0 comments Mike Klis Is Still Not Taking the Broncos Super Bowl Loss Very Well

We first heard from Mike Klis when he stated the key to winning the Super Bowl is to lose games. Well, the Broncos dutifully did as he suggested and lost the Super Bowl, but that probably doesn't count as what Klis was talking about. Then we heard from Mike Klis when he started dropping excuses/reasons for the Broncos Super Bowl loss. He was acting like an angry fan-boy who couldn't handle that his favorite team lost the Super Bowl. Well, Mike is still acting like a baby and still not taking the Broncos Super Bowl loss very well. He's very excited for the Broncos to face the Seahawks twice (yes, he is including the abomination that is an NFL preseason game) so the Broncos can exact revenge. Because we all know a victory in Week 3 is directly equal to a Super Bowl victory. It's pretty much the same thing. My apologies to those who read Mike Klis in the Denver area. He sounds hideous. I'm sure all in the Denver area get tired of his schtick.

Can't anybody tell those mouthy Seahawks in Seattle to shut up?

I wasn't aware the Seahawks were still talking junk about the Broncos and their Super Bowl victory over the Broncos. It sounds like Mike Klis is reminiscing rather than the reality being that the Seahawks are still rubbing their Super Bowl victory in...at least to my knowledge. 

"We really felt like we could knock the crud out of these guys," Carroll said shortly after 43-8. 

That was seven months ago. It's a new season. Let it go. Carroll was cocky after the Super Bowl victory and now he's stopped talking about it. Perhaps Mike Klis should take the hint and do the same. 

Seattle linebacker K.J. Wright said his team would beat the Broncos "90 out of 100. They might've got lucky those other 10 times."

I'm pretty sure Mike Klis used this exact quote in his last bitter, fan-boy column about the Broncos losing to the Seahawks in the Super Bowl. If he's going to write a column which starts off insinuating the Seahawks are still being "mouthy" and not shutting up, then he may want to find new quotes that show this to be truth. Otherwise, this column is just message board material. Actually, it's worse than message board material because it's intended to be sports journalism. 

Act like you've won it before. Oh, wait. They hadn't. 

What a burn. Act like the Broncos have won it in the last 15 years or don't have a 2-5 record in Super Bowls. Nothing against the Broncos, but a team that has gone 2-5 in the Super Bowl doesn't exactly have room to taunt a team that has gone 1-1 in Super Bowls and just manhandled the 2-5 team in the Super Bowl. "Count the rings" usually feels like a loser's argument coming from the loser of the Super Bowl.

"That's where they get their edge from," Broncos defensive tackle Terrance Knighton said. "They have a quarterback (Russell Wilson) who came in underrated. People don't talk about their offensive line. Sherman was a fifth-round pick. Then they have receivers with chips on their shoulders.

"That's how they make themselves feel better, or build their image. But they have the right talk."

The Seahawks incessant talk could hide some inferiority complex, but they are the reigning Super Bowl champions. To shut them up, you have to beat them. The Seahawks will have the right talk until they can no longer back that talk up.

Chest-thumping became cheap shot, though, when another windbagged Seattle linebacker, Bobby Wagner, took the bait from ESPN's Stephen A. Smith, a loquacious man himself.

"They looked scared out there," Wagner said. "Nobody wanted to catch the ball. Nobody wanted to come up the middle. ... They were very timid."
 
Bobby Wagner said these things back immediately after the Super Bowl. Come on, write a new article and don't just take the same quotes from the old less-than-message board material article and claim the Seahawks are still talking shit. No one needs to close the Seahawks big mouths because they aren't running their mouths anymore. 

It's correct to say Seattle destroyed the Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII. Beat them up. Bullied them.

But scared to come up the middle? Demaryius Thomas set a Super Bowl record with 13 catches — averaging 9 tough yards per reception.

