Just goes to show...

[echobravo]

As the seconds ticked down in the Super Bowl, I couldn't help but think. This just goes to show how bad our former staff was.
Granted Bellicheat outcoaches many coaches, but I expected better out of the Seahawks coaching staff.
These are the same coaches who beat us like a narc at a biker rally, so how bad was Fox and company?

Probably worse than we thought.

[underrated29]

That was hilarious!

Granted I wanted the seabirdies to win, but omg that is the funniest way to lose I've ever seen

[echobravo]

I remember thinking surely they won't be stupid enough to throw. Actually my thoughts only made it as far as surely.

Classic way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Devilspawn]

I remember thinking surely they won't be stupid enough to throw. Actually my thoughts only made it as far as surely.

Whoever called the play must've said, "Don't call me Shirley. Ok now, 53 5lant Bunch 31. Go!"

[Joel]

Carroll outsmarted himself is all. All they needed to change was to go empty backfield and it would've looked just like a half a dozen 3rd and 1 plays Gase called this season.

[echobravo]

He went conservative long enough to let the Pats take the lead away. Then turned his offense loose to get to first and goal. Then got over creative. Sounds a lot like Fox ball to me.

[echobravo]

Just glad we have a better coaching staff for next year.

[Joel]

He went conservative long enough to let the Pats take the lead away. Then turned his offense loose to get to first and goal. Then got over creative. Sounds a lot like Fox ball to me.
He didn't get THAT conservative; Seattle led by 10 when Kearse flat dropped a beautiful over the shoulder 30 yd pass from Wilson in stride and inside the NE 30: That would've all but guaranteed them at least 3 pts more and Lynch would've ground at least another couple minutes off the clock in the process. Instead they punted and NE played pitch and catch down the field to get within 3.

A pass into the middle of the field after Lynch had just plowed ahead 5 yds to the ½ foot line was insane though. I don't even disagree with the pass there since they only had one TO left thanks to horrible clock management following the double clutch at the 6, but throw a fade or even a quick out: Don't shoot the ball into 20 guys and hope the ONE right guy catches it for a TD. I mean, Michaels and Collinsworth were up in the booth talking about "letting them score so there's time left to tie," which they're probably wouldn't have been with 20 seconds left:

Give Beast Mode THREE championship-winning shots from the goal line. Or, y'know, throw away the championship trying to show the world how clever you AREN'T.

[Davii]

We're on to the draft

[MOtorboat]

Carroll is a horrible coach.

:coffee:

[Simple Jaded]

We're on to the draft

Free agency says hi.

[Devilspawn]

Pete Caroll texting the offensive coordinator

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8z7VgRCQAAaqYA.jpg:large

[Pudge]

Pete Caroll texting the offensive coordinator



Holy **** that hilarious

[jhildebrand]

The last two weeks of the season were the epitome of "kicking and screaming."

[Joel]

Pete Caroll texting the offensive coordinator

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8z7VgRCQAAaqYA.jpg:large
6546
"It looks like you're trying to blow a Super Bowl, would you like some help?"

[mouthofsouth]

They had 3 downs left to get a half yard. Russell Wilson should have easily run for that. I am heartsick because now all we will hear is how great Brady is to have 3 Super Bowl MVPs, and how clutch he is. I just cannot stand it. And by the way, the guy who intercepted Wilson's pass on the goal line should be MVP, not Brady.

[Traveler]

All I need to hear now is someone from the Patriots say they were soft and scared to run it against us. Rub teir noses in it even though we all know they should have won this game.

[Davii]

Free agency says hi.

We're on to free agency

[Simple Jaded]

We're on to free agency

Actually the Combine is middle of February.

[silkamilkamonico]

Bad staff.

Soft players.

[OrangeHoof]

Just glad we have a better coaching staff for next year.

Really? Ask Kubiak about this goal line call that cost him a game:

http://www.chron.com/sports/texans/gallery/Gary-Kubiak-039-s-football-career-75574/photo-5561756.php

I would have said 95% chance you would have had Lynch run it and I might have asked him to fall down just before the goal line to burn more clock and score on third down instead.

I find it asinine to watch a botched goal-line sequence by the Seahawks and come here and use it to bash Fox when a) Gase and Manning would have probably made the play call and b) the Broncos line wasn't nearly as good in goal-line running plays as the Seahawks were.

You got your wish, a new coaching staff. IMO, you swapped Tweedledee for Tweedledum. Give it two years and you'll be bitching the same crap about that the new coaches as you did the old ones.

[pulse]

They had 3 downs left to get a half yard. Russell Wilson should have easily run for that. I am heartsick because now all we will hear is how great Brady is to have 3 Super Bowl MVPs, and how clutch he is. I just cannot stand it. And by the way, the guy who intercepted Wilson's pass on the goal line should be MVP, not Brady.

Who hasn't heard how great Brady is for 15 years? It wouldn't have mattered. Brady could win a fifth Super Bowl and it won't matter. All this shit is subjective. To me the greatest professional QB will always be Joe Montana. He was not only 4-0 in Super Bowls, but more importantly, he was the most clutch performer I have ever seen. Brady is definitely clutch and I acknowledge he's one of the greatest, but not enough to supplant Joe Cool. John Elway's post season and overall career is great enough for me to consider him third. After this, it's really a crapshoot. If you remove championships, the greatest pro QB I've ever watched is Dan Marino. The greatest QB I have ever seen run an offense is Peyton Manning. But as the old saying goes, it takes great teams to win championships. I despise New England, but they've got a great coach and a great system. You can't knock Brady for taking advantage of it. Doesn't mean I have to like him.

[Slick]

High 5ed for your comment about football being a team game.

The rest of your post is subjective.

[pulse]

High 5ed for your comment about football being a team game.

The rest of your post is subjective.

Yup. It really is.

[Davii]

Actually the Combine is middle of February.

We're on to the combine.

[Ziggy]

Brady deserves the accolades. Without a miracle catch by David Tyree, he would actually be a 4 time super bowl MVP. It sucks that he plays for the Pats, but he's earned the right to be called one of the greatest of all time.

[NightTrainLayne]

Brady deserves the accolades. Without a miracle catch by David Tyree, he would actually be a 4 time super bowl MVP. It sucks that he plays for the Pats, but he's earned the right to be called one of the greatest of all time.

He is a four-time SB winner. Would be a five-time winner without the miracle.

[Northman]

Brady deserves the accolades. Without a miracle catch by David Tyree, he would actually be a 4 time super bowl MVP. It sucks that he plays for the Pats, but he's earned the right to be called one of the greatest of all time.

Not only that but didnt Welker drop a sure first down catch late in the game against the Giants the second time around? I think in both cases the Patriots could of won those games had certain plays turned out differently.

[Lancane]

Greatest of All Time is John Elway ****ers!!! :lol:

Then Montana, Bradshaw, Brady, Kelly, Manning and everyone else.

[underrated29]

He is a four-time SB winner. Would be a five-time winner without the miracle.


Would be a 3 time without the miracle interception

[Mike]

Almost felt bad for the Seahawks until they proved who they were on the last couple of plays.

[GEM]

Almost felt bad for the Seahawks until they proved who they were on the last couple of plays.

That was just so them though.

[NightTrainLayne]

Almost felt bad for the Seahawks until they proved who they were on the last couple of plays.

Gronk didn't exactly cover himself in respectability there either did he?

[Mike]

Gronk didn't exactly cover himself in respectability there either did he?

Don't blame a guy for finishing what someone else starts though. Gronk doesn't do that without provacation.

[Lancane]

Gronk didn't exactly cover himself in respectability there either did he?

Gronk retaliated, but the Seachicken's players (more then just one) were starting the crap. That was one where I was surprised only one got dejected, you had two or three grabbing masks or trying to wrestle players to the ground...not that all the Patriots were clean, but at that point I do not blame them for stepping up.

[NightTrainLayne]

Don't blame a guy for finishing what someone else starts though. Gronk doesn't do that without provacation.

I would like to hear what was being said before the fists started flying.

[BroncoNut]

He is a four-time SB winner. Would be a five-time winner without the miracle.

he was stating 4 time sb MVP, not winner (I think)

[BroncoNut]

I would like to hear what was being said before the fists started flying.

people can say all sorts of shit, it's how you react that matters.

[GEM]

Gronk retaliated, but the Seachicken's players (more then just one) were starting the crap. That was one where I was surprised only one got dejected, you had two or three grabbing masks or trying to wrestle players to the ground...not that all the Patriots were clean, but at that point I do not blame them for stepping up.

