Q&A w/Broncos & Seahawks Fans -- Super Bowl Preview ...

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
  • Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:That story is about 1 guy. You know we had 5 different guys score at least 10 TD's this year, right?


    You should read the story. It concentrates on one guy, but it also describes the Bronco's offense in general. I am not quesitoning that the Broncos have the number one offense. I merely observe that the Broncos have struggled and struggled badly against defenses that use elements of what Seattle does all the time....and those teams don't do it nearly as well as Seattle. It is what it is.


    Seattle played 2 of the top 10 offenses this year. Seattle's played 2 of the top 10 QB's and 1 of the top 5. Seatle's no more battle tested than Denver.

    As far as 'struggling' goes, Denver scored 33 against Indi, and you don't have anything remotely as impressive as Mathis. Think Seattle can score 34? Seattle's averaged 18.5 against top 10 D's so far this year.
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:That story is about 1 guy. You know we had 5 different guys score at least 10 TD's this year, right?


    You should read the story. It concentrates on one guy, but it also describes the Bronco's offense in general. I am not quesitoning that the Broncos have the number one offense. I merely observe that the Broncos have struggled and struggled badly against defenses that use elements of what Seattle does all the time....and those teams don't do it nearly as well as Seattle. It is what it is.


    Seattle played 2 of the top 10 offenses this year. Seattle's played 2 of the top 10 QB's and 1 of the top 5. Seatle's no more battle tested than Denver.

    As far as 'struggling' goes, Denver scored 33 against Indi, and you don't have anything remotely as impressive as Mathis. Think Seattle can score 34? Seattle's averaged 18.5 against top 10 D's so far this year.


    Seattle has played a great deal better offenses than that going by DVOA. I also note that it's the defense that sets the structure of the game, and thus it's the defense that's more important than the offense when it comes to asking who you've played. Even so, going by DVOA, Seattle has played a much harder schedule than Denver has.

    You complain we haven't seen good offenses? By comparison, the defenses Denver has faced have been sub-par.

    Like I said, you will believe what you want to believe clearly. However, you are in for a rude suprise on Sunday. The Broncos haven't played a team that's anywhere near as good at stopping what Denver is good at as Seattle. Not close. Again, it simply is what it is.

    Edit PS: As for Mathis, Seattle has faced Quinn (twice) who is in exactly the same discussion, and Seattle's adjusted sack rate is BETTER than that of Indy (who gave you so many issues). You discount Seattle's D-Line. Don't. I am not discounting Denver's O-Line which really is good at pass-pro. However, Seattle's 'mush rush' combined with a press secondary is a lethal combination for a timing offense.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


  • Polaris wrote:
    Seattle has played a great deal better offenses than that going by DVOA.

    That's wrong. Going by weighted DVOA, Seatles played NO and SF.
    Polaris wrote:I also note that it's the defense that sets the structure of the game, and thus it's the defense that's more important than the offense when it comes to asking who you've played. Even so, going by DVOA, Seattle has played a much harder schedule than Denver has.

    Got me on that one.

    Polaris wrote:You complain we haven't seen good offenses? By comparison, the defenses Denver has faced have been sub-par.

    AGAIN wrong. Seattle's seen two of the top ten O's, Denver's seen two of the top ten D's. And yet you INSIST on banging the table with this "Seatle's more battle tested" crap.

    Polaris wrote:Like I said, you will believe what you want to believe clearly. However, you are in for a rude suprise on Sunday. The Broncos haven't played a team that's anywhere near as good at stopping what Denver is good at as Seattle. Not close. Again, it simply is what it is.

    Pure conjecture and hyperbole

    Polaris wrote:Edit PS: As for Mathis, Seattle has faced Quinn (twice) who is in exactly the same discussion, and Seattle's adjusted sack rate is BETTER than that of Indy (who gave you so many issues). You discount Seattle's D-Line. Don't. I am not discounting Denver's O-Line which really is good at pass-pro. However, Seattle's 'mush rush' combined with a press secondary is a lethal combination for a timing offense.

    The seattle dline is 7th in adjusted sack rate. Denver's oline is 1st. Denvers played 7 games against top ten in adjusted sack and gave up 9 sacks. Seatle's played three games against a top 10 oline and only got 5 sacks. Where are you pulling this dominant pass rush narrative crap from?!? And how can you possibly conclude that they are going to be effective against Denver's oline when they haven't been effective against good olines that are inferior to denvers?!?
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:
    Seattle has played a great deal better offenses than that going by DVOA.

    That's wrong. Going by weighted DVOA, Seatles played NO and SF.


    Seattle played SF three times, and NO twice. Not only that but the best way to judge is to ask about how the offenses rate WHEN they were faced. By that standard Indy when Seattle faced them was a top ten offense easily, and so was Carolina.

    Polaris wrote:I also note that it's the defense that sets the structure of the game, and thus it's the defense that's more important than the offense when it comes to asking who you've played. Even so, going by DVOA, Seattle has played a much harder schedule than Denver has.

    Got me on that one.


    It matters. Ask KC who was "best in the NFL" in week 9 unless one looked behind the smoke and mirrors.


    Polaris wrote:You complain we haven't seen good offenses? By comparison, the defenses Denver has faced have been sub-par.

    AGAIN wrong. Seattle's seen two of the top ten O's, Denver's seen two of the top ten D's. And yet you INSIST on banging the table with this "Seatle's more battle tested" crap.


    You have seen the NY Giants and I am sure you are counting them, but WHEN you faced them (week 2), they were not a top ten defense. In week 4 (the earliest that DVOA is calculated as DVOA) the NYGiants had a 22nd rated defense and a 6.6% defensive DVOA (which is pretty bad). The Giants became a good defense and solved their defensive problems long AFTER they played you.

    Likewise, Baltimore when you played them while better than the Giants only had a 12th rated defensive DVOA on week four (earliest DVOA is calculated). They became 10 ten later in the season.

    I'll give you KC in week 11 which then had a defensive DVOA of -9.1% for 6th place at that time. However, we both know that KC feasted on backup QBs and smoke an mirrors to that point. By the time Denver faced KC again two weeks later, their defensive DVOA had falled to 12th (-4.1)

    This doesn't hold a candle to what Seattle has faced in terms of defenses no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

    Polaris wrote:Like I said, you will believe what you want to believe clearly. However, you are in for a rude suprise on Sunday. The Broncos haven't played a team that's anywhere near as good at stopping what Denver is good at as Seattle. Not close. Again, it simply is what it is.

    Pure conjecture and hyperbole


    Ultimately we believe what I want, but the advanced stats do favor Seattle.

    Polaris wrote:Edit PS: As for Mathis, Seattle has faced Quinn (twice) who is in exactly the same discussion, and Seattle's adjusted sack rate is BETTER than that of Indy (who gave you so many issues). You discount Seattle's D-Line. Don't. I am not discounting Denver's O-Line which really is good at pass-pro. However, Seattle's 'mush rush' combined with a press secondary is a lethal combination for a timing offense.

    The seattle dline is 7th in adjusted sack rate. Denver's oline is 1st. Denvers played 7 games against top ten in adjusted sack and gave up 9 sacks. Seatle's played three games against a top 10 oline and only got 5 sacks. Where are you pulling this dominant pass rush narrative crap from?!? And how can you possibly conclude that they are going to be effective against Denver's oline when they haven't been effective against good olines that are inferior to denvers?!?


    Denver hasn't played a defense except for Indy, N.E., and San Diego that really played press and disrupted Manning's timing. They lost to all three. I note that the AFCCG changed dramatically after Talib went out.

    It's not just Seattle's pressure. It's Seattle's pressure COMBINED with a secondary that doesn't give easy reads and slows down timing routes. Manning as great as he is, struggles against such defenses, and Seattle does it better than anyone.

    Again, it is what it is.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


  • Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:
    Seattle has played a great deal better offenses than that going by DVOA.

    That's wrong. Going by weighted DVOA, Seatles played NO and SF.


    Seattle played SF three times, and NO twice. Not only that but the best way to judge is to ask about how the offenses rate WHEN they were faced. By that standard Indy when Seattle faced them was a top ten offense easily, and so was Carolina.

