Page 12 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 22 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 785

Thread: Super Bowl XLVIII: Denver Broncos vs. Seattle Seahawks

  1. #166
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    10,836

    Default

    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.

  2. The Following User High Fived weazel For This Post:


  3. #167
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N. Colorado
    Adopted Bronco:
    Eric Decker, Derek Wolfe & Brock Osweiler
    Posts
    7,837

    Default

    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.

  4. The Following 2 Users High Fived Lancane For This Post:


  5. #168
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    6,148

    Default

    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.
    I miss the old Mile High Stadium.

  6. The Following 2 Users High Fived OrangeHoof For This Post:


  7. #169
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Gainesville
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ricky Nattiel
    Posts
    1,660

    Default

    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.

  8. #170
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    303
    Adopted Bronco:
    chris harris, terrell davis, dr. velcro
    Posts
    27,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CoachChaz View Post
    I dont even care if we stay away from Sherman all day. I think we'll do fine in match-ups with Maxwell and Thurmond. This game is going to be completely about match-ups. Moving DT around will be key because I just dont see Sherman following him all day. Yes, Sherman can play left, right and slot...but I dont know that Maxwell and Thurmond can. So, if DT slides to the slot and Sherman stays on him, there will be some serious mis-matches going on at other places.
    i expect welker to have a big day working against against those younger corners. . .

  9. #171
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    10,836

    Default

    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.

  10. #172
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N. Colorado
    Adopted Bronco:
    Eric Decker, Derek Wolfe & Brock Osweiler
    Posts
    7,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weazel View Post
    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 ***! ROFLMAO

  11. #173
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Laying around
    Adopted Bronco:
    All of 'em
    Posts
    7,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    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.
    You're joking right? Please don't tell me the refs are swinging on seatle.
    Sad.

  12. #174
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Colony, TX
    Adopted Bronco:
    #58
    Posts
    21,941

    Default

    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.

  13. The Following User High Fived CoachChaz For This Post:


  14. #175
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53 View Post
    No, I expect Terrance Knighton and Sylvester Williams to do that, and they will.
    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 View Post
    Our defense is solid. It's the coordinator that sucks. And, Stabler didn't go to the SB because of the thugs in his secondary. He went because of a bad call in the Patriot game, and Franco and Rocky being out the next week.
    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.
    The Poster Formerly Known as Morambar in TX.

    Love can't be coerced. --Me

  15. #176
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    10,836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lancane View Post
    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 ***! ROFLMAO
    no chance the Broncos lose.

  16. #177
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Adopted Bronco:
    Demaryius, Rahim, Von, Derek
    Posts
    33,390

    Default

    Lindsay Jones ‏@bylindsayhjones 22h

    The Broncos media availability Super Bowl week is on a ship called Cornucopia Majesty. Jersey jokes just write themselves.

    Thanks to ThunderGirl for my great signature
    Rest in Peace - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)
    #7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
    THIS ONES FOR JOHN
    IF I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, WE WOULD BOTH BE WRONG

  17. #178
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Adopted Bronco:
    Demaryius, Rahim, Von, Derek
    Posts
    33,390

    Default

    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.

    Thanks to ThunderGirl for my great signature
    Rest in Peace - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)
    #7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
    THIS ONES FOR JOHN
    IF I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, WE WOULD BOTH BE WRONG

  18. #179
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,491

    Default Sorry; just trying to avoid page-filling posts

    Quote Originally Posted by FanInAZ View Post
    Joel, it would make it a lot easier to respond to responces if you didn't respond to so many different members' posts in the same post.

    TIA
    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 View Post
    My fault for not elaborating on my point. For all the work those 2 teams put into building their respective teams, it all came crashing down in one season do to an epidemic of injuries to their key player. Will they be able to return to what they were the previous seasons? We don't know. The point that I was making was in response to your assertion that building a winner always takes time & is through the draft. You may be right most of the time, but sometimes you just get lucky & have a once in a lifetime opportunity drop right in your lap. When that opportunity comes along, you just take it and enjoy the results.

    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 View Post
    1) No they didn't. Did the Bengals hire Gruden as their DC or Dungy as their OC? No, so what's your point? The Bengals hire Hue Jackson as their OC & I've no idea who they have, if they have at all, hired as their DC. Will they be a good fit with the players they will have once the 2014 season start? The answer is supposed to be yes, but things don't always work out like they're supposed to.

    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 View Post
    2) Many owners have a tendency to get impatient with mediocrity. The Bengals can win the NFCN both of the next 2 years, but if they don't win a playoff game, then there's a good chance that HC & QB will be kicked to the curb & the O will be rebuilt from scratch.

    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 View Post
    Nothing in your response has anything to do with my post that your responding to.

    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 View Post
    Actually, I find it highly doubtful that he will. It more likely that he'll do what Elway did, win a couple SBs & go out on top. The was the most I hoped for when we signed him. However, things don't always go according to plan. Sometimes that good & sometimes that's bad. In either case, you adapt to what's actually happening rather than what you though would happen. So if someone you thought was the future of your franchise isn't working out, like Tebow, do you not let them go? If someone that you thought would be with you for just 2 or 3 years is tearing up the league, & he decides he wants to play longer, do you kick him to the curb just to remain inflexibly enslaved to your original plan?

    So what if he decided to be like Favre & play as long as he could. Favre played until he was 41 while leading the Vikings to a 12-4 record & within 3 points of a SB at age 40. So lets compare their respective 15th & 16th seasons. To make Favre look better, I'll extend his stats into his 19th season.

    Favre
    2005: 4-12 record (with the Packers), 372-607 for 3881 yards, 20 TDs & 27 Ints
    2006: 8-8 record (with the Packers), 343-613 for 3885 yards, 18 TDs & 18 Ints
    2007: 13-3 record (with the Packers), 356-535 for 4155 yards, 28 TDs & 15 Ints
    2008: 9-7 record (with the Jets), 343-522 for 3472 yards, 22 TDs & 22 Ints
    2009: 12-4 record (with the Vikings), 363-531 for 4202 yards, 33 TDs & 7 Ints

    Manning
    2012: 13-3 record (with Broncos), 400-583 for 4659 yards, 37 TDs & 11 Ints
    2013: 13-3 record (with Broncos), 450-659 for 5477 yards, 55 TDs & 10 Ints

    So if Manning is putting up superior numbers to Favre at this stage of their respective careers, & Favre played until he's 41, why couldn't Manning play until he's 42 if he felt like it? I'm not saying he will, I'm saying that you need to stop enslaving yourself to inflexible ways of doing things.

    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.

    Last edited by Joel; 01-22-2014 at 02:49 PM.
    The Poster Formerly Known as Morambar in TX.

    Love can't be coerced. --Me

  19. #180
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Adopted Bronco:
    Demaryius, Rahim, Von, Derek
    Posts
    33,390

    Default PHOTOS: Crews clear snow from MetLife Stadium ahead of Super Bowl XLVIII


    Thanks to ThunderGirl for my great signature
    Rest in Peace - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)
    #7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
    THIS ONES FOR JOHN
    IF I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, WE WOULD BOTH BE WRONG

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2013, 03:00 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2013, 08:20 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2013, 11:20 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2013, 12:10 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-15-2011, 12:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
dedicated servers
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group