Peyton Manning's Legacy
- Thread starter RIrooter09
- Start date
The game didn't tarnish his legacy, it enhanced the legacy he already has. The same legacy that led to Steve Spurrier's quip: You can't spell citrus without UT" or "I know why Peyton came back for his senior year. He wanted to be a three-time star of the Citrus Bowl."
Peyton could have changed his legacy for the better if he played a great game. He didn't. He is what he is.
Peyton could have changed his legacy for the better if he played a great game. He didn't. He is what he is.
ishmael said:
The only similarity is that it's two of the all-time greats playing at the same time. Brady has a superior overall record vs Manning, but they each have 2 wins in the playoffs against each other. In a 1v1 sport like Tennis, the only real statistics are wins. Federer having "all the stats" means he has more titles. Is Manning supposed to be Federer? Or is he Nadal?
Unless you are comparing Brady and ELI Manning, this analogy doesn't make any sense. (Eli is nowhere near on the same level as Nadal, but the analogy you're going for works better with Eli than Peyton, since a hole in Brady's GOAT argument is that he can't seem to beat Eli Manning in a Super Bowl).
It's pretty shaky territory comparing across sports, especially when one is a team sport played with 22 people on the field, and the other is a 1v1 matchup.
And Faulk, in a roundabout way, forgave Peyton by throwing his receiving corp under the bus by saying that SF's best receivers, Boldin and Crabtree, caught the ball and held on to it in the NFC championship game. You could tell Faulk wanted to say Peyton's the best ever but didn't dare (how could he now). Michael Irvin was also as critical of Peyton as "Prime" was.Oppo said:
They had everybody from Seattle except the water boy up to their podium after the game, Pete Carroll talking a hundred miles an hour. What's he on? With his success now, I wouldn't care, but, man.
Seels said:
I didn't follow football when Elway was at the height of his powers, but it seems to me that the gap between Brady/Montana/Manning and the next tier of great quarterbacks grows wider with every passing season.
I just want to see whether this loss and this terrible performance will stick in people's minds. Before yesterday, you'd hear a lot of talk about Brady falling short against the Giants (even though he played well enough for the Patriots to win both times), but never a peep about Manning throwing a back breaking pick 6 in the waning minutes of the Saints game. Now they've both lost multiple Super Bowls, but only one of them has three titles, and, maybe most importantly, only one of them was at least adequate in every one of those games.
veritas said:
Manning totally shit the bed. Fucking period. There weren't any drops that I can think of, he had at least okay protection for most of the night (seriously, some people are making it sound like he was under some 2007-Brady kind of duress), and it took him 20 minutes to get a first down. Even with the safety, the punt and the pick, they were down 8-0 with more than enough time and weapons to come back. After that, he kept throwing 3 yard passes that were obviously, from the get go, not enough to win this game against a fast, swarming defense, and then proceeded to throw a pick-6 and make a terrible pass on a fourth down play.
There wasn't a single Bronco who performed worse than Manning when the game was still in doubt. There is no question Seattle completely ran them over and was far and away more prepared both physically and mentally for that game, but Peyton Manning's play was the main reason Denver found themselves in an early hole that, against a defense like that, they weren't crawling out of.
D. Thomas had a bad drop, an OPI, and a fumble in the red zone to ice the game. Orlando Franklin was horrific. Manning had a shitty game, but there was plenty of blame to go around.rodderick said:
Totally agree with this. I'm probably going to catch a rash of shit for this, but I view Elway as closer to Favre than those three. I would definitely put Marino above him. Elway had elite physical tools, and carried some mediocre teams, but he could also be a reckless, inaccurate turnover machine. Definitely an all time great, but I'd put him lower in the top ten.Seels said:
MarcSullivaFan said:
The game was over when Thomas fumbled, and I recall the Seahawks getting a lot of penalties and overcoming them. Franklin had a poor game, but protection wasn't bad for most of the night. I'm not saying Peyton is solely to blame, just that he was the main reason the Broncos offense didn't get into gear. When the highest scoring offense ever, with the most prolific quarterback ever scores a meager 8 points in garbage time, I'm kind of reticent to just go "hey, the team was shit, what did you expect Manning to do?".
The etymology of the word "legacy" includes, from the 12th century, the word "ambassador" - one who represents certain principles and imparts those wherever he goes.