    Polaris wrote:I also note that it's the defense that sets the structure of the game, and thus it's the defense that's more important than the offense when it comes to asking who you've played. Even so, going by DVOA, Seattle has played a much harder schedule than Denver has.

    Got me on that one.


    It matters. Ask KC who was "best in the NFL" in week 9 unless one looked behind the smoke and mirrors.


    Polaris wrote:You complain we haven't seen good offenses? By comparison, the defenses Denver has faced have been sub-par.

    AGAIN wrong. Seattle's seen two of the top ten O's, Denver's seen two of the top ten D's. And yet you INSIST on banging the table with this "Seatle's more battle tested" crap.


    You have seen the NY Giants and I am sure you are counting them, but WHEN you faced them (week 2), they were not a top ten defense. In week 4 (the earliest that DVOA is calculated as DVOA) the NYGiants had a 22nd rated defense and a 6.6% defensive DVOA (which is pretty bad). The Giants became a good defense and solved their defensive problems long AFTER they played you.

    Likewise, Baltimore when you played them while better than the Giants only had a 12th rated defensive DVOA on week four (earliest DVOA is calculated). They became 10 ten later in the season.

    I'll give you KC in week 11 which then had a defensive DVOA of -9.1% for 6th place at that time. However, we both know that KC feasted on backup QBs and smoke an mirrors to that point. By the time Denver faced KC again two weeks later, their defensive DVOA had falled to 12th (-4.1)

    This doesn't hold a candle to what Seattle has faced in terms of defenses no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

    Polaris wrote:Like I said, you will believe what you want to believe clearly. However, you are in for a rude suprise on Sunday. The Broncos haven't played a team that's anywhere near as good at stopping what Denver is good at as Seattle. Not close. Again, it simply is what it is.

    Pure conjecture and hyperbole


    Ultimately we believe what I want, but the advanced stats do favor Seattle.

    Polaris wrote:Edit PS: As for Mathis, Seattle has faced Quinn (twice) who is in exactly the same discussion, and Seattle's adjusted sack rate is BETTER than that of Indy (who gave you so many issues). You discount Seattle's D-Line. Don't. I am not discounting Denver's O-Line which really is good at pass-pro. However, Seattle's 'mush rush' combined with a press secondary is a lethal combination for a timing offense.

    The seattle dline is 7th in adjusted sack rate. Denver's oline is 1st. Denvers played 7 games against top ten in adjusted sack and gave up 9 sacks. Seatle's played three games against a top 10 oline and only got 5 sacks. Where are you pulling this dominant pass rush narrative crap from?!? And how can you possibly conclude that they are going to be effective against Denver's oline when they haven't been effective against good olines that are inferior to denvers?!?


    Denver hasn't played a defense except for Indy, N.E., and San Diego that really played press and disrupted Manning's timing. They lost to all three. I note that the AFCCG changed dramatically after Talib went out.

    It's not just Seattle's pressure. It's Seattle's pressure COMBINED with a secondary that doesn't give easy reads and slows down timing routes. Manning as great as he is, struggles against such defenses, and Seattle does it better than anyone.

    Again, it is what it is.


    Do you always just make shit up?
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • Eldorado wrote:Do you always just make shit up?


    Do you bother to do any research? All I did was look up the DVOA of the supposedly "top ten" defense you faced the week you faced them (with the exception of using week 4 DVOA for opponents in weeks 1-4 because week 4 is the earliest the full stat is compiled).
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


  • Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:Do you always just make shit up?


    Do you bother to do any research? All I did was look up the DVOA of the supposedly "top ten" defense you faced the week you faced them (with the exception of using week 4 DVOA for opponents in weeks 1-4 because week 4 is the earliest the full stat is compiled).


    Then address the fact that seattle hasn't played any more good offenses than Denver has faced good D's.

    Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:You complain we haven't seen good offenses? By comparison, the defenses Denver has faced have been sub-par.

    AGAIN wrong. Seattle's seen two of the top ten O's, Denver's seen two of the top ten D's. And yet you INSIST on banging the table with this "Seatle's more battle tested" crap.
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:Do you always just make shit up?


    Do you bother to do any research? All I did was look up the DVOA of the supposedly "top ten" defense you faced the week you faced them (with the exception of using week 4 DVOA for opponents in weeks 1-4 because week 4 is the earliest the full stat is compiled).


    Then address the fact that seattle hasn't played any more good offenses than Denver has faced good D's.


    I did. In fact Seattle has faced four judging by when the teams were faced and two of those multiple times. (regarding offenses). When it comes to Denver, Denver has only faced four 10 ten defenses going by end of the year DVOA, but when we examine it further, we find that only ONE (KC) was a top ten defense when Denver faced them.

    By contrast if you want to go by defenses, Seattle has faced Arizona, San Fran, Carolina, New Orleans, New York Giants (and yes when they were a top ten defense), and Tampa Bay. A fairer question would be to ask when Seattle HASN'T faced a top notch defense.

    Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:You complain we haven't seen good offenses? By comparison, the defenses Denver has faced have been sub-par.

    AGAIN wrong. Seattle's seen two of the top ten O's, Denver's seen two of the top ten D's. And yet you INSIST on banging the table with this "Seatle's more battle tested" crap.


    It's not "crap". It's the truth. By DVOA Seattle has faced a combined (regular season) opponent DVOA of -0.5% which was 17th in the league. By contrast Denver has faced (regular season) a combined opponent DVOA of -6.7% for a dismal 31st in the league.

    Not only is the ranking much lower, but the raw number is much worse as well. So yes, BY THE NUMBERS Seattle is far and away the more battle tested team. Truth is truth.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


  • Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:Do you always just make shit up?


    Do you bother to do any research? All I did was look up the DVOA of the supposedly "top ten" defense you faced the week you faced them (with the exception of using week 4 DVOA for opponents in weeks 1-4 because week 4 is the earliest the full stat is compiled).


    Then address the fact that seattle hasn't played any more good offenses than Denver has faced good D's.


    I did. In fact Seattle has faced four judging by when the teams were faced and two of those multiple times. (regarding offenses). When it comes to Denver, Denver has only faced four 10 ten defenses going by end of the year DVOA, but when we examine it further, we find that only ONE (KC) was a top ten defense when Denver faced them.

    By contrast if you want to go by defenses, Seattle has faced Arizona, San Fran, Carolina, New Orleans, New York Giants (and yes when they were a top ten defense), and Tampa Bay. A fairer question would be to ask when Seattle HASN'T faced a top notch defense.

    Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:You complain we haven't seen good offenses? By comparison, the defenses Denver has faced have been sub-par.

    AGAIN wrong. Seattle's seen two of the top ten O's, Denver's seen two of the top ten D's. And yet you INSIST on banging the table with this "Seatle's more battle tested" crap.


    It's not "crap". It's the truth. By DVOA Seattle has faced a combined (regular season) opponent DVOA of -0.5% which was 17th in the league. By contrast Denver has faced (regular season) a combined opponent DVOA of -6.7% for a dismal 31st in the league.

    Not only is the ranking much lower, but the raw number is much worse as well. So yes, BY THE NUMBERS Seattle is far and away the more battle tested team. Truth is truth.


    You still don't see it. That light? That's not the end of the tunnel. It's a freight train. I'm done with you and your convoluted misrepresentations. I'll be back after the game.
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • Eldorado wrote:You still don't see it. That light? That's not the end of the tunnel. It's a freight train. I'm done with you and your convoluted misrepresentations. I'll be back after the game.


    Can Denver win? Sure. Do I think they will? No. I think F.O., and the other advanced analysis pretty much has it right. Seattle should win between 55-60% of the time.

    I remind you that four times before has the number one offense met the number one defense (both in scoring and yards) before in the superbowl and the number one defense has won 3 out of 4. For that matter teams that go to the Superbowl with the number one defense are 12-3 iirc.

    So, think what you like, but I'd say you are in for a very unpleasent suprise this Sunday.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


  • All this reliance on statistics like DVOA to predict the outcome of a game is just amusing.
    Omaha
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 34
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:55 pm


  • Omaha wrote:All this reliance on statistics like DVOA to predict the outcome of a game is just amusing.


    How is it any different than using any other metric to try to quantify how each team will perform before the game is really played? If I take this argument to it's logical extension, why talk about stats at all?