The Patriots were in victory formation, no reason for Gronk to go over that line and do that, that was all Seattle.

[pedrohmlima]

Is never going to happen a worst decision by a staff in a SB probably

1 yard line, you got the best RB of his generation, doing a great game and a QB that does read option VERY well and u............... take your chances with a risky pass and......... it's done

[OB]

Any loss is hard - is it harder to get blown out or to have the game in hand for 59:40 minutes and totally blow it in the last 20 seconds :whoknows:

[GEM]

Blown out for sure. Then you're miserable the hole game instead of just after it's over.

[OB]

Blown out for sure. Then you're miserable the hole game instead of just after it's over.

Unless you get drunk and pass out at half time ;)

[Lancane]

Is never going to happen a worst decision by a staff in a SB probably

1 yard line, you got the best RB of his generation, doing a great game and a QB that does read option VERY well and u............... take your chances with a risky pass and......... it's done

You do know that Marshawn Lynch despite people heralding him as the best back in the NFL is 1 for 5 in his last five attempts and running the ball in on goal line situations? It's not as clear cut and dry as people make it seem. It was not a bad call, it just did not work in their favor, had Butler not gotten to the ball that is a touchdown and the Super Bowl is over.

[OrangeHoof]

Do you really think he wouldn't have scored if given the chance?

[Lancane]

Do you really think he wouldn't have scored if given the chance?

I think he would of, but the coaches knew he was 1 of 5 in his last attempts at the goal line. And as Carroll said, most times is the receiver doesn't make that catch it's an incomplete pass and they would have been able to try to run it in on the next down. Had it worked Carroll would have been hailed as a genius and we both know that.

[OrangeHoof]

Not by me. If he fakes to Lynch and runs a naked boot with Wilson, that would have been genius. But, given the circumstances, I would have gone with the sure thing and given it to Lynch.

[Rick]

I will admit, I skipped the game...didn't want to watch either team.

However from what I read, 26 or so seconds left, 1 yard line, I don't know what pass he called but calling A pass instead of running it is not a bad call. Running takes more time off the clock. Call a pass, if it doesn't work you still have time for another pass on third down, and then a run on fourth down if you need to.

A run might have sealed it with A TD but I don't think the pass mind set was bad.

[Lancane]

Not by me. If he fakes to Lynch and runs a naked boot with Wilson, that would have been genius. But, given the circumstances, I would have gone with the sure thing and given it to Lynch.

But it was not a sure thing, they knew that. And as we've pointed out, usually in that circumstance you have more chances because if not caught it is usually an incomplete pass.

I'm also glad the Seachickens lost, after the Super Bowl crap last year, the crap they got away with (do not get me wrong) we played like ****, but it really showed the class or lack thereof, just as they showed the same lack after the turnover. Without that defense they are a 7-9 team, without Marshawn Lynch they are a 3-13 team.

[Simple Jaded]

Not by me. If he fakes to Lynch and runs a naked boot with Wilson, that would have been genius. But, given the circumstances, I would have gone with the sure thing and given it to Lynch.

That sounds like something Kubiak would do. Am I right?

[Buff]

I will admit, I skipped the game...didn't want to watch either team.

However from what I read, 26 or so seconds left, 1 yard line, I don't know what pass he called but calling A pass instead of running it is not a bad call. Running takes more time off the clock. Call a pass, if it doesn't work you still have time for another pass on third down, and then a run on fourth down if you need to.

A run might have sealed it with A TD but I don't think the pass mind set was bad.

Seattle still had a timeout. Not to mention New England might have been inclined to take a timeout there if they stuffed a run (unlikely, since they didn't spend one on the play prior).

Anyway - there is just zero reason to take on the risk associated with a pass. Especially when you arguably have the best RB in the NFL. If you run and get stuffed, then you still live to see another down AND can stop the clock.

In summary, it was an atrocious call that can't really be defended imo.

[Northman]

I will admit, I skipped the game...didn't want to watch either team.

However from what I read, 26 or so seconds left, 1 yard line, I don't know what pass he called but calling A pass instead of running it is not a bad call. Running takes more time off the clock. Call a pass, if it doesn't work you still have time for another pass on third down, and then a run on fourth down if you need to.

A run might have sealed it with A TD but I don't think the pass mind set was bad.

They had a couple of timeouts and 38 seconds so running wouldnt of hurt them. But, i agree that the pass call was not a bad one. Its easy to second guess because it was picked off but had they connected and scored no one would be questioning the call.

[Hawgdriver]

I don't mind a pass call near the goal line, but that call just seemed daft. Sure, they load up on the run and it could easily be stuffed. But the way he was running, I mean just the look of it, it seemed so obvious you just go back to it.

[Northman]

I don't mind a pass call near the goal line, but that call just seemed daft. Sure, they load up on the run and it could easily be stuffed. But the way he was running, I mean just the look of it, it seemed so obvious you just go back to it.

It was the higher percentage play.

[weazel]

Is never going to happen a worst decision by a staff in a SB probably

1 yard line, you got the best RB of his generation, doing a great game and a QB that does read option VERY well and u............... take your chances with a risky pass and......... it's done

best running back of his generation? Okay people, time to get some perspective here.

[silkamilkamonico]

There isn't 1 RB I would rather have more than Lynch right now, and it isn't even close. Just MHO.

[weazel]

theres only 1 player in the league right now that I would say is generational at his position... JJ Watt

[Lancane]

There isn't 1 RB I would rather have more than Lynch right now, and it isn't even close. Just MHO.

I would have been perfectly fine with Lacy (oh wait, everyone thought he'd be a bust), same with Le'Veon Bell. Murray wouldn't be bad or Forte or Foster...

Not that I think Lynch is a bad running back at all, but his statistics in short yardage in the red zone shows he does have a short coming like all other tailbacks.

[Northman]

Blown out for sure. Then you're miserable the hole game instead of just after it's over.

A close loss is gut wrenching, but to not even compete is the lowest of the lows.

[Northman]

But it was not a sure thing, they knew that. And as we've pointed out, usually in that circumstance you have more chances because if not caught it is usually an incomplete pass.

I'm also glad the Seachickens lost, after the Super Bowl crap last year, the crap they got away with (do not get me wrong) we played like ****, but it really showed the class or lack thereof, just as they showed the same lack after the turnover. Without that defense they are a 7-9 team, without Marshawn Lynch they are a 3-13 team.

In the NFL there is never a sure thing.

[DenBronx]

I didnt really want either team to win. I just wanted to see a good game and it was. Adding insult to injury the Pats not only won free agency last offseason but those free agents put them over the top. They did what we couldn't. Amendola played a huge role, Revis played a huge role and Browner played excellent. Some how some way the Pats find ways to win and it starts with their mastermind HC Belichick.

Seahawk fans are going to feel this one for a long long time. I will never forgive the Broncos for losing like we did in SB 48. Bet Seahawk fans feel the same way today.

[Buff]

theres only 1 player in the league right now that I would say is generational at his position... JJ Watt

Gronk was also a unanimous all-pro selection. I think you could make the case for him as well.

[BroncoNut]

Blown out for sure. Then you're miserable the hole game instead of just after it's over.
Yeah the hole game. I've played that

[LawDog]

I don't have a problem with a pass, just that pass. In that set, had Lockette faked inside to the slant, then cut outside for a fade he either catches it for a TD or it is overthrown. Chances are high that Butler would have bitten on the slant, with that fade to the side of the endzone there is no chance for an interception.

[7DnBrnc53]

They had 3 downs left to get a half yard. Russell Wilson should have easily run for that. I am heartsick because now all we will hear is how great Brady is to have 3 Super Bowl MVPs, and how clutch he is. I just cannot stand it. And by the way, the guy who intercepted Wilson's pass on the goal line should be MVP, not Brady.

That Butler guy who made the INT also tripped Ricardo Lockette on the drive before the Pats took the lead. Lockette was wide open, too.

[Joel]

Bad staff.

Soft players.
Bad staff, HARD and DIRTY players. "Just goes to show" blindside head hunting DOESN'T show good coaching; until recently, most agreed it showed the opposite.

It's funny though: The Lions and Bengals have had some of the "toughest" and DIRTIEST players in the league for most of a decade, but no one ever talks about how great that proves their coaches. Mainly because most people put more stock in postseason appearances (of which Detroit and Cincy have few) and postseason wins (of which neither have any) than kicking opposing QBs in the nuts and "accidentally" stomping their already injured leg TWICE, or deliberately reaching out to twist a RBs already injured ankle as he scores and kneecap him at the end of a playoff game.

