When it boils down to it, it'll be a good game but Seattle's defense won't be able to contain Peyton and hte Denver passing attack. Seattle's secondary is awesome with Sherman, Earl Thomas, Maxwell and company - but Denver's offense just cannot be stopped. Contained some, but not stopped. It'll be interesting if Quinn attempts to blitz Peyton often to disrupt him. Good look disguising it though, pretty sure Manning has seen it all...
I get mad when all these media guys bad-mouth Manning for not winning more Super Bowls. Freaking sickening. The guy is a great QB.
With that said, Seattle is more my kind of team. Physical, tough defense, not fancy, not media darlings, etc.
Here is the key to the game:
If Manning has time to throw, no way can Seattle score enough points to keep up in this game. Yes, I know that Seattle has an outstanding secondary. But, Denver's offense is unreal. Great scheme. Great players.
The key is to generate enough middle pressure to make Manning move off his mark. He gets nervous when pressured up the gut. His footwork breaks down and he makes mistakes.
That's it right there, guys. If Seattle pressures Manning into mistakes---they win. If they can't generate pressure up the middle.......they won't be able to score enough to win.
Btw...........someone said it was a boring match-up. I totally disagree. It is a very intriguing match-up due to how different these teams are.
I'm really looking forward to this game. I haven't seen Seattle play much, but what I have seen, they're a fun team to watch. I think Lynch could cause some problems for Denver's D. Wilson will need to limit mistakes.
I try to catch Manning play whenever I can (did when he was in Indy as well). I love seeing a QB so in control. So many times, he throws and I think "how the hell did that WR get so open???" I think a big part of it is his smarts and his preparation. It's fun to think I've gotten to see a QB who could easily be in the argument for best QB ever.
I have no dog in this race. I'd like to see Manning win just because I like him, but I'd have no problem with Seattle winning. I just want a good game.
Oh, and for the halftime show to be canceled so halftime is only 12:00.
He's being joined by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. The guy's got a great voice, too. He may not make the kind of music I enjoy but I respect his talent. Just watch him impersonate Michael Jackson. It's fantastic!
THROW LONG can do whatever he wants as far as I am concerned.
ahahaha
as far as the game goes, Denver jumps out to me right away, I heard it opened at Seattle by a point or two, and the sharps hit it so hard it's at Denver -1.5... Crazy.
Seattle's secondary is really good, but the problem they face is that Manning doesn't play favorites. Both Thomas', Welker, Decker, and Moreno, you can't cover them all... That's a tough assignment, especially when your own QB showed some weaknesses last game. I wonder if Denver tries to slide Wilson to his left, because he struggled a bit with that against SF's rush.
It would be a giant middle finger for Manning to win this game, especially if it's freezing so people can get off him already.
I know he's had his moments in the playoffs, but it's a team game, and he carried some pretty mediocre rosters pretty damn far in his career.
Quote: So Pops Adams wasn't good enough for the world beater Browns but he is good enough to start for an AFC Champion in the superbowl.
Thanks Browns.
Awesome.
Tell me more about how we have a "young" team and spin it like that's a good thing.
I think the majority of us on here were upset about that move too. Sometimes I wonder if the Browns would be better off if this board ran the team. That's not a good thing or even a compliment to us.
I want what I always want, a Super Bowl that goes into OT. And it be a long, messy OT with missed FGs and turnovers. Of course, once the Browns do finally get there, which I'm guessing is SB50, that our Super Bowl will be the one that goes into OT.
Seems like Vegas has this as a pick'em game. Right? I'll wait for a final line....but if I'm picking straight up, I'd put my money on Manning getting #2.
As far as rooting interest, I am rooting for Seattle. Seattle is one of our sporting brothers. Yes, strange to say given the vast differences in our cultural identities, but it is true.
Seattle has not had a championship in any of the 3 major sports since 1979. That championship was the Supersonics led by Lenny Wilkins. The Payton/Kemp teams fell short in the 90s. And, since that time, the Sonics (their most supported team) was taken from them just as they drafted Kevin Durant, who would help the <i>new</i> franchise become one of the best teams in the NBA again.
Seattle has endured failures of some great Mariner teams in the 90s and 00s that fell short (including a 2001 team that won 116 games), but never even made the World Series. They have also endured some terrible Mariner teams as well.
And, the Seahawk teams have been yanked around by the NFL (forced to switch conferences twice), fell short in their few good seasons in the 80s, and then had terrible teams in the 90s (and almost became another relocation story before Paul Allen came to the rescue by buying the team). Holmgren resurrected their team (unlike ours), but they still had their Superbowl practically stolen away by the referees by that yellow & black team. Since then, they have had good teams (even made the playoffs at 7-9), but have not been able to break through.
I am throwing my support to the Seahawks. I truly want to see them end their sporting misery.
Quote: I get mad when all these media guys bad-mouth Manning for not winning more Super Bowls. Freaking sickening. The guy is a great QB.
With that said, Seattle is more my kind of team. Physical, tough defense, not fancy, not media darlings, etc.
Here is the key to the game:
If Manning has time to throw, no way can Seattle score enough points to keep up in this game. Yes, I know that Seattle has an outstanding secondary. But, Denver's offense is unreal. Great scheme. Great players.
The key is to generate enough middle pressure to make Manning move off his mark. He gets nervous when pressured up the gut. His footwork breaks down and he makes mistakes.
That's it right there, guys. If Seattle pressures Manning into mistakes---they win. If they can't generate pressure up the middle.......they won't be able to score enough to win.
Btw...........someone said it was a boring match-up. I totally disagree. It is a very intriguing match-up due to how different these teams are.
