Joel
01-28-2014, 08:12 PM
As the season and playoffs progressively made a Broncos-Seahawks Super Bowl look increasingly likely, I couldn't help thinking, We've got many experienced veterans, with Manning having been to a Super Bowl twice, and Fox was the Panthers head coach ten year ago in Super Bowl XXXVIII. Seattle's a very young team where few players have been that far; can they handle the pressure of being broadcast around the world in the NFLs biggest game...? It turns out that's a valid question many people are asking:
Just FOUR players on EITHER roster have played a SB (i.e. Manning, Welker, DRC and Tamme) and ALL are Broncos. http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10361341&categoryid=2459789 That is, EVERY Seahawk player is playing his first SB, and their average age is only negligibly more than historys youngest SB team: The '71 Dolphins. http://onecaribbeanradio.com/seahawks-second-youngest-team-in-super-bowl-history-on-verge-of-dynasty/
History's not destiny, but that would bode well for us if it were: The '72 Dolphins were arguably the NFLs greatest team ever, and only perfect one (the '48 Browns were also perfect, but in the All American Football Conference, 2 years before their decade of NFL dominance.) They successfully defended their Super Bowl championship in 1973, losing just twice all year. HOWEVER, the '71 Dolphins, good as they were, scored the least points in Super Bowl history (a single FG) as the experienced Cowboys avenged their loss in the first two NFCCGs and the previous years SB loss.
Again, history's not destiny; the '71 Cowboys had the best playoff defense ever, tolerating just ONE TD in THREE games, and just a single FG each in the NFCCG and Super Bowl. It's safe to say our D isn't as good as perhaps the best ever, but it's also safe to say our offense IS the best ever (if less balanced than I'd like against one of the all time great defenses.)
It's also safe to say just four players with Super Bowl experience and only ONE with a win isn't a lot either—but better than NONE, especially when the other team is so young in the first place. Sure, they're cocky; most 26 year olds playing in a Super Bowl would be. Yet (and, to be fair, this isn't the approach I favor) if we hit them hard, fast and early a couple times, so they find themselves soon and suddenly down double digits with the world watching, does Seattle have the maturity and poise to weather that storm and rally?
Seattle's not built for huge comebacks anyway: It's built to avoid NEEDING them. Their offense piled up the 4th most rushing yards this year with just a single back averaging only the 12th most yards, because they generally got to run out the clock with leads—what if they can't do that Sunday? Wilson's widely underated, with a passing offense averaging more yards/attempt than even OUR record setting Pro Bowlers, but, except for Harvin, Seattles WRs and TEs are nothing special. Good-not-great starters; uncertain depth (much like NE, though NE didn't have Harvin.)
The Seahawks faced little adversity this year; what happens when they do? The inability of anyone to challenge them much or long's not exactly reason to doubt them but, sooner or later, every game—ESPECIALLY championships—confront each team with at least one "put up or shut up" moment. Down 7-0 early in the 1940 NFL Championship, Sammy Baugh tossed a tying TD to a receiver who dropped it, and after the game a reporter asked him if the catch would've changed anything, to which Baugh replied, "Sure. The final score would have been 73–7."
We can never be sure what would've happened had the pass been caught; we can be sure the Bears 73-0 beatdown of the 'Skins is the most points and most lopsided by victory by any team in any game in NFL history. Just as we know the 'Skins who got pounded that day didn't just fold when they trailed SB XXII 10-0 in the first quarter.
If I weren't a Broncos fan, and WERE a bettor, I'd take them by a nose just because our D's running out of depth. However, the edge in experience overcoming adversity and experience in general is heavily ours. Nowhere is that more so than in the man who, however much he tries not to overshadow our coaches, is 2-3 as a SB starter and tied (with a dozen others) for second most SB appearances ever. The clutch moments each championship eventually has must favor us; we just can't afford to lose any more of the quality starters who have it.