It's correct to say Demaryius Thomas did have these 13 catches for 9 yards per reception, but that's a little misleading. Here is the funny part, Mike Klis knows it's misleading but doesn't really care. 

Granted, the record meant nothing. Many of those catches were in garbage time. But it does mean Wagner's claim is a lie.

Granted the record that Mike Klis just recited as if it meant something in response to Bobby Wagner's comments made 7 months ago means nothing to him, but wouldn't it be cool if this record did mean something? 

Let's look at Demaryius Thomas's catches to see if Wagner's claim is a lie. He's probably using hyperbole, but let's see the yardage of catches Thomas made, where he made them, and when he made them.

From the play-by-play: 

1- P.Manning pass short middle to D.Thomas to DEN 40 for 2 yards (1st quarter)
 
2- (Shotgun) P.Manning pass short right to D.Thomas to DEN 22 for 6 yards (2nd quarter)
 
3- P.Manning pass short left to D.Thomas to DEN 25 for 3 yards (2nd quarter)
 
4- P.Manning pass short left to D.Thomas to DEN 37 for 7 yards (2nd quarter)
 
5- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short right to D.Thomas to DEN 40 for 1 yard (2nd quarter)
 
6- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short right to D.Thomas to SEA 34 for 9 yards (2nd quarter)
 
7- (Shotgun) P.Manning pass deep left to D.Thomas to SEA 43 for 19 yards (2nd quarter)
 
8- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short left to D.Thomas to SEA 46 for 4 yards (3rd quarter)
 
9- (Shotgun) P.Manning pass short middle to D.Thomas to SEA 43 for 3 yards (3rd quarter)
 
10- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short middle to D.Thomas to SEA 44 for 10 yards (3rd quarter)
 
11- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass deep left to D.Thomas to SEA 21 for 23 yards (3rd quarter)
 
12- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short left to D.Thomas for 14 yards (3rd quarter)
 
13- P.Manning pass short middle to D.Thomas to DEN 45 for 17 yards (4th quarter)

So Mike Klis is partially wrong. 7 of the 13 catches Thomas made were in the first half, not garbage time. Thomas did have more yardage in garbage time though.

Thomas caught four passes over the middle for gains of 2, 3, 10, 17 yards. 
Thomas caught three passes on the right for gains of 6, 1, and 9 yards. 
Thomas caught 6 passes on the left for gains of 3, 7, 19, 4, 23, and 14 yards. 

Thomas averaged 8 yards per catch in the middle, 5.3 yards per catch on the right, and 11.7 yards per catch on the left. It's not right to negate one of the catches but I think it's important to know his average in the middle would have been 5 yards per catch if the last catch in the fourth quarter when it was a 43-8 game wasn't counted. So Thomas does seem to have gotten more yardage in garbage time, but not more receptions. I don't believe the Broncos were scared to come over the middle, but Thomas did gain 71 of his 118 yards in the second half when the Seahawks were playing a softer defense. His average yards per catch was 6.7 in the first half. It's impossible to know if the Broncos were scared or not, but the numbers reflect while Thomas caught the ball for longer gains in the second half, in the first half when the game wasn't entirely decided the Seahawks had managed to keep his gains to a minimum.

It's nearly impossible to know if Wagner's claim is a lie anyway and it doesn't really matter. 

Wes Welker caught eight passes. He receives between the hash marks.

Welker's catches during the Super Bowl: 

1- (Shotgun) P.Manning pass short middle to W.Welker to DEN 25 for 5 yards (1st quarter)

2- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short middle to W.Welker to SEA 43 for 16 yards (2nd quarter)

3- 1st and 10 at SEA 43 (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short middle to W.Welker to SEA 38 for 5 yards (2nd quarter)

4- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short left to W.Welker to DEN 37 for 14 yards (3rd quarter)

5- 1st and 20 at DEN 10 (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short middle to W.Welker to DEN 13 for 3 yards (3rd quarter)

