Preparation Manning's downfall?

[Cosmicmix]

I think it's fair to say that Mannings relentless preparation and constantly processing mind was one of the biggest downfalls for the Broncos at the Super Bowl. Look at the attitudes of the two teams before the game: the Hawks were loose, joking, relaxed and overall very laid back. The Broncos were uptight, over-preparing for the game with too much emphasis on preventing inevitable mistakes. The Broncos started panicking when they started making mistakes, but the Hawks just remained as cool as ever. While there were plenty of other reasons the Hawks won, could the mental attitude coming into the game be one of the biggest keys to Mannings downfall?

 

[kidhawk]

I think you are confusing with preparation with attitude. You can prepare like crazy and still have a fairly loose attitude...just look at Wilson. He prepares as hard as Manning does, no question in my mind about that, but the team has a more relaxed atmosphere about it. I don't think that a team's attitude is due to how any single player prepares. I put it on the coach. I also don't think one way is better than another, each has it's positives. Pete's way DOES work for our players though, and it shows in everything they do.

 

[Seafan]

The Seahawk defense was his downfall. It had nothing to do with Manning. It wasn't his fault. Manning would have shredded the Hawk defense that played in Atlanta last year. No pressure at all.

 

[JonRud]

The Broncos were able to 'prepare' their way to a 15-3 record before the Super Bowl. They just ran into a far superior team with a legendary defense that knew exactly how to stop them.

I don't think over-preparing had anything to do with the outcome. The Broncos just weren't nearly as talented and played a far weaker schedule. The Hawks were battle tested from all those NFC West and Saints games.

 

[Cosmicmix]

Very true kidhawk, attitude is a much better word for it! Attitude is a huge factor when it comes to high pressure situations. Also, Seafan, you're right it wasn't all Mannings fault really. His line didn't play like the number one line they are. But I did expect manning it notice how shallow routes weren't working, and that he should have switched things up with double moves.

 

[Cosmicmix]

Haha so right Jon, I suppose I didn't fully think out or properly elaborate on my post. Alas, I'm still young and learning the finest points of the game! I'm no expert, but I think I have a fair grasp of things in the game (played in high school) so bear with me mates!

 

[JonRud]

All good my man. It's a week later and we're all Super Bowl Champions. Who's got it better than us ??? !!!

 

[Cosmicmix]

All good my man. It's a week later and we're all Super Bowl Champions. Who's got it better than us ??? !!!

Couldn't say it better my friend!

 

[dutchman063]

between the hawks defense and mannings inevitable choke in big games it was a perfect storm

 

[volsunghawk]

I think you are confusing with preparation with attitude. You can prepare like crazy and still have a fairly loose attitude...just look at Wilson. He prepares as hard as Manning does, no question in my mind about that, but the team has a more relaxed atmosphere about it. I don't think that a team's attitude is due to how any single player prepares. I put it on the coach. I also don't think one way is better than another, each has it's positives. Pete's way DOES work for our players though, and it shows in everything they do.

Considering how much was being made about this game affecting Manning's "legacy," I have to imagine it was hard for him to block that kind of stuff out. That ratchets up the pressure something fierce.

I think the thing about all Manning teams is that his talent, skill, and preparation are always so consistently excellent that teams are built around him and his abilities. And that's understandable to a degree. When you have a transcendent talent like Manning as your QB, why wouldn't you build the offense around that? And then why wouldn't you develop a defense that complements it?

The problem with that approach, obviously, is what happens when that core you've built around has an off day? What happens when he gets rattled, rushed, and forced off his spot? What happens when his quick hit passes get zero YAC? What happens when his WRs aren't where they should be because of DBs checking the receivers at the line? Well, then, EVERYTHING falls apart. And you get SB XLVIII.

That's why I love the way the Seahawks were built. A great defense can cover up an off day. It gives you more leeway in how you build your team identity. It allows you to build an offense that is balanced and doesn't have to score 40+ points to win. Goes back to what Marshawn said when Deion Sanders noted that the Broncos were going to gear up to stop him: "I'm a piece of it, but we got some dogs."

 

[drdiags]

The safety was huge. Listening to the various Seahawks players talking about the game, they all pointed to the safety as an event that allowed them to exhale and go "yeah, we got this". Who knows if they would be able to start as fast as they did without that happening? Eventually, you figure, their physical domination would take hold anyway but the safety helped them settle in.

Most players talking about a Superbowl says it takes awhile before their nerves settle, sometimes up to a quarter.

 

[Cosmicmix]

I think you are confusing with preparation with attitude. You can prepare like crazy and still have a fairly loose attitude...just look at Wilson. He prepares as hard as Manning does, no question in my mind about that, but the team has a more relaxed atmosphere about it. I don't think that a team's attitude is due to how any single player prepares. I put it on the coach. I also don't think one way is better than another, each has it's positives. Pete's way DOES work for our players though, and it shows in everything they do.

Considering how much was being made about this game affecting Manning's "legacy," I have to imagine it was hard for him to block that kind of stuff out. That ratchets up the pressure something fierce.

I think the thing about all Manning teams is that his talent, skill, and preparation are always so consistently excellent that teams are built around him and his abilities. And that's understandable to a degree. When you have a transcendent talent like Manning as your QB, why wouldn't you build the offense around that? And then why wouldn't you develop a defense that complements it?

The problem with that approach, obviously, is what happens when that core you've built around has an off day? What happens when he gets rattled, rushed, and forced off his spot? What happens when his quick hit passes get zero YAC? What happens when his WRs aren't where they should be because of DBs checking the receivers at the line? Well, then, EVERYTHING falls apart. And you get SB XLVIII.