    It is my experience that DVOA is an extremely useful tool for measuring the relative level of various NFL teams (and how they match up) over the years. While nothing is perfectly predictive in the NFL (Any Given Sunday), it seems a lot better than nothing.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


  • Eldorado wrote:
    hawker84 wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:Also, you do know that knowshon and ball had more yards and a better cumulative average than marshawn and turbin, right?


    You do know that the defenses in the AFC are pale in comparison to the defenses in the NFC right?


    You do know that Denver has the best pass blocking oline in the league and seatles is the worst, right?

    no that isn't true.
    In the middle of the season they were missing their LT, RT, and C, so they predictably played horrendously through that stretch, since they got the band back around week 10 it's been much better, SF was not good, but I'll chalk it up to a great front 7, we also play in a division with a lot of rushers (quinn, smith, smith, bowman, campbell, dockett, washington, long).
    Peyton's under 2.5 average release time also helps the oline compared to wilson where it's around 4.
    Denver may be the best, but we are not the worst right now
    User avatar
    davidonmi
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1503
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:20 pm


  • Polaris wrote:
    Omaha wrote:All this reliance on statistics like DVOA to predict the outcome of a game is just amusing.


    How is it any different than using any other metric to try to quantify how each team will perform before the game is really played? If I take this argument to it's logical extension, why talk about stats at all?

    It is my experience that DVOA is an extremely useful tool for measuring the relative level of various NFL teams (and how they match up) over the years. While nothing is perfectly predictive in the NFL (Any Given Sunday), it seems a lot better than nothing.


    Right. Unless it doesn't work for your narrative, then you ignore it.
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • Polaris wrote:
    How is it any different than using any other metric to try to quantify how each team will perform before the game is really played? If I take this argument to it's logical extension, why talk about stats at all?

    It is my experience that DVOA is an extremely useful tool for measuring the relative level of various NFL teams (and how they match up) over the years. While nothing is perfectly predictive in the NFL (Any Given Sunday), it seems a lot better than nothing.

    I have nothing against using stats when looking at trends and general performances, but find them them much less relevant when discussing the outcome of a specific game. For that I find schemes, play design and individual match-ups more relevant.

    Personally, I expect Peyton to test seahawks' deep cover (particularly ET3) very early. Also dont be surprised to see Jrue in some packages.
    Omaha
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 34
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:55 pm


  • WHOA! I'm going to go ahead and flip in to "Dad" mode here and say that if I actually were there, I'd probably send both of you guys to your rooms. I'm not all that pleased with the kind of interactions that I'm seeing here. You know, I started this thread with the expressed idea that this would be a RESPECTFUL discussion between our 2 mutual teams -- a chance to ask one another questions -- get to know each others' teams and to discuss this game in a civil manner. Disagreeing with one another is one thing. I like spirited debates, for sure -- we can agree to disagree as long as it's done in a way that clearly shows mutual respect for one another. THIS appears to me to be another matter. If you guys honestly want to go beat the tar out of each other, I'd suggest that you start a thread in the Smack Shack and have on at it. All right, I'm going to step down off my soap box now. Hopefully we can all bring this thing back to center and continue to preview this game in the manner I laid out right from the start. [See Post #1 back on Page 1]
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 969
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am


  • DVOA really sucks. Any metric that says Kenny still is the #1 WR in the league while it rank Megatron 15th is a waste of time. Jimmy Graham as the 12th best TE with freaking Lardarius Green #1?? Come on. Not to mention Donald Brown has the 2nd best DVOA among running backs, as if anyone needed any more reason to discount this "stat".

    I am not a fan of DVOA, this is one of the few boards I've actually seen people support it.
    Papa-pwn
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 36
    Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:21 am


  • Papa-pwn wrote:DVOA really sucks. Any metric that says Kenny still is the #1 WR in the league while it rank Megatron 15th is a waste of time. Jimmy Graham as the 12th best TE with freaking Lardarius Green #1?? Come on. Not to mention Donald Brown has the 2nd best DVOA among running backs, as if anyone needed any more reason to discount this "stat".

    I am not a fan of DVOA, this is one of the few boards I've actually seen people support it.


    I would respectfully submit that DVOA is a better measure than you might think. I happen to know that ESPN uses it for what it's worth. That said, it's not perfect. It's just better than most other advanced metrics I've seen. [For one thing it does a poor job with garbage time.]

    If we can not agree on metrics of measure, then how is a respectful discussion possible?

    To answer a prior poster, yes it's true that one of the traditional ways to attack a cover three is to throw the long ball. However Peyton's arm isn't what it once was. Frankly only Andrew Luck had any real success doing that this season against Seattle and even that was limited.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


  • ANY Denver fan using stats from this season to judge or talk against Seattle's O-line is daft and dumb and is more of an idiot than I already thought Denver fans were(cocky hypocritical and misinformed). You guys do realize we were missing 2 pro bowlers and 1 damn good starter, and it took a couple games for us to find the best use of the replacements and just when we started to get decent production from those guys we had to put the original starters back in. And we did substitute mquistan for bowe and have now given his job to another man. And anyone who knows anything about football knows that chemistry and having your linemen used to working with one another is almost if not just as important as the individual skill of each lineman.
    Oh you mght sputter on about how you were missing your best lineman, well you guys have had for the most part the same line the whole damn year.
    On another point I think its safe to say that a big reason for Denvers O-lines efficiency is due to the mind of Peyton Manning, he directs them of mismatchs, who to block and many other things. With his keen ability to get the ball out quick and the command he has pre-snap im sure that he would get the same results with a healthy seattle line easily.
    So before you talk down and use stats you should look into the situation because Seattle hasnt had the same line all season that we have now. Also denver hasnt had to deal with the mighty quinn twice a year. You might say you had the sack leader RM coming at Peyton, well did as well. You talk down about seattles offense, well guess what? the defenses in the NFC are far superior than in the AFC.
    Get this Denvies, we were second in points scored through 10-11 games. That was without our best wr, one of the most explosive players in the NFL(last season he was leading the MVP race over eventual winner and teammate AP and manning). that production was against far superior defenses as well. so get off your high horse, with Harvin we are a top 5 offense, so get ready to face a defense built to stop a team like Denver and an offense that at full strength is elite.
    There isnt too much of a gap between your O and our D, but there is a huge gap between our O and your D. I admit the gap wouldnt be too big if you had Von and that DB, but you dont so get ready.
    We wont ditch the run, we will pound your already week D and when your D is tired and sore, percy will slash his way down the field.
    sorry if i offended any denver fans that are actually nice respectful people, but i have had enough with using stats that dont apply, reading threads created on here just to say the seahawks suck, and reading post saying they now see why ppl kill themselves in seattle.
    Starting to think most you guys are as bad as 49ers fans.
    And if you want to use your rush yards allowed stat over and over on how you will keep lynch to 10 yards, please multiply your rush allowed stat by 2, it DOESNT REPRESENT how well your D is against the run if most teams had to ditch the run by the start of the second half.
    And peyton doesnt deserve this SB. most players dont even get to play in a SB let alone win one. A player doesnt deserve 2 rings over a franchise winning their first. Tired of hearing all this shit about him deserving a second ring, Dick Butkus didnt even play in a playoff game, so enough of that.
    Sorry had to get it off my chest. Lets just see how it goes sunday, im sure we will all love to discuss which is the better team come monday.
    CANT WAIT
    Mock drafts have The HAWKS at pick #32 taking
    ALLEN ROBINSON #8
    A big, tall (He's 6'3, 210 lbs.), fast (Runs a 4.4x 40yd dash) and athletic (38in vertical leap) Wide Out!
    We got the fast, KR type slot guys, we'll be a whole new beast!
    #JustWaitAndSee
    KDshouldBeOurMJ
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 26
    Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:37 am


  • Thanks Hawkscanner, that was getting pretty tiring. I hope those two have finally packed it in. I know this is also slightly off topic, but I'd just like to say...

    There are fans of every team who are dbags. There are fans of every team that are misinformed, arrogant and are ignorant regarding other teams. Having been around these boards, of lots of different teams, I really don't see much difference. Every team has annoying fans, and this week I've seen as many arrogant, ignorant Seattle fans as I've seen arrogant, ignorant Denver fans. I know we like to think our teams fans are different, but its just not true! I've finally realised you need to ignore the noise, the uninformed and biased debate and try to pick out those who you can have proper dialogue with (instead of arguing with idiots, which is never productive).

    *That probably sounded preachy, sorry*

    As for this game, I'd like to ask some more about Seattle's DLine.

    1) How will they line up against Denver's base (11) personnel? Will they go heavier on early downs and lighter on late downs?
    2) What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of the DLine. PFF grades Clemons and Avril negatively against the run whilst grading McDaniel and Bryant negatively in pass rushing. Mebane and Bennett seem to be the most dominant. Would you concur with this or is there more to it?
    3) How much do the LB's get involved in rushing the passer? Will we see Irvin playing DE?

    Just want to get a better handle on the matchup that I believe may well determine this game, thanks.
    aulaza
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 15
    Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:35 pm


  • Hawkscanner wrote:WHOA! I'm going to go ahead and flip in to "Dad" mode here and say that if I actually were there, I'd probably send both of you guys to your rooms. I'm not all that pleased with the kind of interactions that I'm seeing here. You know, I started this thread with the expressed idea that this would be a RESPECTFUL discussion between our 2 mutual teams -- a chance to ask one another questions -- get to know each others' teams and to discuss this game in a civil manner. Disagreeing with one another is one thing. I like spirited debates, for sure -- we can agree to disagree as long as it's done in a way that clearly shows mutual respect for one another. THIS appears to me to be another matter. If you guys honestly want to go beat the tar out of each other, I'd suggest that you start a thread in the Smack Shack and have on at it. All right, I'm going to step down off my soap box now. Hopefully we can all bring this thing back to center and continue to preview this game in the manner I laid out right from the start. [See Post #1 back on Page 1]


    He started it.
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • KDshouldBeOurMJ wrote:ANY Denver fan using stats from this season to judge or talk against Seattle's O-line is daft and dumb and is more of an idiot than I already thought Denver fans were(cocky hypocritical and misinformed). Lets just see how it goes sunday, im sure we will all love to discuss which is the better team come monday.


    All right! Way to keep it respectful!
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • This is paralysis by analysis. I think by now, all of us have heard every statistic and trend regarding all the matchups. But at the end of the day...

    The Broncos will get hit in the mouth from both sides of the ball, because the Seahawks are simply more physical. This will be like Varsity vs Jr. Varsity, except the Broncos have their coach playing QB. He will be the smartest player on the field, but his supporting cast is simply inferior.

    Any (unbiased) person who has seen both of these teams play knows that Seattle clearly plays at a speed and level of ferocity that is a notch above Denver's (or any AFC team, for that matter). Just look at the differences between the AFCCG and the NFCCG. Before that game, it was a popular belief that whoever wins in the NFC will win the Superbowl.

    Nothing has changed.
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 126
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


  • aulaza wrote:.....
    As for this game, I'd like to ask some more about Seattle's DLine.

    1) How will they line up against Denver's base (11) personnel? Will they go heavier on early downs and lighter on late downs?
    2) What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of the DLine. PFF grades Clemons and Avril negatively against the run whilst grading McDaniel and Bryant negatively in pass rushing. Mebane and Bennett seem to be the most dominant. Would you concur with this or is there more to it?
    3) How much do the LB's get involved in rushing the passer? Will we see Irvin playing DE?

    Just want to get a better handle on the matchup that I believe may well determine this game, thanks.

    I agree that your question highlights a key matchup for the game.

    PC seems to like rotating his front 4 to keep them fresh and matchup against the offense personnel. Manning on the other hand likes to go no huddle (which is different from a hurry up offense) to keep the defense from substituting and wear down the front 4.

    I expect Seattle to be in their nickel package against our 11 personnel which means a 6 or 7 man box against the run. It will be interesting to see if Seahawks can present a front 4 that would be good enough to consistently pressure Peyton and still be stout against the run, without the luxury of substituting.

    Who do Seahawks fans expect to be in the base front 4?
    Omaha
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 34
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:55 pm


  • aulaza wrote:As for this game, I'd like to ask some more about Seattle's DLine.

    1) How will they line up against Denver's base (11) personnel? Will they go heavier on early downs and lighter on late downs?


    I dunno honestly. It really depends. I don't know that I've seen a definite pattern. Carroll's staff will use various defensive schemes and fronts that vary from game to game. They use 3 main fronts -- a 4-3 Over, a 4-3 Under, and what they term a 3-4 Bear Front ... and they will also create nuances based upon situation and opponent. They will disguise their looks obviously, but those are the 3 main fronts that they run. Field Gulls did a great write up on these earlier this year. It's a great article, as it's got nice photo shots that really illustrate the various looks. Highly recommend you read that.


    aulaza wrote:2) What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of the DLine. PFF grades Clemons and Avril negatively against the run whilst grading McDaniel and Bryant negatively in pass rushing. Mebane and Bennett seem to be the most dominant. Would you concur with this or is there more to it?


    Hmmmm. Well, Chris Clemons certainly doesn't look to me to be the same guy he was last year. And that's completely understandable, as he's not only a year older but tore his ACL on that crappy joke of a field in Washington last year in the playoffs. He's a solid pass rusher and an OK run defender. Cliff Avril is in there mainly in passing situations, so it's hard to get a handle on that one. He can really chase ball carriers down, let me tell you. He's struggled against the run in the past and as this coaching staff tends to put people in the best position to succeed, my guess is that they generally just keep him out of those situations. Red Bryant was a guy who was on the verge of being cut before Carroll arrived on the scene, as he not a traditional pass rusher. However, Carroll employed him as his Elephant (a huge Run-Stuffing 5 Technique that Carroll uses in his fronts) and he's become a real anchor in the run defense. That said, it's a myth that Bryant CAN'T rush the passer. I've seen him get a LOT of push in the past, but it's certainly not his forte. Tony McDaniel -- that's not true from what I've seen of him. He's an excellent pass rusher and run defender. Highly underrated. Brandon Mebane and Michael Bennett certainly are the real studs on that line for sure. Bennett is invaluable in that he can play either inside or outside. Scary ability to get to the passer or bring opposing runners down in the backfield. Brandon Mebane -- awesome both rushing the passer and against the run.

    aulaza wrote:3) How much do the LB's get involved in rushing the passer? Will we see Irvin playing DE?


    Honestly, LB's haven't often gotten involved all that often in rushing the passer (just note the sack numbers of the LB's). Honestly, they have generally rushed their front 4, which is what I would expect in this game. Bruce Irvin -- nope. He's the starting WLB this year, not the LEO anymore. So, highly doubt you're going to see that.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 969
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am


  • aulaza wrote:Thanks Hawkscanner, that was getting pretty tiring. I hope those two have finally packed it in. I know this is also slightly off topic, but I'd just like to say...

    There are fans of every team who are dbags. There are fans of every team that are misinformed, arrogant and are ignorant regarding other teams. Having been around these boards, of lots of different teams, I really don't see much difference. Every team has annoying fans, and this week I've seen as many arrogant, ignorant Seattle fans as I've seen arrogant, ignorant Denver fans. I know we like to think our teams fans are different, but its just not true! I've finally realised you need to ignore the noise, the uninformed and biased debate and try to pick out those who you can have proper dialogue with (instead of arguing with idiots, which is never productive).

    *That probably sounded preachy, sorry*


    100% Agreed. Couldn't have said it better myself.

    KDshouldBeOurMJ wrote:ANY Denver fan using stats from this season to judge or talk against Seattle's O-line is daft and dumb and is more of an idiot than I already thought Denver fans were(cocky hypocritical and misinformed). Lets just see how it goes sunday, im sure we will all love to discuss which is the better team come monday.


    Enough.

    Eldorado wrote:He started it.


    And I'm ending it. (hopefully) ;)
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 969
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am


  • Just an in general note that I mentioned earlier in this thread ...

    This Seahawks coaching staff has a truly remarkable ability to game plan. Honestly, they're one of the very best I've ever seen at it ... and definitely the best in the history of Seahawks Football for sure. Now I loved Mike Holmgren (and still do) in so many ways ... but God love him, he wasn't very good at adapting to what other teams were trying to do to him IMO. He used to script the first 15 plays or so at the beginning of the game ... and those would often work to perfection. The Hawks under Holmgren (in general) used to get out to leads early ... only to watch teams come back on them in the 2nd Half. That happened again and again, as games always seemed to turn in to nail biters.

