Might see Chung and Wilson in the box with Collins/Hightower and DMC on a receiver.Stitch01 said:
BbtL Super Bowl XLIX Thread
- Thread starter wibi
- Start date
Stitch01 said:
The guy that scared me matchup wise from the beginning was Richardson. Without him, I think it's going to be Luke Wilson or Lynch on that offense. I don't know who else is going to beat you. If they contain Lynch, I think it's a win, maybe by double digits.
Easier said than done, of course.
While Seattle is, obviously, physical, they don't have a particularly good pass rush. Teams with a good pass rush seem to be the ones that give the Pats trouble.
Is Sherman still playing one side exclusively? I haven't watched many Seattle games this year. If so itd be pretty Easy to game plan Around it.
Green Bay got a total of two field goals after the half. This Seattle defense is still incredibly stingy in the third and fourth quarters, and would have held the Packers to under 20 points for the game without all of the turnovers (and two of the interceptions were tipped balls, not terrible throws).
Fitting that the Pats have to be the ones to keep Seattle from being the first back-to-back champs since they did it in '03-'04.
NortheasternPJ said:
Yes, the cover 3 is still the predominant defense they play. The only time they didn't is late in a game when 2 other CBs got hurt and Sherman followed the other team's best receiver around. It escapes me which game it was. He did that for about a quarter and a half.
Thank GOD we don't have to sweat out a Brady, Revis, Gronk, Edelman, etc. injury for two weeks.
It's the first time since '04 that the Patriots went into the playoffs (never mind the Super Bowl) with their defense being a strength. This defense is actually really, really good. BB takes away what teams do best, and no matter how hard they try, he's able to do it effectively about 99% of the time. I imagine that means he's going to focus on eliminating Lynch (the Pats run defense has always been better against big, physical backs anyway. It's the smaller, faster guys that give them fits) and stopping Wilson from getting outside the pocket. If the Pats do that, I don't see the Seahawks offense, specifically that receiving core, beating a healthy Patriots secondary with Revis, Browner, McCourty, etc. all playing very, very good football at the moment.
IMO, the question is going to be our offense vs. their defense. Will the Pats be able to come up with a game plan to put points on the board. Suffice it to say I'm optimistic on that front. Will they put up 45 like they did today? Obviously very doubtful, but if there is anything we've learned this season, and even more so in the past two weeks, the Pats offense is not a one-trick pony. If they need to beat you by dropping back and throwing on every down, they'll do it. If they need to beat you by pounding it down your throat, they have the ability to do that too. Only question is will whichever game plan they choose be the right one to beat the Seahawks defense, and if it isn't, will they be able to adjust and switch on the fly to something that will, like they were able to do against the Ravens last week?
No matter what happens, this is going to be some serious, high level, chess playing by two very good coaches on the biggest stage in the world. I feel like this is a good matchup for the Patriots. Better than Green Bay would have been, but we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. It's going to be a long two weeks, I know that much.
IMO, the question is going to be our offense vs. their defense. Will the Pats be able to come up with a game plan to put points on the board. Suffice it to say I'm optimistic on that front. Will they put up 45 like they did today? Obviously very doubtful, but if there is anything we've learned this season, and even more so in the past two weeks, the Pats offense is not a one-trick pony. If they need to beat you by dropping back and throwing on every down, they'll do it. If they need to beat you by pounding it down your throat, they have the ability to do that too. Only question is will whichever game plan they choose be the right one to beat the Seahawks defense, and if it isn't, will they be able to adjust and switch on the fly to something that will, like they were able to do against the Ravens last week?
No matter what happens, this is going to be some serious, high level, chess playing by two very good coaches on the biggest stage in the world. I feel like this is a good matchup for the Patriots. Better than Green Bay would have been, but we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. It's going to be a long two weeks, I know that much.
@WillBrinson: That was fast: Patriots have already shifted to favorites in Vegas. Opened +2.5 are currently -1.
How true is this? Between Bennett, Avril, and Irvin I thought they'd be pretty good. Had a highly ranked yearlong D. Get that 4 man pressure that always seems to befuddle Tom and the O. I have not seen a lot of SEA games this year however.Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
SoSH Central what say you?
GB has a better pass rush than Seattle . But, when Seattle can get there with 4 they are very effective.McBride11 said:
Brian Nemhauser@hawkblogger
Aaron Rodgers has 9 career games of 6.0 yards per attempt or less. Three have come against the Seahawks
Aaron Rodgers has 9 career games of 6.0 yards per attempt or less. Three have come against the Seahawks
Just a very quick and dirty figure here….
Seattle ranked 20th in the NFL with 37 sacks, but they held opposing QBs to just an 80.4 rating, good for 5th in the league. So their coverage is simply outstanding. Which makes you wonder: Why didn't they get more sacks? Why didn't they get more coverage sacks if their coverage is that good?
They only got 13 interceptions on the season (good for 18th in the league), so it's not like they're turning opposing QBs over that much. They get good pressure (just not a ton of sacks), they limit opposing QBs to relatively low completion numbers (61.7%, 12th in the league), and they are incredible tacklers. They are #2 in the NFL in opposing QB yards per attempt, at 6.3. So you are forced to throw short and get very little YAC.
You have to work your way downfield deliberately and consistently, which is VERY hard to do against them, especially because they don't let you run the ball (2nd in the NFL with a 3.4 average).
Their offense also grinds out the game, limiting the number of possessions, so you have to make the most of the opportunities you do get. And it's just not easy against them.
The Pats are going to have to play at a very high level in two weeks, needless to say.
Seattle ranked 20th in the NFL with 37 sacks, but they held opposing QBs to just an 80.4 rating, good for 5th in the league. So their coverage is simply outstanding. Which makes you wonder: Why didn't they get more sacks? Why didn't they get more coverage sacks if their coverage is that good?
They only got 13 interceptions on the season (good for 18th in the league), so it's not like they're turning opposing QBs over that much. They get good pressure (just not a ton of sacks), they limit opposing QBs to relatively low completion numbers (61.7%, 12th in the league), and they are incredible tacklers. They are #2 in the NFL in opposing QB yards per attempt, at 6.3. So you are forced to throw short and get very little YAC.
You have to work your way downfield deliberately and consistently, which is VERY hard to do against them, especially because they don't let you run the ball (2nd in the NFL with a 3.4 average).
Their offense also grinds out the game, limiting the number of possessions, so you have to make the most of the opportunities you do get. And it's just not easy against them.
The Pats are going to have to play at a very high level in two weeks, needless to say.
Should be an amazing matchup. The fact that Seattle does not have any standout receivers, coupled with the possibility of Wilson making some youthful mistakes makes one think that the various zone schemes NE has used might come into play. Lynch is by far the most dangerous force on the Seattle offense, followed by Wilson who, while flawed, has proven to be amazing resourceful, resilient, and tough. How many other quarterbacks in the league could have bounced back from the nadir of a career in the first 50 (55?) minutes to do what he did after that? Pretty amazing player.
Seattle is a bit lucky to be in the big game—there were a host of factors at play that should have sent them home, including Wilson's horror show early, and Rodgers' tough performance, and the Packers made a slew of errors, coaching- and player-wise. I've already seen poor Brandon Bostick being compared to two other Bs of sporting infamy, and it is clear that the Packer coaches went soft and scared for part of the game. Nevertheless, that defense is superb. Rodgers is the best QB in the league when healthy; with a bad calf, and thus with his mobility mostly taken away, he is approximately Tom Brady (whom I love), and Rodgers could only muster 22 points with 5 Seattle turnovers. The weather was a factor, I think, but still...
My prediction: the Patriots need to hold Seattle to under 21 in order to win.
Seattle is a bit lucky to be in the big game—there were a host of factors at play that should have sent them home, including Wilson's horror show early, and Rodgers' tough performance, and the Packers made a slew of errors, coaching- and player-wise. I've already seen poor Brandon Bostick being compared to two other Bs of sporting infamy, and it is clear that the Packer coaches went soft and scared for part of the game. Nevertheless, that defense is superb. Rodgers is the best QB in the league when healthy; with a bad calf, and thus with his mobility mostly taken away, he is approximately Tom Brady (whom I love), and Rodgers could only muster 22 points with 5 Seattle turnovers. The weather was a factor, I think, but still...
My prediction: the Patriots need to hold Seattle to under 21 in order to win.
You think Aaron Rodgers on one leg who can't drive the football is the same as Brady? I get the running aspect but Rodgers on one leg throwing vs Brady?kolbitr said:
Stitch01 said:
Absolutely true. I forgot to mention that...One wonders whether the awesome comeback would have happened in Green Bay, or even in a neutral locale.
kenneycb said:
No kidding....with Revis and Edelman going off for concussion checks (I think) I feared the worst. But somehow, while the Pats have had their share of injuries this year, they haven't had more than their share. F-ing miracle.
wiffleballhero said:
I thought before championship weekend sunday that the Pats and 'Hawks would win and the Hawks would be a significant favorites. Now? I don't see after two games in which Seattle has looked very flawed, I don't see how this is worse than even money. I mean...the Pats looked MUCH better than Seattle today.
ivanvamp said:
Yes, but:
-Coaches, love Pete but BB is better
-QBs, love Wilson, but Brady is better
-Running games, love Lynch and both teams should be able to run on the other. My prediction is we see a ton of Blount in 2 weeks and the Pats are effective vs a Seattle defense that has lost 2 key DL guys.
-Passing games -- yes, I'd take Seattle's DBs over NE's by a bit, but I'd take the Pats receivers by a ton over Seattle's sucky receivers and (see above) Brady is locked in and clearly superior to Wilson.
Gonna be a fun one.
