Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    I agree to an extent but dammit all we heard all year and leading up to the game was how it was Manning that was a coach on the field, who could read a defense and Omaha them into submission with his cerebral superiority. So if the success was because of him and not those around him then the failures need to be seen the same.
    He can do those things, but still relies upon the play of people around him.

    Do you think any QB in NFL history would have done more than Manning did? He completed 34 passes at a rate of 75%. Considering the pressure Seattle's defense put on him and the total lack of separation achieved by any of the Denver receivers, he did a great job.

    It's hard to say that a single Bronco played better than any Seahawk defender. The only argument to be made is for Peyton Manning.

    It was an overwhelming assault by Seattle. No one could have done any better than Peyton did.

  2. #22
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Anderson View Post
    He can do those things, but still relies upon the play of people around him.

    Do you think any QB in NFL history would have done more than Manning did? He completed 34 passes at a rate of 75%. Considering the pressure Seattle's defense put on him and the total lack of separation achieved by any of the Denver receivers, he did a great job.

    It's hard to say that a single Bronco played better than any Seahawk defender. The only argument to be made is for Peyton Manning.

    It was an overwhelming assault by Seattle. No one could have done any better than Peyton did.
    Well, that is the life of an NFL QB. You get the credit for the regular season records and you take the heat for the playoff losses.

    As to the rest of your post, I don't look at it simply as who played better but rather who prepared better and what team had superior planning and communicated to the players better and that team was seattle. if you read the news today Sherman said the reason they won was that they cracked Mannings code on offense and knew what Denver was going to do on their plays. In other words seattle did a better job of figuring out the broncos and the broncos failed to realize that they had been figured out and then didn't counter that by changing their signals. Sherman also eluded to the fact that if Denver had added some double moves to the calls Seattle would have been exposed and vulnerable.


    If you look back at the past 2 off seasons I threw out the notion that rather than signing a franchise QB and a franchise LT that will command big salaries, that we could build the team around a strong running game with Peterson, an average QB and a stout defense. Of course I was told that this is a passing league and that you can no longer win with defense and a ball control offense. Now, Wilson is a heck of a QB. he doesn't make mistakes and gets the job done. But obviously he doesn't put up the gaudy numbers of Brees, Brady, manning and Rogers.


    In the end it is my opinion that you can win with a offense or defense but you need balance and most of all you need the right combination of coaching and personnel to carry out the game plan. That is something that Seattle did and Denver did not.

  3. #23
    mountainviking's Avatar
    mountainviking is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,841
    Actually kinda liked the comments from the Raaahdjjerrrrrz this morning...

    ďWith all due respect, I donít think itís possible to play at that kind of level for many other teams in this league, if any,Ē Rodgers said. ďThatís a talented group. I donít think that should be our goal. We do need to improve on both sides of the ball, but that team has a unique mixture of secondary talent thatís as good a group in the league as you can see, and then a front seven that really plays well together. It should be maybe the standard weíre going for, but it might be a little unrealistic to think of any defense being as good as that for the next couple years.Ē
    Aaron Rodgers: “Unrealistic” to use Seahawks as goal for defense | ProFootballTalk

    Yup, it'll be hard to duplicate that! But, the Vikes are not all that far off, really...awesome RB, check. Hell, our OL and WRs might actually have better top-end talent, if not the depth of SEA, looks like the gaping hole on offense is still just QB. Top five Special Teams, check.

    On defense, less zone and more man coverage might be a big step in the right direction all by itself, along with, of course, getting some of those guys healthy. It keeps getting harder to play defense in the NFL. Big hits and physical coverage have pretty much been banned. These days you need D-backs with decent size and some serious hand-eye coordination, because you can put your hand on the ball, but not the player. I don't think our Defense was as bad as it looked on the stats page. They kept us in games while the offense had tons of 3 and outs and way too many turnovers. Yeah, we need some upgrades and some youth, but we do have the cap space and early draft picks needed to add some top-end potential to all three levels of the D. And, most importantly, a coach who can bring it together as he's shown with his defenses at several teams in a row.


    Here's a run down of how SEA built the team...every which way but loose. There are early picks, late picks, Undrafted Free Agents, value vet signings AND trades for marquee players. You got to play the game from every angle!

    John Schneider’s work pays off in Super Bowl win | ProFootballTalk
    Control the line, control the time, and give your D a chance to shine!!

    "Balance it on end and thats the third side of the coin!!" -wookiefoot

  4. #24
    Ted Dibiase is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    86
    I suppose the question is just how close this D is to being anything close to Seattle. If it's not close, then I still think you do whatever you gotta do to get the best QB solution. In a perfect world, Norv's got a 2nd or 3rd rounder that he feels is just as good as the top three.

  5. #25
    drewlovs's Avatar
    drewlovs is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    597
    Remember the '85 Bears defense? How good was it in '86? REALLY good, but not as good as the "lightning in a bottle" season of '85. Things change, personnel changes, and Seattle itself will be hard pressed to put something similar on the field next year.

    And also, remember they DID have some stinker games. That game with AZ was horrible, and it was IN Seattle when they needed the win to solidify home field advantage. If they played THAT game last Sunday, no one would be saying anything about that defense. I've been on teams that ROCKED, but sometimes, for some reason, it didn't work on a given Sunday. What would have happened if Manning's target CAUGHT his passes and then protected the ball? How would Seattle have reacted? How would their offense play if they needed to score points, since the points were not coming from the defense?

    My point is, lets not throw out every other way to build a championship team based off one season.
    Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.

    ~Napoleon Bonaparte on Politics

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •