Rams and other teams 2013 NFL season thread

[Socnorb11]

I didn't watch the whole thing as I passed out due to sickness in the 2nd quarter, but what I did see was a very uncomfortable Manning with very few people blitzing. If a d-line with no help from linebackers, safeties, or corners can get to a QB, the offense is going to struggle....Period. And it showed. Perhaps in a different world on a different day, MAnning feels more comfortable and the early turnovers don't dig them a hole. But, on sunday, he couldn't go downfield as he couldn't get set, from what I saw. You can be 80% accurate and still have a bad day if you're only completing 2 yard passes because you're afraid to hold the ball long enough for your receivers to put a move on someone. JMO.

That's fair, AW. As I said, I thought that Seattle's defensive front 7 was outstanding. They don't get the credit that they deserve, because they're not loud like Sherman.

Keep in mind that Denver played without Ryan Clady, who is one of the best offensive linemen in football (possibly THE best). They also played without Von Miller (one of the best linebackers in football), their best defensive lineman (Derek Wolfe), their best cornerback (Chris Harris), and their best safety (Rahim Moore), who were all injured before the playoffs. As pointed out earlier, that's all part of football. I'm simply pointing out that while Seattle appeared to have more depth and overall talent than Denver, injuries played a big factor in that pereception. To be honest, I'm pretty impressed that the "next man up" stepped up for Denver in so many ways.

[JL21]

Coming into the Super Bowl, Football Outsiders had the Seahawks winning 58.3% of the time. They also had the Seahawks as the best team in the league by quite a large margin after opponent and weather adjustments. Denver was #2, SF #6.

[Freed Roger]

Sherman is not exhibiting any class in saying SF was their SB. But it was a bigger hurdle to winning it all.

How so?

Easy. San Francisco was a better team and tougher matchup than Denver, and it was a hindsight observation made by Sherman. Kind of lame by him to brag about it , but how can a 20/20 hindsight observation be disputed. NFL is more about doing it in the big games and having healthy players to do it. Much like Seattle had a boost from Percy Harvin, SF had Crabtree & Aldon Smith & Kaepernick in running mode (something they don't use so much in reg season. etc. ). SF vs SEA was a hell of a game.

Different than baseball where you have wealth of sample sizes and team that won 104 games. Really comparing apples and oranges with MLB and NFL. Maybe not. I do see Sherman being an ass, but an ass about things that are largely true.

[Socnorb11]

Sherman is not exhibiting any class in saying SF was their SB. But it was a bigger hurdle to winning it all.

How so?

Easy. San Francisco was a better team and tougher matchup than Denver, and it was a hindsight observation made by Sherman. Kind of lame by him to brag about it , but how can a 20/20 hindsight observation be disputed. NFL is more about doing it in the big games and having healthy players to do it. Much like Seattle had a boost from Percy Harvin, SF had Crabtree & Aldon Smith & Kaepernick in running mode (something they don't use so much in reg season. etc. ). SF vs SEA was a hell of a game.

Different than baseball where you have wealth of sample sizes and same team that won 104 games. Really comparing apples and oranges with MLB and NFL.

So it's safe to assume that Houston and Indianapolis were better teams and a tougher matchup for Seattle than either Denver or San Francisco?

[Freed Roger]

Sherman is not exhibiting any class in saying SF was their SB. But it was a bigger hurdle to winning it all.

How so?

Easy. San Francisco was a better team and tougher matchup than Denver, and it was a hindsight observation made by Sherman. Kind of lame by him to brag about it , but how can a 20/20 hindsight observation be disputed. NFL is more about doing it in the big games and having healthy players to do it. Much like Seattle had a boost from Percy Harvin, SF had Crabtree & Aldon Smith & Kaepernick in running mode (something they don't use so much in reg season. etc. ). SF vs SEA was a hell of a game.

Different than baseball where you have wealth of sample sizes and same team that won 104 games. Really comparing apples and oranges with MLB and NFL.

So it's safe to assume that Houston and Indianapolis were a tougher matchup for Seattle than either Denver or San Francisco?

What are you talking about? Seattle didn't play Houston or Indy in the NFC playoffs. They played SF which, which was clearly a tougher match up than the Denver team that was on the field that day. What's bold about this concept?

It's unfortunate that Denver didn't have some of the guys that enabled them to win all those games prior to the SB. But those guys that can't suit up, don't factor in the matchup.

[Socnorb11]

That's fine, Freed. Sherman stating that San Francisco was the second best team in the NFL (based on one game played against them) is nothing more than his opinion (and yours, apparently). It doesn't make it factual.

Sherman is a loudmouth, quite frankly.

[JL21]

To Socnorb's point, we always talk about baseball being a crapshoot and how even the best teams can get beat by the worst teams in a short series thanks to random variation. Well, football is even more like that. You're gauging teams based off of 16 game samples, plus a playoff game or two. [expletive], one of the cornerstones of NFL marketing revolves around that concept- "any given Sunday" and such.

[Socnorb11]

Really, even more than the whole "San Fran is better than Denver" statement that he made, it torques me a little that he, once again, is giving full credit to himself (or, in this case, Seattle's secondary). In reality, Seattle's front 7 is what gave Denver fits. I'll absolutely take my hat off to them............ but apparently Sherman won't.

The problem I have with Sherman is that it's alwasy about Sherman.

[Radbird]

Denver was #2, SF #6.

Sounds reasonable to me. What I thought was more interesting was Sherman's comment about figuring out Manning's signals and audibles.

[Freed Roger]

To Socnorb's point, we always talk about baseball being a crapshoot and how even the best teams can get beat by the worst teams in a short series thanks to random variation. Well, football is even more like that. You're gauging teams based off of 16 game samples, plus a playoff game or two. [expletive], one of the cornerstones of NFL marketing revolves around that concept- "any given Sunday" and such.

Oh, is that the point? I could agree that Broncos had 2d best season in the NFL this year -for whatever that is worth [insert talledagga nights quote here]

But I don't think Sherman is wrong, all he's did was claim the obvious - the SF matchup was the tougher game for them and thus a tougher matchup -how in the world, in retrospect, wasn't it?

Is Sherman's motive self-serving/to play up the notion that since he made big plays vs SF (their tougher matchup) therefore he's still the bestest? - perhaps.

You see players and pundits for all sports say versions of what Sherman was saying -that in retrospect, winning a prelim round was tougher and more pivotal than the finale.

It's all done, and next year these teams could will be completely different, Seattle may struggle to make the playoffs.