My apologies if I'm just missing your saracasm, but if not: C'mon, a year ago it was "Seattle's mentally tough, because Carroll spent the bye week telling his team to prepare to win while Fox told his to enjoy the moment" and "their physically tough team outmuscled our finesse team"—now the SAME "tough" players and coaches are "weak"? Does toughness prove who wins, or does winning prove who's tough? Don't get me wrong, toughness is huge because big/tight games are almost impossible to win without the toughness to withstand that pressure. But it's required—NOT sufficient.

Sooner or later a good tough team will face another good tough team on the way to the SB, and only one can win, but that doesn't prove the loser weak.

[Joel]

You do know that Marshawn Lynch despite people heralding him as the best back in the NFL is 1 for 5 in his last five attempts and running the ball in on goal line situations? It's not as clear cut and dry as people make it seem. It was not a bad call, it just did not work in their favor, had Butler not gotten to the ball that is a touchdown and the Super Bowl is over.
From ½ yard, he only had to be 1 for 3 to win a championship. Look, I'm not even saying they should've just called runs until they scored or the gun sounded; they HAD just run the clock down to <30 seconds with only one TO (because they were so unprepared after Kearses double clutch they had to burn one then; great coaching there, too.) But

1) a post to the end line, or an out or fade to the sideline: Something either a TD or incomplete—DON'T throw into the middle of the field and hope the right guy comes out of that scrum with the ball.

2) With 26 seconds, 3 downs and 1 TO, there's a very simple safe series that goes a) 2nd down run; TO, b) 3rd down fade/post, c) 4th down run

That's not even complicated, but I still believe that was the problem: Carroll overthought it and outsmarted himself.


I think he would of, but the coaches knew he was 1 of 5 in his last attempts at the goal line. And as Carroll said, most times is the receiver doesn't make that catch it's an incomplete pass and they would have been able to try to run it in on the next down. Had it worked Carroll would have been hailed as a genius and we both know that.
Whether it's an incomplete depends a lot on where it's thrown. Maybe he was thinking of The Catch, but remember that play? Clark had to jump pretty high for a fingertip grab; if he doesn't quite make it, who catches it instead? NOBODY: Because it was 9' in the air on the end line; Montana's publicly said he was just throwing away the ball. Because Walsh was a HELL of a lot better coach than Carroll.


It was the higher percentage play.
It most certainly wasn't: Short passes may be the most often completed, but I'd bet money they're also the most often intercepted, because it's too easy for too many people to jump the route—EXACTLY what happened. Everyone knows bad things tend to happen when a QB throws into a crowd; Pete Carroll just forgot for a second.


I don't have a problem with a pass, just that pass. In that set, had Lockette faked inside to the slant, then cut outside for a fade he either catches it for a TD or it is overthrown. Chances are high that Butler would have bitten on the slant, with that fade to the side of the endzone there is no chance for an interception.
BINGO! Either you and I are geniuses, or Pete Carroll... isn't either. ;)

It pains me to say this, but PRECISELY that situation is why Lombardis name is on the trophy: Trailing by a TD on GBs goal line at home in the 1966 NFL Championship, Dandy Don threw a ball GB intercepted in the end zone to reach SB I; a year later, GB trailed by 3 on Dallas' goal line at home in the Ice Bowl, when Starrs QB sneak sent them to SB II and made Jerry Kramer a bestselling author.

[tripp]

Carroll said, they were going to have that 1 passing play, because they've had so much success doing it previously, and then the next 2 plays they were going to run the ball.

Personally, I think if you run that same passing play again it's almost a sure fire TD. That INT by Butler was a miracle play. I give all the credit in the world to the DC in New England, and Butler for having that kind of reaction, and ability to make the catch in an ultimate high stakes game. I've easier throws to a corner dropped. (for example, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix dropped pick against Seattle)

DT has made it very clear that the players AND coaching staff aren't mentally tough. He stated no one wanted to go to New England and play them. What makes it even more sad, we couldn't even get past a Colts team who looked decent at best this year. They beat up on teams like Houston, Jacksonville, and Titans twice a year to be guaranteed a playoff birth every year. We're making the right steps, but man, after watching last nights game, can't help but feel we're miles away from being where we want to be.

[Joel]

Carroll said, they were going to have that 1 passing play, because they've had so much success doing it previously, and then the next 2 plays they were going to run the ball.
He's said a lot of insane things about that play; he also said they were trying to kill the clock so NE had no time to answer, but how does an end zone pass bleed clock—how CAN it? It's either a TD, incomplete or Int, ALL of which stop the clock. The bottom line is stupid risks on championship plays kills champsionships.


Personally, I think if you run that same passing play again it's almost a sure fire TD. That INT by Butler was a miracle play. I give all the credit in the world to the DC in New England, and Butler for having that kind of reaction, and ability to make the catch in an ultimate high stakes game. I've easier throws to a corner dropped. (for example, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix dropped pick against Seattle)
Dix was promptly and widely branded GBs Rahim Moore for that play, and not just here: My best friend's a GB fan; he couldn't even remember Moores NAME, but immediately made the comparison.

That same quick timing pass over the middle's NEVER a "sure fire" anything. "Putting it up for grabs" is never certain if only because even the best drop some passes, especially under pressure—but putting it up for grabs by nearly two dozen guys in the middle of the field is just asking for trouble: There's a good chance it's caught, but whether it's by the right TEAM is 50/50.


DT has made it very clear that the players AND coaching staff aren't mentally tough. He stated no one wanted to go to New England and play them. What makes it even more sad, we couldn't even get past a Colts team who looked decent at best this year. They beat up on teams like Houston, Jacksonville, and Titans twice a year to be guaranteed a playoff birth every year. We're making the right steps, but man, after watching last nights game, can't help but feel we're miles away from being where we want to be.
I'm convinced Kubes and Denny will have all our guys ready to play, and cut anyone who can't/won't GET ready by Opening Day. They've been on the right sideline of a lot of SBs and, contrary to popular belief, not just because they knew other people on the team. I geniuinely believe we've turned the corner at last, and will be back in the winners circle soon whether or not Manning returns.

[Northman]

It most certainly wasn't: Short passes may be the most often completed, but I'd bet money they're also the most often intercepted, because it's too easy for too many people to jump the route—EXACTLY what happened. Everyone knows bad things tend to happen when a QB throws into a crowd; Pete Carroll just forgot for a second.




I was talking about the running option dude. Reading comprehension...

[silkamilkamonico]

Bad staff, HARD and DIRTY players. "Just goes to show" blindside head hunting DOESN'T show good coaching; until recently, most agreed it showed the opposite.

Seattle has a great staff - I'm not sure wtf you are talking about here.



It's funny though: The Lions and Bengals have had some of the "toughest" and DIRTIEST players in the league for most of a decade, but no one ever talks about how great that proves their coaches. Mainly because most people put more stock in postseason appearances (of which Detroit and Cincy have few) and postseason wins (of which neither have any) than kicking opposing QBs in the nuts or "accidentally" stomping their already injured leg TWICE, and deliberately reaching out to twist a RBs already injured ankle as he scores or kneecap him at the end of a playoff game.

The Bengals and Lions are like a tougher version of John Fox. They wouldn't know how to gameplan their way around a high school game.


My apologies if I'm just missing your saracasm, but if not: C'mon, a year ago it was "Seattle's mentally tough, because Carroll spent the bye week telling his team to prepare to win while Fox told his to enjoy the moment" and "their physically tough team outmuscled our finesse team"—now the SAME "tough" players and coaches are "weak"? Does toughness prove who wins, or does winning prove who's tough? Don't get me wrong, toughness is huge because big/tight games are almost impossible to win without the toughness to withstand that pressure. But it's required—NOT sufficient.

Sooner or later a good tough team will face another good tough team on the way to the SB, and only one can win, but that doesn't prove the loser weak.

Seattle is like the big bully at lunch hour that pushes you around and steals your money. That's exactly what I would want on the football field 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Toughness doesn't prove who wins, but great scheming and playcalling, coupled with toughness, like what Carroll's done in Seattle, brings that team to arguably one of the best in the NFL in a span of 2+ years.

Best offense in the history of the NFL? LMAO - Not on Seattle's field.

Denver has a soft culture right now. It needs to change. It's why when we play other perennial greats like Seattle and New England we go 1- for whatever it is in the last few years.

[Joel]

I was talking about the running option dude. Reading comprehension...
When comparing run vs. pass, "it was the higher percentage play" doesn't indicate WHICH play is meant.


