it's not Sherman I'm scared of, its the blatant holding and pass interference that the whole defense gets away with on that team. It's going to be a frustrating day watching that go uncalled for 4 quarters.
Printable View
it's not Sherman I'm scared of, its the blatant holding and pass interference that the whole defense gets away with on that team. It's going to be a frustrating day watching that go uncalled for 4 quarters.
Actually, I am not worried at all. There is a lot of talk about how good the Seachicken's defense is, but looking at stats their defense isn't even in the Top Five for the postseason, the 49ers had the 3rd best on the post-season and guess who is ranked above them? Denver has fielded the 2nd best defense of the post-season and will be facing an offense which was ranked 9th overall for the whole off-season, their offense has been rather mediocre. San Francisco nearly beat them and Denver right now is playing better both offensively and defensively then the 9ers despite injuries, etc. Seattle sort of reminds me of Atlanta during the 98' season, a so-so offense led by this elite defense that sort of just was, till Denver lit them up like a Birthday Cake.
Indy essentially shut us down doing the same grabbing and clawing that the Seahawks do and got away with it. I do wonder, though, with all the attention and the multitude of angles and replays at the SB whether the refs will allow it. Depends on the league office.
I honestly think the NFL is not above playing up the story lines and making the SB an event about, for example, Bettis returning to Detroit or the first black head coach, yada yada. In that regard, I think the NFL prefers the "Peyton Manning Best Offense Ever" storyline to the Seattle "Thugs from Grunge City" storyline.
But the NFL also may look at that they "owe" the Seahawks for the 2005 debacle but, one way or the other, the league is probably instructing the refs how they want the flow of the game to go and what calls to emphasize and what to overlook. That will have a large bearing on which side plays well.
IMO this game is going to come down to the Denver front seven stopping the seahawks run game on first and sometimes second down.
Getting Seattle off schedule is key. If the get to play their style of ball control its going to be hard to beat. Manning cant throw TDs from the sideline. They shorten the game and wear out defenses late and that's when Marshon Lynch just starts churning those tree trunks and trampling people.
So if you can win the run downs I think Denver and PM are going to change the style of play to their liking and blow out Seattle. Because there is no way they can win in a shoot out.
i expect welker to have a big day working against against those younger corners. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachChaz
Okay I guess I have to get this out of the way... I'm kind of superstitious so here is my pessimistic prediction that will lead to a Broncos win! Seattle 30 - Denver 23
I also cannot wear the orange jersey's because every time I have worn the orange in the last few years the Broncos have lost. The blue one works well though.
You know Weazel that if the Seachicken's beat Denver and that is the score that you'll have to take a year or so off from this board, because everyone and their momma will blame your ***! ROFLMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by weazel
You're joking right? Please don't tell me the refs are swinging on seatle.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeHoof
My creepy encounter is still holding true, so I feel confident about a Denver win. But if I were forced to put money on the game...I'd go with Seattle. If we had guys like Miller, Clady, Harris and Vick in this game...I'd feel different. But I think our depth will be an issue as the game wears on in the elements and we'll tire out.
However...the creepy bum told me otherwise, so I still feel good.
Not for 40 minutes they won't; they won't last that long: We MUST get them off the field so they stay fresh and we aren't forced to rotate in guys like Unrein. Best case scenario is Knighton and Williams start, then take turns getting breathers from Unrein, but if Seattle has the ball so much they BOTH need a break and Lynch is running on Unrein and Fua... ugh. Not to mention that the less our D is on the field the less opportunities they have to get hurt; we're already missing three starters for that game, and can't afford to lose more before it ends.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53
That didn't get them to the playoffs, and it didn't beat the Vikings. What repeatedly DID beat the Vikings in SBs was DBs mugging their excellent receivers so Tarkenton had to run around waiting for someone to get open, and was frequently forced to just tuck it away and run. It's part of why the NFL banned PI between Minnesotas back-to-back SB appearances, but it wasn't enough then nor two years later against Tatum and the "Just cheat, baby" Raiders. Holy Rollers and Ghosts to the Posts are all well, but the hockey players on the Raiders D won their SBs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53
no chance the Broncos lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancane
Lindsay Jones @bylindsayhjones 22h
The Broncos media availability Super Bowl week is on a ship called Cornucopia Majesty. Jersey jokes just write themselves.
Mike Klis @MikeKlis 21h
It's official: The Broncos aren't headin' to New York. They're flying to Newark, arriving at 3:30 Sunday. Then heading to their NJ hotel.