6- 1st and 10 at DEN 41 (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short left to W.Welker to SEA 47 for 12 yards (3rd quarter)

7- 1st and 10 at SEA 36 (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short left to W.Welker pushed ob at SEA 14 for 22 yards (3rd quarter)

8- (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short middle to W.Welker to SEA 47 for 7 yards (4th quarter)

Five of Welker's eight catches were over the middle. So for the sake of fairness I'm not going to leave out an assertion Mike Klis makes that has merit. It doesn't seem the Broncos were scared to go over the middle. If that's his big victory coming from the Super Bowl, that Bobby Wagner exaggerated in making this statement, then I hope it's a great moral victory for Klis. 

It wasn't a case of intimidation," said Broncos tight end Julius Thomas, who caught four Super Bowl passes. "That's certain. When you win and you're the Super Bowl champion, you've earned the right to say whatever you want. That's something that can't be taken away from them.

Yeah, but Mike Klis wishes the Seahawks would stop mouthing off about their Super Bowl victory, even though they haven't really mouthed off about it publicly in several months. In Mike's fan-boy head, the Seahawks are still chirping about intimidating the Broncos. It's causing him to go insane. 

The Broncos and Seahawks meet again in their preseason opener, Aug. 7 at Sports Authority Field at Mile High. The starters won't play long. Just long enough to get some pushing and shoving in.

But if the Broncos win this game, then revenge is Mike Kli---I mean, revenge is the Broncos to savor!

The teams meet again for keeps in Week 3 of the regular season.

Yes, this regular season game is "for keeps." The season ends after this game is played. If the Broncos are able to defeat the Seahawks in Week 3 then the Super 48 title will be handed to Denver and the Seahawks will forever be shamed. This Week 3 game is "for keeps," just as long as the other 13 games each team plays, as well as the playoffs, aren't counted as being part of the 2014 NFL season, which apparently is how Mike Klis views it. 

That game will be played in Seattle. Home of the gloats.

I'm pretty sure the Seahawks stopped gloating a few months ago. The reality in Mike's head isn't adjusting well to this.

The visiting team's locker room figures to have a filled bulletin board.

Does the visiting team's locker room even get a bulletin board to hang comments the home team has made in the past on? I feel like a bulletin board isn't provided to the visiting team. Maybe the comments will be written on the whiteboard in the Broncos locker room. Even if the Broncos beat the Seahawks 43-8, it won't make up for the Super Bowl loss. It may be revenge, but it will be a bittersweet revenge. Well, except for a sportswriter like Mike Klis who seems to think a regular season game counts as playing "for keeps." 

"Me, personally, I'm tired of hearing about it: Seahawks, Seahawks, Seahawks," Knighton said. "We accomplished some things last year. Not everything we wanted, but we took a step forward from the year before. We're going to reload, and when the time comes, we'll be ready to play them. And it's a good thing we play them twice."

And when/if the Broncos beat the Seahawks we can be sure that Mike Klis will write a column about how the loud mouthed Seahawks have finally been shut up, despite the fact they quit talking smack about the Broncos a few months ago, and he will believe revenge was really sweet and the teams are now considered "even." Good for him. It won't be true, of course. If the Seahawks win that Week 3 game, which is apparently the most crucial regular season game ever, then I'm sure Mike Klis will complain further about the Seahawks big mouths...or just blame it all on injuries.

4 comments Mike Klis Is Not Taking the Broncos Super Bowl Loss Very Well

Mike Klis has taken to a message board to complain about how the Seattle Seahawks didn't beat the Broncos "A" team in the Super Bowl. Klis rants and generally acts like a spoiled fanboy who refuses to accept his favorite team lost. On this message board---wait, this isn't a message board? Mike Klis wrote an entire column, published it and still acted like a spoiled child who refuses to accept losing...then "The Denver Post" printed it? I'm not sure why they would do that, but it seems they did. The last time we heard from Mike Klis had data (data dammit!) that the key to winning a Super Bowl is losing football games. I'm just surprised Klis didn't state the Broncos lost the Super Bowl because they won too many games this year. So here is Mike Klis giving the Seahawks very little credit and writing a column that's on par with a message board rant. 

If the Seattle Seahawks played the Super Bowl without left tackle Russell Okung, cornerback and best defensive player Richard Sherman, safety Earl Thomas, defensive end/tackle Michael Bennett, defensive ends Cliff Avril and Chris Clemons and center Max Unger, would they have beat the Broncos?

Quite possibly, but that was a nice beat down the Seahawks gave the Broncos. The Seahawks were without Russell Okung from September 23 to November 16 of this year. They lost their second-best receiver, Sidney Rice, on October 30 and played without their best receiver, Percy Harvin all season. If Peyton Manning didn't have Eric Decker and Demaryius Thomas was playing his first full game all season in the Super Bowl would the Broncos have beaten the Seahawks if Seattle was missing all of these other players Klis just listed? Of course, Mike Klis won't look at it that way.

Because that’s essentially what the Broncos had to do as they played without left tackle Ryan Clady, top defensive back Chris Harris, safety Rahim Moore, best pass rusher Von Miller, defensive end/tackle Derek Wolfe, defensive tackle Kevin Vickerson and center Dan Koppen/J.D. Walton.

Well, except for the fact Sherman and Thomas are better players than Chris Harris and Rahim Moore. Clady and Okung are a fair trade off in my opinion, Unger is better than Koppen/Walton, and otherwise I think the defensive players have different responsibilities and play different positions. So it's hard to say whether this is a good comparison or not. I would submit it isn't a comparable scenario, but either way, it didn't happen so stop crying about it.

The Seahawks also didn't have their second-best cornerback, Brandon Browner, due to a suspension. They were somehow able to move past this and win the Super Bowl. I could see Klis' point of view if the Super Bowl was close, but it wasn't even close to being close. It was a blowout.

Maybe the Seahawks still win. 

I don't know if injuries can explain a 35-point swing. That's a lot of points to make up and blame on injuries. Injuries happen and that's why you have backups. The Seahawks backup wide receivers (going into the season) played well enough to beat the Broncos defense handily. Stop whining.

But do they have to be so cocky about it?

They had just won the Super Bowl. They had a right to feel cocky. Besides, the only people who complain about the cockiness of the opposing team are the fans of the team that lose...or the beat writers of the team that loses as the case may be. The Seahawks celebrated and they had a chip on their shoulder about winning. They are able to do that because they won. If the Broncos don't like it, they should have beaten the Seahawks, and if Mike Klis doesn't like it then he should cheer for someone to beat the Seahawks next year in the playoffs. Until then, Seattle has a right to be a little cocky.

Sherman pops off incessantly.

How is stating that he picked up Manning's audibles "popping off"? Sherman seems to stating what is a fact. Here is what Sherman says in the article and you decide for yourself if this is him "popping off."

"We knew what route concepts they liked on different downs, so we jumped all the routes," Sherman told Robert Klemko of Monday Morning Quarterback (mmqb.com). "Then we figured out the hand signals for a few of the route audibles in the first half."

And John Fox was astounded that Sherman would pop off like this after the Super Bowl victory. So much so that he stated, 

Broncos coach John Fox acknowledged Tuesday the Seahawks may have been on to something but downplayed the impact the in-game intelligence Seattle may have deciphered.

"You know, it looked like it," Fox said. "But I think it's more they have very good players. I don't know that there are any mystery things. I think it was more about them executing and playing very well than any other stuff."

Boy, Foxy is hot under the collar. Sherman has popped off one too many times now. 

Seriously, Klis is being an even bigger fanboy than I thought he could be by getting worked up that Richard Sherman noted the Seahawks knew the Broncos audibles. It's sour grapes. 

