MT @NFLonFOX: #SB48 on FOX breaks record, most watched show ever with 111.5 million viewers. http://foxs.pt/1fphR9g
Super Bowl XLVIII Seahawks vs Broncos
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
singaporesoxfan said:
You are correct, but he is alluding to how this IS considered running up the score when the Patriots do it.
When Denver made it 36-6, Aikman said that they were about to try the "first of many" two-point conversions. He was either making a point about Denver not being able to stop Seattle or he didn't realize that 36-8=28, but at this point with Aikman I don't know how anyone can tell.
On running up the score: I suppose, but the argument then boils down to "the media treats the Pats in an unfair can't-win manner in such situations, so I want them to act in a similarly wrongheaded fashion with other teams, and I'm annoyed that they didn't do so with Seattle." That's not a very strong complaint.
Edit: to clarify what my post was in response to.
Edit: to clarify what my post was in response to.
Really a stunning testament to the overwhelming dominance of the big bad NFL.soxhop411 said:
That a game between teams from the #14 (Seattle) and #18 (Denver) TV markets can draw 100 million viewers is simply incredible.
Alfred Williams on his Denver sports radio show says they should have ran the ball more when they were down 22-0 because Peyton didn't have it. Gotcha.
To imagine the Pats in that game is just totally delusional. You made the point about the Denver -- Pats comp: Denver dominated both side of LOS.Tony C said:
So why are we to suppose the situation would have better against Seattle? And even if the lines played better, who catching passes for NE would have given Seattle's secondary and LBs a moment's pause? Edelman. Amendola, Dobson, Vereen?
Good Christ.
Nah I just want an apology. "Wow Seattle has an insurmountable lead and they're going for it on fourth down instead of kicking. Boy, I remember when people where castigating the Patriots for the same thing. Were they sure wrong! Going for it was the right thing for the Patriots back then and Seattle now."singaporesoxfan said:
Would have been twice as enlightening as what Aikman really said during the fourth quarter.
If there's a bigger dumb ass on sports radio, I'm not sure who it is.RedOctober3829 said:
A few examples: In November, when the Broncos were about to play the Chiefs for the first time, he said the Chiefs were better than the Broncos because they have more impact players on D. In fact, he took it one step further and said there wasn't one player on Denver's D he would take over any player on the Chiefs D (not Von Miller, who was healthy at the time) because the Chiefs D "played better as a unit." Then, when Denver beat KC twice, he said "he was right at the time" and stood by his comments.
After the AFC championship game, he said Denver's D was as good as any D in football. His reason: "they've been playing as good as any other D, therefore they are..." Just last Thursday he was claiming Denver would rout Seattle because Denver's offense was the best of all time and Seattle "doesn't have impact players on D." In fact, he claimed he would take Denver's secondary over Seattles'...
And these are just a few of the nuggets I picked up in listening to his show for about 15 minutes, 3 days a week on my drive across town to a different campus. I kid you not. This guy is paid for analysis.
I caught about 20 minutes on my way home from work today and he lost his mind completely. He was saying that the first thing Denver needs to fix, and the only thing, is the running game. When countered that Seattle and Denver had the exact same number of yards of rushing he flipped out and basically said that since Seattle's D scored more than Denver's O it didn't matter. That was 20 minutes of some really sad analysis. He does sometimes provide great insight into insider NFL locker room type aspects but just fails at analysis.Sox and Rocks said:
Four unrelated thoughts this morning.
1. It's true that the Pats would not have beaten Seattle. Too many injuries on the Pats side. Seattle was just dominant in every phase. OK, maybe just damned good on offense, but still. But the simple math -- Denver killed the Pats, Seattle killed Denver, so Seattle would have uber killed the Pats -- is silly. As has been pointed out by many, every game is different, BB/Brady rarely get totally blown out, Denver was out of sorts from the first minute, John Fox didn't cover himself in glory and Manning hung his head pretty early. Another factor that hasn't been discussed as much, it seems, is that Denver had their unusual and intense home field advantage in the AFCCG. Between the altitude and that crowd, playing in Denver is a lot different for the Broncos than playing anywhere else. Conversely, the Pats would have been on a better venue for them at 16W than they were at Mile High.
2. Not that I particularly care, but I think Russell Wilson should have been the MVP. Really, the MVP should have been the Seattle defense, but if you're going to give it to a player, you can't ignore that Wilson was basically flawless (with the exception of a few inconsequential yips throws), made numerous third down plays with his legs, arm and arm/legs that kept drives alive, lead Seattle to points on 5 of their first 6 drives and did all of that without the benefit of a running game outside of the two Harvin gadget plays. Smith had a great game, caught Peyton's duck and recovered a fumble, but I have a hard time believing that his contributions were more valualbe than Wilson's.