Unfortunately, responding to each person with separate posts means a header, footer, avatar and sig on each one; takes up more screen, so I try not to do it when multiple people are commenting on the same subject, but just respond to everyone at once. It makes each response longer, but prevents making half a dozen that take up even more space. No one wants to load a whole page that consists of nothing but my face posted 7-8 times. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FanInAZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanInAZ
Well, I won't fault you; folks around here seem to dislike elaboration for clarity. The thing about building a team of young talented players through the draft is that it almost CAN'T ALL come crashing down in just a single season of injuries. Sure, a really unlucky season can lead to a record like the Texans and Falcons, but unless those injuries are career-ending/diminishing, odds are that yes, the team will come roaring back next season; the only difference is they'll have a top five pick and two more in the top fifty with which to do it.
Load up in just one year with a bunch of top mercenaries in their early 30s and you BETTER go all the way, because you've only got a year or two before age and/or the cap blows up your whole roster.
You can (sometimes) build this years champion through FA (though it's a lot harder if the team is average or worse) IF you don't mind half a decade of embarrassment when that top gun gets his Ring and rides off into the sunset, taking most of the teams talent with him. Dynasties, however, are built through the draft, and have the invaluable asset of knowing they don't have to beat the clock.
That's why this year's much bigger for us than for Seattle: Seattles last season was a warning shot acrosss the NFLs bow, saying, "we're coming...." Even if they don't win this year, they'll have more chances; even if they're decimated by injuries and FA next year, they'll still head into 2015 with nearly all their best players still in their 20s. If half aren't thrown out for 'roids, that team's gonna be scary for a while.
Meanwhile, I'm watching Denver hoping we can win ONE SB before Manning, Champ, Phillips, Vickerson (all over 30) Knighton and DRC (late 20s) hit their expiration date, and trying not to think about post-Manning Denver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanInAZ
No, the Bengals didn't hire those guys as ASSISTANTS, the Buc and Colts hired them as HEAD coaches: My point is that if new HEAD coaches didn't tear down contenders they took to SB wins, why would others? ASSISTANTS won't tear down ANY team without approval from the owner, GM and head coach, which is to say: Assistants won't tear down any team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanInAZ
Most owners get impatient with mediocrity, which is often the biggest obstacle to championships. I'll spare us all the litany and just say any owner who gives a new GM and head coach <4 (preferrably 5) seasons screws their team more than the GM/coach, because WHOEVER'S coaching will perpetually be trying to convert their predecessors roster into their own. The mark of a good coach is tailoring his team design and game plan to maximize talent and minimize lack of it, whatever the teams particular strengths/weaknesses, but every coach has strengths and weaknesses of his own.
Unfortunately for most teams, the owners are nearly all billionaires, so few of them are accustomed to even brief periods of adversity. They didn't get to the level of being able to buy an NFL team by passively watching their executives make their company near or at the bottom 3-4 years in a row; they'd have gone under if they had, especially in the modern era of day traders, junk bonds, downsizing, outsourcing and hostile takeovers, where profit-taking after 6-18 months is typically prioritized over being an industry leader for 6-18 years.
Funny thing though, the most successful businesses and teams, the one's that leap to everyones mind first when asked "who's the best?" don't play that game. I wish Bob McNair had remembered that; too bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanInAZ
Sure it does: You said people ripped Elway and Fox for seeking "best-fit" FAs instead of big name hired guns, then they went after Manning. That's all about FA and draft strategy, which is all about where a team is (or rather, how far it has to go.) It's tangential to this discussion, but not wholly separate; remember, a true tangent has a point of intersection (that's why it's not just a non sequitur.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanInAZ
There are many things I like about Favre, but he was the NFLs Iron Man; Manning isn't. Whether he had protection or not, Favre started every week even when BADLY hurt; Manning doesn't have that kind of constitution or mobility. And before anyone makes the argument Manning overcame awful protection to reach 2 SB: No; just... no. If we had Tarik Glenn rather than Clark going at Avril I'd feel much better about the SB, Jeff Saturday was Jeff Saturday, Ryan Lilja nearly made THIS years roster 9 years after he joined Manning en route to a pair of SBs, Ryan Diem and Dylan Gandy were both studs... just, no.
Manning's already joining Unitas as second oldest SB starter, just a year shy of the record; we all know who holds that record, so if we're to compare anyone to Manning, those are the comparisons (dangerous as they are.) Whether or not he retires with another Ring, Manning CAN'T play 2 years longer than Favre and Unitas and 4 years longer than Elway and Montana, and no one would WANT him if he tried. The suggestion the NFLs Iron Man playing in an NFCCG at 40 proves Manning can be competitive till he's 42 is cherry-picking of the worst sort.
Yeah, Favre played till he was 41, even starting 13 games—he also posted a 69.9 PR and his team finished 6-10. If we MUST compare Manning to the Iron Man, I doubt he'll be any better at 42 than Favre was at 41.