Pete Carroll brags.

When a coach wins the Super Bowl, he has a right to brag a little bit. 

KJ Wright says the Seahawks beat the Broncos 90 times out of 100.

I mean, I don't know...that certainly seems like it would be true based on the Seahawks 35-point victory in the Super Bowl. 

I had spent the past week giving Seattle full credit as the physically superior team and ripping the Broncos for their dismal performance.

But now is the time for sour grapes and claiming the Seahawks didn't beat the Broncos "A" team, which doesn't sound like an excuse more than anything else. Not at all. Mike Klis stating that he previously gave the Seahawks credit, but will stop doing that because they are celebrating their Super Bowl victory is a position an irrational fan of the Broncos may take. I can't imagine why a professional sportswriter would take this position. 

But these Seahawks won’t stop popping off about how great they are and how much better they were/are than the Broncos.

So Mike Klis has to hit back with excuses as to why Denver lost the Super Bowl. Way to get them back, Mike! You really told them with your poor excuses for why the Broncos lost that ignored the Seahawks made it to the Super Bowl without their two top receivers and second-best cornerback! Nobody likes excuses.

Come on, Seattle. You beat up Peyton Manning and a bunch of B teamers.

Fine, the Broncos had excuses. I will grant Mike Klis that. What he doesn't explain is how the Broncos "B" offense that was missing two starters at the offensive line (yet these two backup offensive linemen were fantastic in the previous two playoff games, which Klis fails to mention) only scored eight points against the Seahawks defense. Basically, the Broncos offense was their "A" team and not their "B" team. If the score of the game was 45-38 then I could see Klis' point about the injuries to the Broncos defense, but the Broncos were pretty close to full strength on offense and could only muster eight points. He has no point calling the Broncos "Peyton Manning and a bunch of B teamers." 

Take your Lombardi Trophy — and quiet down.

Even the Broncos message boards would dismiss this rant as just the ravings of a bitter, angered fan who can't accept the reality that Denver lost. Mike Klis, accept the Broncos lost---and quiet down. 

6 comments Mike Klis Says the Key to Winning the Super Bowl is Losing Games

Quick bit of housekeeping for a moment. I have been posting four times a week for a few months now. I am looking for that number to jump back up to five posts per week very soon, but it relies entirely on two things:

1. The amount of material I have to write about. I know, it's weird to think there isn't a plethora of bad journalism out there everyday.

2. Time. This goes hand-in-hand with #1. I haven't had as much time to put up five posts per week over the past few months and I hope to have time soon to push five out. So my hope is to go to five posts per week going into the NFL season, but having time has been a major issue lately, and I hope to have the time to actively search out bad journalism and write about it.

Mike Klis has data (data dammit!) that says if the Broncos expect to win the Super Bowl this year they had better lose at least five games. He has data that says it is best for the Broncos to go 11-5. Most likely the key to winning the Super Bowl would be to not even make the playoffs at all. Then the Broncos would be a surefire winner in the Super Bowl. The more failure the better, right? Sometimes statistics mean something and then other times the conclusion we can draw from statistics is such a dumb conclusion it leads one to believe the statistics may not mean much. I think this is a case where the statistics lead to a conclusion that probably doesn't make a ton of sense, but makes for a good column. That's all that really matters, right?

Here goes. The Broncos will finish 11-5 this season.

Pretty ballsy to make a prediction on the Broncos season record a month before the season is set to begin. But no, Mike Klis has science behind this prediction!

For 11-5 — a record that would mean a No. 3 or worse AFC playoff seed,

Going 11-5 in the AFC would have gotten the Broncos a 4-seed last year, a 4-seed in 2011, a 4/5-seed in 2010, a 3-seed in 2009, a 4-seed in 2008, a 3/4/5-seed in 2007, 5-seed in 2006, a 4/5-seed in 2005, and a 5-seed in 2004. So basically Mike Klis is correct in a way, except the Broncos seem more likely to get the "or worse" part of the AFC seeding by going 11-5. 

a record that assuredly wouldn't qualify for a first-round bye — is the mark of Super Bowl champions.