Yep agreed. Pressure on Manning is key. He will pick them apart if Seattle can't pressure him all day. Of course Manning will win most games anyways because he beats and handles the pressure well. But still it's the key of the game here.
I also agree on the matchups because they are such different types of teams. Far from boring.
Also if Tom Brady didn't exist, Payton would have 3 SB rings by now. JMHO
The Super Bowl. Horray it's coming up. I'm glad for Mike Adams Bronco's safety who spent a lot of time with the Browns, hope he gets a championship. I liked his play when he was in Cleveland.
Ok, Throw Long lines the Super Bowl. I'm not going to read anything in this thread, I just realized, that I don't know the vegas betting line on this game, and I don't want to learn it, until I post this. I'm gonna reason on here, how I would reason this game and figure if this game were to be fixed, how might it go. (Though I don't, "claim", "or prove" games get fixed, it's just fun to contemplate).
So, I figure, if it were a regular season game next week in Seattle, Seattle would be favored by 6. Based on their recent home dominance. And that 6 is about the most any team is favored over a good team in a reg season game ever.
If it were a regular season game next week in Denver, I'd say Denver would be favored by 4, because of the home field, and the early season high scoring romps by that Denver offense. And not more than 4, based on the scores of Denvers 2 recent playoff games. Not 20 point margins there.
So I figure a neutral field, Seattle by 2. So I figure, who'd be most easily believed to throw the game. Seattle's defense, no way, they're trying to prove a legacy, Richard Sherman and all of that, ... I think they'd be the hardest to believe. Denver's offense, no way, I think Peyton Manning's trying to build a legacy, hall of fame and all of that. Plus, that Seattle defense is such a wild card, they might score 14+, or they might score 0, or they might just get beat twice big, for an extra 14.
So then you have, Seattle's offense, Russell Wilson and all of that. Well, it'd be pretty hard for them to throw the game, because even if they don't they might not be able to keep up if somehow that Denver offense rolls like their early season success. So if Seattle's offense is playing catch up all day, they can't likely throw the game, it's too unpredictable.
Then there is Denver's defense, they would be least expected to dominate in straight up vs with no shenanigans, the only way the fix could be in involving them would be if somehow someone got the Seattle offense to give them a lot of gift turnovers. But, there's a problem with that, because of that unpredictable Seattle Defense which might just match turnover for turnover just on dominance.
So when I thought all that through. ( Oh a whole other variable.) One of these teams is going to have more money bet on it, and the trick would be to get that money to go to the wrong side. First, which team will attract more bets. (first obviously, Denver, but that's the wrong guess., but why.) Denver's actually a smaller populated city, but they have more long term success in the NFL past, Denver probably has more supporters, but not this time. Because Seattle is going to have more first time motivated betters because this, well it's their 2nd time, but really, longterm success, 20 year success goes to Denver, and I'm gonna guess the longterm fanbase is less likely to bet.
So, they'd want to get Seatte's money, (to bet wrong). But no dice, there are too many unpredictables.
Alright, the line would never be 2 points, because that wouldn't motivate either side to take a perceived obvious bet. You can't move it far against the favorite (bringing seattle by 2, down 6 points to Denver by 4, would still not motivate anyone.) So I think they'd have to move it up, the other way, to Seattle by 6 or even 7 or 8. This brings the obvioius better out. ( C'mon, Peyton Manning only has to stay within 8 points of Russell Wilson, ya gotta bet the Bronco's! rah! rah! rah!.) Plus doing so, removes any worry of the biggest wild card in this game coming back to hurt Vegas. The biggest wild card being Seattle's defense possibly getting turnovers and points.
So I'm gonna guess the Vegas line on this game probably is Seattle by 6 points. I expect it will grow, which would only bring more money to bet on Denver.
Then 2ndly I'm gonna guess that if this game were possibly fixed, the thing I'd most look at is the Denver defense. And I'd expect Denver to not only not win, but to lose by 11 plus. Now I'm going to go find out who is really favored, and change all of my thinking.
The only real reason that I'll watch this game is if there is a snowfest in the NJ swamp.
I'm not really all that interested in this game. The officiating will certainly suck (miss the replacement refs yet?) and I couldn't care any less for the two teams.
Size of city/fan bases has very little to do when trying to figure out which side has more money on it.
Especially the Super Bowl.
If you want to see which side of a bet has more money on it, check the line movements, that's the obvious indicator. When one side is getting hit harder with bets than the other, the book will adjust the line in favor of the other team by a half point, point, or sometimes more to try and keep things even. After all, the book is technically betting too, and they are on both ends. It's only in their best interests to keep the money as close to even as possible.
One other indicator you may want to look at is what the sharps think. Those guys hit it right away and with this super bowl, they were heavy on Denver (Seattle opened as favorites).
I've read rumors that some of these guys are so good that the books actually give them a line before it goes public, just so they can go off of how they're betting when presenting it to the public.
Back where I grew up the Elks club had one of those boards, $100 a square. You could sign it early in the year and then pay $5 or $10 toward it when you went in for a beer so it didn't really feel like you were putting up the $100. It was fun. I forget exactly how the prizes were divided up but 100 squares at $100 each is $10,000. They took some off the top to pay for the party but most went to prizes. All I remember is standing next to my grandfather when Scott Norwood missed the FG for the Bills, it cost my grandfather $2,000.
I have done squares for most super bowls and a few other games, I did it for the NCAA tournament last year (way more fun than football) and I have never, not once, won a damn thing in those. I'm the guy that gets stuck with 2 and 8.
If anyone is doing an NCAA squares pool, please PM me. I would definitely be interested if it's of the 20-30$ sort.