    Pete Carroll's coaching staff -- totally different. If a team has success against them, it's generally early. They have a remarkable ability (almost uncanny) to figure out what a team is doing against them on the fly during the game ... and to adjust accordingly. Holmgren could never do that, as if a team got up on us early, it was generally over. These guys even if they're down by 20 Points at Half ... generally tend to figure out what a team is doing and adjusts (usually stunningly well).

    In fact, I did a study earlier this year in which I compared 1st Half Point Totals to 2nd Half Point Totals (both for the Seahawks and their opponents). The data showed exactly that -- that again and again the Seahawks had more points in the 2nd Half, while their opponents had far less than the 1st Half. I have a very good friend who's a long time very passionate USC Fan. I ran this by him and he agreed that this seemed to be a Pete Carroll trait, as he saw time and time again over a 10 year period these kinds of in game adjustments and amazing comebacks.

    Pete Carroll was on with 710 ESPN’s Brock and Salk the day after the Seahawks 42-13 victory over the 49ers on Christmas Eve last year (12/24/2012). During that interview, he gave some fascinating insights not only on the Seahawk Offense as a whole … but on his overall mentality as a coach. For those who might actually want to listen to the interview itself (maybe as you read it), go ahead and click on the link at the bottom of the transcript.

    Huard: “… and you watch those plays last night. Those are some of the same plays -- tell me if I’m wrong here. Was the touchdown to Baldwin not the same similar concept as the throw to Charlie Martin Week 1 on the corner route in Arizona? Are they some of the same concepts and plays you’re running?”

    Carroll: “Yeah, you’d be surprised how similar those are. I mean, there’s subtleties on how we move stuff around. There’s splits and things like that. But, yeah – had we, we’re so much better now – we would have won the Arizona game. They wouldn’t have been able to keep us out on 3 shots to get in – I mean, there’s just no way. We’re so much more efficient. That’s a great throw by Russell. You know, they’ve got a little combination coverage there on the guys right there. They jumped the heck out of Golden because he’s caught the Chicago touchdown and he caught one – you know, Carolina – caught a couple of those and made some big plays on that route. Which, it’s just a matter of reading it out for the quarterback. And on the combo they wind out inside of the corner route and they couldn’t catch up – he throws a great throw to the back flag – and a great catch, you know. So, that’s just getting better – them improving and understanding – they’ve thrown hundreds of those now. When we used to throw about 10 or 20 of them – now we’ve thrown hundreds, so it makes a difference in our ability to execute.”

    Huard: “So in some ways that is the essence of efficiency right?”

    Carroll: “We can’t make up new plays week in and week out across the board. There’s just no way. There’s little things that we do – little wrinkles that you put in and stuff, but basically you continue to function with your basic stuff. We’ve run inside-outside zone forever. Those are the same blocking schemes forever and ever and ever and we try to – when the defense breaks down, we make a big play because we’re so consistent. And that’s what makes Tom [Cable] such a big difference on our team because of his commitment to the running game in that fashion. And so, you’re seeing the same plays. You’re seeing the same calls for the most part – with wrinkles and formations and shifts and motions and things to make sure that the opponent doesn’t know that they’re coming.”

    Salk: “The fact that you’re running a lot of the same plays and different formations – does that give you some of the time to work on the Pistol and develop that? Does it give you a little extra time?”

    Carroll:“Yeah a little bit. A little bit. But we still don’t have that much time. One of the things that you really want to do in football is you want to have things that your opponent knows that you like. You want them to have to stop things because when they have to make their efforts to stop things – they become vulnerable. Until YOU know what you know -- and THEY know what you know – you can’t get to that level. Now that may have been confusing, but that’s really what you WANT people to understand what you’re trying to do – and they try to stop it – and you go ahead and do your things to take advantage of that. So, sometimes you’re not even good enough to get to that point. We are now, so it’s helping us and we’ll continue to grow with good fortune.”

    Source:
    Pete Carroll on with 710 ESPN’s Brock and Salk – 12/24/12

    The one thing I can definitely tell you is that Pete Carroll, as a coach, is crazy like a fox. He WANTS his opponents knowing and understanding what the Seahawks try to do -- then like a chess master, he pulls off the Queen's Sacrifice and you're in checkmate.

    Carroll doesn't do things the conventional way by any means ... but he gets the job done. He and his staff are phenomenal at constructing a game plan that attacks a team's weaknesses ... and at anticipating what an opponent is going to do to them. And I would say above all, expect the unexpected -- especially from Pete Carroll. Though the West Coast Offense is the vast majority of what the Seahawks do on offense, in reality it's more of a kitchen sink. We've seen Zone Read Option, them utilize the Pistol Formation in the past, and employ all manner of trickery (Reverses, Flea Flickers, tosses to Marshawn Lynch, who in turn throws to a wide open WR down the field, etc.).

    What I would tell Broncos fans above all heading in to the penultimate game of the season -- be ready for anything.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 969
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am


  • Hello everyone, and thanks Hawkscanner for making this thread. This is exactly what I've been looking for (without actually knowing how it would work, if that makes any sense) the past two weeks, which is just a way to get to know the Seahawks better without things getting all chippy. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's fun to talk sports smack as a hype and male dominance thing. However, this is the NFL; at the end of the day, you can completely destroy some air-headed Raiders fan with superior knowledge and facts and still stand a 30% of losing anyways. Not to mention the difference your debating skills actually make in the game -- zero. Sure it was fun during the season, but the way I see it, this is the Super Bowl. Even more so than in most years, these two teams absolutely deserve to be here. Right now, I'm in the business of soaking in everything I can to enjoy each second of the amazing football that I expect to be played.

    I've read or at least skimmed through most of the thread, so here are some more questions:

    1) A lot is being said about the hawk's "physical" and disruptive secondary. Do you expect this to be more advantageous versus small quick receivers or the large, physical variety? It's been well documented that Manning has had major issues with good press coverage defenses. However, that was mostly back in his Colt days with the likes of Harrison and Wayne running around. I can't quite decide whether having the generally more physical receivers he has in Denver will lessen or worsen the effect.

    2) While Wilson played a nice game last week, it was obvious that there were a couple... mental errors. Off the top of my head, there were multiple bad (backward) scrambling decisions (one of which resulted in that huge grounding call), one botched snap, and I believe two missed/botched hand offs. In short, what the heck was that all about?

    Also, in response to the in-game adjustments, don't count out Peyton and Adam Gase. I'm not sure whether it's evident as far as points points are concerned because of blowouts, conservative play calling, etc, but our offense is definitely far more effective in the second halves of games. It hasn't been as prevalent lately, but there was about an 8 weeks stretch where we would literally score a touchdown on every single opening drive of the second half. It got to the point where even if we went into the locker room tied or behind, we as fans would literally just assume that we already had an extra touchdown. However, feel free to count out the defense. The adjustments on that side of the ball have mostly been rubbish.
    broncos1997
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 2
    Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:52 pm


  • broncos1997 wrote:
    1) A lot is being said about the hawk's "physical" and disruptive secondary. Do you expect this to be more advantageous versus small quick receivers or the large, physical variety? It's been well documented that Manning has had major issues with good press coverage defenses. However, that was mostly back in his Colt days with the likes of Harrison and Wayne running around. I can't quite decide whether having the generally more physical receivers he has in Denver will lessen or worsen the effect.


    In my opinion, we have a lot more trouble with quick speedy receivers than big, physical receivers. If you try to out-physical our secondary, you usually lose. Ask Jimmy Graham, Vernon Davis, Boldin, and Crabtree, who tried to get physical. We've had problems containing speed guys like T.Y. Hilton and Wes Welker in the past. I think its because these guys work hard at avoiding contact.

    broncos1997 wrote:2) While Wilson played a nice game last week, it was obvious that there were a couple... mental errors. Off the top of my head, there were multiple bad (backward) scrambling decisions (one of which resulted in that huge grounding call), one botched snap, and I believe two missed/botched hand offs. In short, what the heck was that all about?