Are you sure you aren't cherry-picking data? I'm pretty sure this 11-5 record isn't the mark of Super Bowl champions. 

2012: The 10-6 Ravens win the Super Bowl. No 11-5 teams make the Super Bowl. 

2011: The 9-7 Giants win the Super Bowl. There are no 11-5 teams.

2010: The 10-6 Packers win the Super Bowl. No 11-5 teams make the Super Bowl. 

2009: 13-3 Saints win the Super Bowl. No 11-5 teams make the Super Bowl. 

2008: 12-4 Steelers win the Super Bowl. No 11-5 teams make the Super Bowl and the 11-5 Patriots miss the playoffs. 

2007: 10-6 Giants win the Super Bowl. No 11-5 teams make the Super Bowl. 

2006: 12-4 Colts win the Super Bowl. There are no 11-5 teams. 

2005: 11-5 Steelers win the Super Bowl. The 11-5 Bears also make the Super Bowl. 

2004: 14-2 Patriots win the Super Bowl. No 11-5 teams make the Super Bowl. 

2003: 14-2 Patriots win the Super Bowl. The 11-5 Panthers make the Super Bowl. 

So over the last decade the 11-5 record that assuredly is the mark of a Super Bowl champion was good enough to win the Super Bowl once and twice times was good enough to make it to the Super Bowl, but not win. Out of the 23 teams that have gone 11-5 since the 2003 season only three of these teams have advanced to the Super Bowl and only one team has won the Super Bowl. 

So basically Mike Klis is full of shit that an 11-5 record is the mark of a Super Bowl champion. Only 13% of these 11-5 teams have even advanced to the Super Bowl over the last decade. 

I don't know why it doesn't work that way. But overwhelming evidence says that ever since the New England Patriots stopped winning Super Bowls eight years ago, regular-season champs usually become postseason chumps.

Other than the 2006 Colts, 2008 Steelers, and 2009 Saints of course. These teams were all great and went 12-4 or better in the regular season and have won the Super Bowl since 2004, but again, pay no attention to whether the facts given by Mike Klis represent reality. 

The past eight Super Bowl winners have averaged 10.9 victories and a 3.9 playoff seed.

This is an interesting statistic, except when you look at it on the micro-level to see how 11-5 teams have done over the last decade the results don't exactly say if the Broncos go 11-5 they will make the Super Bowl, much less win the Super Bowl. 

The Broncos will go 11-5 in 2013. That will be enough to win the weak AFC West and wind up with the No. 3 or No. 4 playoff seed.

This 11-5 record will obviously determine that the Broncos are going to be extremely successful and win the Super Bowl, just like only one 11-5 team has done over the last decade (and maybe longer than that, but I only went back a decade). 

Over the years, Broncos coaches Mike Shanahan, Josh McDaniels and John Fox have all said it: You want to be playing your best football in December.

No, you don't.
 
I think this starts an offshoot of the "to tank or not?" argument, but an NFL team also doesn't want to be playing terribly as December starts to end. I'm one of those weird people who would prefer his favorite team try to win every game they play and don't really care when the best or worst part of the year to play poorly may be. 

The Ravens went 1-4 last December. The 2011 Giants entered Christmas Eve in a 1-5 skid. Even the 2009 New Orleans Saints, the only recent top seed to prevail, finished their regular season with a three-game losing streak.

The 2009 New Orleans Saints did play their backups during the last game of the season against Carolina and lost two highly competitive games by a combined 10 points to the 11-5 Cowboys and the 3-13 Buccaneers in overtime. It's not like the Saints were playing bad football in December or really trying to lose. That's my point.

You don't want to play your best football in December. You want to start sandbagging in December.