So the analogy I keep thinking of is these great QBs show up at your door, seeking to impart who they are and what they represent. Wouldn't the introductions they give be remarkably similar to what we already hear in media, in bar discussions?
"Hi, I'm Joe Montana, ambassador of clutch."
"Hi, I'm Dan Marino, ambassador of all stats, no wins."
"Hi, I'm John Elway, ambassador of needed a running back to go over the top."
"Hi, I'm Warren Moon, ambassador of accumulation."
"Hi, I'm Jim Kelly, ambassador of almost unthinkable disappointment."
"Hi, I'm Brett Favre, ambassador of impressive but typically reckless improvisation."
You guys tell me how the Brady and Manning intros at your front door go. I think the latter guy sounds a lot like the second one above and I really don't know what Brady's might be.
So the analogy I keep thinking of is these great QBs show up at your door, seeking to impart who they are and what they represent. Wouldn't the introductions they give be remarkably similar to what we already hear in media, in bar discussions?
"Hi, I'm Joe Montana, ambassador of clutch."
"Hi, I'm Dan Marino, ambassador of all stats, no wins."
"Hi, I'm John Elway, ambassador of needed a running back to go over the top."
"Hi, I'm Warren Moon, ambassador of accumulation."
"Hi, I'm Jim Kelly, ambassador of almost unthinkable disappointment."
"Hi, I'm Brett Favre, ambassador of impressive but typically reckless improvisation."
You guys tell me how the Brady and Manning intros at your front door go. I think the latter guy sounds a lot like the second one above and I really don't know what Brady's might be.
And it begins on espn.com....
"You can argue that Manning's two interceptions in the first half were not his fault. The first came on a play to tight end Julius Thomas, who got tangled up in coverage, escaped a defender and broke off his route. Manning threw to the spot where Thomas was supposed to be but wasn't. Seattle safety Kam Chancellor easily made the pick."
Because Ashley Fox knows the depth and design of the passing route.
Manny throwing Peyton under the bus is the greatest thing of all time.
"You can argue that Manning's two interceptions in the first half were not his fault. The first came on a play to tight end Julius Thomas, who got tangled up in coverage, escaped a defender and broke off his route. Manning threw to the spot where Thomas was supposed to be but wasn't. Seattle safety Kam Chancellor easily made the pick."
Because Ashley Fox knows the depth and design of the passing route.
Manny throwing Peyton under the bus is the greatest thing of all time.
Hi, I'm Tom Brady, ambassador of winning.
Couple of points: leave it to some on SOSH to totally ruin a thread dedicated to bashing Peyton Manning right after he got his ass handed to him on the biggest stage. This thread may not be filled with a ton of logic but it is filled with a ton of awesome.
And totally agree that Elway belongs nowhere near the upper tier of the QB elite.
Couple of points: leave it to some on SOSH to totally ruin a thread dedicated to bashing Peyton Manning right after he got his ass handed to him on the biggest stage. This thread may not be filled with a ton of logic but it is filled with a ton of awesome.
And totally agree that Elway belongs nowhere near the upper tier of the QB elite.
That you cheered for Mariano is nice. It also has nothing at all to do with where Manning stands and this game's impact on his legacy.Jnai said:
It's true that Manning, like Rivera, had a great career. Manning is clearly in the all time greatest at his position conversation.
But Mariano is hands down the greatest closer ever. There's no obvious number two, never mind someone who might be better than him.
Mariano was also much more consistent in the post-season. Sure, he blew the save against the Diamondbacks and two of the 2004 ALCS games, but his post-season numbers were awesome and he came up big in several title winning years.
Manning, conversely, has a below .500 record in the post-season and has thrown 24 picks in 23 games.
Put it this way, is anyone surprised that Manning played poorly last night? I expected it. Many others did too. Whenever Mariano blew a game it was an utter shock.
This game can't impact Manning's legacy all that much in that nothing he could have done will take away from the fact that he's an all time great. But he had the chance to eliminate some of the talk about him not being particularly strong in the post-season and he whiffed at that chance completely.
Good!
Ralphwiggum said:
I mean, that's essentially it, isn't it? And how can anyone deny Manning's the ambassador of having so much talent, within and around him, all throughout his career going back to college, and still can't quite piece it all together due to internal (poor decisions; backbreaking turnovers) and external (weather; not playing in a climate controlled dome 100% of the time) factors.
I think it was Andrew in the game thread who made the truthful funny that Manning is the GOAT -- if every single variable is perfectly controlled and if everything goes right.
I'm going to take Jnai's side in this battle. Seems like the collective "we" (the media, fans, and site posters) are perhaps setting an unreachable hurdle when it comes to Manning's "legacy". We've had this argument in the past after Brady's playoff losses.
Yes, Montana deserves to be recognized the GOAT at the QB position until someone comes along and knocks him off the pedestal, and that hasn't happened yet. If Brady won one of those matches against the Giants, or if Peyton beat either the Saints or the Seahawks, then the discussion can begin.
However, I'm not sure how much Manning's legacy is "tarnished"; I don't think anyone is going to take Dilfer, Doug Williams or Mark Rypien as the better QB. For Manning to get to be 11-12 in the playoffs means his teams played in 23 playoff games, same as Montana. And Big Joe did also benefit from some great teams stacked with HoF caliber players, including Trevor Matich's replacement. Montana also had some benefit in facing a generally weak AFC teams in his Super Bowls.
As to the self-promotion aspect, I'll leave that to the media types.
None of this will matter once Manning is eligible for HoF ballot the first time. He'll get voted in first time, and, yes, he will accept his induction.
Yes, Montana deserves to be recognized the GOAT at the QB position until someone comes along and knocks him off the pedestal, and that hasn't happened yet. If Brady won one of those matches against the Giants, or if Peyton beat either the Saints or the Seahawks, then the discussion can begin.
However, I'm not sure how much Manning's legacy is "tarnished"; I don't think anyone is going to take Dilfer, Doug Williams or Mark Rypien as the better QB. For Manning to get to be 11-12 in the playoffs means his teams played in 23 playoff games, same as Montana. And Big Joe did also benefit from some great teams stacked with HoF caliber players, including Trevor Matich's replacement. Montana also had some benefit in facing a generally weak AFC teams in his Super Bowls.
As to the self-promotion aspect, I'll leave that to the media types.
None of this will matter once Manning is eligible for HoF ballot the first time. He'll get voted in first time, and, yes, he will accept his induction.
I'll tell you what this performance did. It generated so much discussion that the "Best Tits" thread has fallen off of the front page of "View New Content". This is unforgivable, and it has ruined my perception of the man irretrievably.
lexrageorge said:
Stop with this kind of argument, it's fucking silly. Even the worst Manning detractor would be hard pressed to make an argument as to how he isn't a top 10 quarterback of all time. He isn't being compared to Dilfer, Williams and Rypien, he is thought by many as THE GREATEST ever. If he wants to live up to that reputation, he has to perform better in big games, because the other guys who are up there in that echelon of quarterbacking did so. That's it.
Even with this loss Manning sits comfortably in the top 3 for me, behind Montana and Brady. But after two weeks of "well, if he wins this one that's it, he's the greatest point blank" type of articles and opinions, laying an egg this big again is a huge mark against him.
Bingo. No one -- not event the biggest Manning Haters or Brady Homers -- argues that Manning isn't in the extreme upper tier. When Jnai or anyone else argues that he's one of the best ever, I think everyone nods their heads vigorously. In my view, Dan Marino belongs in that conversation, as well, but that's another matter.
But this game was an opporutnity for Manning to put an end to or seriously limit some of the conversation about the disparity between his regular and post-season play. He didn't do that. Sure, his whole team fell flat and he had plenty of help in coming up small. But we know what the convesation would have been if the Broncos had won, and we will hear none of that right now.
But this game was an opporutnity for Manning to put an end to or seriously limit some of the conversation about the disparity between his regular and post-season play. He didn't do that. Sure, his whole team fell flat and he had plenty of help in coming up small. But we know what the convesation would have been if the Broncos had won, and we will hear none of that right now.
Marbleheader said:
I love using this argument. It leads to the other person stating that correlation does not equal causation and completely nullify their own "they haven't won since spygate!" argument, at which point I drop the mic and walk away.
TheoShmeo said:
Exactly. Personally I think Manning is one of the Top 5 QBs of all time and you can make an argument for him as GOAT (an argument that is impossible to sort through IMO). But had he won last night and thrown 4 TDs or whatever we absolutely know that the story right now would be that Manning solidified his status as the best QB ever. So if one game can make that much of a difference on the positive side, it should absolutely be able to make that much of a difference on the negative side of the ledger.
Fuck Peyton.
E5 Yaz said:
You know, this might be true. But I remember hearing how great Freeney, Mathis, Brackett and BOB FUCKING SANDERS were at the time. I think there is a little revisionist history going on now as to just how "bad" the Colts defense was in the Manning era. I mean BOB FUCKING SANDERS was pretty much unstoppable in the eyes of the media and Colt fans.
Peyton doesn't deserve all the blame last night. His line didn't play that well and his receivers let him down somewhat (was Decker even there? where is the crowd clamoring for NE to sign him now?), and the Harvin TD after the kick was specifically aimed to NOT allow a big return was completely pathetic and maybe the worst single play in a big spot I can remember since the Rahim Moore fail against the Ravens last year. The defense kept them in it for the first half but still ended up allowing 6.5 yards per play and was terrible in the second half (maybe it was garbage time but they were truly bad on the last few SEA drives and stranger things have happened than a pick or two making it a game). John Fox proved his awfulness as well by punting down 29-0 (at the 50) and seeming to make zero adjustments.
But Peyton shouldn't get all the praise for getting there, either. The Colts were going downhill with or without his injury knocking him out. Had he stayed, he's not getting any farther than Luck did. He chose the perfect situation to go to -- a team who went 9-6 with Tim Tebow (!) the year before, who had multiple excellent, physical receivers who could take his short wobbly passes, block downfield and turn them into huge gains. A team with little in-division competition (the Chiefs don't count) and a weaker conference (He could have gone to Arizona, who is pretty good besides QB...I'd like to see his numbers against SF, SEA and STL 6x a year). The D would be better with Dumervil and Miller but it's still strong.
To Peyton's credit he is still accurate and great on pre-snap reads, so his team built on rub routes and screens was incredibly successful. But when they faced a team who could handle those plays (by getting past downfield blocks and not missing tackles) and 3rd and short turned into 3rd and 7, they had no way to adjust.
Peyton clearly panicked when down early and should get most of the blame for the INTs. Especially the second one was pretty bad and he should have just ate the ball or looked for a safer throw when he felt the pressure (It's just 15-0 at that point and totally within reach, not matter how bad you played, if you don't give them 7 points*). How much of the rest of the blame you put on Peyton is personal preference, but you should be consistent when doling out credit as well and most aren't. Beyond the INTs he basically played the same as he had all year, but maybe Brady or Montana figures out a way to adjust (and is able to) and starts moving the ball before it's totally out of hand? Who knows. But Manning didn't.
*That tripping call on Beadles was really killer. It was absolutely a trip and was pretty stupid as they had finally been moving the ball (13-play drive thus far) and were at the SEA 32 threatening to make it a one-score game. But there just aren't many plays in the playbook to get out of that hole against a stellar defense who isn't going to give up 20 yards on a screen. If he just lets him go they probably lose 4 yards on a sack or maybe Manning can chuck it away -- much more manageable.
But Peyton shouldn't get all the praise for getting there, either. The Colts were going downhill with or without his injury knocking him out. Had he stayed, he's not getting any farther than Luck did. He chose the perfect situation to go to -- a team who went 9-6 with Tim Tebow (!) the year before, who had multiple excellent, physical receivers who could take his short wobbly passes, block downfield and turn them into huge gains. A team with little in-division competition (the Chiefs don't count) and a weaker conference (He could have gone to Arizona, who is pretty good besides QB...I'd like to see his numbers against SF, SEA and STL 6x a year). The D would be better with Dumervil and Miller but it's still strong.
To Peyton's credit he is still accurate and great on pre-snap reads, so his team built on rub routes and screens was incredibly successful. But when they faced a team who could handle those plays (by getting past downfield blocks and not missing tackles) and 3rd and short turned into 3rd and 7, they had no way to adjust.
Peyton clearly panicked when down early and should get most of the blame for the INTs. Especially the second one was pretty bad and he should have just ate the ball or looked for a safer throw when he felt the pressure (It's just 15-0 at that point and totally within reach, not matter how bad you played, if you don't give them 7 points*). How much of the rest of the blame you put on Peyton is personal preference, but you should be consistent when doling out credit as well and most aren't. Beyond the INTs he basically played the same as he had all year, but maybe Brady or Montana figures out a way to adjust (and is able to) and starts moving the ball before it's totally out of hand? Who knows. But Manning didn't.
*That tripping call on Beadles was really killer. It was absolutely a trip and was pretty stupid as they had finally been moving the ball (13-play drive thus far) and were at the SEA 32 threatening to make it a one-score game. But there just aren't many plays in the playbook to get out of that hole against a stellar defense who isn't going to give up 20 yards on a screen. If he just lets him go they probably lose 4 yards on a sack or maybe Manning can chuck it away -- much more manageable.
One bad loss, seems like there's 12 of them in the playoffs, all when his team was favored. Pretty easy to "totally outplay" a guy who's offensive weapons are the Hooman, Matt Mulligan, Julian Edelman, a broken Danny Amendola, Austin Collie, and Aaron Dobson and yours are the Thomas brothers, Welker, and Decker.veritas said:
Toe Nash said:
I don't think that is what this thread is about. I think lots of people are over-complicating it.
It's a simple question, with a complex answer. Is Peyton Manning the GOAT?
When you look at playing QB in a vaccuum then you can make a very strong argument based on his mental and physical skills at playing QB. But football is not played in a vaccuum. I feel comfortable that we have a large enough sample size of Manning playing in the biggest games, against the best opponents. These are the games where one would expect the greatest QB of all time to raise his play and be a difference maker. I think at this point you can comfortably say that Manning has not played like the GOAT in the games that define guys which guys can play QB great and the great QBs.
He is without a doubt one of the best to ever play QB. But there are too many warts, too often to call him the unquestionable greatest ever at that position.
Screws up the snap count on the most scripted play of the game, a run play no less.
Throws a pick down 8-0
Throws a pick 6 down 15-0
He may not deserve all the blame, but he's the reason they had zero chance of getting back in it. Brady dealt with more pressure from the Giants and still managed to get his team the lead late in the fourth quarter. Peyton gave his team no chance.
Throws a pick down 8-0
Throws a pick 6 down 15-0
He may not deserve all the blame, but he's the reason they had zero chance of getting back in it. Brady dealt with more pressure from the Giants and still managed to get his team the lead late in the fourth quarter. Peyton gave his team no chance.
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
No. Simple.
Discuss him as the greatest Colt, Bronco, or Manning. Rank him with Unitas, Elway, Eli and Archie. He might not even be first in that group.
The biggest difference between two weeks ago and today is the Pats barely touched Peyton and gave him all the time he wanted. Seattle covered well enough to slow him down and got to him on the pass rush.
That kind of pressure will make a pocket passer look bad real fast.
It was painful to watch Seattle blitz... and actually get to Peyton and force the first INT. I had flashbacks to the Pats bringing 6 or 7 and getting no whiff of Manning.
That kind of pressure will make a pocket passer look bad real fast.
It was painful to watch Seattle blitz... and actually get to Peyton and force the first INT. I had flashbacks to the Pats bringing 6 or 7 and getting no whiff of Manning.
Did you read the rest of my post? I addressed this and basically agree. He gets an outsized portion of the credit for "running" the offense when he can't really throw anymore, and a lot of people will make excuses for him when that strategy doesn't work.PaulinMyrBch said:
And he got an outsized portion of the credit for Wayne and Harrison being generational talents, and was lucky in a way to have the injury and be able to go to a stacked team.
Brady has clearly done more with less and it's not close. The question is how to assign credit and blame for team play vs. qb play and that's where people get bogged down.
I don't know enough about pre-1990 NFL to be able to judge Manning against Marino, Montana, etc. My impression is that while Montana was great, the 49ers were stacked because they were willing to have a huge payroll before the cap and pay backups like starters.
The football media is fucking terrible, so this is true, but I think the whole media construct of legacies riding on one game is pretty much bullshit too. It was stupid two weeks ago as well.TheoShmeo said:
Agree mostly. I have a slight quibble with this only because I dont see how whether a guy caught a ball with his helmet or not matters enough to swing whether Montana or Brady is better.