Quote: Back where I grew up the Elks club had one of those boards, $100 a square. You could sign it early in the year and then pay $5 or $10 toward it when you went in for a beer so it didn't really feel like you were putting up the $100. It was fun. I forget exactly how the prizes were divided up but 100 squares at $100 each is $10,000. They took some off the top to pay for the party but most went to prizes. All I remember is standing next to my grandfather when Scott Norwood missed the FG for the Bills, it cost my grandfather $2,000.
I play in a $100/square one every year - I buy a square and my dad buys one. If either of us win, we split so it gives us two chances They pay out on every score change and whatever is leftover at the end goes to the final score. Pretty fun, and it gives you a lot more chances to win if it is a high scoring game.
" Ice pellets" is the actual and correct term for what is expected. It is different then freezing rain, sleet, or hail. They bounce as they hit the ground.
But that's a forecast for the whole day...it really only comes down to 2-3 hours before and during the game.
As a motorcycle rider, seeing a 70% of rain for a city may or may not mean I'll get wet. Depends on the size of the rain clouds, wind speed, when I'm going through there, what direction I'm going in and how fast.
So, it could rain for 8 hours on Sunday (6am-2pm) and be dry for the game. And that's assuming they're even right about the forecast as of now.
I wouldn't put much stock in it, its too far from game day. I looked again today and now the chance of precipitation was at 20% earlier today and now at 40% for ice pellets. I wonder if I can use those in a wrist-rocket?
As a motorcycle rider, seeing a 70% of rain for a city may or may not mean I'll get wet. Depends on the size of the rain clouds, wind speed, when I'm going through there, what direction I'm going in and how fast.
When I rode, if there was a 10% chance of rain I'd get wet.
But that's a forecast for the whole day...it really only comes down to 2-3 hours before and during the game.
As a motorcycle rider, seeing a 70% of rain for a city may or may not mean I'll get wet. Depends on the size of the rain clouds, wind speed, when I'm going through there, what direction I'm going in and how fast.
So, it could rain for 8 hours on Sunday (6am-2pm) and be dry for the game. And that's assuming they're even right about the forecast as of now.
And the game is after the sun goes down, so it won't be the 38deg high, so most likely any precipitation will be as snow if it happens.
Although I think the high that day now is forecast as mid-40's with only 20% of showers
But that's a forecast for the whole day...it really only comes down to 2-3 hours before and during the game.
As a motorcycle rider, seeing a 70% of rain for a city may or may not mean I'll get wet. Depends on the size of the rain clouds, wind speed, when I'm going through there, what direction I'm going in and how fast.
So, it could rain for 8 hours on Sunday (6am-2pm) and be dry for the game. And that's assuming they're even right about the forecast as of now.
And the game is after the sun goes down, so it won't be the 38deg high, so most likely any precipitation will be as snow if it happens.
Although I think the high that day now is forecast as mid-40's with only 20% of showers
For some reason, I get great amusement in watching a forecast change as the days pass. I don't bash the weatherman because their job is about impossible (predicting the weather AND getting the average person to understand that 30% chance of rain on Sunday doesn't mean ALL of Chicago is 30% - only some part might be 30% while others is 0% and it also depends heavily on when too).
The weather will be kind of cold (30-40), maybe a little precipitation and might be a little windy. It's NJ in early February, you know what it's going to be.
If we planned a trip to Wisconsin for snowboarding this weekend, we'd be going if it was 0 or 32. Add more gear to the bag on Friday night. Simple.
Around about 1997, when Denver was winning it's 2 Super Bowls, and prior to that, Seattle was in the AFC west division, the same as the Denver Broncos. I wonder if any other Super Bowl matchup has included teams that were once in the same division.
And Another reason to root for the Hawks, is those blasted Bronco's have never "won" a Super Bowl when the Cleveland Browns have been in the league. So there's that going for Cleveland.
I think it's pretty obvious he has some sort of social anxiety disorder. Yet the media thinks they have some god-given right to shove a microphone down his throat.
Quote: I think it's pretty obvious he has some sort of social anxiety disorder. Yet the media thinks they have some god-given right to shove a microphone down his throat.
it's actually a contractual NFL-given right.
I do agree that it stinks they see a weakness in a player (anxiety or hatred of interviews), so they blow it up as a STORY and force-feed more interviews/attention onto him.
Quote: yo...the media is pissing me off pushing lynch to talk. jesus christ, the man doesn't wanna talk to them
You get those laws/requirements when you're banking in millions and millions. His interview was very short, the NFL has already said they were satisfied with it - and it actually become one of the highlights of media day. With that said, I don't approve of forcing someone to talk to the public, especially when words are and get twisted up - but it is what it is. He doesn't have a typical job and the media is suppose to be the "bridge" between fans and the players, and the fans is what fuels nfl in terms of profit so.
Quote: I really don't think he has social anxiety. I just don't think he wants to talk.
Same here.
He's a RB in the NFL and that means he HAS to be available to the media. That's all. I know someone could say he should be more willing to discuss himself and the game because he's lucky enough to be in that position, but who really cares? The media is really only looking to trap someone in a goofy statement. They don't like canned answers either.
He could pull a Rasheed Wallace and respond to every question with, "both teams played hard my man" or do what Marshawn was doing, "Not sure how I feel about the running gameplan, I know the play, the blocking assignments and then I run. I have nothing else to provide."
#1 Offense versus #1 Defense. both teams #1 seed in conference meeting in the SB, only the second time in 20 years?
this is gonna be one hell of a battle. you're right, its gonna be epic.
i'm thinking theres going to be atleast one quarter where no team scores, and at least one quarter where both teams completely light up the score board. with an epic defensive stance in the last 2 minutes!!