Of course an NFL team wants to start sandbagging in December. We all know tanking is the best way to ensure a team is healthy and rested enough to win the Super Bowl. 

I don't know if Mike Klis understands what he is suggesting, but he is suggesting the Broncos go 10-1 over their first 11 games (and really, how hard could that be when facing the Ravens, Patriots, Giants,  Cowboys, and Redskins?) and then go 1-4 in December against teams like the Chiefs, Titans, Chargers and Raiders. To be able to truly sandbag in December, the Broncos would have to get off to a 10-1 start and then intentionally lose games in December. I can't fathom how this is a serious suggestion. 

Problem is, it's not going to be easy for the Broncos to lose two more games than they did last season.

Oh whatever shall the Broncos do when their talent helps them to win too many games? Since 1 out of 23 teams over the last decade have won the Super Bowl after going 11-5 it is an absolute necessity the Broncos try to find a way to lose two more games. It's not Raheem Moore's misplay of a Joe Flacco pass or a Peyton Manning interception as he was throwing across his body to the middle of the field that cost the Broncos a chance to win the Super Bowl last year, it was the fact the Broncos won 2 too many games. If they had gone 11-5 then they clearly would have won the Super Bowl in Mike Klis' Imaginationland. 

They went 13-3 even though quarterback Peyton Manning was in his first year with the team and was coming back from a full year of neck surgeries. He's now in his second year with the Broncos and his health no longer is in question.

His health isn't in question, other than the fact he is a year older and still had neck surgeries a few years ago. It's not like Peyton Manning is at the age where his body will no longer feel the effects of injuries and he isn't a cyborg who is incapable of being injured. 

The Broncos were the NFL's second-best scoring unit last season and they added Wes Welker, Louis Vasquez and Montee Ball to the offense this year.

They also still have John "A punt is not a bad play" Fox as their head coach, the same guy who willingly took the ball out of his Hall of Fame quarterback's hands in the fourth quarter so he could take a chance on a coin flip in overtime. I am impressed by the Montee Ball draft pick. As long as all NFL linebackers run a 4.7 40-yard dash then I'm sure he will succeed in the NFL. 

And their schedule is weaker on paper than it was at this time last year.

Well, the Broncos better find a way to lose two more games because we all know the NFL doesn't have parity and a team's strength of schedule on paper prior to the season starting always equals the eventual strength of schedule at the end of the season. 

So how are the Broncos going to lose two more regular-season games this year and avoid a first-round playoff bye?

The absurdity of this column and the idea behind this column can not be overstated. Mike Klis averaged the record of these last 8 Super Bowl winners and then comes to the conclusion the average wins and losses of the last 8 Super Bowl winners is the record the 2013 Broncos should shoot for. Of course Klis ignores the results for 11-5 teams in the playoffs since that time, but I shouldn't be shocked he screws up his use of logic and numbers. It's just ridiculous to think an NFL team should intentionally try to lose games. 

They must somehow lose one division game. Maybe at improved Kansas City on Dec. 1. They can also lose at the Giants and Patriots. That's three.

If the Broncos lose these three games then that means they would go 2-3 in December. Would that be a bad enough record to where the Broncos would struggle enough in December that they could be a good team again in January? 

And if they're lucky, the Broncos will lose another game or two in December.

Right, if they are lucky they will lose these games. If the Broncos are unlucky they will win these games and then get homefield advantage in the playoffs, which is a sure death sentence to their Super Bowl hopes.

It's wrong for the Broncos to call this season Super Bowl or bust. To win the Bowl, a team must survive some bust.

I'm not sure this makes sense. For any team to win the Super Bowl they will have to survive some bust and bad times during a season. I don't know if NFL teams should intentionally try to lose games, but then I don't have the handy data available that shows 11-5 is the perfect record for the Broncos to win the Super Bowl this year...just like the other 4.4% of teams who went 11-5 over the last decade won the Super Bowl.