Bronco Meltdown Post Mortem

good points, and I'll only quibble with one item: I listen to a lot of Las Vegas sports books directors, and the Wynn and LVH didn't even want 'even' money. Books are not afraid to take a side, and at least some books had no problem taking more Denver money. If they wanted to 'even' it, they would have moved the spread to Denver -3 - but they didn't.

 

There was one guy at NFL.com who predicted Seahawks 38-12. I will accept his gloating.

Everyone else can get bent if they even pretend they envisioned that.

 

Broncos D did not help. Even though both drives ended up in field goals they let Seattle
run of drives of 11 and 13 plays. 26 of Seattle's 55 offensive plays were in 1 qtr.

Game also highlighted importance of field position starting with poor decision of Holliday
on opening kickoff, leaving Bronco O starting on14. Also bad punt by Colquit in 2nd series
letting Seattle start on 35 instead of inside 20.

 

I don't think that Seattle necessarily had to play an absolutely perfect game to beat Denver. The fact that the Seahawks DID play a perfect game is what made the score so out of hand. I felt the same way when the Broncos scored as I do when a no-hitter gets broken up after the seventh inning.

 

Before they scored, I was wondering if the Broncos would go for it on a long fourth down or just take the FG to end the shutout. Would have been a very interesting call.

As it was, they did provide square-pool drama by scoring (and getting the two) on the last play of the third quarter.

 

I don't see where this game taints Manning's legacy, in that the breakdown by every Bronco was so complete, I'm not sure Manning at his best could make much of a difference. Of course, he wasn't at his best. With his receivers not able to get separation, it became that much more apparent that his arm doesn't have the zip it used to. Being 37 and coming off of neck surgery (when he couldn't throw a ball 10 yards at any speed) will do that to you.

 

You do realize Seattle played two of those three, right? Plus teams like Tampa Bay, Atlanta and the Giants?

 

I think it taints his legacy. Is that fair? I don't know...

It's not like it's going to cost him the HOF, but you're not going to be hearing Manning GOAT references again anytime soon.

 

Agree completely with this. I posted something to that effect while the game was going on, that while Manning wasn't very good, this wasn't entirely his fault. As you said, all of the Broncos played like crap.

More than that, the Seahawks played the game of their lives. That defensive effort -- hell, the total effort -- was on the same level as Villanova shooting 78 percent against Georgetown in 1985. It was a very good, championship-caliber team playing at its absolute peak when it mattered most. I'm not sure this year's Seahawks are among the greatest teams of all time, but for four hours on Sunday they certainly were. The way they played in that game, they could probably beat most of them. Denver would've had to play an equally perfect game to have any chance, and obviously they did not.

 

Batman-
Seattle also played San Francisco three times, a very good Arizona team twice and Rams squad better than people think.
At the end of the day, Brady's teams never crapped their pants like this, in the biggest game of the year.

 

But that beatdown wasn't worse. Halftime score, third-quarter score, final score were all substantially closer, as was the entire tenor of the game. (The Raiders actually led briefly, and it was tied after the first quarter.)