The only way to stop Manning is for your front 4, not front 7, to play out of their minds. Blitzing Manning is pointless. He's seen everything. You need 7 guys defending the pass every play so Manning doesnt get the ball out in less than 2 seconds. If you blitz, he knows where the best option is, takes a 3 step drop max and gets it to his WR for a gain. With 7 guys defending the pass it means it will take him 3-4 seconds. That's enough time for your D-line to get to him. If I'm Seattle I try to rotate guys as much as I can and tell them to play insanely hard every snap they are out on the field.
The Giants stopped Brady twice because they had athletic freaks like Strahan, Tuck, Osi and JPP that got to Brady insanely quick. They also had DTs that dominated.
I only want Denver because I want all the idiots that are saying Peyton cannot win the big one, when in fact he already has won the big one. And that he needs another SB win to cement his legacy. I never heard anything so stupid.
Wow did Denver get lucky there. It was a clear knee down ...... but it was so close .... and Seattle is just beating them up physically. If that had gone the other way, Denver would have been in really bad shape.
J/C So far, this game has sucked. Seahawks are dominating, Broncos are sucking. And.... The commercials do, too. Good thing I have some decent beer to drink!
I've hated halftime shows and I don't know Bruno Mars from a man from Mars but it's clean, entertaining and I'm digging the Motown era look to the group!
Can anyone get an upload of a still photograph sometime in the next couple weeks. The Mike Adams tackle on the 1 of Marshawn Lynch on 1st and goal after the pass interference play. They scored next play, but so far, that's the only play Mike Adams has made, and the only former Brown I know of in this game.
If they go for 2 every touchdown, and get 2 of 4, then it's a 4 score game. I think there is still a lot to see knowing that they know how much they need.
h tag, Kam Chancellor, my favorite Seahawk defender with another play.
You know who is hurting the most right now? Those people who paid for the 4th quarter slots for their commercials. They've got to be so upset right now.
Aw he broke his wrist. Or his fingers. Just the way he landed. My first thought was that has to be pass interference. It was his own player piling on the hit that mostly caused the funny way to fall. I dunno. I doubt he comes back.
Manziel has his escape capabilities, probably a weaker arm but is a more dynamic leader. I wanted Wilson. Hopefully, if Johnnys our guy he's close to a Wilson.
Troy Aikman, " I' played with the last guy that I considered to be a shutdown corner, Dion Sanders, you know you hear that term thrown our alot" But Richard Sherman fits that." or that's the Gist of what he said.
That's a Dolt comment, that nobody's been a shutdown corner since Dion, C'mon, he's in the hall of fame, he picked ( and lost ) the pro- bowl. Can we stop Kissing up to Dion Sanders and let his memory go into history Where it belongs!. There's just about no announcer who won't make some stupid pompus self loving comment like that, that will anytime announce one of these Super Bowls.
Seattle's D scored a safety and a pick 6, so that top D actually out scored that top O. Even worse if you count that kick return as D like a lot of fantasy leagues do.
I really thought Denver was going to win. Trouble is I think Denver thought so too and didn't really give much effort. Seattle played hungry, knew every play was important and didn't pass up opportunities to make key plays. I know the score was a blowout but honestly I'm glad the underdog won and enjoyed seeing the underdog win convincingly
Oh and I think it's nice that seattle finally got back for Super Bowl XL
If they could only learn. I don't believe this Seattle Defense was built because they drafted defense all the time. I believe a defense like this is built on Coching, Teamwork, and technique. That Offense is necessary, it is so necessary that it's a given in that old axiom that Defense wins championships. It assumes that everybody adds offense all the time and offense is so necessary to reach the championship level, that when you get there, that getting overcoming performance out of average defensive talent is the real meaning of Defense wins championships.
That's not the meaning of this response. This response is for this.
Is that Chris Carter carrying the Lombardi Trophe up the stairs. Wow, I remember watching (I think a Monday night game) somewhere around 1989, and Chris Carter was on the sideline, and the storyline was, he had turned his life around. He was almost out of the league for bad behavior or off field issues. And I'm sitting here thinking, if that was true, that how close it was that all of this the last 25 years almost not happening. Almost, because it really was in the balance, of right choices vs wrong choices. And I really don't have any idea of what those circumstances were, just think it's a testament to, or a reminder, that so much is riding on things, all the time.
Ever since the first bad snap, the Denver offense looked crappy. Peyton never got into any rhythm while the Denver defense was deflated. Seattle showed up to play, not sure what happened to Denver. Boring game though.
I really thought Denver was going to win. Trouble is I think Denver thought so too and didn't really give much effort. Seattle played hungry, knew every play was important and didn't pass up opportunities to make key plays. I know the score was a blowout but honestly I'm glad the underdog won and enjoyed seeing the underdog win convincingly
Oh and I think it's nice that seattle finally got back for Super Bowl XL
The only reason Denver was a favorite is because of Manning. You look across the board, Seattle has way more talent. Who on Denver's defense is any good? Had an average defense all year, and finally met a defense that had the speed, and pressure to shut down their offense. I couldn't believe Seattle was the underdog. The afc was a joke all year, and tonight their best team was exposed as a fraud tonight.
Man I've never seen a Super Bowl where it looked like a team was trying to throw the game
Denver looked awful...just as a whole flat awful.... And i know that the Seahawks are a great team but there was so much self affliction done by the broncs.... Just horrible game
Seattle played every play as if it was the most important play of the game ..... and Denver played like they could show up and win.
Seatt;e has not only a great defense, but great depth on defense as well. Man, they lose Sherman and Thurmond, and Manning finishes up only 3-7 for 23 yards and a fumble with those 2 key players out.
Which brings me to a question I had during the game:
"How far is Cleveland's D from being this dynamic?"