Seattle has a great staff - I'm not sure wtf you are talking about here.
I'm talking about the idea this SB proves we lost the last one because our bad staff made us "soft:" How does Seattle LOSING Sunday prove that unless they lost for the same reason, and if they did, how does them beating us last year prove anything? Either 1) their hard team just got BEATEN or 2) their soft team that just got beaten beat OURS last year. Regardless, that hard teams "great" staff just made one of the all-time WORST SB blunders. If you've got Csonka or Riggins n the backfield at the goal line, you don't have Griese or Theisman throw a timing route over the middle into an elite secondary.


The Bengals and Lions are like a tougher version of John Fox. They wouldn't know how to gameplan their way around a high school game.
A fair assessment, but "goes to show" winning games and championships consists of more than a machismo check.


Seattle is like the big bully at lunch hour that pushes you around and steals your money. That's exactly what I would want on the football field 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Toughness doesn't prove who wins, but great scheming and playcalling, coupled with toughness, like what Carroll's done in Seattle, brings that team to arguably one of the best in the NFL in a span of 2+ years.
They could've done with better scheming and playcalling and less toughness Sunday.


Best offense in the history of the NFL? LMAO - Not on Seattle's field.
It was historys best PASSING, not best OFFENSE. It wasn't even the best BRONCOS offense in history; the late '90s team was better, but so was the Greatest Show on Turf, the Triplets, Staubach, Dorsett and Pearson, the '80s '9ers; the list of better offenses is depressingly long. It was the best PASSING game ever, but Gase told Phil Simms point blank our ONE-DIMENSIONAL offense lost SB XLVIII, and he was right. Toughness is neither here nor there to that.


Denver has a soft culture right now. It needs to change. It's why when we play other perennial greats like Seattle and New England we go 1- for whatever it is in the last few years.
Denver had garbage coaching, resulting in bland offensive and defensive game plans, poor execution, a casual attitude toward winning/losing and tolerance for inconsistency and screw ups. Toughness was on our list of problems, but not at the top; it was a symptom rather than the underlying disease. And the many teams perennial cheats like Seattle and NE beat is neither here nor there to that; the Ravens are plenty tough, but it's barely gotten them a .500 playoff record vs. NE.

[TXBRONC]

Carroll said, they were going to have that 1 passing play, because they've had so much success doing it previously, and then the next 2 plays they were going to run the ball.

Personally, I think if you run that same passing play again it's almost a sure fire TD. That INT by Butler was a miracle play. I give all the credit in the world to the DC in New England, and Butler for having that kind of reaction, and ability to make the catch in an ultimate high stakes game. I've easier throws to a corner dropped. (for example, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix dropped pick against Seattle)

DT has made it very clear that the players AND coaching staff aren't mentally tough. He stated no one wanted to go to New England and play them. What makes it even more sad, we couldn't even get past a Colts team who looked decent at best this year. They beat up on teams like Houston, Jacksonville, and Titans twice a year to be guaranteed a playoff birth every year. We're making the right steps, but man, after watching last nights game, can't help but feel we're miles away from being where we want to be.

I disagree, it was crappy play call and a poorly thrown pass to boot.

[silkamilkamonico]

I'm talking about the idea this SB proves we lost the last one because our bad staff made us "soft:" How does Seattle LOSING Sunday prove that unless they lost for the same reason, and if they did, how does them beating us last year prove anything? Either 1) their hard team just got BEATEN or 2) their soft team that just got beaten beat OURS last year. Regardless, that hard teams "great" staff just made one of the all-time WORST SB blunders. If you've got Csonka or Riggins n the backfield at the goal line, you don't have Griese or Theisman throw a timing route over the middle into an elite secondary.

We lost the SuperBowl because we had a coaching staff who self admitting failed to prepare the team accurately for the biggest game of the season. That was just a major check on the long list for the Fox coached Bronco teams, who got pushed around and beat up in every playoff game under him that things didn't go their way. Seattle's staff made a bad play at the end of the game. But let's not sit here and pretend that was some indication of how the entire coaching went for them. Carroll's Seattle team was 1 play away from winning the SuperBowl. Fox's Denver team didn't even show up and was out of the game by the 3rd series of the 1st quarter. Trying to somehow pretend there isn't any difference in the 2 and the way the game went down because both teams lost is just ignorant.






They could've done with better scheming and playcalling and less toughness Sunday.

Why - because of 1 play?



It was historys best PASSING, not best OFFENSE. It wasn't even the best BRONCOS offense in history; the late '90s team was better, but so was the Greatest Show on Turf, the Triplets, Staubach, Dorsett and Pearson, the '80s '9ers; the list of better offenses is depressingly long. It was the best PASSING game ever, but Gase told Phil Simms point blank our ONE-DIMENSIONAL offense lost SB XLVIII, and he was right. Toughness is neither here nor there to that.

LMAO - you're trying to throw powdered sugar on a bagel and calling it a donut. Denver had the best offense in the NFL last year....PERIOD. It was the best offense in the NFL statistically speaking...PERIOD. We had a very solid game with Moreno last season so your statement of them being one dimensional is a lie, and if you want to say we were one dimensional in the SuperBowl, it was because we had a coaching staff who couldn't scheme their way around a high school game.


And the many teams perennial cheats like Seattle and NE beat is neither here nor there to that; the Ravens are plenty tough, but it's barely gotten them a .500 playoff record vs. NE.


This cheating statement you have been thrown around is laughable. Seattle had players that got busted for performance enhancing drugs and paid the punishment. Denver had players that got busted for casual drugs and paid punishment. Think about that. Seattle's players actually wanted to be better on the field, where Denver's players said "**** it - let's just get high". I'll take the players on my team that actually want to be better on the field 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. That could be why this current crop of team's, Seattle is 2-0 with a SuperBowl win and Denver is 0-2 with arguably the most embarrassing SuperBowl loss ever.

[Ravage!!!]

It most certainly wasn't: Short passes may be the most often completed, but I'd bet money they're also the most often intercepted, because it's too easy for too many people to jump the route—EXACTLY what happened. Everyone knows bad things tend to happen when a QB throws into a crowd; Pete Carroll just forgot for a second.


This is actually very incorrect. Short passes are the hardest to intercept, not the easiest.

[Ravage!!!]

I think the play that I jumped up and down on, was the one that reminded me of a Manning play.

Seattle had just gone for three scoring drives in a row.. a TD and a FG in the third Qaurter and just forced NE to punt for the second time in the quarter. Seattle is on the NE 47 yard line with a 3rd and 3, and Wilson throws the ball DEEP down the left sideline. PISSED me off. WHY do QBs do this? A Huge drive, an needing a first down, and they throw the ball deep on a 3rd and short... why? WHY? Manning still hasn't given me an answer to this. :rant:

[OrangeHoof]

I go back to a Vince Lombardi theory which is to find a play you execute so well that it is almost never stopped (his was the power sweep) then when you absolutely need a short gain, that's your call. The other side knows it's coming but they still can't stop it. And if you must try another play, make it a fake off the can't-stop-it play.

[Ravage!!!]

I go back to a Vince Lombardi theory which is to find a play you execute so well that it is almost never stopped (his was the power sweep) then when you absolutely need a short gain, that's your call. The other side knows it's coming but they still can't stop it. And if you must try another play, make it a fake off the can't-stop-it play.

It's the theory of execution. Execution is the key to success. Every play can work if every player executes their job (not really, but it's a sound theory).

[Joel]

We lost the SuperBowl because we had a coaching staff who self admitting failed to prepare the team accurately for the biggest game of the season. That was just a major check on the long list for the Fox coached Bronco teams, who got pushed around and beat up in every playoff game under him that things didn't go their way. Seattle's staff made a bad play at the end of the game. But let's not sit here and pretend that was some indication of how the entire coaching went for them. Carroll's Seattle team was 1 play away from winning the SuperBowl. Fox's Denver team didn't even show up and was out of the game by the 3rd series of the 1st quarter. Trying to somehow pretend there isn't any difference in the 2 and the way the game went down because both teams lost is just ignorant.
Sure, Foxs team was lazy and unprofessional, but that's because they were lazy and unprofessional, a deeper problem of which lack of toughness was but one of many symptoms.


Why - because of 1 play?
Yes: One championship-blowing play; can anyone deny they'd have been better off without it? If they'd just played "tough" goal line football with an elite power runner, not gotten cute and thrown into traffic?