3. After all the "Pats don't have enough weapons on offense" talk, it was interesting to see a Seattle team with a solid but not awe inspiring array of weapons do more than enough on offense. Now it's true that the Pats need to add pieces on offense and it would indeed be a shame to surround Brady with a 2006 or 2013 like assembly again in 2014. But Seattle was an object lesson in the notion that you don't need a 2013 Denver or 2007 NE line-up to win a title. Hell, the 2007 Pats are a sad reminder of that, too.
4. Will Belichick learn anything from how Seattle conducted itself? I'm hardly a BB basher but I am hopeful that he wont just put his head down and go about business as he always have. I think there are some things to learn from Snyder and Carroll, as much as it pains me to say that. Will BB try?
1. It's true that the Pats would not have beaten Seattle. Too many injuries on the Pats side. Seattle was just dominant in every phase. OK, maybe just damned good on offense, but still. But the simple math -- Denver killed the Pats, Seattle killed Denver, so Seattle would have uber killed the Pats -- is silly. As has been pointed out by many, every game is different, BB/Brady rarely get totally blown out, Denver was out of sorts from the first minute, John Fox didn't cover himself in glory and Manning hung his head pretty early. Another factor that hasn't been discussed as much, it seems, is that Denver had their unusual and intense home field advantage in the AFCCG. Between the altitude and that crowd, playing in Denver is a lot different for the Broncos than playing anywhere else. Conversely, the Pats would have been on a better venue for them at 16W than they were at Mile High.
2. Not that I particularly care, but I think Russell Wilson should have been the MVP. Really, the MVP should have been the Seattle defense, but if you're going to give it to a player, you can't ignore that Wilson was basically flawless (with the exception of a few inconsequential yips throws), made numerous third down plays with his legs, arm and arm/legs that kept drives alive, lead Seattle to points on 5 of their first 6 drives and did all of that without the benefit of a running game outside of the two Harvin gadget plays. Smith had a great game, caught Peyton's duck and recovered a fumble, but I have a hard time believing that his contributions were more valualbe than Wilson's.
3. After all the "Pats don't have enough weapons on offense" talk, it was interesting to see a Seattle team with a solid but not awe inspiring array of weapons do more than enough on offense. Now it's true that the Pats need to add pieces on offense and it would indeed be a shame to surround Brady with a 2006 or 2013 like assembly again in 2014. But Seattle was an object lesson in the notion that you don't need a 2013 Denver or 2007 NE line-up to win a title. Hell, the 2007 Pats are a sad reminder of that, too.
4. Will Belichick learn anything from how Seattle conducted itself? I'm hardly a BB basher but I am hopeful that he wont just put his head down and go about business as he always have. I think there are some things to learn from Snyder and Carroll, as much as it pains me to say that. Will BB try?
According to Sherman, the Seahwaks had Manning basically sorted:
A lot was made before the game of Manning adapting to his lesser physical abilities. That ability to adapt is good, obviously, but I wonder if having fewer physical tools truncated his repertoire which could have contributed to him becoming more predictable; I'd never heard of anyone referring to Manning as having tendencies like this before.
A lot was made before the game of Manning adapting to his lesser physical abilities. That ability to adapt is good, obviously, but I wonder if having fewer physical tools truncated his repertoire which could have contributed to him becoming more predictable; I'd never heard of anyone referring to Manning as having tendencies like this before.
I'm actually inclined to believe that the fifth round DB's were less a product of luck then that guy who throws the ball who went in the 6th.drleather2001 said:
I don't know if he had this in mind, but there is a lot more going on in Seattle than dumb ass luck. The team is incredibly well run and well positioned going forward.drleather2001 said:
I loved the demolition of the mantra that defense can't dominate in today's league. So the world should have been cowed by that incredible, awesome, super duper Broncos offense that was just going to roll everybody.
Seattle GM deserves credit for finding low round gems. Carroll deserves credit for coaching them up. They are built to last
I hate to interrupt this good football talk, but I think that this comment belongs here - in the thread about the Super Bowl game.
Bruno Mars (who is completely new to me) was fabulous. He was extemely energetic and entertaining. Only those white quasi-hoodlums who disrupted the show and then mercifully disappeared broke the spell of a truly splendid performance. Is he a creative and original musician? Perhaps not. Will I run out and buy his CDs? Probably not. Would I pay to see him perform live? Yes. He is a first-rate entertainer, and there is nothing shameful in that. Usually, the Super Bowl halftime show features an aging rock star doing a medley of songs he/she is sick of performing, mashed together in an illogical fashion that fails to create any mood or spell. That was not the case here. Bruno knows what he is doing and he did it very well.
Bruno Mars (who is completely new to me) was fabulous. He was extemely energetic and entertaining. Only those white quasi-hoodlums who disrupted the show and then mercifully disappeared broke the spell of a truly splendid performance. Is he a creative and original musician? Perhaps not. Will I run out and buy his CDs? Probably not. Would I pay to see him perform live? Yes. He is a first-rate entertainer, and there is nothing shameful in that. Usually, the Super Bowl halftime show features an aging rock star doing a medley of songs he/she is sick of performing, mashed together in an illogical fashion that fails to create any mood or spell. That was not the case here. Bruno knows what he is doing and he did it very well.
dcmissle said:
Yes, and the quality of their play is based in large part on the talent on the field, particularly the talent in their secondary.
If you want to argue that the Patriots should get better at drafting or developing DBs, I'm right there with you, but I don't think that's something Belichick will "learn" from watching the the game the other day. And the notion that BB isn't aware that having a physical, play making defense, is a key to success is frankly absurd, and ignores the fact that he coached exactly such a defense from 2001-2007 or so.
Not sure if anyone cares, but after sleeping in late yesterday and then spending all afternoon shoveling cement-heavy snow, I've gone from disbelief, to acceptance. I never even got angry about the game, which is certainly due to the fact that I had a house full of guests over Sunday night which forced me to shrug it off and be social (if I watched that game alone I would have been furious... so having company was good in the end).
Prior to the game, I predicted that the Denver Offense would figure Seattle's D out by buying Manning enough pocket time to find open options. I knew the secondary was going to do its thing by smacking the receivers around at the line to disrupt timing. I was expecting Denver's O-Line to hold the pass rush back and the no-huddle to pin Seattle personnel on the field in uncomfortable positions.
The Seahawk D-Line was spectacular and deserves all the praise they get. They blew Manning's protection to pieces and the entire game fell apart for Denver from that point forward. The secondary and LBers were then able to capitalize on all the mistakes that front-line pressure forced. The defense was a well oiled machine operating perfectly. Denver ran into the proverbial buzzsaw and had nothing to challenge it with.
Total domination. I am impressed as hell. The 2013/14 Seattle defense should be considered one of the best ever to play the game.
In the end, the only thing Denver managed to do well was shut down the Seattle run game... but that meant nothing in the end.
Damn.
Prior to the game, I predicted that the Denver Offense would figure Seattle's D out by buying Manning enough pocket time to find open options. I knew the secondary was going to do its thing by smacking the receivers around at the line to disrupt timing. I was expecting Denver's O-Line to hold the pass rush back and the no-huddle to pin Seattle personnel on the field in uncomfortable positions.
The Seahawk D-Line was spectacular and deserves all the praise they get. They blew Manning's protection to pieces and the entire game fell apart for Denver from that point forward. The secondary and LBers were then able to capitalize on all the mistakes that front-line pressure forced. The defense was a well oiled machine operating perfectly. Denver ran into the proverbial buzzsaw and had nothing to challenge it with.
Total domination. I am impressed as hell. The 2013/14 Seattle defense should be considered one of the best ever to play the game.
In the end, the only thing Denver managed to do well was shut down the Seattle run game... but that meant nothing in the end.
Damn.
I think the addition of guys like Collins, Ryan and Harmon this year, Hightower and Jones in 2012 show that BB is committed to an athletic, tough defense going forward. Obviously, Collins is a fantastic athlete for his size and Ryan is probably their most physical corner after Talib.drleather2001 said:
Shneider has done a fantastic job. His RT, Breno Giacomini was off the GB practice squad, one of his starting guards, Sweezy, is a former DT at NC State. 2/5 of the o-line are starters basically off the street, the other three are 2 1st rounders and a 2 rounder. A lot like NE's o-line.
TheoShmeo said:
Hasn't been much conversation about this, but I fully agree. Obviously the Seattle D was the collective star, but there's no one guy who was truly MVP. I think Harvin has a claim on the award, though awfully tough to give it to a guy with just 1 catch and 29 snaps. But Wilson was pretty much perfect. It's true that he didn't carry the team on his back in a classic MVP way, but no one did. Absent that standard, he played the most important position flawlessly: no sacks, no TOs, very efficient passing, great on 3rd down, and some good runs. How is that not the most valuable contribution to the Hawks victory?
drleather2001 said:
Others have already responded to just how dumb this is -- Carroll has done an amazing job and deserves tons of credit. What's funny is that people loved to mock him because he didn't do things in the traditional cookie cutter approach, but now that he's won with that approach the traditionalists still don't want to give credit. But I just want to respond on what the Pats could take out of this.
-rah rah attitude? Naw....I do think that this model of being more positive is smart and will be emulated, but BB is BB and wouid be lame to imitate.
-attention to new age shit like sleep patterns etc? I hope this happens, speaking as someone who sleeps poorly and knows how much of an impact that can have on productivity, this should happen. Will it? I sort of doubt it.
-up with people positivity? I think something that Carroll and BB share is seeing what a player can do and putting them in a position to do that rather than in a position where they are assigned tasks they can't perform. Obviously the style with which they do that is very different. In re the Mel Kipers of the world, both Seattle and NE tend to have underrated drafts simply because they don't draft with the consensus which is essentially what Kiper and McShay try to suss out. I think Carroll and BB share a focus on what that consensus ignores and coaches to strengths rather than weaknesses.
-emphasis on big/fast DBs: It's been frustrating for some years that BB seemed to love tiny CBs, and it's been great to see the Pats move beyond that and acquire some bigger guys. But that can be accelerated and that is something I'd like to see. I wonder about the acquisition of Wilson as a safety as a sign the Pats were looking for a big hitter Seahawk type at safety. Be interesting to see if there are further moves in that direction this offseason.
-fast LBers: again, BB seems to have been late to the party on the importance of a speedy LB corps (per the draft, see again the scoffs that greeted the draft of Irvin and Wagner by the Kiper-consensus types). But hopefully Collins shows he's got religion on this, too. Spikes and Hightower are productive players, and Mayo is really good -- but the Pats have simply been too slow on the LB corps.
The conservative offense, the deep DL and other particularities of Seattle just seem to be circumstantial....but I think arguably there are some things to look at from Carroll.
dcmissle said:
Just like Green Bay was a few years ago? Haven't we done this dance before?
Here's an excellent article by Tom E Curran about this very topic:
Someone on Twitter noticed this.
Todd Everson @tadthebad 23m
@tomecurran Pats won in 2007?
Tom E. Curran @tomecurran 15m
Awww jesus. did it again. RT @tadthebad @tomecurran Pats won in 2007?
You heard it here first, BB. Get some linemen on a deep rotation and big CBs. No, not Wilfork and Kelly and Fanene -- they all got hurt, you moron! And not that one CB you got for a 4th-round pick -- you need more!dcmissle said:
Seattle gets all the credit for their drafting. But as Curran writes those guys are going to get expensive soon. If they can buck history and be absolutely the best-drafting team ever and keep finding replacements late, then they will dominate. Otherwise, they have to choose who to pay and hope they don't become too top-heavy and that the guys they do pay don't decline, get hurt or go to jail. And they have fewer chances to find cheap guys now because of the Harvin trade -- they had better hope he stays on the field.
Beautiful troll job by Sherman aside, I love how people like that guy think Sherman contributed nothing just because he didn't intercept any passes. What do they think shutdown corners do? They are rarely heard of during games, because the quarterback is afraid to throw to their side of the field.
As someone asked upthread I believe, was Decker even there? I remember a single target and catch. Sherman was incredible.
And that quote about being an "All-Pro mind" is gold (and true).
One of the things I absolutely detested going into this game was how much the media had positioned this matchup as The Great White Hope vs. Thugs n' Bones. As has been beaten to death in this thread, the NFL media is terrible right now.
But in the run-up to this game I was unbelievably impressed with how well Sherman and Lynch in particular handled themselves, refusing to let themselves be dragged into the mud by these turds. In some ways, their domination of the game itself was simply the cherry on top of the entire two week cycle.
And that quote about being an "All-Pro mind" is gold (and true).
One of the things I absolutely detested going into this game was how much the media had positioned this matchup as The Great White Hope vs. Thugs n' Bones. As has been beaten to death in this thread, the NFL media is terrible right now.
But in the run-up to this game I was unbelievably impressed with how well Sherman and Lynch in particular handled themselves, refusing to let themselves be dragged into the mud by these turds. In some ways, their domination of the game itself was simply the cherry on top of the entire two week cycle.
I saw that the NFL Network was going to show Manning mic'ed up for the Super Bowl and thought it might be interesting. In the entire segment, here's what he said: "We're alright." after the safety. That's it. Really odd, I don't know if they just couldn't find anything flattering or his vocal chords were damaged during the game, but it was a total waste of what could have been an interesting segment.
Didn't realize Louis Farrakhan had a Twitter account (and an iPhone).soxhop411 said:via twitter
Deadspin got their hands on the yearly superbowl viewer complaints to the FCC
http://deadspin.com/america-hates-male-nipples-fcc-viewer-complaints-about-1543113760
http://deadspin.com/america-hates-male-nipples-fcc-viewer-complaints-about-1543113760