Dawgs, I watched this team's D play at a level that would make them bullies of both Pittsburgh and Baltimore. A D that 'travels well.' A D that got pressure in Manning's face while only rushing 4 (sometimes 5). A D that is fast, opportunistic, relentless, and just mean.
I ask because of this: we placed a heavy investment in last year's D, with some success. Early in the season, they were developing an identity that seemed to be working. We all saw the late-season fizzle.... but it still seems like the core of a very good D is already in place.
I know that we're getting all new coaches, schemes and terminology. I know that "the plan" was to load the D in Year One of the Haslam era, and that O would be addressed this year.
Despite all that- what would it take in personnel to ramp up to near this level?
We just saw another version of the first Ravens SB team: overwhelming D giving an average to above average O the chance to win an entire season through the playoffs. So- defense can still win championships.
Can the Browns build something like this in the same amount of time? If so, what would it take?
What strikes me about Seattle's D is that it's basically Horton's idea of small guys, run fast, and tackle hard. The Seattle front 4 looked tiny but boy were they quick!
I thought we had a bit of that the first few games of the season. But yes, we did fizzle out. I think we could somehow emulate this with our current personnel. We have the secondary to do it, too.
Seattles defense is why I value foot speed over size. They have small LBs and small DEs that fly around and HIT you in the mouth. That secondary is massive, but also fast. They make windows extremely small and limit your room for error.
Quote: I believe that Seattle's front 7 players are roughly the same size, or slightly larger, position for position, than the Browns were under Shurmur.
Their DBs are huge, and talented.
6'3" 195# Richard Sherman 5'10" 202# Earl Thomas 6'3" 232# Kyle Chancellor 6'1" 207# Byron Maxwell
Their other usual starter is Brandon Browner, a 6'4 221# CB.
They love big DBs ..... and it works for them.
I guarantee Walter Thurmond III and Brandon Browner will be let go now. Seattle doesn't need them.
Not sure the last time I saw a team so totally dominated like Denver was last night. I mean, we've seen lopsided scores before, but damn, Denver couldn't get out of their own way.
Should the Browns be thinking about Ryan Shazier with their #26? I was watching Chancellor and wondering if Shazier was a fluid enough athlete to play SS. The two seem to have similar bodies, along with great closing speed to the ball.
From what I saw tonight, the only team capable of stopping Seattle the next few years is also in the NFC West. San Francisco would have done the same thing.
Quote: Not sure the last time I saw a team so totally dominated like Denver was last night. I mean, we've seen lopsided scores before, but damn, Denver couldn't get out of their own way.
Wow!!! Six pages of discussion and I went to bed after Harvin scored. Makes me wonder how much football any of us know....
I never would have thought that would be the outcome. I think the stage was set with the safety.
Some of the "discussions" I had after the game, mostly over facebook were laughable. erIf you define one team showing their will on another as a "crappy" game then i would say you just dont really like football.
And all the Manning talk is sad. The guy isnt the reason they lost and now all anyone says is "choke artist"
I think we see that, while Manning is a HoF QB, an immobile pocket QB can't beat a top flight defense built in this style. Someone commented to me yesterday that Brady would have beat Seattle. I don't think he would have had a much better day either. That defense swarmed on every single play. Never took one dang play off. Props to Seattle.
Quote: Its going to be boring. Manning will win this with no problems.
Not picking on you BADdog. Just one of those things that made me chuckle when I went through the thread. We've all have a bad prediction at least once.
Seattle's D is one of the best complete units I have ever seen, at least in this game. Manning did not have a good day, and he didn't get much help from the rest of the team, but I don't think he would've beaten that defense if he did.
Sadly, it was a lot like watching a Browns' game. Lots of critical errors, few big plays, plus some bad luck, and a team that just could not get fired up to play.
Quote: and a team that just could not get fired up to play.
Actually I said that the moment they ran onto the field ... literally. Seattle seems to explode out of the tunnel and was jumping around. Denver seemed more like they were jogging out of the tunnel. I said something to the effect of, "Wow, Seattle looks more up for this than Denver does" ... and was kind of shocked when it carried over into the actual game.
Quote: If you define one team showing their will on another as a "crappy" game then i would say you just dont really like football.
Sorry, you couldn't be any more in the minority with that opinion.
Not trying to take anything away from the 'Hawks, but that was easily the crappiest SB I've ever seen.
I recall the 55-10 drubbing of the Broncos by 49ers. Wasn't the greatest game either. Congrats to Broncos for these two "gems".
edit: Looking back at Bronco SB scores:
L 27 - 10 L 39 - 20 L 42 - 10 L 55 - 10 W 31 - 24 W 34 - 19 L 43 - 8
First congrats on getting to that many considering we have 0, but if my math is right that is 2-5 record and outscored 249 to 123. Conclusion is that all Bronco appearances carry risk of seeing a bad game.
Denver's 5 SB losses had an average margin of loss of 28 points. Even if you throw out the 55-10 loss, avg margin of loss was 23 points. Not sure what that means, but I like it.
Quote: Sadly, it was a lot like watching a Browns' game. Lots of critical errors, few big plays, plus some bad luck, and a team that just could not get fired up to play.
That's funny. I was watching the game with my wife and at some point in the second half I said, "I feel like I'm watching the Browns play." The Broncos looked horrid. I'm now more glad the Browns didn't hire Adam Gase after last night's offensive performance.
Quote: Its going to be boring. Manning will win this with no problems.
Not picking on you BADdog. Just one of those things that made me chuckle when I went through the thread. We've all have a bad prediction at least once.
Quote: 52-50 is a good game if you don't care for defense. And the that Superbowl was awesome, in my book.