LMAO - you're trying to throw powdered sugar on a bagel and calling it a donut. Denver had the best offense in the NFL last year....PERIOD. It was the best offense in the NFL statistically speaking...PERIOD. We had a very solid game with Moreno last season so your statement of them being one dimensional is a lie, and if you want to say we were one dimensional in the SuperBowl, it was because we had a coaching staff who couldn't scheme their way around a high school game.
Sugar on shit; if you wanna use the metaphor you don't have to sanitize it: We're all big boys here. It was the best—record-shattering—PASSING ever; it was only 15th best THAT YEAR in rushing, despite the 12th most attempts, which put it 20th in rushing average. 4.0 yds/att isn't "best ever;" it's not even average. So when the SB rolled around Seattle just ignored the impotent running game they knew couldn't hurt them, and all the linemen sprinted for Manning without a second thought while all the LBs dropped into short zones and the safeties hung deep: Game over.


This cheating statement you have been thrown around is laughable. Seattle had players that got busted for performance enhancing drugs and paid the punishment. Denver had players that got busted for casual drugs and paid punishment. Think about that. Seattle's players actually wanted to be better on the field, where Denver's players said "**** it - let's just get high". I'll take the players on my team that actually want to be better on the field 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. That could be why this current crop of team's, Seattle is 2-0 with a SuperBowl win and Denver is 0-2 with arguably the most embarrassing SuperBowl loss ever.
Congrats, you just demonstrated why PEDs are cheating but partying isn't, and why cheating's so much worse than partying despite both being illegal: Because no one gets an unfair competitive advantage (i.e. CHEATS) by getting high. Even smoking crack doesn't encourage a whole generation of adolescents to destroy their bodies and minds with drugs like the stars they idolize, convince them they MUST do so to have ANY hope of making a pro roster by beating out competitors all doped to the gills. I'm not mad Seattle has too much testosterone: I'm mad MOST OF IT CAME OUT OF A BOTTLE.

Yeah, I've thought about it: Carrying a .38 to blow away opposing tacklers would make them "better on the field," too, but it's illegal and immoral. And the first time someone got away with it guns and kevlar would become standard issue in our copycat league. Seattles players got busted, but most DIDN'T pay the punishment:

Dick Sherman claimed he accidentally grabbed a water bottle from a teammate with an adderall prescription (even though 1) lacing a water bottle with adderall's not an approved prescription form and 2) NFL rules ban adderall DURING GAMES with or without prescription,) then showed up a few days later with a retroactive prescription and got his suspension reversed, then dismissed it to the press by saying, "half the league's on it." And that's why we can't tolerate PEDs: Because if we do, half the league will be wrecking their bodies with it; didn't Alzado teach us this lesson?

Brandon Browner went to Canada because he wasn't GOOD ENOUGH for an NFL roster but the CFL didn't do PED tests; he became a star in Canada, but a year after they started testing he parlayed that stardom into an NFL contract—and has tested positive for PEDs literally EVERY SEASON SINCE. But his positive 2011 test didn't keep him out of the 2011 Pro Bowl, Shawne Merriman Rule or not, and his positive 2013 test didn't deny him a Ring for the SB he couldn't even play last year, and the resulting suspension was lifted so he could play all season and "win" another this year.

That's only half Seattles cheating equation though; there's also a little matter of leading the league in penalties because they're coached to take dirty blindside head shots, but never draw any suspensions for that either. They literally practice with pads over all the legal areas so the Legion of Dope learns where they can deliberately but LEGALLY injure opponents. That's the other problem with this "winning is everything and anything goes for REAL men" logic: We end up with a league where spearing guys in the back of the head's not only allowed, but the REQUIRED STANDARD.

It's not the Roman Colosseum: Attempted murder to win a GAME'S not entertainment.

[Joel]

This is actually very incorrect. Short passes are the hardest to intercept, not the easiest.
I'd like to see some stats on that. Maybe all those outs and slants jumped for a pick-six because they're already at a dead sprint with NO ONE between them and the end zone just stuck in my head. But it seems strange to say passes in front of eleven defenders are picked less often than passes in front of one or two. Deep passes may have a lower completion rate, but they're far less risky because they have fewer ways to go bac (not to mention a deep interception is little different than a punt, while a short interception gives up the ball AND a ton of field position.)


I go back to a Vince Lombardi theory which is to find a play you execute so well that it is almost never stopped (his was the power sweep) then when you absolutely need a short gain, that's your call. The other side knows it's coming but they still can't stop it. And if you must try another play, make it a fake off the can't-stop-it play.
Exactly; my friend the Packers fan noted play-action would've been an ideal call there. There's actually a lot off pass plays that are viable there—but a quick timing throw into traffic's not among them. Timing throws right at the snap are always risky, because if the receiver slips, the CB gets a jam or half a dozen other things go wrong, the pass will still come out on time, but heaven knows who'll catch it.


I think the play that I jumped up and down on, was the one that reminded me of a Manning play.

Seattle had just gone for three scoring drives in a row.. a TD and a FG in the third Qaurter and just forced NE to punt for the second time in the quarter. Seattle is on the NE 47 yard line with a 3rd and 3, and Wilson throws the ball DEEP down the left sideline. PISSED me off. WHY do QBs do this? A Huge drive, an needing a first down, and they throw the ball deep on a 3rd and short... why? WHY? Manning still hasn't given me an answer to this. :rant:
Yeah, they ran a play like that earlier in their last drive: Streak down the right sideline, and in the Other Games thread my comment was "Isn't it a little early for a Hail Mary?" But in defense of the other play:

It was a game-icing kill shot Wilson dropped right over Kearses shoulder in stride and inside NEs 30. From there, Seattle would've been all but guaranteed at least 3 pts even if all they did was Beast Mode another 2:00 off the clock before the kick, and no one's EVER come back from >10 pts down in a SB. But Kearse flat DROPPED it, so they punted, NE played pitch and catch down the field for a TD, and it was a 3 pt game again. Score another for execution (or against poor execution,) and the only "toughness" that involves is between the ears.

[silkamilkamonico]

Yes: One championship-blowing play; can anyone deny they'd have been better off without it? If they'd just played "tough" goal line football with an elite power runner, not gotten cute and thrown into traffic?

No - coaches aren't called bad coaches because of 1 play. If you're honestly trying to argue otherwise, then there isn't a good coach in the game, ever.



Sugar on shit; if you wanna use the metaphor you don't have to sanitize it: We're all big boys here. It was the best—record-shattering—PASSING ever; it was only 15th best THAT YEAR in rushing, despite the 12th most attempts, which put it 20th in rushing average. 4.0 yds/att isn't "best ever;" it's not even average. So when the SB rolled around Seattle just ignored the impotent running game they knew couldn't hurt them, and all the linemen sprinted for Manning without a second thought while all the LBs dropped into short zones and the safeties hung deep: Game over.

I'm just going to one up you here - not only was it the best passing team in the history of the NFL, it was also the best point scoring machine in the NFL, period. ALl this coupled in equals the best offense statistically speaking in the history of the NFL, period. Your theory of putting powdered sugar on a bagel, excuse me, shit, and trying to call it a donut just doesn't hold any weight whatsoever with this one.

And Seattle didn't ignore the run game. The run game never happened, because we had insuffeicient coaches who couldn't gameplan. Or.....that's just how damn good Carroll is. He not only figured how to stop the machine that Bill Belichek couldn't, he destroyed it. Thank you for giving me another argument for just how damn good a coach Pete Carroll is.





Congrats, you just demonstrated why PEDs are cheating but partying isn't, and why cheating's so much worse than partying despite both being illegal: Because no one gets an unfair competitive advantage (i.e. CHEATS) by getting high. Even smoking crack doesn't encourage a whole generation of adolescents to destroy their bodies and minds with drugs like the stars they idolize, convince them they MUST do so to have ANY hope of making a pro roster by beating out competitors all doped to the gills. I'm not mad Seattle has too much testosterone: I'm mad MOST OF IT CAME OUT OF A BOTTLE.

Yeah, I've thought about it: Carrying a .38 to blow away opposing tacklers would make them "better on the field," too, but it's illegal and immoral. And the first time someone got away with it guns and kevlar would become standard issue in our copycat league. Seattles players got busted, but most DIDN'T pay the punishment:

Dick Sherman claimed he accidentally grabbed a water bottle from a teammate with an adderall prescription (even though 1) lacing a water bottle with adderall's not an approved prescription form and 2) NFL rules ban adderall DURING GAMES with or without prescription,) then showed up a few days later with a retroactive prescription and got his suspension reversed, then dismissed it to the press by saying, "half the league's on it." And that's why we can't tolerate PEDs: Because if we do, half the league will be wrecking their bodies with it; didn't Alzado teach us this lesson?

