GatewayRedbirds.com

jim wrote:If that game were played 1,000 times Seattle would have won it 1,001 times.

Obviously, if it were played the same way, it would end the same way. I think the theory is that Denver would obviously have to play better to win.

Arizona beat Seattle at Seattle, and Arizona wasn't even a playoff team. Indianapolis beat Seattle, and they're probably the 3rd best team in the AFC this year. Houston was so bad that they'll be picking first in the upcoming draft, but they took Seattle to overtime.

Seattle isn't invincible. It was just one of those days. Kinda like Red Sox / Cardinals 2004. The Red Sox weren't THAT much better than the Cardinals, in my opinion, but anybody (outside of St. Louis fans) who watched that series obviously felt like the Cardinals had no business being there. Not true.

If by played the same way you mean with the same teams, I agree that it would have ended the same way. When it was 8-0, it felt like it should have been 38-0. Sorry for your loss, but that was just an ass whipping of epic proportions.

jim wrote:If by played the same way you mean with the same teams, I agree that it would have ended the same way. When it was 8-0, it felt like it should have been 38-0. Sorry for your loss, but that was just an ass whipping of epic proportions.

As a Cardinals fan and a Broncos fan, 2014 felt very reminiscent of 2004. Everything just seemed to go perfectly for the other team, and horribly for my team both times......... and there was no reversing the momentum. In both of those cases, I wanted a mulligan.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/03/richard-s ... -seahawks/

“All we did was play situational football,” Sherman says. “We knew what route concepts they liked on different downs, so we jumped all the routes. Then we figured out the hand signals for a few of the route audibles in the first half.”

He demonstrates the signs Manning used for various routes, and says he and his teammates were calling out plays throughout the game and getting them right. “Me, Earl [Thomas], Kam [Chancellor]… we’re not just three All-Pro players. We’re three All-Pro minds,” Sherman says. “Now, if Peyton had thrown in some double moves, if he had gone out of character, we could’ve been exposed.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... uper-bowl/

“The NFC Championship was the Super Bowl. The 49ers were the second-best team in the NFL,” Sherman said, via Robert Klemko of TheMMQB.com.

Radbird wrote:http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/03/richard-s ... -seahawks/

“All we did was play situational football,” Sherman says. “We knew what route concepts they liked on different downs, so we jumped all the routes. Then we figured out the hand signals for a few of the route audibles in the first half.”

He demonstrates the signs Manning used for various routes, and says he and his teammates were calling out plays throughout the game and getting them right. “Me, Earl [Thomas], Kam [Chancellor]… we’re not just three All-Pro players. We’re three All-Pro minds,” Sherman says. “Now, if Peyton had thrown in some double moves, if he had gone out of character, we could’ve been exposed.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... uper-bowl/

“The NFC Championship was the Super Bowl. The 49ers were the second-best team in the NFL,” Sherman said, via Robert Klemko of TheMMQB.com.

I don't see anything controversial said there.

Freed Roger wrote:

Radbird wrote:http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/03/richard-s ... -seahawks/

“All we did was play situational football,” Sherman says. “We knew what route concepts they liked on different downs, so we jumped all the routes. Then we figured out the hand signals for a few of the route audibles in the first half.”

He demonstrates the signs Manning used for various routes, and says he and his teammates were calling out plays throughout the game and getting them right. “Me, Earl [Thomas], Kam [Chancellor]… we’re not just three All-Pro players. We’re three All-Pro minds,” Sherman says. “Now, if Peyton had thrown in some double moves, if he had gone out of character, we could’ve been exposed.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... uper-bowl/

“The NFC Championship was the Super Bowl. The 49ers were the second-best team in the NFL,” Sherman said, via Robert Klemko of TheMMQB.com.

I don't see anything controversial said there.

Yup. The truth hurts sometimes.

Denver punted twice the entire game.

Peyton made one horrible throw to an open receiver, which got intercepted. His arm was hit on another throw to an open receiver, and it got intercepted. Outside of that, he completed 34 or 47 passes for 280 yards. That's not bad. Two other times, Denver fumbled to end long drives.

The secondary didn't do anything special. The front 7 for Seattle got good pressure on Manning. If anything, give them the credit (but that would be SO unlike Sherman).



I assume you guys believe that Boston beating New York in 2004 was the "real World Series"?



Again, Indianapolis (AFC) handled Seattle, and Indy was probably the 3rd or 4th best team in the AFC. Houston (AFC) took Seattle to overtime, and they were probably the worst team in football. Seattle had to rally late to beat the Titans (AFC), who weren't close to making the playoffs in the AFC. Meanwhile, Denver averaged almost 50 points per game while steamrolling their 4 NFC opponents. Saying that the 49ers were their "Super Bowl" after the Super Bowl is over is just more of Sherman acting like a dumbass.

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.

Socnorb11 wrote:Denver punted twice the entire game.

Peyton made one horrible throw to an open receiver, which got intercepted. His arm was hit on another throw to an open receiver, and it got intercepted. Outside of that, he completed 34 or 47 passes for 280 yards. That's not bad. Two other times, Denver fumbled to end long drives.

The secondary didn't do anything special. The front 7 for Seattle got good pressure on Manning. If anything, give them the credit (but that would be SO unlike Sherman).

I assume you guys believe that Boston beating New York in 2004 was the "real World Series"?

Again, Indianapolis (AFC) handled Seattle, and Indy was probably the 3rd or 4th best team in the AFC. Houston (AFC) took Seattle to overtime, and they were probably the worst team in football. Seattle had to rally late to beat the Titans (AFC), who weren't close to making the playoffs in the AFC. Meanwhile, Denver averaged almost 50 points per game while steamrolling their 4 NFC opponents. Saying that the 49ers were their "Super Bowl" after the Super Bowl is over is just more of Sherman acting like a dumbass.

The score tells the tale, not # of punts. If any lesser stat is telling - Manning threw 47 times and only had 280 yds to show
for it (and this includes some garbage time).
Agreed - the Seattle defensive line came up big, and factored more than Sherman.
The pick 6 on which manning was hit was a still a poor decision by Manning. the pocket was clearly gone and the guy was in Manning's face. That play is not all on Manning, but clearly, no attempt should have been made there - even if he weren't hit, it was a blind and altered toss. That play practically sealed the game.

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

That who beat who stuff -doesn't really work in NFL. Rams beat Indy handily too ( and a game Indy needed at the time).

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

How so?

That's like saying that the Yankees were a bigger hurdle for the Red Sox than the Cardinals were in 2004. I just don't agree with that. You're using minute samlpe sizes to make bold declarations.