To each his own. I like shifts in momentum. Nail biters. Anyone's game. Not the Globetrotters vs the Generals.
I understand that. Back and forth games are exciting.
When a team sucks and plays like crapand gets blown out. To me that's a bad game.
Denver didn't play like crap because they suck. They played like crap because Seattle was better in every phase of the game and MADE them look like crap.
Quote: If you define one team showing their will on another as a "crappy" game then i would say you just dont really like football.
Sorry, you couldn't be any more in the minority with that opinion.
That is easily the crappiest SB I've ever seen.
So if it was 52-50 that's a good game? Hell I remember people saying the last NY/NE game was "boring"
Someone just said a game ending on a FG is "exciting" Really?
Give me total domination of one team. Thats something to watch.
A blowout like this is just boring. Especially when the game is over by halftime. I like a close game that goes down to the final play, like the Rams/Titans super bowl.
I had to work yesterday, was thinking about taking the day off, but glad I didn't.
Quote: If you define one team showing their will on another as a "crappy" game then i would say you just dont really like football.
Sorry, you couldn't be any more in the minority with that opinion.
Not trying to take anything away from the 'Hawks, but that was easily the crappiest SB I've ever seen.
I recall the 55-10 drubbing of the Broncos by 49ers. Wasn't the greatest game either. Congrats to Broncos for these two "gems".
edit: Looking back at Bronco SB scores:
L 27 - 10 L 39 - 20 L 42 - 10 L 55 - 10 W 31 - 24 W 34 - 19 L 43 - 8
First congrats on getting to that many considering we have 0, but if my math is right that is 2-5 record and outscored 249 to 123. Conclusion is that all Bronco appearances carry risk of seeing a bad game.
One if my favorite moments from the game last night was when the camera looked into Elway's box. The look on his giant horse face was classic. Disgust in what he was watching. At the same time he had to be glad he isn't the only Donkey to complete crap himself in a Superbowl.
It seems to me, in looking at Seattle's schedule this year, that the teams that gave them the biggest fits were teams who had a defense that made Seattle's offense win the game, and teams that had a QB who could hurt you with his legs, and teams that didn't turn the ball over. It's not rocket science....
Doesn't mean the QB had to run for 100 yards but if they have to account for the fact that the QB can run, it slows them down just a little bit..
And that is the team I hope we build.. one that is strong on defense and has a QB who can at least be a threat to take off and beat you if the opportunity presents itself, and is smart with the ball......
yes, you have to add in one more factor too: teams that had a guy who could get downfield (and a QB who could get him the ball down there). if you don't spread out that defense down the field, then they just sit on you and destroy you (as they did to the Broncos).
that was some of the best coverage I've ever seen in a super bowl. Thomas is a great receiver, and the few times they went deep he was blanketed. Decker and Welker are just mediocre guys. I know Sherman described Crabtree as mediocre, but those 2 really are. You throw in Denver's lack of a running game, and it was easy to just tee off on a sitting duck like Manning. I probably would've taken every nfc playoff team, with the exception of Philly over Denver. If the browns ever get a qb, the afc is really wide open once BRady and Manning retire. The young qb's are in the nfc.
I have not read any posts, except what is on this page (7) so if this has been talked about, sorry.
1. Over the last couple of yrs. a few of us dawgs have been saying that with the rule changes favoring the O, that Defense no longer Wins Championships.
Does this game change that? I know some have said the Ravens D and maybe a few others over the years just couldn't compete with the new O's anymore. I think this game say's they not only can but be dominating as well. I was just wondering what some on here think about the Upset?
Upset, being the D over the O more than the teams. If so, I'm hyped, I think our new coach can give us a D that will destroy other Teams....Go Browns
It was only a 3 score game at the half . Then Percy Harvin said "game over"
With Denvers offense I thought they still had a shot if they could get going.
And watching Seattle play defense is anything but boring
I have to agree with you. I love watching a great defense just flat out dominate a great offense like that. That Seattle defense is just so damn good that I could watch them play every week. They are fast to the point of attack, and strong. They tackle like they'll lose their paycheck for the year if they miss one. They are just professional through and through. Same thing, to an extent, with their offense. They are professional, and they didn't hand the game over to the Broncos. They didn't make the big mistakes. You would have thought that Wilson was the veteran playing in his 3rd Super Bowl and Manning was the 2nd year player in his 1st, rather than the other way around. Wilson never looked rattled. He never looked nervous, He was always in control of himself and his team. Just an impressive night for the entire Seahawks organization.
It's amazing how many studs they found in the later rds. you hardly ever see so many booms, that late in drafts. the best secondary in football, 3/4 of it came 5th rd and later. Most of their receivers were undrafted. A lot of people think it's the culture Carroll has created in Seattle. Pete gets the most out of his guys, because they really enjoy playing for him, and they have huge chips on their shoulders for being drafted so late.Truly amazing how they put that team together with the late rd success.
Quote: It's amazing how many studs they found in the later rds. you hardly ever see so many booms, that late in drafts. the best secondary in football, 3/4 of it came 5th rd and later. Most of their receivers were undrafted. A lot of people think it's the culture Carroll has created in Seattle. Pete gets the most out of his guys, because they really enjoy playing for him, and they have huge chips on their shoulders for being drafted so late.Truly amazing how they put that team together with the late rd success.
I think late round success means good coaching and not so much good drafting luck.
Quote: It's amazing how many studs they found in the later rds. you hardly ever see so many booms, that late in drafts. the best secondary in football, 3/4 of it came 5th rd and later. Most of their receivers were undrafted. A lot of people think it's the culture Carroll has created in Seattle. Pete gets the most out of his guys, because they really enjoy playing for him, and they have huge chips on their shoulders for being drafted so late.Truly amazing how they put that team together with the late rd success.