Brandon Browner went to Canada because he wasn't GOOD ENOUGH for an NFL roster but the CFL didn't do PED tests; he became a star in Canada, but a year after they started testing he parlayed that stardom into an NFL contract—and has tested positive for PEDs literally EVERY SEASON SINCE. But his positive 2011 test didn't keep him out of the 2011 Pro Bowl, Shawne Merriman Rule or not, and his positive 2013 test didn't deny him a Ring for the SB he couldn't even play last year, and the resulting suspension was lifted so he could play all season and "win" another this year.

That's only half Seattles cheating equation though; there's also a little matter of leading the league in penalties because they're coached to take dirty blindside head shots, but never draw any suspensions for that either. They literally practice with pads over all the legal areas so the Legion of Dope learns where they can deliberately but LEGALLY injure opponents. That's the other problem with this "winning is everything and anything goes for REAL men" logic: We end up with a league where spearing guys in the back of the head's not only allowed, but the REQUIRED STANDARD.

It's not the Roman Colosseum: Attempted murder to win a GAME'S not entertainment.

Nope - I just showed you how much difference being tough and trying to win is, like Seattle, and being soft and not caring about winning is, like Denver. Thanks for finally acknowledging the obvious.

[silkamilkamonico]

Yes: One championship-blowing play; can anyone deny they'd have been better off without it? If they'd just played "tough" goal line football with an elite power runner, not gotten cute and thrown into traffic?

No - coaches aren't called bad coaches because of 1 play. If you're honestly trying to argue otherwise, then there isn't a good coach in the game, ever.



Sugar on shit; if you wanna use the metaphor you don't have to sanitize it: We're all big boys here. It was the best—record-shattering—PASSING ever; it was only 15th best THAT YEAR in rushing, despite the 12th most attempts, which put it 20th in rushing average. 4.0 yds/att isn't "best ever;" it's not even average. So when the SB rolled around Seattle just ignored the impotent running game they knew couldn't hurt them, and all the linemen sprinted for Manning without a second thought while all the LBs dropped into short zones and the safeties hung deep: Game over.

I'm just going to one up you here - not only was it the best passing team in the history of the NFL, it was also the best point scoring machine in the NFL, period. ALl this coupled in equals the best offense statistically speaking in the history of the NFL, period. Your theory of putting powdered sugar on a bagel, excuse me, shit, and trying to call it a donut just doesn't hold any weight whatsoever with this one.

And Seattle didn't ignore the run game. The run game never happened, because we had insuffeicient coaches who couldn't gameplan. Or.....that's just how damn good Carroll is. He not only figured how to stop the machine that Bill Belichek couldn't, he destroyed it. Thank you for giving me another argument for just how damn good a coach Pete Carroll is.





Congrats, you just demonstrated why PEDs are cheating but partying isn't, and why cheating's so much worse than partying despite both being illegal: Because no one gets an unfair competitive advantage (i.e. CHEATS) by getting high. Even smoking crack doesn't encourage a whole generation of adolescents to destroy their bodies and minds with drugs like the stars they idolize, convince them they MUST do so to have ANY hope of making a pro roster by beating out competitors all doped to the gills. I'm not mad Seattle has too much testosterone: I'm mad MOST OF IT CAME OUT OF A BOTTLE.

Yeah, I've thought about it: Carrying a .38 to blow away opposing tacklers would make them "better on the field," too, but it's illegal and immoral. And the first time someone got away with it guns and kevlar would become standard issue in our copycat league. Seattles players got busted, but most DIDN'T pay the punishment:

Dick Sherman claimed he accidentally grabbed a water bottle from a teammate with an adderall prescription (even though 1) lacing a water bottle with adderall's not an approved prescription form and 2) NFL rules ban adderall DURING GAMES with or without prescription,) then showed up a few days later with a retroactive prescription and got his suspension reversed, then dismissed it to the press by saying, "half the league's on it." And that's why we can't tolerate PEDs: Because if we do, half the league will be wrecking their bodies with it; didn't Alzado teach us this lesson?

Brandon Browner went to Canada because he wasn't GOOD ENOUGH for an NFL roster but the CFL didn't do PED tests; he became a star in Canada, but a year after they started testing he parlayed that stardom into an NFL contract—and has tested positive for PEDs literally EVERY SEASON SINCE. But his positive 2011 test didn't keep him out of the 2011 Pro Bowl, Shawne Merriman Rule or not, and his positive 2013 test didn't deny him a Ring for the SB he couldn't even play last year, and the resulting suspension was lifted so he could play all season and "win" another this year.

That's only half Seattles cheating equation though; there's also a little matter of leading the league in penalties because they're coached to take dirty blindside head shots, but never draw any suspensions for that either. They literally practice with pads over all the legal areas so the Legion of Dope learns where they can deliberately but LEGALLY injure opponents. That's the other problem with this "winning is everything and anything goes for REAL men" logic: We end up with a league where spearing guys in the back of the head's not only allowed, but the REQUIRED STANDARD.



Nope - I just showed you how much difference being tough and trying to win is, like Seattle, and being soft and not caring about winning is, like Denver. Thanks for finally acknowledging the obvious.


It's not the Roman Colosseum: Attempted murder to win a GAME'S not entertainment.

ROFLCOPTER

[Joel]

No - coaches aren't called bad coaches because of 1 play. If you're honestly trying to argue otherwise, then there isn't a good coach in the game, ever.
Again, they could've done with more scheming and game planning on the play that BLEW a championship that was all but in the bag. Starting a fight and getting ejected because they were sore losers sure showed how TOUGH they are though, huh? Yet Goodell still gave NE the trophy anyway; strange.... ;)


I'm just going to one up you here - not only was it the best passing team in the history of the NFL, it was also the best point scoring machine in the NFL, period. ALl this coupled in equals the best offense statistically speaking in the history of the NFL, period. Your theory of putting powdered sugar on a bagel, excuse me, shit, and trying to call it a donut just doesn't hold any weight whatsoever with this one.

And Seattle didn't ignore the run game. The run game never happened, because we had insuffeicient coaches who couldn't gameplan. Or.....that's just how damn good Carroll is. He not only figured how to stop the machine that Bill Belichek couldn't, he destroyed it. Thank you for giving me another argument for just how damn good a coach Pete Carroll is.
Seattle ignored the run game because they KNEW it would never happen, because the best passing and scoring in history SUCKED AT RUNNING. Otherwise, Carroll's a smart enough coach he'd have planned for that contingency even while focused on Manning, just as Belicheat stacked a goal line D to stop Beast Mode without ignoring the possibility of the pass NE intercepted to hold onto a championship. Carroll knew he didn't have to BOTHER with that against us, because even if we DID try to run we'd FAIL, as we nearly always did. Hence Gases statement we were one-dimensional: Because we were.


Nope - I just showed you how much difference being tough and trying to win is, like Seattle, and being soft and not caring about winning is, like Denver. Thanks for finally acknowledging the obvious.
Real toughness doesn't come out of a bottle, or wait for a guy to look the other way and then sucker punch him. A MAN can FACE another man—without kicking him in the nuts. If we have a wiffle bat fight and I show up with Louisvile Slugger, does that make me "tough" or WEAK and a CHEAT? Again, does toughness cause winning, or does winning just prove toughness? Let's not put the cart before the Bronco.

Also, if the moms and dads made the NFL worry half as much about PEDs turning kids into life-long sociopaths as about CTE doing so, we'd all be better off for it. Roid-rage is just as dangerous as CTE (ask anyone who played against—or even WITH—Romanowski) if not more so because of the added risk of organ damage.

[silkamilkamonico]

Again, they could've done with more scheming and game planning on the play that BLEW a championship that was all but in the bag. Starting a fight and getting ejected because they were sore losers sure showed how TOUGH they are though, huh? Yet Goodell still gave NE the trophy anyway; strange.... ;)

WHo cares about sore losers. It's probably a residual effect from wanting to win so bad. Michael Jordan was the sorest loser on the planet. If Denver cared that much about winning to be sore losers themselves, maybe we would have been competitive past the first quarter of the SuperBowl last year. Instead they were to busy thinking about what recreational drugs they could do after the game.



Seattle ignored the run game because they KNEW it would never happen, because the best passing and scoring in history SUCKED AT RUNNING. Otherwise, Carroll's a smart enough coach he'd have planned for that contingency even while focused on Manning, just as Belicheat stacked a goal line D to stop Beast Mode without ignoring the possibility of the pass NE intercepted to hold onto a championship. Carroll knew he didn't have to BOTHER with that against us, because even if we DID try to run we'd FAIL, as we nearly always did. Hence Gases statement we were one-dimensional: Because we were.

