Conquer Club

So Denver Broncos v Seattle Seahawks tonight.

Predictions ? Thoughts ?

I still gotta go with Broncos. Manning was on good form and so was Moreno 2 weeks ago against Patriots. But Lynchie can tear it up too...

Broncs seem to be favored but Seattle's much closer to me....gotta go with the Seahawks

One prediction sure to come true: My damn liver's gonna suffer.....

It's a toss up. I think these Broncos are the best team Peyton Manning has ever played for, but these Seahawks are really good too. In fact many of the "experts" think Seattle is the more complete team in this Super Bowl.

I expect Manning to silence his critics with another solid performance in the Big One and for the Broncos to cap an excellent season winning this Championship.

Denver defense has been good thru the playoffs and I don't expect that to change today and even though Seattle's defense is tops in the league,there should be plenty of scoring. Wilson and his crew will have to hold serve and maintain drives to keep it close. As always, special teams, execution on offense (no give aways) and quarterback play will all be factors.

I expect Bruno Mars to have a strong performance.

LOL peyton manning

he couldn't be Joe Montana's water boy

the difference between Montana and Manning is that the latter folds under pressure.
On the other hand, put Montana in at QB for Denver at halftime and he either wins the game or Seattle narrowly avoids a historic collapse

Sorry, Peyton Manning is the best quarterback to ever play football. Determining the worth of a quarterback by the number of Super Bowls his team wins is moronic. To put it some other ways - Did Seattle win the Super Bowl because of Russell Wilson? Is Eli Manning better than Dan Marino? Is Ben Roethlisberger better than Marino? How about Trent Dilfer?

That being said, he played shitty in this game.

you must not havve seen watched Joe Montana

people get caught up in stats. Stats in recent years are completely distorted.

but the game has completely changed over the past 15 seasons

the rules completely favor the offense.

I'm more impressed with Johnny Unites throwing 32 TD's in a 14 game season in a league where its no holds barred and its perfectly legal to brutalize the QB

sorry guys like Montana, STaubach, Unites, Bradshaw, Elway were clutch players.

Brady and Manning are not clutch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Jly6_tMAI

best QB ever

talk to me when Manning or Brady pulls something like this off.
and this is just old hat for Joe Cool.

I watched Joe Montana. Never watched Unitas, Staubach, or Bradshaw (other than highlights). I also watched Elway. But that list is essentially "who won some Super Bowls" which is my point. Bradshaw was a great quarterback, but I wouldn't put him in the top 10 simply because he could throw a deep jump ball and because his defense was one of the best ever. Elway couldn't win a Super Bowl without getting a great running game. In fact, Elway wasn't considered clutch by most until he won a Super Bowl (I don't and didn't agree with that characterization for whatever that's worth). I don't know enough about Unitas and Staubach to give you a cogent argument.

Montana was an awesome quarterback. I just think Peyton is/was better.

Of the four major US sports, football is the sport in which a player relies on his teammates the most (hockey is a close #2) in order to be a successful individual player. But it has even more of an effect when we're talking about Super Bowls and wins. What if Montana or Unitas or Staubach or Bradshaw had to play in an era with rampant free agency and concussion protocols?

gannable wrote:but the game has completely changed over the past 15 seasons

the rules completely favor the offense.

And the best defense just won the Super Bowl over the best offense in NFL history. And the west coast offense and the no huddle were popularized before rules were changed. Both of those factors have more to do with offensive explosions than defensive penalties (in my humble, non-talking head opinion).

Peyton had a shitty game. But the Denver offensive line was pretty bad. The receivers and tight ends ran like they were in cement shoes. And the Seahawks defense is amazing and is the type of defense that Denver has problems with.

gannable wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Jly6_tMAI

best QB ever

talk to me when Manning or Brady pulls something like this off.
and this is just old hat for Joe Cool.

Against one of the best defenses ever (no offense to the Cincinnati defense who had just lost one of their best defensive players to injury).

In any event, it's pretty hard to win a Super Bowl in the final moments. But let's create a list, shall we?

(1) Steve McNair almost did it against the Rams.
(2) Eli Manning did it.
(3) Drew Brees did it.

So, by your estimation, those guys are as good as Montana, no?

you're pretty ignorant if you think montana's entire legacy revolves around one drive

He made a career of doing things like that.

