Purplepeopleeater Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Everyone is talking about Manning playing a terrible game, but I don't see it that way. We just gave him NO options. The only pass he could land was a 5 yard pick-up on the outside, and he did it very consistently. But when you're that far behind, 5 yards at a time isn't mathematically feasible. He definitely made some sloppy mistakes and it wasn't his best work, but there just wasn't an exploitable chink in our defense. I hope he plays again and gets back to the Super Bowl. He deserves to end his career on a high note. Yes and no. The Bronco's offense and ZERO hustle and desire. That pick 6 shouldn't have happened, but the WR decided to look at the ball instead of go for it. Thomas had 2 receptions with an open field but he chose to try and shake a tackle instead of running. It was a great game, Seattle OWNED Denver the entire game. Overall Denver's defense played a great game as well, not much you can do when your offense is doing nothing and continually leaves you high and dry. I mean the Seahawks average starting position was their own 40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I think my favorite moment from the night was actually after the game, when I was on my way back home. I was waiting for the ferry, and as it unloaded, everyone was just belting out We Are the Champions. Just a beautiful little moment there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Yes and no. The Bronco's offense and ZERO hustle and desire. That pick 6 shouldn't have happened, but the WR decided to look at the ball instead of go for it. Thomas had 2 receptions with an open field but he chose to try and shake a tackle instead of running. It was a great game, Seattle OWNED Denver the entire game. Overall Denver's defense played a great game as well, not much you can do when your offense is doing nothing and continually leaves you high and dry. I mean the Seahawks average starting position was their own 40. Yeah, the offense was lazy, but Manning himself wasn't playing poorly. That's all i'm saying. I don't think I'd say their defense played a "great game." In those clutch moments, they just weren't there. Slow, off-target tackles all game. We scored at least 18 points off of plays where they missed 3 takes in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalripphook Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Yeah, the offense was lazy, but Manning himself wasn't playing poorly. That's all i'm saying. I don't think I'd say their defense played a "great game." In those clutch moments, they just weren't there. Slow, off-target tackles all game. We scored at least 18 points off of plays where they missed 3 takes in a row. Well you have to realize that our offense had played mainly top 10 defenses all regular season. Denver had the 16th defense which means its a lot easier to gain yards on them then the 49ers. Denver on the other hand had never played against a defense as good as ours, especially when they go into the game with a patch work line its hard to stop our pass rush. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplepeopleeater Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Yeah, the offense was lazy, but Manning himself wasn't playing poorly. That's all i'm saying. I don't think I'd say their defense played a "great game." In those clutch moments, they just weren't there. Slow, off-target tackles all game. We scored at least 18 points off of plays where they missed 3 takes in a row. Seattle average starting position was their own 40. Fumble for safety, pick for 6 and the Denver D being on the field 11 out of minutes during the 1st quarter and the quarter ended 8-0. It's like blaming a pitcher who only gives up 2 home runs for losing a game 2 - 0. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 i dont see how anyone can say manning did not have a :"bad" game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplepeopleeater Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 i dont see how anyone can say manning did not have a :"bad" game. The entire offense had a sh*t game, even though the set some records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PumpkinHead Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 We didn't rush many times... less then a handful. Our 3 man line was doing just fine getting pressure on Manning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashneeb Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well, the breakdown is pretty easy really. The Bronco's defense stood up really well initially. However, if your offense isn't going to do anything, you're going to not be able to stop anyone. Yes, the defense was middle of the pack during the regular season, but they had the number 1 rushing defense in the post season, and for the first quarter they played pretty well all things considered. But you just can't play to Seattle's strengths like they did. I don't think Manning had an awful game, one of the picks wasn't his, and certainly the fumbles weren't his doing either. Seattle played a pretty flawless game, and Denver didn't. Of course, it didn't hurt that Seattle DB's were able to basically hold for six or seven yards, and the refs didn't call some pretty blatant pass interference. Thankfully, it was both sides that didn't get a lot of calls. But champions win through adversity, and the Bronco's didn't, so it wouldn't matter unless the refs were handing them the game. Maybe Seahawk fans can stop yapping about 2006 now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Maybe Seahawk fans can stop yapping about 2006 now? Sure, but you'll never get us to stop talking about 2014! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashneeb Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 God, if all you can do is cling to one year you'll just be the same ol' franchise. Win again, have something to actually talk about. I'll not be surprised if you're not like the 85' bears. Win a Super Bowl, have a stunning repeat season until you get upset in the playoffs, never to be heard from again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Taking a bunch of undrafted, unwanted, inexperienced players that everyone said were a joke, and using them absolutely BULLDOZE the team that everyone was predicting would win the super bowl before the season even started is something to talk about. God, if all you can do is cling to one year you'll just be the same ol' franchise. Well that's the thing about winning your first Super Bowl, you don't have another one to cling to... Are you honestly suggesting that fans shouldn't celebrate a Super Bowl victory until they win another one? I can understand sour grapes, but what you're saying is just naive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashneeb Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 You mean you took the Patriots model from when they won 3 Super bowls and brought that philosophy to Seattle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 I couldn't tell you. I don't really follow the patriots. Sounds like a useable philosophy though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashneeb Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 When the Patriots were winning Super Bowls, all the talk was of their finding talent in low draft positions, and taking other teams second stringers and making them first stringers. The Seahawks didn't do anything "interesting" this year in the regards of how they built their team. They drafted well. They kept their eye on the prize. They won with defense. It's nothing new. You could talk to the Ravens and the Buccaneers because they did it that way too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplepeopleeater Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 When the Patriots were winning Super Bowls, all the talk was of their finding talent in low draft positions, and taking other teams second stringers and making them first stringers. The Seahawks didn't do anything "interesting" this year in the regards of how they built their team. They drafted well. They kept their eye on the prize. They won with defense. It's nothing new. You could talk to the Ravens and the Buccaneers because they did it that way too. I agree with most of what you saw, but not the Buc's. They won their ring because of this guys insider knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashneeb Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 You mean it wasn't the whole "Number 1 Defense vs. Number 1 Offense" again? I'm pretty sure that even with Chuck's inside knowledge, and such, it would have been a beat down. Did the Ravens and Seahawks not just prove this to a very good point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplepeopleeater Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 You mean it wasn't the whole "Number 1 Defense vs. Number 1 Offense" again? I'm pretty sure that even with Chuck's inside knowledge, and such, it would have been a beat down. Did the Ravens and Seahawks not just prove this to a very good point? John Lynch (SS for the Buc's) was quoted after the Superbowl saying "we knew their plays. They didn't even change their audibles up" The Raiders where still running the playbook Gruden designed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 When the Patriots were winning Super Bowls, all the talk was of their finding talent in low draft positions, and taking other teams second stringers and making them first stringers. The Seahawks didn't do anything "interesting" this year in the regards of how they built their team. They drafted well. They kept their eye on the prize. They won with defense. It's nothing new. You could talk to the Ravens and the Buccaneers because they did it that way too. It doesn't have to be brand new for it to be good. An underdog team winning is and always will be a more interesting story than the reverse. Anyway, I'm still not really sure what point you're making. First you said winning a Super Bowl is no big deal until you win a second one, then you immediately went on to compare us to a team that one back-to-back superbowls (3 out of 4, too). I don't think you're trying to compliment us, but I can't be sure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.