No - I'm not going to sit here and pretend you actually know exactly what the coaching staff was thinking when they called this play or that play. They made a decision, the players didn't execute, and they will have to live with making the wrong decision. Welcome to 100% of the other coaches who have ever coached n the NFL.



Real toughness doesn't come out of a bottle, or wait for a guy to look the other way and then sucker punch him. A MAN can FACE another man—without kicking him in the nuts. If we have a wiffle bat fight and I show up with Louisvile Slugger, does that make me "tough" or WEAK and a CHEAT? Again, does toughness cause winning, or does winning just prove toughness? Let's not put the cart before the Bronco.

Just because you like baby soft and finesse football, doesn't mean poeoiple are cheating when they are physical, otherwise you're labeling the Denver Ortange Crush, and Steve Atwater and Karl Mecklenberg cheaters - and I'm sorry, but that just isn't accurate.


Also, if the moms and dads made the NFL worry half as much about PEDs turning kids into life-long sociopaths as about CTE doing so, we'd all be better off for it. Roid-rage is just as dangerous as CTE (ask anyone who played against—or even WITH—Romanowski) if not more so because of the added risk of organ damage.

That's fine and dandy and all but I hardly think mom and dads made any decision on anything in the NFL. The Roid Rage is against NFL policy, just like potheads, cokefiends, and alcoholics.

[BroncoNut]

silkamilk vs.Joel. Rumble in the Jungle

[Lancane]

silkamilk vs.Joel. Rumble in the Jungle

It's like watching the Presidential Debates...:lol:

[BroncoNut]

It's like watching the Presidential Debates...:lol:

silk is so disrespectful to Joel in his last post. just snotty. it will be interesting to see what Joel brings next

[Northman]

silkamilk vs.Joel. Rumble in the Jungle

Yea man, this is great stuff.
Put your vote in!
http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/596475-Who-is-the-second-greatest-poster-in-Broncosforums-history?p=2313360#post2313360

[Northman]

silk is so disrespectful to Joel in his last post. just snotty. it will be interesting to see what Joel brings next

Joel is baby soft and has no heart. He will fold.

[Buff]

silk is so disrespectful to Joel in his last post. just snotty. it will be interesting to see what Joel brings next

I will stay tuned if you continue to provide commentary.

[Slick]

silk is so disrespectful to Joel in his last post. just snotty. it will be interesting to see what Joel brings next


You read all that?

[BroncoNut]

You read all that?

some of it. enough to get the impression that there's no love lost between these two

[Joel]

WHo cares about sore losers. It's probably a residual effect from wanting to win so bad. Michael Jordan was the sorest loser on the planet. If Denver cared that much about winning to be sore losers themselves, maybe we would have been competitive past the first quarter of the SuperBowl last year. Instead they were to busy thinking about what recreational drugs they could do after the game.
It's a residual effect from the bull testosterone and meth; Jordan didn't habitually blindside guys in the head and dismiss it as "just part of the game, yo." We didn't lose the SB because the team was too busy thinking about recreational drugs (TWO of 53 guys test positive for recreational drugs in SEPARATE years and suddenly it's a systemic problem? What's that make Seattle having multiple guys pop for PEDs ANNUALLY?) We lost because we thought the SB WAS recreation, or as my dad used to say, "the Broncos are playing, but the Seahawks are serious."

Again, the only toughness that involves is between the ears, and certainly not injected in the locker room.


No - I'm not going to sit here and pretend you actually know exactly what the coaching staff was thinking when they called this play or that play. They made a decision, the players didn't execute, and they will have to live with making the wrong decision. Welcome to 100% of the other coaches who have ever coached n the NFL.
I'm pretending nothing: Fox said he didn't prepare the team for the game, and Gase said we lost because our offense was one-dimensional; that's not so much guessing as QUOTING.

Now, if you meant I can't pretend to know what Seattles coaches were thinking (though their players certainly DID execute, and have lived quite well with making the RIGHT decisions) it was pretty obvious when ALL their linemen rushed Manning, ALL their LBs dropped into short zones and ALL their safeties dropped into their deep Cover 3 that NONE were playing the run: Because they knew a team ranked 20th in rushing average (i.e. "historys best offense" was almost in the BOTTOM ten rushing) was no threat even if we did run.


Just because you like baby soft and finesse football, doesn't mean poeoiple are cheating when they are physical, otherwise you're labeling the Denver Ortange Crush, and Steve Atwater and Karl Mecklenberg cheaters - and I'm sorry, but that just isn't accurate.
Pretty sure Atwater was FACING Okoye when he laid him out: I'M not saying Atwater and Mecklenburg were doped full of roids and head hunting people from behind, and if YOU are, that's a pretty serious charge requiring equally serious evidence. I just don't want Romanowski around with his "creams" and "cleans" and "federal indictments" nor deliberataly snapping opponents fingers "like a chicken bone" when he's at the bottom of a pile and knows the refs can't see.

Since when does "tough" mean "can't win clean"? When I was a kid, anyone who needed to cheat because they COULDN'T win a fair fight was considered WEAK, not tough. The guy who "won" every playground fight by kicks in the balls wasn't a "badass," though the word we used did have "ass" in it. I have no problem with REAL toughness: Only the inaccurate outright perverted way too many coaches define it for players who therefore accept that definition. We have more options than just flag football or going Tonya Harding on people, and many players in places like Seattle, Detroit and Cindy need reminders of that.


That's fine and dandy and all but I hardly think mom and dads made any decision on anything in the NFL. The Roid Rage is against NFL policy, just like potheads, cokefiends, and alcoholics.
Then you need to look around, because the NFL is VERY aware where it will—or WON'T—get its next generation of juiced up sociopathic gladiators, and everytime a player murders the chick pregnant with his kid, or his sisters fiance, or puts a bullet in his chest because he wants his brain intact for donation to and study by the literal players brain trust, another mommy and daddy tells junior he's playing soccer, or baseball, or knife fighting in junkyards; ANYTHING safer than the NFL.

Yeah, roid rage is against NFL policy like pot and coke (though alcoholism's perfectly OK as long as players don't drive or get in fights. ;)) The difference is pot and coke get ACTUAL suspensions that aren't overturned just on account o' 'cause, while PEDs get Pro Bowl invites and SB Rings. Oh, and get an entire generation of kids to roid rage themselves into liver failure so they can Be Like Romanowski and compete for roster spots with all the OTHER kids doing the same. Bein' tough's NOT being a self-destructive, cheatin' criminal sociopath, forsooth. :rolleyes:

STILL not (quite) the NFL, and hopefully never will be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVrsGHs2MCk

[BroncoNut]

Joel counters well here, avoiding the silk's aggressive offensive. alot of verbage in classic Joel style. But can he keep it up? if I were to take a stab at that one, it would be a regrettable,.. Yes... I bet he does. These guys are just sizing each other up right now, taking inventory of each other's toolbox. I think we're in for one hell of a fight tonight folks

[Joel]

Meh. It's a messed up world when "toughness" is a backstab in the dark because a face-to-face punch is "baby soft finesse."

[TXBRONC]

This is actually very incorrect. Short passes are the hardest to intercept, not the easiest.

Yep that's one of the reasons they call them safe passes.

[Joel]

Yep that's one of the reasons they call them safe passes.
They're "safe" because the completion percentage is ultra-high, but be honest: Of all the pick-sixes you've seen, what percentage were quick slants or outs?

[Northman]

They're "safe" because the completion percentage is ultra-high, but be honest: Of all the pick-sixes you've seen, what percentage were quick slants or outs?

What percentage are short to medium range passes thrown vs deep routes throughout a game? I would say the shorter ones outnumber the deep passes by a large margin. Ill ask again though, if Wilson connects for a TD there are you still going to say it was a bad call?

[Joel]

What percentage are short to medium range passes thrown vs deep routes throughout a game? I would say the shorter ones outnumber the deep passes by a large margin. Ill ask again though, if Wilson connects for a TD there are you still going to say it was a bad call?
Medium=/=short; let's not lump skinny posts with quick slants, or quick outs with fades, because they're not the same. And yeah, if Wilson scores on that play it's a bad call he got away with, nothing more. Again, even passing isn't necessarily bad there, but a timing throw into traffic with a championship on the line's the antithesis of "safe" however often completed. Throw a post to the end line, or a fade, or even an out to the sideline; do something with play-action: ANYTHING but "take the snap and immediately fire into a crowd without even taking time to LOOK for a defender." Pure idiocy.

[Northman]

And yeah, if Wilson scores on that play it's a bad call he got away with, nothing more.

Your straight up lying now.


Again, even passing isn't necessarily bad there, but a timing throw into traffic with a championship on the line's the antithesis of "safe" however often completed.

Your definition of traffic is far different than mine. It was a one on one matchup with the receiver and Butler. Butler just made a great play on the ball.

[Joel]

Your straight up lying now.
I'm neither stating a falsehood nor intending to deceive, so no, I'm not lying—and even unless you're telepathic you couldn't know even if I WERE. Sometimes a play that should work doesn't, and sometimes one that shouldn't work does—but more often than not it's the other way around, and one should always play the percentages when stakes are high. And, while quick outs/slants etc. are complete far more often than fly patterns and deep posts, runs are "complete" practically EVERY time. What's a better completion percentage, 70% or 95%?


Your definition of traffic is far different than mine. It was a one on one matchup with the receiver and Butler. Butler just made a great play on the ball.
Sure it was a one-on-one <5 yds from it on the players' left, another 2-3 yds behind them, yet another coming over behind them from the right, etc. It was a short throw over the middle at the goal line; it's almost impossible for there NOT to be traffic there. And even if Wilson's dead on, he had 4 Ints in the NFCCG because Kearse batted TWO in the air for the defense to catch.

Throw it where your guy gets or NO ONE does, or let Beast Mode earn his endorsement deal again. Dude just got you from outside the 6 to inside the 1 in a single play, and NEs defensive line is pretty soft apart from Wilfork, while their secondary is some of the best: Why match your weakness against their strength when you can match your strength against their weakness? It's just bad coaching. And, again, even if they DO call a pass there, there are SO many MUCH safer passes than throwing a timing route into the middle of the field without even letting Wilson have a look at the post-snap coverage.

[BroncoJoe]

Beast Mode was 1 for 5 this year from the 1 yard line.

Just sayin.

[Joel]

Beast Mode was 1 for 5 this year from the 1 yard line.

Just sayin.
He only needed 1 for 3, and how'd they get inside the 1 from outside the 6? As much as so many people bash Wilson, are we seriously arguing for staking a championship on him AND a rookie WR, not Lynch?

[Northman]

I'm neither stating a falsehood nor intending to deceive, so no, I'm not lying—and even unless you're telepathic you couldn't know even if I WERE. Sometimes a play that should work doesn't, and sometimes one that shouldn't work does—but more often than not it's the other way around, and one should always play the percentages when stakes are high. And, while quick outs/slants etc. are complete far more often than fly patterns and deep posts, runs are "complete" practically EVERY time. What's a better completion percentage, 70% or 95%?

Joel........dude. This is why you have franchise QB's. This is why you pay guys at that position a shitload of money. This is why guys like Montana, Elway, Manning, Brady, etc are HOF's. There is a reason why they are the best of the best because they are guys who are paid to make those plays. You dont go into games playing scared or afraid to make plays. While running the ball would make sense and would be a reasonable call considering how well Lynch had done all day you just cant say it was a bad call just because a defender made a great play on the ball. Its called a ballgame, both teams are trying to win and Wilson is paid to make plays, it just didnt happen.

[Joel]

How's Wilson supposed to "make a play" there? It was a quick throw on a timing route: It either works or doesnt, but he ALWAYS throws the ball wherever he was told pre-snap. It's automatic, and nearly instant after the snap; the guy they were counting on to "make a play" was their rookie WR (just the last play of the SB, rook; no pressure....) Stuff like what happened is why a lot of people hate timing routes, because if the receiver falls down, gets jammed, the DB jumps the route, etc. bad things happen.

Missing any throw over the middle makes bad things far more likely than to the sideline or deep; part of the quick outs attraction is because if the QB misses or the WR muffs the catch it's probably going out of bounds, instead of right in the laps of a half dozen defenders. Honestly, short of kneeling down or kicking, it's hard to think of a WORSE play there, run OR pass.

[OrangeHoof]

It's like watching the Presidential Debates...:lol:

Without the biased moderator.

[Simple Jaded]

Just because short passes are easier to take to the house doesn't mean short passes are easier to intercept.

[Joel]

Just because short passes are easier to take to the house doesn't mean short passes are easier to intercept.
Like I say, I'd like to see some stats, because it's a fair point short passes are more common (unfortunately) so accounting for more interceptions (for scores or not) isn't conclusive. I gotta think it's easier to intercept a pass thrown in front of 6-7 defenders than one thrown in front of 2-3 just because of the law of averages, but only a percentage rather than totals would be definitive.

[TXBRONC]

Short passes are less risky it's a fact.

[Jsteve01]

How's Wilson supposed to "make a play" there? It was a quick throw on a timing route: It either works or doesnt, but he ALWAYS throws the ball wherever he was told pre-snap. It's automatic, and nearly instant after the snap; the guy they were counting on to "make a play" was their rookie WR (just the last play of the SB, rook; no pressure....) Stuff like what happened is why a lot of people hate timing routes, because if the receiver falls down, gets jammed, the DB jumps the route, etc. bad things happen.

Missing any throw over the middle makes bad things far more likely than to the sideline or deep; part of the quick outs attraction is because if the QB misses or the WR muffs the catch it's probably going out of bounds, instead of right in the laps of a half dozen defenders. Honestly, short of kneeling down or kicking, it's hard to think of a WORSE play there, run OR pass. yup Bevell made a terrible call and then threw the rook under the bus. If I were Carroll I'd have canned his ass. Not for making a terrible call but for making a bad play call against a cagey defense and then blaming a predictably bad outcome of my horrid play call on a young player who attempted to perform his assignment

[Joel]

Short passes are less risky it's a fact.
Lessee the data. Calling something a fact doesn't make it one.

[MOtorboat]

Lessee the data. Calling something a fact doesn't make it one.

Really? You're actually arguing that long passes are easier to complete?

Good grief.

[Joel]

Really? You're actually arguing that long passes are easier to complete?

Good grief.
No, I'm arguing they're harder to intercept: Pay attention.

[MOtorboat]

No, I'm arguing they're harder to intercept: Pay attention.

Lol, OK. It's the same damn thing.

I know you hate the forward pass, but this is just kind of ridiculous.

[MOtorboat]

Interesting. That was the only interception on a pass from the 1 yard line the entire season.

There were actually more fumbles on passing plays in that situation than interceptions.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-head-coach-botched-the-end-of-the-super-bowl-and-it-wasnt-pete-carroll/

Yeah...it's, well, a much higher percentage of completing a pass, and not throwing an interception, throwing a short pass.

[MOtorboat]

Short passes have a less than 2 percent chance of being intercepted. A deep pass had more than a 6 percent chance of being intercepted. 8.4 down the middle.

http://www.footballperspective.com/analyzing-interceptions-2000-to-2012/

Now, can we stop this charade? Probably not...[insert 2,000 word BS reply].

[tomjonesrocks]

Short passes have a less than 2 percent chance of being intercepted. A deep pass had more than a 6 percent chance of being intercepted. 8.4 down the middle. http://www.footballperspective.com/analyzing-interceptions-2000-to-2012/ Now, can we stop this charade? Probably not...[insert 2,000 word BS reply].

Did someone say--charades!

http://inspiringhomestyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/sharades2.jpg

[TXBRONC]

Lessee the data. Calling something a fact doesn't make it one.

I didn't present them but the are available. Instead of always arguing with everyone let it go for a freaking change.

[Northman]

MO just totally destroyed Joel and he did it in 50 words or less. Lmao

[OrangeHoof]

You have a lot of fumbles at the 1-yd line because players are stretching for the goal line and lose grasp of the ball.

[PatriotsGuy]

I'd have thrown it

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8z0jLiIYAMCtkV.jpg:large

[OrangeHoof]

It's your classic pick play but they tipped it off by sending Lynch (24) in motion before the snap. The defender knew it was not going to be a run and his tape study told him what was coming. He flat out beat the receiver to the ball. Great play. Case closed.

[Northman]

I'd have thrown it

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8z0jLiIYAMCtkV.jpg:large

I could of swore the know it all Joel said Wilson threw it into massive coverage. lmao

[BroncoJoe]

Wilson threw it a second too late.

[Jsteve01]

I'd have thrown it

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8z0jLiIYAMCtkV.jpg:large

I could of swore the know it all Joel said Wilson threw it into massive coverage. lmao. Doesn't matter who said throw a fade or an out to a good receiver or the Te. Not a rookie with 18 catches. They got too cute. Line up run your stuff and if you lose then so be it. Bevell is an ass