He was the most clutch QB ever.

Anypne who thinks Manning is better than him is just buying into modern day media hype.

When you watched Montana, you knew he was going to win the game.

Even in defeat he was in clutch - 1983 NFC title game against Washington in RFK. Washington was a GREAT team, and the defending super bowl champs. Washington led 21-0 after the 3rd qaurter but Joe Cool tied the game late in the 4th quarter. Washinton won the game on a FG. You're probably too young to realize those Joe Gibbs REdskins teams were all-time great teams and RFK was a huge home field advantage, especially during the post season.

Point - Manning states really don't impress me. Today's NFL is a video passing game. Back before the late 90's, it was different. Joe Montana didn;'t have the rules protecting him

and he won te super bowl in 1981 and 1984 without Jerruy Rice so don't even try that BS. Look at his supporting cast in 1981 it wasn't that great, and in 1984 only Roger Craig was a great skilled player.

in 2014 people have no sense of history, they buy into the media hype without really logically analyzing anything.

Awful. Just fucking awful.

Sorry... Football is a TEAM GAME and both Joe Montana and John Elway
along with many other NFL Hall of Fame QBs have all said...
"Peyton Manning is the best player at the position they've ever seen."

Seattle cast their vote for Defenses Win Championships today
as Manning threw the most completions of any QB in a Super Bowl
and lost by 34 points. It was a Team Win in all phases of the game
by the Seahawks and equally a Team Loss by the Broncos.

Peyton didn't have a shitty game. He set another offensive record with most completions by a QB in a SuperBowl game.
The defense just had an amazing game.

As much as I wanted Denver to win, I couldn't help but feel they did this to themselves when they got rid of the actual greatest quarterback who ever lived or will live.

Isn't it amazing, though, how many times the Broncos have managed to astonish people with a great year and then a Superbowl meltdown?

Superbowl XII -- Cowboys break in the Broncos 27 - 10 (wow, could the names get any more appropriate?)
Superbowl XXI -- Giants over Broncos 39 - 20 (almost seems like a tie game in retrospect!)
Superbowl XXII -- Redskins over Broncos 42 - 10 (first the Cowboys, then the Indians!)
Superbowl XXIV -- 49ers steamroll Brocos 55 - 10 (in absolute point spread, the biggest blowout ever.)
Superbowl XXXII -- Broncos beat the Packers 31 - 24 (Broncos won? WTF?)
Superbowl XXXIII -- Broncos thrashed the Falcons 34 -19 (that was a convincing win)
Superbowl XLVIII -- Seahawks eviscerate Broncos 43 - 8 (back to normal.)

Seven trips to the Bowl, 2 wins, 5 losses, including the most lopsided loss ever, a tie for the 3rd place of most lopsided loss ever (XXVII tied tonights 35 point spread), and the 5th worst loss ever, for a total point spread of (wait for it.....) negative 126 points in seven appearances!

Are you sure Jim Kelly isn't involved somewhere?

(I agree with you, though. Manning did throw good when he was wasn't buried under the defense.)

Seattle's defense was awesome and brought constant pressure,
they didn't sack Manning, but were all over him
and forced four turnovers.

Seattle's offense had a good game too.

Considering how close all the playoff games were,
this one was a huge letdown.

I just like checking-out the ESPN heat polls to see how angry Maine is at the world. Also, Bruno Mars better wear a bullet-proof vest if he ever decides to visit Montana (though, in fairness, that basically goes for everyone).

Seattle's Defense won them the game overall, but some plays by Wilson were fantastic. Especially in the first half - cheeky hand-offs, throws back and forth and so on.

Manning was put under pressure, but Seahawks realised that they don't need to sack him or pressure him too much, they cover the receiveors to the max. 9/10 passes Manning threw, were straight met by a Seahawk as soon as the receiver got the ball. And towards the end of the game, Seahawk just started putting 3 guys on the line, and the rest were just marking the receivers.

Not going to lie, I wanted more from that.

gannable wrote:you're pretty ignorant if you think montana's entire legacy revolves around one drive

He made a career of doing things like that.

He was the most clutch QB ever.

Anypne who thinks Manning is better than him is just buying into modern day media hype.