As the first ESPN video notes, the last SB team with NO SB experience was the 1990 Bills, who lost by missing a fairly short game-winning FG attempt; since 1980, teams without SB experience are 1-3 (I have no idea who was the lone winner, but am curious; my bet is the '81 '9ers.) More from ESPN on the value of experience and how Coach Fox is riding OUR "Bus" (beep, beep:)
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10340485/denver-broncos-coach-john-fox-relying-super-bowl-experience
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:10332694
Just FOUR players on EITHER roster have played a SB (i.e. Manning, Welker, DRC and Tamme) and ALL are Broncos. http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10361341&categoryid=2459789 That is, EVERY Seahawk player is playing his first SB, and their average age is only negligibly more than historys youngest SB team: The '71 Dolphins. http://onecaribbeanradio.com/seahawks-second-youngest-team-in-super-bowl-history-on-verge-of-dynasty/
History's not destiny, but that would bode well for us if it were: The '72 Dolphins were arguably the NFLs greatest team ever, and only perfect one (the '48 Browns were also perfect, but in the All American Football Conference, 2 years before their decade of NFL dominance.) They successfully defended their Super Bowl championship in 1973, losing just twice all year. HOWEVER, the '71 Dolphins, good as they were, scored the least points in Super Bowl history (a single FG) as the experienced Cowboys avenged their loss in the first two NFCCGs and the previous years SB loss.
Again, history's not destiny; the '71 Cowboys had the best playoff defense ever, tolerating just ONE TD in THREE games, and just a single FG each in the NFCCG and Super Bowl. It's safe to say our D isn't as good as perhaps the best ever, but it's also safe to say our offense IS the best ever (if less balanced than I'd like against one of the all time great defenses.)
It's also safe to say just four players with Super Bowl experience and only ONE with a win isn't a lot either—but better than NONE, especially when the other team is so young in the first place. Sure, they're cocky; most 26 year olds playing in a Super Bowl would be. Yet (and, to be fair, this isn't the approach I favor) if we hit them hard, fast and early a couple times, so they find themselves soon and suddenly down double digits with the world watching, does Seattle have the maturity and poise to weather that storm and rally?
Seattle's not built for huge comebacks anyway: It's built to avoid NEEDING them. Their offense piled up the 4th most rushing yards this year with just a single back averaging only the 12th most yards, because they generally got to run out the clock with leads—what if they can't do that Sunday? Wilson's widely underated, with a passing offense averaging more yards/attempt than even OUR record setting Pro Bowlers, but, except for Harvin, Seattles WRs and TEs are nothing special. Good-not-great starters; uncertain depth (much like NE, though NE didn't have Harvin.)
The Seahawks faced little adversity this year; what happens when they do? The inability of anyone to challenge them much or long's not exactly reason to doubt them but, sooner or later, every game—ESPECIALLY championships—confront each team with at least one "put up or shut up" moment. Down 7-0 early in the 1940 NFL Championship, Sammy Baugh tossed a tying TD to a receiver who dropped it, and after the game a reporter asked him if the catch would've changed anything, to which Baugh replied, "Sure. The final score would have been 73–7."
We can never be sure what would've happened had the pass been caught; we can be sure the Bears 73-0 beatdown of the 'Skins is the most points and most lopsided by victory by any team in any game in NFL history. Just as we know the 'Skins who got pounded that day didn't just fold when they trailed SB XXII 10-0 in the first quarter.
If I weren't a Broncos fan, and WERE a bettor, I'd take them by a nose just because our D's running out of depth. However, the edge in experience overcoming adversity and experience in general is heavily ours. Nowhere is that more so than in the man who, however much he tries not to overshadow our coaches, is 2-3 as a SB starter and tied (with a dozen others) for second most SB appearances ever. The clutch moments each championship eventually has must favor us; we just can't afford to lose any more of the quality starters who have it.
As the first ESPN video notes, the last SB team with NO SB experience was the 1990 Bills, who lost by missing a fairly short game-winning FG attempt; since 1980, teams without SB experience are 1-3 (I have no idea who was the lone winner, but am curious; my bet is the '81 '9ers.) More from ESPN on the value of experience and how Coach Fox is riding OUR "Bus" (beep, beep:)
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10340485/denver-broncos-coach-john-fox-relying-super-bowl-experience
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:10332694