OT: 2014-15 NFL Season Thread
- Thread starter 402
- Start date
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,442
- 4,609
So much for all that "greatest season ever" absurdity that people have been spouting about Manning. The AFC was truly awful this season, fitting that the NFC obliterates them in the Super Bowl.
This was the best versus the best. Proved the best defence could dominate the best offence.
First blowout since Manning's Colts got blown out by the Saints.
Feel great for the fans of Seattle after the heartbreaks with the Mariners and losing the Supersonics.
KeithIsActuallyBad
SPEEN!
jbean
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2009
- 1,716
- 0
For someone that watches one or two games a year, can someone explain to me what went wrong for the Broncos? Manning didn't look very good at all, and the rest of the team seemed to play poorly too. Not sure if this was a total choke job or if the Broncos were just overrated to begin with.
IMO the broncos were overrated.
Kyle McMahon is right that the AFC wasn't very good this season. The NFC was incredibly good. I always thought the NFC championship game was going to be the real Super Bowl.
Rafters
Registered User
jbean
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2009
- 1,716
- 0
What shocked me was that ***The Greatest Quarterback of All Time*** (or at least how he's hyped) played a lot worse than Russell Wilson. I just can't see how the Broncos were a historic team and put up such a flat performance. I guess it was a little like when the Bruins swept the Penguins in the playoffs and the casual fan might be wondering about the hype behind Crosby.
Supermassive
HISS, HISS
Completely agree. The Panthers, Niners and Seahawks were absolutely dominant on defence, no other team was really in the running IMO.
Manning beat up on a lot of mediocre defences this year. Aside from KC (who had their own issues in their match-ups), he didn't really face a top-5 defence all year, did he?
I disagree, the Broncos were brutal today no doubt, but the fact is Manning and the Broncos had an unbelievable regular season essentially rewrote the offensive record book
The Broncos were not overrated it's hard to explain what happened exactly today but hey the Seahawks played a terrific game
He didn't face a top five defence all year, until today. Only faced two in the top ten.
Manning has a poor record in big games, 1-2 in the Super Bowl. 11-12 in the playoffs. 5-10 head to head versus Brady.
Meaningless stats pad his 'legacy'. Who cares he had a record number of completions in a Superbowl? Another meh record for his legacy. You can't be the greatest of all time if you aren't the greatest of your generation.
Last edited:
This game doesn't say anything about Manning and the Broncos as a whole. Every team - even great ones - **** the bed on occasion. That's why I'm not a fan of the one-game elimination format of the NFL/CFL playoffs. If you think about it, it's really no better than an Olympic or World Juniors tournament. You can be the greatest team on the planet but if things don't click in the game that counts, you're just SOL. I'm not taking anything away from the Seahawks. They are worthy champions and their team is just as good, or better, on paper than the Broncos.
On occasion is one thing. Far more than that for Manning.
You can't practically have more than one and done in football playoffs.
Football is a team sport. Manning isn't the only person on the team. At least he has one. Favre also has "just one". Marino has none. They're among the best of all time. So is Manning. Not claiming he's the greatest. But you know, Eli has two. So does Bob Griese. They have more championships but I don't think that means they're better than Manning.
BlowbyBlow
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2011
- 3,411
- 0
I like what you wish if there is parity in the league then it would be a novel idea.
Would 3 games really matter and if your a fan of the Bronco's do you want to see getting beaten down twice.
If your playing more than one game (NFL) its based on who's more healthy (which already it is based on, but moreso; think of the injuries just at the end of this particular game) and how that would overlap to the next game.
Even hockey in some years you see almost a situation where a team runs out of gas (the Canucks are a team of recent memory that, that happened to - not taking anything from the Bruins) and you may have played harder competition in your division and had a harder time getting their and so less games would be better not more.
Best of 3 or 7 is great if you don't face that team a lot (I get that part) then that's the one part you wish you could really break down another team and see what you would do different; especially in closely matched teams).
However, if your playing a sport like football that even now is looking at adding more wild card teams, and some feel we'll see expansion, then teams/players are going to display some bad games. Look at so many teams who lose guys for the season (football is horrible for that) and your using backups. At what point does the game become more about stamina and attrition and less about skill, and talent
Football needs 12 games a year maximum, the same format as now in the playoffs.
BlowbyBlow
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2011
- 3,411
- 0
Yea defensively you can "steal one" but offense without defense you rarely see someone steal it - in any sport.
You can look at upsets in the past in many sports and its always the defense side responsible moreso than the offense for stealing games. Even in the Oiler's dynasty day it was the high flying Oilers till a team like NYI shut there offense down.
It mostly comes down to (hate using an Oilers analogy) teams will try match defense for defense (49ers vs seahawks) but many teams won't play run and gun offense to offense against the other team unless both teams defense is mediocre, because then your trading chances, and eventually someone has to stop the door.
Completely agreed.
If Peyton could do it in the big game he arguably would be the greatest.
Elway, Brady, Bradshaw. and Montana are all above Manning in the greatest of all time conversation because they performed on a higher level than Manning on the biggest stage.
Last edited:
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,442
- 4,609
The answer is simple, Denver was not a historically great team. The hype was simply unwarranted, but ESPN practically exists for that purpose. Every year something or someone is "the greatest ever" according to them.
The offensive records they set have to be taken in the context of the current NFL. The NFL is an extremely pro-offense/pass happy league right now. This is the historic high-water mark for scoring. The record for most total points amongst all teams in a week was broken on multiple occasions throughout the year. Defensive players are not even allowed to breathe on a receiver anymore. Every new rule the league introduces is designed to further inflate scoring.
If somebody were to do an in-depth analysis and adjust for league-average scoring levels and quality of opponent, I doubt Denver is amongst the very best offenses of all time. They'd be up there, but not at the top.
CantHaveTkachev
Cap Space > NHL players
as a fan of neither team...that was a brutal game
Superbore
but I'm glad we got to see sad Peyton face
Superbore
but I'm glad we got to see sad Peyton face
BlowbyBlow
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2011
- 3,411
- 0
excellent and thoughtful analogy - offensive records have been broken think also Brady/Brees consecutive game td streaks. In the 70's - 80's it was all about defense and the Bills, and Giants of that era.
This game will see the turning of the tide against focusing on high-powered offences. The best defence clearly dominated the best offence. Teams will focus on being brutal, hard-hitting defences within the boundaries of the current rules. The Seahawks have proven that it can be done.
BlowbyBlow
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2011
- 3,411
- 0
Its no mystery especially in football that a great defense wins, what essentially happens in football more than in any sport, and specifically related to defense is that to perform on a high level you are always trying to have enough internal building (in terms, of drafting, or acquiring via free agencies) of a cohesive unit, but moreso with defense.
The problem that arises is that defenses take there beatings and you just don't get long enough mileage out of the "units" you build to go on long runs. Look at a team like Seattle or Baltimore great d for years and years and yet really nothing to show for it.
Its not that teams don't try to have great defense. Just look at Bellichick known as one of the great defensive minds of the game (until his offensive success with N.E.) and you see it takes constantly changing parts due to injuries/shortened careers, and your always an uphill battling to keep the guys you got meanwhile trying to always stay on the top of your game.
Then when you win a championship your paying all your guys more money and due to the cap you lose certain parts often integral - look at Baltimore from last year. One will be curious to see how the Seahawks keep it together, and how much they will pay Sherman, ect.
!!!! At least I can cheer for one winning team this year, wheuuuu! hahaha
TheBrew
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2003
- 2,305
- 164
I think Seattle will keep all their core players for next year no problem it's the following year when Sherman and others contracts are up.