When you watched Montana, you knew he was going to win the game.

Even in defeat he was in clutch - 1983 NFC title game against Washington in RFK. Washington was a GREAT team, and the defending super bowl champs. Washington led 21-0 after the 3rd qaurter but Joe Cool tied the game late in the 4th quarter. Washinton won the game on a FG. You're probably too young to realize those Joe Gibbs REdskins teams were all-time great teams and RFK was a huge home field advantage, especially during the post season.

Point - Manning states really don't impress me. Today's NFL is a video passing game. Back before the late 90's, it was different. Joe Montana didn;'t have the rules protecting him

and he won te super bowl in 1981 and 1984 without Jerruy Rice so don't even try that BS. Look at his supporting cast in 1981 it wasn't that great, and in 1984 only Roger Craig was a great skilled player.

in 2014 people have no sense of history, they buy into the media hype without really logically analyzing anything.

Oofa, your post reeks of "nothing is better than in my heyday." Your point is that Montana is clutch(er) than someone like Brady or Manning. I'm saying that's not the only thing that factors into the equation of being a great quarterback.

I'm not buying into media anything. I look at statistics, I look at supporting cast, I look at gameplay, and I read experts (actual experts, not talking heads). You're typing stuff that makes you sound like a talking head. "Montana was better because he was clutch and won Super Bowls." I mean you invoked Terry Bradshaw as being better than Manning. That's old guy talking head stuff right there. Bradshaw had the best dynastic defense that ever existed playing with him and he's better than Manning? I don't even know where to go here. I can't quote you statistics because you don't think they are relevant. You think that defense is dead because Ronnie Lott would get fined if he played like he did in the 1980s, but you completely ignore what happened last night. And you won't take expert opinion because it's "media hype." Maybe oVo's post will sway you, but you'll probably say something like "Of course Montana would say Manning is better; he's clutch like that."

oVo wrote:Seattle's defense was awesome and brought constant pressure,
they didn't sack Manning, but were all over him
and forced four turnovers.

Seattle's offense had a good game too.

Considering how close all the playoff games were,
this one was a huge letdown.

I actually thoroughly enjoyed the game until mid-way through the second half. Then it got out of control. I've always liked defensive-minded football and this was one of the best games for that. Cliff Avril was a beast all game and will get some mention in the "actual MVP" conversation.

hopeless

youi're just caught up in the latest must be the greatest

Anyone who watched Montana and Manning play knows Montana is the better QB.

Put it this way - its the 4th quarter in a big game, who do want at QB? the guy who typically comes up small or Joe Montana? easy answer

and the 1981 49ers were not the most talented team. Dallas had the best team but Montana engineered a game winning drive.

And the competition was so much better during the 80's.

The product today is completely watered down. There are no great teams anymore. So yes the NFL was much better back then.

You think watching a video game is exciting. I find it boring.

I'm much more impressed in a QB being great during an era when the rules arent completely geared towards putting up big statistics/ If you compare some average QB's statsd playing today to a great QB like Roger Staubach you'd say Staubach sucks. You can't compare QB's from different eras based on stats

For that matter, Roger Staubach was a greater QB than Manning or Brady. Staubach was called captain comeback, whereas the other two are captain chokes.

gannable wrote:hopeless

youi're just caught up in the latest must be the greatest

Anyone who watched Montana and Manning play knows Montana is the better QB.

Put it this way - its the 4th quarter in a big game, who do want at QB? the guy who typically comes up small or Joe Montana? easy answer

and the 1981 49ers were not the most talented team. Dallas had the best team but Montana engineered a game winning drive.

And the competition was so much better during the 80's.

The product today is completely watered down. There are no great teams anymore. So yes the NFL was much better back then.

You think watching a video game is exciting. I find it boring.

I'm much more impressed in a QB being great during an era when the rules arent completely geared towards putting up big statistics/ If you compare some average QB's statsd playing today to a great QB like Roger Staubach you'd say Staubach sucks. You can't compare QB's from different eras based on stats

For that matter, Roger Staubach was a greater QB than Manning or Brady. Staubach was called captain comeback, whereas the other two are captain chokes.