I think late round success means good coaching and not so much good drafting luck.
I think that it's both.
Great coaching can turn a bum into a decent player, but it rarely turns a bum into a Richard Sherman. (or any of the other multiple late rounders they have had come through big time for them) They draft talent that fits their system, and develop it nicely. I think it's both ends of the equation.
Take a look at Danny Trevathon. One of the Broncos's best defensive players this year. He was drafted in the 6th round. But somebody on this board discovered him and started pimping him. By draft day, almost all of us had him in our mock drafts that year, typically in the 4th or 5th. He clearly had talent that we all saw and it got developed.
While watching the super bowl, every time I saw him make a play I wondered why he isn't a Brown.
From what I remember this board has a tremendous eye for small linebackers. Everyone was all over Trevathon and Dumervil. Trevathon falling to the sixth is baffling. I don't know why these kinds of players fall so far so consistently.
Doesn't surprise me but makes me wonder why if someone took the info from this board and analyzed it, throwing out the outlaying opinion, they could do much better than our front offices have over the years. Yet for our front offices this is their job, they get paid a lot of money, have a team of scouts, access to game tapes and interviews with the players … Haslam should save himself millions of dollars by firing the entire scouting department and hiring some intern to read dawgtalkers.net and then have a guy like Farmer make the final decisions based on that info. All he would really need to do is to scout the controversial player or two like Manziel and form an opinion on him. Our track record is much better than theirs over the years!
Take a look at Danny Trevathon. One of the Broncos's best defensive players this year. He was drafted in the 6th round. But somebody on this board discovered him and started pimping him. By draft day, almost all of us had him in our mock drafts that year, typically in the 4th or 5th. He clearly had talent that we all saw and it got developed.
While watching the super bowl, every time I saw him make a play I wondered why he isn't a Brown.
IIRC it was Django that was pimping Trevathon. I watched one game of his at Kentucky and he didn't make an impact. He made a lot of tackles in the game but none that made a difference, just ended the play. I wasn't sold on him. I am surprised he's made a secure place for himself in the NFL and I was wrong about him.
Quote: If you define one team showing their will on another as a "crappy" game then i would say you just dont really like football.
And all the Manning talk is sad. The guy isnt the reason they lost and now all anyone says is "choke artist"
Never said it was a crappy game, just thought and hoped it would be more competitive. When you don't really have a dog in the race, you at least hope for a close race.
And, I'd agree, Denver got beat all around by a team that was absolutely dominant in the game. I think that there are a lot of people who just don't like Manning and root for him to fail, probably the same with Brady.
Quote: If you define one team showing their will on another as a "crappy" game then i would say you just dont really like football.
I love football.... and if it's my team, I would have enjoyed the hell out of them dominating somebody... but as a fan who wanted to see a good game? What I saw was a great performance by the Seahawks but a crappy game... and yes, my definition of a "good game" is one that is still in doubt late in the game...
That's what defensive football looks like when it's being played at its peek. Eleven players working as one. Playing for each other. For themselves. Leaving it on all on the field in the biggest game of their collective lives.
Wasn't able to get my thoughts on this game out until now...
Congrats to Seattle. Always good to see a city that has had some bad luck with sports come through...
I was just amazed at how fast their defense looked. It wasn't as noticeable in the NFC Championship, which tells you how good SF is... Maybe I should take back some of the things I said about Kap, because with hindsight, he did well against a great defense.
It's just amazing how this league works. Seattle was against the ropes in their own house and Kap threw a bad pass when they were rolling (I think had he run for another first, they find a way to score and win) and then 2 weeks later they're champs.
Look at Baltimore last year... They were finished in Denver, FINISHED. Then Flacco throws that madden-esque bomb to Jacoby Jones and 2 weeks later, they're champs. Amazing. This league is almost as much about luck as it is about being damn good.
I do find it funny that the sentiment around football fans, especially hearing Browns fans now is that all of a sudden you don't need a QB to win... You can win with defense. I don't think that's true at all but you do need a great defense and it sure as hell doesn't hurt.
It's as if they forget how horrible this team was with Charlie Whitehurst... Also, this team is currently making football fans forget how terrible Pete Carroll was in his first NFL run...
On the other side though, the offensive stats for Seattle were mind blowing...
Wilson 18/25 for 206 and 2 TD's
Lynch was 15 for 39 (very richardson-esque)
Harvin did have those 2 good end around plays for 45 yards...
Their WR group did not feature anyone with more than 6 catches. Two guys had 60 yards and change...
I understand the way the game went dictated Seattle not pressing on offense. They pretty much just kept it simple because Denver was imploding, but I felt after the first few series' that Seattle would be able to one up anything Denver was doing.
It felt like a college game. The NFL with parity keeps these games pretty even, and it usually comes down to the last few possessions in the 4th quarter, especially when you are deep in the playoffs. This game had the feel of Alabama-Notre Dame even though the way Seattle dominated was a little different.
I'm not much of a super bowl guy. I usually don't do parties but just take it easy at home. It's more depressing than anything else because it signals the end of football, and it is another year in the books where it isn't the Browns. I get more excited when it's my own team playing, even if they are horrible.
As far as championship games go, the SB is behind the Stanley Cup final and the NBA finals as far as my interest goes.
And why would you say that without any reasoning, Vers? Isnt this a board for discussion, not name-calling?
Why do you think Seattle was faster, stronger, had more energy?
We've all played, sometimes there are games like that, esp if the losing team in the SB is a team of rookies, but that was not the case here.
Are you gonna take the position there are no drugs/PED's in the NFL?
I wasn't calling you names and of course it is for discussion.