NortheasternPJ said:
I was being a bit hyperbolic...taking away Rodgers' mobility made him = TB12. Some might argue that actually Rodgers can make more throws than TB12 can make at this point in his career, but I digress...
If Aaron Rodgers' calf injury merely limited his scrambling ability, and did not also seriously impact his throwing mechanics, I meant he would be approximately equal to Brady. If the latter were true, than Seattle got lucky.
I can't really get behind characterizations of the Seahawks schedule down the stretch as soft. More attention needs to go to how those teams looked at the time of the game, not how they finished. Philly for example just came off a big win vs. Dallas. The Cardinals were 10-1 the first time they played. Seattle had 4 games against their two toughest rivals (SF and ARI). They may not have faced a premier offense during that time, but they were tough games against very good defenses.
ivanvamp said:
Stats are nice but it's the context that matters. Seattle played some really putrid offenses in the second half of the season when their numbers spiked and had injuries in the first half when they were beaten up a bit and frankly, no one can say exactly how good their defense is based on numbers or ranks. I mean - Ryan Lindley contributed to those numbers. I'm not sure using numbers based on Ryan Lindley are worth thinking about all that much.
What's more interesting is how this defense - which certainly was elite last season and might be again (small, skewed sample) - will try to matchup against the Patriots. Will they "roll the ball out" and "do what they do" - Cover 3, Legion of Boom - or will they change up and try to take away the very obvious things the Patriots can do to beat C3 (provided they execute)?
Wade Boggs Hair said:
The Cardinals had a dumpster fire in both games at QB. The 49ers were in full-blown offensive meltdown. Philly brought the immortal Mark Sanchez to the party and left him in the punch bowl.
Sure, let's pay more attention to the details.
soxfan121 said:
There's something between a soft schedule and the gauntlet many thought it was before ARI and SF began to crumble. The defense looked probably better than it is by facing the weak offenses, but the offense had to contend with a tough slate of defenses.
The game feels like a pick'em, maybe the Pats a slight favorite.
Stitch01 said:
FYI, Seahawks are 6-2 and 5-3 on the road the last two years (and 1-0 in neutral sites).
Yeah I didn't say they can't play on the road. But when you are building a logical premise around saying Rodgers and Brady are similar and what Aaron Rodgers did today, its sort of relevant where the respective games will be/were played. It's not really a secret that Seattle has a very good homefield advantage.
Kliq said:
1. I'd bet during the early days of Brady making his run that people in Gillette would have left the game in similar numbers. There are fair weather fans for every team and the folks leaving today fall into that category. The difference between now and 10+ years ago is we didnt have many smart phones or twitter to post up fair weather fans being stupid.
2. Wilson's haircut is a good luck thing. He grew it out last year at the start of the playoffs and they won it all. So when they made the playoffs this year he decided to do the same thing. This isnt his normal haircut.
That being said I'm not sure how either of these comments have any basis as to the football game these two teams are playing.
DanoooME said:
Of course, the Seahawks are an awesome team. I think that there is some home advantage, though...and I suspect that it played a small role today (despite the harried array fleeing the stadium too soon! poor apostates!).
So the 12th man thing isn't that important?DanoooME said:
Everyone here thinks Seattle is great or very good and you seem to be all butt hurt about things people haven't said yet.
I don't know. Speaking for myself, I love Super Bowl weeks when my team is playing.DanoooME said:
For two weeks both teams will get treated to glowing media pieces and hyper detailed X and O breakdowns. The whole country will be talking about our teams for two weeks, celebrating them and their players. And then to top it off they'll get to play in the single biggest sporting event in America.
This is awesome, and I'm going to enjoy every minute of it.
dynomite said:
I mostly agree...what would be awesome is if people stopped imagining things regarding legacies. If the Seahawks win again this year, that is terrific for them and for their fans...if the Patriots lose, it will become a complaint about what happened in 2012 and 2008 (and opposed to 05, 04, and 02)...even though there is hardly any carryover....If the Patriots win, there will be some cementing of Brady's and BB's places in various pantheons, but will it matter at all to Revis, Gronk, Emendola, LaFell, Collins, Hightower, or even Wilfork? No...
if we could simply enjoy this game as it is, that would be superb...
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
So, just a quick personal note: As a result of her putting up with my insane time commitment to the Patriots, I've agreed to a wager with my wife. We both hate the pre-super bowl hype nonsense, so I have bet her that I won't check SoSH or NFL sites at all between tomorrow morning and the morning of Feb 1st. If I do visit this site, she gets some nice jewelry. If on the other hand, I stay on the wagon for these two weeks, I get... something I want.
The hardest part will be avoiding the SoSH Central football coverage, which I expect I will binge on, on super bowl morning. You guys all bring it, and the quality of conversation here is what makes the place so damn addictive. See you clowns when the big day dawns.
The hardest part will be avoiding the SoSH Central football coverage, which I expect I will binge on, on super bowl morning. You guys all bring it, and the quality of conversation here is what makes the place so damn addictive. See you clowns when the big day dawns.