    In the first playoff game this year with New Orleans, the wind was 30-40 mph throughout the game...this is a fact rarely mentioned in the post-game analysis of this game. Throwing that game was stupid and futile, as balls sailed, and our biggest passing production this year have been from big gains, which couldn't happen in the wind. Running the ball when we were up by 16 at the half was the right thing to do until we needed a first down and hit a 29 yard pass. Wilson's struggles in the NFC Championship were largely a product of the 49ers dominant defensive line getting pressure on Wilson, but he still produced pretty well all things considered. He will usually try to throw the ball away to avoid big sacks and the play you mentioned he was backed up so far, it didn't get to the line of scrimmage. He's an excellent QB though that doesn't get the praise he deserves. Read this article making the case, based on statistics, that he's the best 2d year QB ever.
    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/spectacular-russell-wilson-deserves-respect-and-much-more/28399/

    broncos1997 wrote:Also, in response to the in-game adjustments, don't count out Peyton and Adam Gase. I'm not sure whether it's evident as far as points points are concerned because of blowouts, conservative play calling, etc, but our offense is definitely far more effective in the second halves of games. It hasn't been as prevalent lately, but there was about an 8 weeks stretch where we would literally score a touchdown on every single opening drive of the second half. It got to the point where even if we went into the locker room tied or behind, we as fans would literally just assume that we already had an extra touchdown. However, feel free to count out the defense. The adjustments on that side of the ball have mostly been rubbish.


    Our in-game adjustments this year have been superior, especially on defense. Offense? they've been good too. The best example is when we were down 21-0 at halftime in the Tampa Bay game. I had almost given up and somehow, we managed to pull out a win from the clutches of a loss. Our QB is really good in closing out games. He's established himself as clutch. He has 8 fourth quarter comebacks and 9 game-winning drives that buts him as one of the top QBs in his second year in those statistics. I won't be panicked if we are down in the fourth quarter by 10 points because I think we can still win any game being down that much.
    User avatar
    aawolf
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 440
    Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:04 am



  • Hawkscanner wrote:Just an in general note that I mentioned earlier in this thread ...

    This Seahawks coaching staff has a truly remarkable ability to game plan.


    I absolutely agree here, and whilst the staff gets criticised for not adjusting early and countering the opposition, I've seen them come out and dominate the second half so many times that I personally believe they stick to a rigid gameplan in the first half, work out how to adjust to what the other team is doing, then wait until the second half to actually implement their new gameplan - at this point the opposition no longer has a 15 minute half time break to make adjustments and communicate to the players, and now the opposition has to adjust on the fly.

    Not to mention of course the fact that the team plays so physically that waiting until the second half to make adjustments against tired players is always going to pay dividends
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2378
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • broncos1997 wrote:1) A lot is being said about the hawk's "physical" and disruptive secondary. Do you expect this to be more advantageous versus small quick receivers or the large, physical variety? It's been well documented that Manning has had major issues with good press coverage defenses. However, that was mostly back in his Colt days with the likes of Harrison and Wayne running around. I can't quite decide whether having the generally more physical receivers he has in Denver will lessen or worsen the effect.


    Seattle is built to stop a WR corp like Denver, because they own big guys - even shut down Megatron.

    Guys like Welker who don't have high end speed? They can get into trouble as you see here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk7BL3V5KhA -- OUCH!

    It's the small, fast guys -- like TY Hilton, Titus Young, and dare I say, Percy Harvin, who can light them up.
    User avatar
    The_Z_Man
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 576
    Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:57 pm


  • The_Z_Man wrote:Seattle is built to stop a WR corp like Denver, because they own big guys - even shut down Megatron.

    Guys like Welker who don't have high end speed? They can get into trouble as you see here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk7BL3V5KhA -- OUCH!

    It's the small, fast guys -- like TY Hilton, Titus Young, and dare I say, Percy Harvin, who can light them up.
    Not a valid comparison imo cos a WR is only as good as their surrounding corps and QB throwing to them, i.e. Stafford+Megatron is nowhere near Manning+DT.

    Denvers offense is made up of 11 guys: Manning + O-line + Rcvrs, with each playing a key roles. e.g. if the O-line was poor and manning was always pressured, it wouldnt matter much how good the WRs are as Manning wouldnt have the time to throw to them. The best thing about our WRs is not just their talent but their versatility and the diversity of ways they can attack a defense. Add manning, who is the best at getting his offense in the right play and you have an offensive juggernaut.

    Similarly for Seahawk defense, the secondary gives the pass rush time to get home, while the pass rush helps make the secondary life easier by making the QB uncomfortable. Without the pressure, a good QB + WRs would shred seahawk (or any secondary) as you cannot cover a good receiver indefinitely.

    It is silly to compare this matchup to any previous opponent either team as seen. Neither team has seen anything like they will be facing on Sunday and that is what makes this SB so attractive.
    Omaha
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 34
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:55 pm


  • Omaha wrote:
    The_Z_Man wrote:Seattle is built to stop a WR corp like Denver, because they own big guys - even shut down Megatron.

    Guys like Welker who don't have high end speed? They can get into trouble as you see here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk7BL3V5KhA -- OUCH!

    It's the small, fast guys -- like TY Hilton, Titus Young, and dare I say, Percy Harvin, who can light them up.
    Not a valid comparison imo cos a WR is only as good as their surrounding corps and QB throwing to them, i.e. Stafford+Megatron is nowhere near Manning+DT.


    Calvin Johnson - 84 Receptions, 1,492 yards, 12 TD
    DT - 92 receptions, 1,430 yards, 14 TD
    Stafford+Megatron and Manning+DT seem pretty even to me.
    User avatar
    IcedHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:43 pm


  • IcedHawk wrote:
    Omaha wrote:
    The_Z_Man wrote:Seattle is built to stop a WR corp like Denver, because they own big guys - even shut down Megatron.

    Guys like Welker who don't have high end speed? They can get into trouble as you see here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk7BL3V5KhA -- OUCH!

    It's the small, fast guys -- like TY Hilton, Titus Young, and dare I say, Percy Harvin, who can light them up.
    Not a valid comparison imo cos a WR is only as good as their surrounding corps and QB throwing to them, i.e. Stafford+Megatron is nowhere near Manning+DT.


    Calvin Johnson - 84 Receptions, 1,492 yards, 12 TD
    DT - 92 receptions, 1,430 yards, 14 TD
    Stafford+Megatron and Manning+DT seem pretty even to me.


    I think it's also a fair comparison because we do not roll coverage to any one receiver, nor do we have our top corner match up to any particular receiver. Megatron was not played solely by Sherman. Our defense is able to get physical with bigger receivers.

    Does Denver having multiple offensive weapons make this match-up more difficult? Of course. But it is fair to say that we have matched up quite well with these types of receivers (and TEs) during the course of the season.
    coach78
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:56 am


  • The_Z_Man wrote:
    broncos1997 wrote:1) A lot is being said about the hawk's "physical" and disruptive secondary. Do you expect this to be more advantageous versus small quick receivers or the large, physical variety? It's been well documented that Manning has had major issues with good press coverage defenses. However, that was mostly back in his Colt days with the likes of Harrison and Wayne running around. I can't quite decide whether having the generally more physical receivers he has in Denver will lessen or worsen the effect.


    Seattle is built to stop a WR corp like Denver, because they own big guys - even shut down Megatron.

    Guys like Welker who don't have high end speed? They can get into trouble as you see here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk7BL3V5KhA -- OUCH!

    It's the small, fast guys -- like TY Hilton, Titus Young, and dare I say, Percy Harvin, who can light them up.


    Well, to be completely fair Seattle DID hold Percy Harvin to a grand total of just 2 catches and 10 yards when they faced the Vikings last year. ;)

    From what I can see, outside of Demaryius Thomas, I don't see this receiving group having another real fast, quick burner that could make things problematic for Seattle.

    I honestly believe that the Seahawks defensive backs will match up very well against Denver's WR's. And not just on the outside with Sherman and Maxwell either. Walter Thurmond is a great cover corner and has done a fantastic job in the slot this year, allowing a Passer Rating Against of just 67.4 -- among the league leaders. I don't believe that most of the slot corners Welker usually faces have anywhere close to the coverage ability that Thurmond has. And if the Seahawks decide to go dime and bring in Jeremy Lane, he's been phenomenal as well, sporting a Passer Rating Against of just 56.3.

    Kam Chancellor and the Seahawks Linebackers -- have been great in coverage as well, shutting down some of the best TE's in the game.

    And for those fast guys who do break free -- the omnipresent, lightning fast Earl Thomas is a real equalizer who makes a lot of plays back there.

    YES, Denver's Offense gives teams fits because they have so many weapons. Most times, Peyton Manning can pick out and pick on the weak, old, slow buffalo in the herd and exploits the defense accordingly. Seattle is a bit unique in that they honestly don't have a whole lot of true weak links that can generally get exploited, as they have a lot of thoroughbreds who can hang in there with the big boys.

    Omaha wrote:It is silly to compare this matchup to any previous opponent either team as seen. Neither team has seen anything like they will be facing on Sunday and that is what makes this SB so attractive.


    On that, we can most certainly agree. I've been looking forward to seeing this matchup all season long. It should be fun. I can't wait.


    By the way, I've kind of slacked a bit for the past couple of days on this thread because I've been finishing up my extensive Super Bowl Preview. Let me know what you guys think ...

    Super Bowl XLVIII -- Seahawks-Broncos Game Preview ... 5 Keys to a Seahawks Victory ...
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 969
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am


  • coach78 wrote:
    IcedHawk wrote:
    Omaha wrote:
    The_Z_Man wrote:Seattle is built to stop a WR corp like Denver, because they own big guys - even shut down Megatron.

    Guys like Welker who don't have high end speed? They can get into trouble as you see here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk7BL3V5KhA -- OUCH!

    It's the small, fast guys -- like TY Hilton, Titus Young, and dare I say, Percy Harvin, who can light them up.
    Not a valid comparison imo cos a WR is only as good as their surrounding corps and QB throwing to them, i.e. Stafford+Megatron is nowhere near Manning+DT.


    Calvin Johnson - 84 Receptions, 1,492 yards, 12 TD
    DT - 92 receptions, 1,430 yards, 14 TD
    Stafford+Megatron and Manning+DT seem pretty even to me.


    I think it's also a fair comparison because we do not roll coverage to any one receiver, nor do we have our top corner match up to any particular receiver. Megatron was not played solely by Sherman. Our defense is able to get physical with bigger receivers.

    Does Denver having multiple offensive weapons make this match-up more difficult? Of course. But it is fair to say that we have matched up quite well with these types of receivers (and TEs) during the course of the season.


    I agree with bold. In the ace set against your nickle (which is going to be like 80% of the game), you guys can tie up DT Decker and JT. Welker is harder, but do I honestly want the balance of the game resting in his hands? eesh. The one thing that bugs me about that though is the rumor that you guys don't move sherman off the LCB. Is that true? Can you come up with an example of that not being the case?
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • coach78 wrote:
    IcedHawk wrote:Calvin Johnson - 84 Receptions, 1,492 yards, 12 TD
    DT - 92 receptions, 1,430 yards, 14 TD
    Stafford+Megatron and Manning+DT seem pretty even to me.


    I think it's also a fair comparison because we do not roll coverage to any one receiver, nor do we have our top corner match up to any particular receiver. Megatron was not played solely by Sherman. Our defense is able to get physical with bigger receivers.

    Does Denver having multiple offensive weapons make this match-up more difficult? Of course. But it is fair to say that we have matched up quite well with these types of receivers (and TEs) during the course of the season.

    Megatron>DT while Manning>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stafford. Not even close cos stafford is crap imo. Alshon Jeffery sand Garcon are two other WR with number close to Megatron and DT and they are clearly not in the same class as Megatron and DT.

    There are so many things stats dont show, starting from the play call which dictates the route. The numbers put up by Megatron are evidence f his quality. Give that guy to Manning and denver could have scored 700pts+ this season. OT: Megatron need to leave that waste of a team called Detroit and move to a better team (except Pats).

    If you think manning is just going to be sending DT on 7-9 routes and throwing jump balls like Stafford does with Megatron, then you have something else coming. Covering Manning+DT is several orders of magnitude more difficult than covering Stafford+Megatron.
    Omaha
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 34
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:55 pm


  • Eldorado wrote:
    I agree with bold. In the ace set against your nickle (which is going to be like 80% of the game), you guys can tie up DT Decker and JT. Welker is harder, but do I honestly want the balance of the game resting in his hands? eesh. The one thing that bugs me about that though is the rumor that you guys don't move sherman off the LCB. Is that true? Can you come up with an example of that not being the case?


    The only time Sherman followed a receiver was game 2 vs San Francisco. They only had 1 receiver (Boldin) and we were down our normal starter on the other side (Browner). He normally stays on the defensive left.
    coach78
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:56 am


  • Eldorado wrote:I agree with bold. In the ace set against your nickle (which is going to be like 80% of the game), you guys can tie up DT Decker and JT. Welker is harder, but do I honestly want the balance of the game resting in his hands? eesh. The one thing that bugs me about that though is the rumor that you guys don't move sherman off the LCB. Is that true? Can you come up with an example of that not being the case?


    I would have no qualms. Remember that our third CB is Thurman and our fourth is Lane and both are very nearly as good as Sherman and Maxwell (and in fact Thurman has started and so has Lane). Graham is probably the best receiving TE in the entire NFL and Seattle had no trouble shutting him down both teams he faced us.

    By and large Sherman doesn't shift around. Neither does Maxwell (the week 2 San Fran game being the exception since San Fran that week had only one good receiver....Boldin). The motto of this defense is "You have to deal with us" and they mean it. You'll get press cover-3 or single-high safety. There is very little deception (other than the usual) or trickery. It's not possible for Peyton to beat this defense pre-snap because this defense doesn't typically adjust pre-snap. You get what you get (and it's almost impossible to see the difference between single-high safety and cover-3 pre-snap).
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


  • Broncos fan here...

    Peyton typically struggles the most against defenses that do a lot of disguising of coverages, like NE, SD, and ATL last season. Seattle's secondary certainly has a lot of talent though, so it will be interesting to see it play out.

    What I'm wondering is how Seattle will deal with the up tempo while they are on defense. I know that they like rotating DL a lot, but Peyton won't allow that.

    If Seattle is going to be stuck with a single personnel grouping for an entire drive, which 11 do you think they'll go with, assuming DEN comes out with 3 WR and 1 TE?
    MagicHef
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 8
    Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:48 pm


  • Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:I agree with bold. In the ace set against your nickle (which is going to be like 80% of the game), you guys can tie up DT Decker and JT. Welker is harder, but do I honestly want the balance of the game resting in his hands? eesh. The one thing that bugs me about that though is the rumor that you guys don't move sherman off the LCB. Is that true? Can you come up with an example of that not being the case?


    I would have no qualms. Remember that our third CB is Thurman and our fourth is Lane and both are very nearly as good as Sherman and Maxwell (and in fact Thurman has started and so has Lane). Graham is probably the best receiving TE in the entire NFL and Seattle had no trouble shutting him down both teams he faced us.

    By and large Sherman doesn't shift around. Neither does Maxwell (the week 2 San Fran game being the exception since San Fran that week had only one good receiver....Boldin). The motto of this defense is "You have to deal with us" and they mean it. You'll get press cover-3 or single-high safety. There is very little deception (other than the usual) or trickery. It's not possible for Peyton to beat this defense pre-snap because this defense doesn't typically adjust pre-snap. You get what you get (and it's almost impossible to see the difference between single-high safety and cover-3 pre-snap).
    Do you mean cover 1 vs cover 3? In my understanding (and someone correct if am wrong) single-high safety is an alignment while cover-3 is a coverage scheme. You can play both cover-1 (man coverage) and cover-3 (zone coverage) from a single-high safety alignment. but your alignment (and likely coverage) will depend on the offense personnel and alignments.
    Omaha
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 34
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:55 pm


  • Omaha wrote:
    Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:I agree with bold. In the ace set against your nickle (which is going to be like 80% of the game), you guys can tie up DT Decker and JT. Welker is harder, but do I honestly want the balance of the game resting in his hands? eesh. The one thing that bugs me about that though is the rumor that you guys don't move sherman off the LCB. Is that true? Can you come up with an example of that not being the case?