That's why I love the way the Seahawks were built. A great defense can cover up an off day. It gives you more leeway in how you build your team identity. It allows you to build an offense that is balanced and doesn't have to score 40+ points to win. Goes back to what Marshawn said when Deion Sanders noted that the Broncos were going to gear up to stop him: "I'm a piece of it, but we got some dogs."

So very true! That's what is amusing to me about the Broncos. Once Manning retiree, this team will not be prepared for long term stability, such as how the Hawks are. Pete built a dynasty, the Broncos built a team that was meant to be successful and win championships in short term.

 

[drdiags]

If the Seahawks had somehow enticed Manning to come here, the team would be in the same position as the Broncos regarding post-Manning outlooks. I just couldn't see Manning working with Pete, but I don't claim to know how Pete works with QBs who like to have high volume passing games.

 

[volsunghawk]

I think you are confusing with preparation with attitude. You can prepare like crazy and still have a fairly loose attitude...just look at Wilson. He prepares as hard as Manning does, no question in my mind about that, but the team has a more relaxed atmosphere about it. I don't think that a team's attitude is due to how any single player prepares. I put it on the coach. I also don't think one way is better than another, each has it's positives. Pete's way DOES work for our players though, and it shows in everything they do.

Considering how much was being made about this game affecting Manning's "legacy," I have to imagine it was hard for him to block that kind of stuff out. That ratchets up the pressure something fierce.

I think the thing about all Manning teams is that his talent, skill, and preparation are always so consistently excellent that teams are built around him and his abilities. And that's understandable to a degree. When you have a transcendent talent like Manning as your QB, why wouldn't you build the offense around that? And then why wouldn't you develop a defense that complements it?

The problem with that approach, obviously, is what happens when that core you've built around has an off day? What happens when he gets rattled, rushed, and forced off his spot? What happens when his quick hit passes get zero YAC? What happens when his WRs aren't where they should be because of DBs checking the receivers at the line? Well, then, EVERYTHING falls apart. And you get SB XLVIII.

That's why I love the way the Seahawks were built. A great defense can cover up an off day. It gives you more leeway in how you build your team identity. It allows you to build an offense that is balanced and doesn't have to score 40+ points to win. Goes back to what Marshawn said when Deion Sanders noted that the Broncos were going to gear up to stop him: "I'm a piece of it, but we got some dogs."

So very true! That's what is amusing to me about the Broncos. Once Manning retiree, this team will not be prepared for long term stability, such as how the Hawks are. Pete built a dynasty, the Broncos built a team that was meant to be successful and win championships in short term.

I think it illustrates the difference between building a team philosophy around a player versus building a team philosophy around a principle. And this is where Carroll's college experience helps. He couldn't build around a single player since players were cycling through all the time. He wasn't going to have a single QB or RB for a decade. So he built based on some core principles rather than build on a transcendent talent.

I like Manning. I really do. But I don't see him winning another ring until there's a philosophical shift in Denver - a shift he's going to have to be part of.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

I think it's fair to say that Mannings relentless preparation and constantly processing mind was one of the biggest downfalls for the Broncos at the Super Bowl. Look at the attitudes of the two teams before the game: the Hawks were loose, joking, relaxed and overall very laid back. The Broncos were uptight, over-preparing for the game with too much emphasis on preventing inevitable mistakes. The Broncos started panicking when they started making mistakes, but the Hawks just remained as cool as ever. While there were plenty of other reasons the Hawks won, could the mental attitude coming into the game be one of the biggest keys to Mannings downfall?

Remember that look on his face when the ball bounced off the top of his head?

 

[Wartooth]

All I know is that after watching Sound FX, Manning isn't much of a leader.
I mean, when Wes Welker has to be the guy trying to pump that bunch up, it just says a lot about Manning.
How many shots did you see of Manning just setting on the bench hanging his head?
He had 'defeated' written all over him.
In contrast, even when the game was well in hand...
Our Russell was still telling them to stay focused, and finish strong!

 

[sutz]

Seattle's Preparation was Manning's downfall.

 

[morgulon1]

The Broncos were able to 'prepare' their way to a 15-3 record before the Super Bowl. They just ran into a far superior team with a legendary defense that knew exactly how to stop them.

I don't think over-preparing had anything to do with the outcome. The Broncos just weren't nearly as talented and played a far weaker schedule. The Hawks were battle tested from all those NFC West and Saints games.

I would agree with this and add that Manning and company appeared to have a certain amount of hubris. They felt that if they
went out and did what they did previously, it wouldn't matter who lined up on the other side of the ball. The Seattle Seahawks
were by far the toughest opponent they faced and they didn't look like they had any idea how good our defense was.

Omaha baby.

 

[onanygivensunday]

Did Denver's coaches even watch the Hawks/Saints games?

It's baffling to me that Fox and Gase believed that the short passing game, including screens, would be effective against Seattle's defense. Our LBs were so quick to the ball in the Saints games and they played an outstanding game in the SB.

And Sherm was 100% right about Manning throwing ducks.

There was no way that Denver's offense was going to be effective all day against the Hawks defense.

No way... no how... not even close.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

I watched the NFL Films video on the Super Bowl and something I learned jumped out at me: when males feel dominant, they speak in deeper voices, when they feel intimidated, their voice rises. In the film they showed players on the sidelines before the game. Both teams were saying positive things. However, the Bronco's players were doing so with raised voices, indicating that they were already intimidated. The Seahawks players were not. Hawks voices were not deeper than normal, indicating only that they were excited and not feeling dominant (that came later in the game), but Bronco players voices were nearly cracking when they'd yell, we're gonna beat these guys, indicating they were trying to convince themselves, not that they actually felt it.

The Denver players knew they were in for a handful and were already feeling the pressure, the Seahawks players were loose and focused and not afraid.