I am sorry but I have a problem w/you calling them cheaters and then giving yourself a 10 year window to prove yourself right. No one is going to remember these posts in 10 years. Therefore, you are basically calling them cheaters w/out any proof at all.
My "opinion" is that you are making an a hurtful, outrageous claim that has no factual support. I do not think that is fair at all.
To stop Brady and Manning now, you need to play press and get in the WRs grills. Manning and Brady dink and dunk you to death. If WRs do catch short passes, you smash them in the face. Brady and Mannings offenses rely on precision and timing. If you throw them off by 1-2 seconds the play breaks down.
I believe the Patriots did this to the Colts years ago. They basically smashed the WRs to death every single play. Lead to the Colts complaining to the league about it if I remember correctly.
Quote: I believe the Patriots did this to the Colts years ago. They basically smashed the WRs to death every single play. Lead to the Colts complaining to the league about it if I remember correctly.
Yup.
It's why I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Manning get embarrassed. Denver uses a ton of illegal picks. So to counter, Seattles secondary smashed them every time they could legally. Seattle bitch slapped Manning and his WRs.
Quote: I believe the Patriots did this to the Colts years ago. They basically smashed the WRs to death every single play. Lead to the Colts complaining to the league about it if I remember correctly.
Yup.
It's why I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Manning get embarrassed. Denver uses a ton of illegal picks. So to counter, Seattles secondary smashed them every time they could legally. Seattle bitch slapped Manning and his WRs.
yes, they did, but you mentioned they got in the WRs grills and threw off their timing, which is not what happened the majority of the time in the Superbowl. It was what Peyton/Gase were expecting, but Seattle chose to instead sit in a short zone and have their CBs and Ss come up and hit the WRs when they caught the ball. Because they were sitting in the short zone, they didn't have to worry about being picked (they weren't blindly following their man across the field). It was a beautiful adjustment that Denver never countered.
Quote: And why would you say that without any reasoning, Vers? Isnt this a board for discussion, not name-calling?
He didn't call you a name, he said your opinion was lame. You made the assertion that they were on PEDs because they played on a different level than the Broncos.. your only reasoning is that they were better, therefore PEDs must be the reason... it's a pretty serious assertion with absolutely no proof what-so-ever other than they looked that much better.
Quote: Why do you think Seattle was faster, stronger, had more energy?
I think they appeared to be the first two because of the last one. From the opening safety to some of the hits Seattle put on Denver in their first couple possessions, I think Denver was intimidated. Much like I thought some of the 49ers were intimidated a couple weeks before.
Seattle looked like Baltimore's defense from the early 2000s.. they were everywhere and they hit you hard when they got there.
Seattle's whole team, but especially the defense, did what most people say they wish still happened in football, they flew to the ball and gang tackled, they tackled hard, they tackled correctly, they wrapped up and they drove through, they punched out the ball when they could, the offense was efficient, not spectacular but they didn't have to be, they threw in a few gadgets but for the most part they were just efficient, very good on 3rd down of keeping drives alive... this is EXACTLY how many people on here say football should be played... So we finally get to see it on the biggest stage and your first response is.. it had to be PEDs... I have to agree with vers, I think your opinion is lame. You are entitled to your opinion but you better come with more than.. they looked faster and stronger to back it up.
Yeah, I went back and double-checked and you're right.
I thought maybe there were some PEDs in there because of suspensions (assuming suspensions usually aren't handed out for non-performance enhancing drug hits).
And why would you say that without any reasoning, Vers? Isnt this a board for discussion, not name-calling?
Why do you think Seattle was faster, stronger, had more energy?
We've all played, sometimes there are games like that, esp if the losing team in the SB is a team of rookies, but that was not the case here.
Are you gonna take the position there are no drugs/PED's in the NFL?
I wasn't calling you names and of course it is for discussion.
I am sorry but I have a problem w/you calling them cheaters and then giving yourself a 10 year window to prove yourself right. No one is going to remember these posts in 10 years. Therefore, you are basically calling them cheaters w/out any proof at all.
My "opinion" is that you are making an a hurtful, outrageous claim that has no factual support. I do not think that is fair at all.
Fair enough. I had gut reaction on the speed difference and apparent strength difference between the two teams, when the differences i saw (other than Marshawn Lynch) between the Seahawks and other teams were not that great during the year in the games that i saw.
Pete carroll's great coaching? He is not bad, but:
He his NFL record was average-he coached Jets 6-10 then Patriots. Pats never even made the playoffs in second year (NFL record to date at that time 33-31)
Pete Carrolls performance as a college coach at USC, where he produced in his first 7 games a record od 2-5, then went on to produce a 64-7 record over the next 74 games, then 34-0 over the next next 34 games, with teams that were noticeably faster than than anybody else. He was a great recruiter so i didnt think much of it.
We will skip the reggie bush thing. Everbody does that - his was just more money than most.
But in the NFL, you dont recruit.
Seahawks record first yr 7-9 even after moving 200 players.
2nd yr 7-9.
Third year 11-5 with russell wilson. Was he the that good? I wanted him in the first round for us so i thought he was, but he was not much of a factor in this SB.
I like seattle, i like watching them play, but they have some secret, i think, strength coach, nutrition, but i'm betting it's more.
As far as the 10 yr window, you are right. So if nobody is suspended next yr for PED's on the hawks i'll conclude im wrong. But i think its a question that needs to be brought up in this day of PEDS dont you think?
Quote: I believe the Patriots did this to the Colts years ago. They basically smashed the WRs to death every single play. Lead to the Colts complaining to the league about it if I remember correctly.
The Patriots definitely did that to the Rams when they met in the Super Bowl.
)
(aka, below average career, won a Super Bowl, technically)