Fourth quarter of a big game, I want John Elway, mostly for mobility purposes. Anyway, is that how we're measuring quarterback greatness? First you measured it by Super Bowls and now we're talking about who we'd take in the fourth quarter. This is largely a subjective discussion, but c'mon. Let's at least use the entirety of the quarterback's body of work; not just whether it's more likely he would lead a fourth quarter comeback.

By the way, good for Montana that he engineered a game winning drive against a better team. I literally provided you with a video of Peyton doing the same thing against a much better defense.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I like 52-7 games. I enjoyed last night's game because of the defensive play of the Seahawks (mostly the defensive line, which got pressure with four, allowing seven to drop in coverage and hit the receivers). The best game I saw this year was the Eagles-Lions snow game, which was hardly played in videogame conditions. Further, I grew up on 1980s Eagles defense so I'm biased in that regard. I am generally okay with the new rules regarding defensive backs (helmet-to-helmet and defenseless receiver hits). I'm not okay with the quarterback protection, but that's largely a decision-by-decision issue (in other words, I'm okay with the rules; I'm not okay with how they are enforced on a case-by-case basis). But this idea you have that I must like videogame football because I think Manning is the best quarterback ever is ridiculous. The man is 37 years old and he's been playing since the 1990s before all of these offense-favoring rules came into effect.

I'm also not convinced you watch football right now or at least you don't watch it as closely as I do. I'm still wondering how you get from "defenders can't spear or hit a guy helmet-to-helmet" to "defenses are hamstrung." We saw it last night. You accuse me of liking whatever is new and exciting. You're stuck in the past. It's a common thing, but it's okay. We can get you over that hump. You just need some patience and you need to watch more modern football!

huh?

when did i measure everything based on super bowls?
when did i measure everything based on 4th quarter?

I was just giving you examples of why Montana is the best QB ever.

you had the wrong interpretation of what i was saying.

longevity doesn't equal being superior.

you must be enamored with modern day statistics and what the media is stating if you believe Peytpn Manning is the best QB ever because he clearly isn't. Best during his era, yes? I'd agree with that.

Today, there is an exaggeration whenever proclaiming a player's status. Any player who is good or who had a good season is automatically labeled great, or a guy strings a few good seasons together and the media begins saying he's the best ever. Example, RGIII - he had a good rookie season, he wasn't great but then everyone was talking about the greatness of RGIII. He's a good player but he's far from great.

im finished discussing this with you but please don't put words in my mouth.

and i grew up with Buddy Ryan eagles defense

and I remember a game during 1989, week 3

The Eagles were putting a hurting on SF for the first 3 quarters then guess what happened? Montana threw up 4 TD passes in the 4th quarter.
Montana was sacked like 10 times in that game. Manning would have cried and went home if Reggie White and Jerome Brown were pounding him the entire game. Didn't he do that last night?

And the turning point of that game - Andre Waters sacked Montana late in the 3rd, and kind of rubbed Montana's face in the turf. Montana got up and you see that he was pissed. Next thing you know, SF is scoring at will

Since you're done discussing with me, this is largely irrelevant, but there are advanced metrics that compare a player's statistics with that of his peers, essentially saying "X Player was Y better than others at his position in Year Z" and then comparing players based on that. So we can, in fact, compare people from different eras. That's how we know whether 2013 Denver was the best offense of all time - how much better were they than other 2013 teams? I know that is probably too modern for you, but such is life.

Here: http://grantland.com/features/a-tale-of-two-cities/

The problem with RGIII hype (and I would lump Kapernick, Wilson, and Luck in there as well) is manifold. First, people talk about two of these guys (Kapernick and RGIII) having physical tools that other quarterbacks don't have and those tools in and of themselves make those guys better than other guys. In other words, those people would rather have Kapernick because of his legs and arm strength because he can "learn" the other parts of the position. Second, three of those guys are running quarterbacks, not a one of whom has won a Super Bowl. Third, quarterback is not a position where young players succeed immediately precisely because it calls for a lot more than physical tools to win. Those gentlemen good all develop into outstanding quarterbacks, but right now they aren't and they weren't last year either. They need to develop decision-making and overall football intelligence to be put in the same stratosphere as the current crop of great quarterbacks (Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers). I think Wilson and Luck are the closest of the four. RGIII appears jittery. I don't know what to think about Kapernick.