    I would have no qualms. Remember that our third CB is Thurman and our fourth is Lane and both are very nearly as good as Sherman and Maxwell (and in fact Thurman has started and so has Lane). Graham is probably the best receiving TE in the entire NFL and Seattle had no trouble shutting him down both teams he faced us.

    By and large Sherman doesn't shift around. Neither does Maxwell (the week 2 San Fran game being the exception since San Fran that week had only one good receiver....Boldin). The motto of this defense is "You have to deal with us" and they mean it. You'll get press cover-3 or single-high safety. There is very little deception (other than the usual) or trickery. It's not possible for Peyton to beat this defense pre-snap because this defense doesn't typically adjust pre-snap. You get what you get (and it's almost impossible to see the difference between single-high safety and cover-3 pre-snap).
    Do you mean cover 1 vs cover 3? In my understanding (and someone correct if am wrong) single-high safety is an alignment while cover-3 is a coverage scheme. You can play both cover-1 (man coverage) and cover-3 (zone coverage) from a single-high safety alignment. but your alignment (and likely coverage) will depend on the offense personnel and alignments.


    Rev?
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • Omaha wrote:
    Polaris wrote:
    Eldorado wrote:I agree with bold. In the ace set against your nickle (which is going to be like 80% of the game), you guys can tie up DT Decker and JT. Welker is harder, but do I honestly want the balance of the game resting in his hands? eesh. The one thing that bugs me about that though is the rumor that you guys don't move sherman off the LCB. Is that true? Can you come up with an example of that not being the case?


    I would have no qualms. Remember that our third CB is Thurman and our fourth is Lane and both are very nearly as good as Sherman and Maxwell (and in fact Thurman has started and so has Lane). Graham is probably the best receiving TE in the entire NFL and Seattle had no trouble shutting him down both teams he faced us.

    By and large Sherman doesn't shift around. Neither does Maxwell (the week 2 San Fran game being the exception since San Fran that week had only one good receiver....Boldin). The motto of this defense is "You have to deal with us" and they mean it. You'll get press cover-3 or single-high safety. There is very little deception (other than the usual) or trickery. It's not possible for Peyton to beat this defense pre-snap because this defense doesn't typically adjust pre-snap. You get what you get (and it's almost impossible to see the difference between single-high safety and cover-3 pre-snap).
    Do you mean cover 1 vs cover 3? In my understanding (and someone correct if am wrong) single-high safety is an alignment while cover-3 is a coverage scheme. You can play both cover-1 (man coverage) and cover-3 (zone coverage) from a single-high safety alignment. but your alignment (and likely coverage) will depend on the offense personnel and alignments.

    You are correct that single high could be either cover 1 or 3. It would be difficult to tell the difference between them presnap without some sort of motion. The formation does not dictate which coverage you are in.
    coach78
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:56 am


  • Sarlacc83 wrote:
    johntfootball wrote:
    Sarlacc83 wrote:
    johntfootball wrote:
    Just my opinion, but highly doubt you are going to keep Denver from scoring a minimum of 23-24 points.

    Our lowest point scoring game was the SD game with 20 points and that I will chalk up to one of those wierd divisional Thurs games.


    The 24-26 point mark will lose you the game, and quite frankly, you're unlikely to get there. Here's why:

    First, Seattle opponents average about 65% of their customary scoring output. That puts Denver at around 21 points. Now you're thinking that Denver has the best offense ever, so there's no way. (Hence your 20 point disclaimer.) This is where I can draw from experience and tell you why your optimism is misguided.

    I'm a Ducks fan. Oregon is well known for it's record setting offense, the QBs and the many offensive weapons and running backs. Great offensive line that gets its members drafted into the NFL. Impossible to stop.

    Until they come up against Stanford and LSU. Big, fast, physical defenses that stop the blur offense cold. Destroy passing lanes and running lanes and cutbacks. By the end, the Oregon offense is so out of rhythm, we just want the game to end. This is your team against the Seattle defense. You think the AFC can bring it, but they can't. You might see the SF-Sea game and think your team plays that fast and hard. They don't.

    This is your reality, and when it's happening on the field, remember what the Ducks' fan told you. Receivers will drop passes, Manning will dump off passes that kill your RB, and Seattle will make your fans curse their offense for beating up on bad teams and showing poorly against real ones.

    College and pro comparisons are stupid IMO, but im not going to sit and argue about that.

    Denvers average points per game is 37.87 points per game for a total of 606 points for the season.

    that would give denver 24.61 points assuming your 65% theory is correct. (37.87 * .65)
    Seattle hasn't even played a top ten offensive scoring team this year. The best scoring team you have played is New Orleans who is 10th best.

    How do you REALLY know how well you can do with the #1 offense?

    Another issue.
    You guys are extremely good in your stadium with the 12th man. Being in your stadium gives you an advantage.
    There will be more Bronco fans in the SB than Seattle fans.


    You are correct about the number. I had 34.8 in my head for some reason.

    However, my comparison is not stupid, because your team has had a steady, downward slope of scoring in the playoffs. However, a Broncos fan should also remember that the 2007 Patriots only scored 14 points in the Super Bowl. That team was every bit as potent as your offense, and they didn't play a defense for the ages.


    Don't ever tell my opinion is stupid you dumb bastard. I TOLD YOU.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 14788
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


  • It's to bad we were on the wrong end of another one of the least memorable Super Bowls in history, but it is what it is. The better team won by a mile. Congratulations on your first Lombardi.
    broncos1997
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 2
    Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:52 pm


  • Polaris wrote:

    That isn't really true. Of course both sides will have signals and communicate, and of course there is some strategy involved on both sides, but that isn't what we're talking about. The comment was blithely made that if Peyton sees a screen won't work, he'll audible out of it. The problem with that statement is that assumes Peyton will see a screen won't work because he sees a bad defensive scheme that prevents it.

    That's not how Seattle's D works. The problem with Seattle is that Seattle is the league leader in both defensing screen passes AND yards-after-catch as well, and the two are completely related and based on the athleticism and discipline of Seattle's linebackers....and based on the fact that Seattle puts an extra man in the box very frequently but blitzes very infrequently. This isn't a matter of a chess match. It's a matter of beating the men and the defense, yes or no.

    For all the strategy involved, Football fundamentally isn't chess. It's about players making plays, and Seattle's defense isn't predicated on beating oppoents with scheme. Instead it's about making a couple of extremely good schemes (for the personelle) work to their maximum effectiveness with raw ability and skill. There's not much Peyton can do about that.



    You were right.

    http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=114391

    Congrats. Hope to see you next year.
    Eldorado
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:29 am
    Location: Bronco Land!!


  • Eldorado wrote:
    Polaris wrote:

    That isn't really true. Of course both sides will have signals and communicate, and of course there is some strategy involved on both sides, but that isn't what we're talking about. The comment was blithely made that if Peyton sees a screen won't work, he'll audible out of it. The problem with that statement is that assumes Peyton will see a screen won't work because he sees a bad defensive scheme that prevents it.

    That's not how Seattle's D works. The problem with Seattle is that Seattle is the league leader in both defensing screen passes AND yards-after-catch as well, and the two are completely related and based on the athleticism and discipline of Seattle's linebackers....and based on the fact that Seattle puts an extra man in the box very frequently but blitzes very infrequently. This isn't a matter of a chess match. It's a matter of beating the men and the defense, yes or no.

    For all the strategy involved, Football fundamentally isn't chess. It's about players making plays, and Seattle's defense isn't predicated on beating oppoents with scheme. Instead it's about making a couple of extremely good schemes (for the personelle) work to their maximum effectiveness with raw ability and skill. There's not much Peyton can do about that.



    You were right.

    http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=114391

    Congrats. Hope to see you next year.


    Thank you. It takes character to come back and admit this, and I appreciate it. Have a good off-season and see you next year. (I believe we'll meet in the regular season....so our teams will meet each other then).

    Yes I think I speak for all Seahawk fans when I say I fully intend to enjoy it :D It's been a long time coming, and hopefully it will be the first of many (hey set our goals high!)

    Srsly though, thanks for the reply. It shows class.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1314
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


Previous


It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:43 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests