn down syndrome cumguzzler learn to read before replying to me posts i don't need your retarded (you)

>>65087766
and?

>>65087933
>give you 2 options: one that is true and one that is made up
>pick one
literally >Pey Pey beat Bill a lot while he was still young
never fucking happened

>>65088060
You really think a 2015 Peyton Manning (worst ranked QB in the league) holds a candle to a 2015 Thomas Edward Patrick Brady?

>>65088081
>implying that was ever my argument
you're either a strawman master or a 4th grade drop out

>>65088126
So who is going to win on Sunday and why?

>>65088135
hard to tell, probably will come down to the broncos running game having enough success to keep brady off the field and the game close, and who will have the most turnovers at the end of the game

>>65088176
Just remember that an entirely healthy Broncos went up against a Patriots team so injured they didn't even have a kick returner, and it STILL went to OT.

The top receivers in that game were Scott "I shouldn't have a job" Chandler and Jo-Jo LaFell

>>65088223
>Just remember that an entirely healthy Broncos went up against a Patriots team
just remember that's just pain wrong. at least get your facts straight if you wanna lay out the truth

>>65088244
>DeMarcus Ware is the key component to a Denver victory
Fuck off, nigger. They were perfectly fucking healthy as a team.

>>65088223
>an entirely healthy Broncos team with the GOAT QB injured
Not sure if bandwagon or retarded. Generally it's both with pats "fans"

>>65082747

>Manning could block for Osweiler

Once.

>>65088278
>doesn't know shit
>gets called out for it
>comes back more pretentious than ever
>still doesn't know shit
go to bed you inbred motherfucker

>>65088278
Hey faggot, Denver was the most injured team from week 10 until week 15

>>65088631
Does Denver have 20 players on IR?

>>65082849
>Brady's record at Mile High

>>65088631
by what le metric my reddit friend

>>65089090
>>65089039
Injury report, and they did, the maxed out at 23 week 13 and then slowly got people back, everyone played week 16, but 5 or 6 of them were playing injured.

>>65089144
So if i go back and compare everything like for like, ie, number of starts out for how many weeks, Denver will be the mos games missed by starts? No just number of players on IR? sounds like you are cherry picking from the way you say it but I'd have to check to be sure. But maybe it's just how you said it and im misinterpreting.

File: Capture.png (50KB, 758x430px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 758x430px

>>65089144
Im not talking injury report, im talking about 20 players being out for the season in addition to guys missing games. Because thats New England right now.

https://www.mangameslost.com/nfl-regular-season-end-games-missed-due-to-injury-january-4-2016/

>>65088026
Brady I have the HGH ground!

>>65089279
underrated af post

>come into this thread
>Italy gets BTFO
>b-b-but cherry picking is OK if it supports my argument!

Good laugh. Thanks.

Brock Osweiler literally has a 100% win rate against the Patriots. I don't have a PhD in statistics but this looks like a pretty easy choice to me desu

>>65089602
Yeah I have no idea why Kubiak is starting the back-up QB when the lobster already got it done.

File: 1439780774485.jpg (83KB, 456x538px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 456x538px

The last playoff game the patriots won on the road was in 2006 against the Chargers with fucking Ladainian Tomlinson.

>>65089718
>the Patriots have played 2 road playoffs games the last ten years

Holy fuck they win a lot

>>65089739
Guess who was the QB in those two games.

>>65089752
Peyton Manning. But you'd be crazy if you didn't think that he's a shell of his former self. He's thrown 1 TD and 8 INTs in 5 games at home this year.

>>65089752
Matt Cassel?

>>65089771
Yet the Broncos keep winning. If the receivers stopped greasing up before playing, they would have blown the steelers out. The only reason the Steelers were in that game was because of all the dropped passes.

>>65089589
>one day later
>still can't tell difference between cherry picking and stats break down
>still hasn't refuted the central point and where all of this started
>b-but my dad isn't also my uncle i swear

you gotta the most obsessive home erotic tendencies than any of the other brady dags i ever talked to. daddy must be proud of you

>>65089780
You guys shouldve blown them out, they were missing LeVeon Bell, DeAngelo Williams, Antonio Brown, and Big Ben was hurt. And even still you needed a fumble from the 3rd string RB to squeak out the victory. The dropped passes occurred because of ducks Peyton was lobbing. A wobbling football becomes much harder to catch than a spiral.

>>65089823
The receivers were dropping Brock's passes as well. It's been a problem the second half of the season.

>>65089823
>The dropped passes occurred because of ducks Peyton was lobbing.

of course you have evidence to support this claim and it's not just an opinion you pulled out of your ass and presented as a fact, right?

File: howCheatriotfansreactwhensomeonecallsthemcheaters.jpg (571KB, 1600x1131px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1600x1131px

>>65087815
time to repost this for all the disgsuting bandwagoners on this board

>>65089853
Peyton threw a lot of ducks. You want me to go and fucking count for you?

File: thetruth.png (253KB, 1912x1029px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1912x1029px

>>65089853
Italy don't responding to these tools they just love guzzling any stats that makes Brady so called good when in the end we know he's fake that has never done anything on his own and will never will.

>>65089853
If you had ever caught a football you'd know this, Pablo. And yes, I'd say a 3rd of his throws were ducks last weekend.

>>65089896
He is talking about the receivers dropping the passes because of the ducks, not the ducks themselves.

>>65089902
>2013
>tensnake
Want to update it?

File: muh Vinatieri.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>65089902
>Adam Vinatieri

always makes me laugh

>>65089909
and the reason they were dropping just as many of osweiller's passes was that...?

>>65089940
Dude, I don't know if Osweiler threw equally bad passes because I didn't see those games, but Peypey had awful throws. One was so bad that the announcers thought it had been tipped at the line, only to pan down and see the awful truth.

>>65090003
so you don't know. but that won't stop you from assuming the reason behind the drops was the qb (despite those drops being with constant even with a different qb)
i'd say you and this inuit retard here >>65089909 never played football outside of your backyards, or you'd know that if the ball hits the receiver's hands and he drops it, it's only his fault period. "i only catch perfectly thrown spirals" doesn't cut it anywhere at any level

>>65090136
>Its only his fault period

Thats fucking dense. If you whip a ball at 80 mph to a guy five feet away, he's gonna drop it. And when the trajectory of the ball is off, in this case when Peyton "I have no feeling in my fingers" Manning throws up a duck, the ball is more prone to bounce off of a finger because its harder to judge the nose of the football. Now get up from blowing Peyton and get a clue.

osweiler's shoulder is fucked up though, there's really no decision to make unless you think trevor simian deserves a start

>>65090234
to bad you have no clues on finding your daddy Sean

>>65090259
What is this, 2012? Sean is long gone bro, time to let go.

>>65090265
Sean lives on in our hearts.

>>65090265
>Canada
>has Tom Brady's 2 inch dick in your mouth
like I said go back to finding your daddy Sean

>>65090234
>i can't catch a pass, but it's not on me it's the qb's fault, coach: the post

>>65090295
Its not entirely Peyton's fault, but he's partly to blame. You blaming the receiver completely and not the quality of the ball thrown is just as bad as assuming its all on Manning.

>>65090312
Who do you blame for your daddy leaving you?

>>65090312
>Its not entirely Peyton's fault, but he's partly to blame.
sounds a lot different than
>The dropped passes occurred because of ducks Peyton was lobbing.
glad to see you were able to admit you were wrong. you're certainly better than the britbong who can't let go 5-5 because it's "disrespectful" to tommy

>>65090380
>wake up
>see the italian autist keep arguing his retarded logic
No matter how hard you try, your arbitrary 10 game sample remains just as irrelevant as it was 12 hours ago

>>65090410
a day later and you still go around the "bill constantly makes manning look like shit" comment cause you know you're wrong

>bronco cucks think this game will be close

Thanks for the money faggots. Really pats -3? I'd take pats -10

Manning has never been good in the playoffs. Benched in 2 drives

>>65090429
>cucks manning in the first 6 matches including holding a record setting offense to just a field goal
>handily stops manning in the first matchup after his comeback
>limits manning as the patriots engineer a 24 point primetime comeback mostly caused by the offense fucking up in the first place
>absolutely blows manning the fuck out last season, game is over at the half
The last time manning won was when half the defense was on IR and even then, the top corner had to leave the game before he could do anything.

>>65082747
>The fifty three million year old Manning blocking

Now this id like to see.

>>65087815
I did the ideal gas law like the next day and it says you're wrong and a faggot

true

>>65087815
>they broke the rule but thats ok because they didnt break it by a margin that I subjectively think would be a problem

Kill yourself

I mean I would tend to agree but we all know Peyton will start this game