Not disagreeing with your general point, but Manning was under pressure all night. The pick six came off a play on which Manning's arm was hit and the 4th down play was off a tipped ball. How about the Broncos special teams? I thought they were the worst overall unit on either side of the ball.rodderick said:
Yea we agree. I was just pointing out his mistakes weren't just mistakes, they were mistakes you can't have at critical points in the game. He panics in the first half like he's never getting the ball back. You can have two INT games where each is a hail mary at the end of each half and mean nothing or you can do it Petyon's was and literally put your team out of it. We agree, I was just emphasizing the timing of the mistakes.Toe Nash said:
How are you? This had to come as a pretty big shock.86spike said:
It must have been weird for Elway to watch this unfold. Though the déjà vu must be tempered by the fact that Elways brought much worse Broncos teams to SB slaughter in the 80s. And they faced opponents from the NFC that on balance where probably better than this Seahawks team.
That's where Manning and Elway part company. Until the very end of his career, John did more with less. And when they had a complete team, they won twice
Ralphwiggum said:
Well...
Maybe: "Hi, I'm Tom Brady, ambassador of making the most of what I've been given."
I think that more accurately represents what will be Brady's legacy, from the 6th Round factoid to getting shitheels like Caldwell, et. al. within a pass of a SB. When he is given top-tier talent, you could count on him to, almost always, use that talent to its maximum potential.
Peyton was shitty last night. Immensely shitty. You have to be to lose by 35 points. Put it into his ledger.
That being said, I think the Seahawks had something to do with that. It would be a shame to make this game yet another Manning-centric story when the real story is the Seahawks doing a mean 85 Bears impersonation.
That being said, I think the Seahawks had something to do with that. It would be a shame to make this game yet another Manning-centric story when the real story is the Seahawks doing a mean 85 Bears impersonation.
Yeah, that's my feeling too. Elway brought some junky teams to the Super Bowl. That 86 team that lost to the Giants had Sammy Winder at RB. Leading receiver was Mark Jackson with 738 receiving yards followed by Steve Watson with 699 yards.
Buster Olney the Lonely said:
Back then, and for many years, the AFC was definitely a few notches below the NFC. Elway finally won when he get a better supporting cast, T Davis in particular.
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if it doesn't help Manning's legacy quite a bit that his team got so blown out no one will remember this game in 3 days. Just in terms of game quality, this was one of the worst superbowls I can remember watching.
Jnai said:
Perhaps. But this is one of the things that so infuriates Brady/Patriots fans, because the fact that the Pats lost the last two games by such a small margin leads people to the explicit or implicit point "Surely, if Brady is so good, he could have overcome such a small deficit. Manning? His whole team collapsed in those losses! Not his fault!"
That's of course true but the two things aren't mutually exclusive. The awesomeness of the Seattle D should be discussed and I think was part of the post-game conversation last night and will continue to be going forward. At the same time, it's natural to discuss in the aftermath of the game the impact the result has on Manning's legacy. It was one of the story lines before the game.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Unrelated: I have to say, I'm glad that the weather was good. The "can't play in the cold angle" is tiresome and I'm glade that the focus is on how he played and not the elements.
TheoShmeo said:
I spent a good portion of last night thinking about what excuses could be made for Peyton's performance, because you know certain types (Peter King) are going to try to find SOMETHING else to blame (his receives, O-line, etc). But after last night I think most of the world knows the truth - the guy's a great quarterback, but he's not great at making plays when he has to. If everything breaks in his favor, he knows how to take advantage of those breaks, but when the going gets tough, last night happens. That's his career in a nutshell. He rarely "wills" his team and himself to victory.
Tom Brady, overall (he's had his own failures too), has proven that at times he can be resourceful and overcome tough odds. He has beaten extremely physical defenses in big games. He has beaten teams who've played their "best game of the season" in the playoffs. That's the difference between Tom Brady and Peyton Manning - Brady has, somewhat regularly, overcome a good team's best effort, whereas Manning has repeatedly been shut down.
By the way...could anyone even tell what the hell the Broncos' gameplan was yesterday? I mean maybe it's unfair to ask because they were down 15-0 in the blink of an eye, but looking back I don't know if I could even tell you how they planned to attack the Seahawks' defense.
H78 said:
It appeared, to me, to be "establish the run", and open up space for Manning.
They ran with Moreno a lot, even after the game was essentially over. I think they feared the Seattle secondary, and rightly so, but even their first (botched) play was a designed run.