Could we have beaten these Broncos?

[mrt144]

This year? Probably not.

The 2013 Hawks? That would be a very close game

Or it might have been a turnover influenced horror fest where the variance was ramped up to 11. Speculation is fun like that.

 

[King Dog]

We got owned by the Rams. No way.

And the Broncos got beat by the Colts and the Raiders. What difference does any of that make?

The difference that it makes is that we got our ass handed to us by teams with a great pass rush. Imagine what the Broncos would do to our offensive line.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Yes. Without a doubt.

Had we managed to come back against the Panthers after sleeping in for the first half of the divisional game, we'd have rolled Arizona like they did. And after a two-week break, a late, prime time game, against that offense? Certainly.

Their defense was the absolute only thing that kept them in that game, let alone propelled them to the win. Yes, their defense is stellar, and most certainly deserved to be the MVP, but I think we're a much better match-up than Carolina was. That, and we wouldn't have given up right after halftime.

We've seen horrible plays like that strip sack leading to a Denver touchdown. The difference is, that doesn't phase Wilson in the slightest, especially not on the first series of the game. It did Newton, clearly. And that is a huge difference in a game like that.

We would have made Manning earn that last ring, and Carolina certainly did not. I didn't see anything last night that made me think he could have earned it himself, were he to have had to.

And I like our odds for next year now more than ever.

 

[Sports Hernia]

With a healthy Rawls and Graham, I think we do.

Without them? Very very difficult.

This, but we may be able to shut out their offense. It might come down to which defense scores the most points.

 

[bigskydoc]

We definitely would have had a better chance than the Kitties. It would have been a very good game. Whether we would have won or lost would have depended on which coaching staff showed up. I think we would have had a good chance if we spread the field and attacked with quick strikes on the outside. Nothing super long except the occasional splash, and nothing super short. Just quick 4-8 yards strikes that are in the air before Russ gets hit. If we fell back on our early season game plan, the Donks would have feasted on us.

-bsd

 

[HawkFan72]

You've got to be joking, if you think that D is as good as our 13 d. The stats prove I'm right, and the fact we shut down arguably the top O ever in the SB, backs me up also.

DVOA ranks them the same. That's the best way I can see to measure it since they played different opponents 2 years apart. The yearly stats don't mean much when you take that into account.

 

[onepicknick]

NO we would of lost worst then the Panthers for one the Panthers have a better D then ours. The short passes over the middle would of killed us remember the Defense won that game. For everybody saying well the second half we did better then the Panthers well they throttled back even the Defense did in that game.
I hope Pete listened to the announcers saying well when the Hawks beat Denver Elway decided he wanted a defense just like that and he had one just like the hawks of Superbowl 48.

I remember when the Panthers and the Hawks played it would be something if someone scored 20.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

We got owned by the Rams. No way.

A bit different matchup on the interior. The Donkos DT's are very stout against the run, but they have nobody in the interior that's nearly as disruptive as Aaron Donald. The Rams know our personnel 'matchups' way better as well. Pretty sure some of the quick-hitters to Lockett and Baldwin would have worked OK against the Donkos. Carolina didn't design any of that into their game plan. I also think Russ would have eventually found a couple of big plays. Some of those 'scrambles' Cam had looked really awkward...I heard 'The Price is Right' theme play a couple of times between looks downfield.

Not saying we would have won for sure, because our OL is worse than Carolina's. Much would depend upon how early in the game Russ starts getting mobile and creative. The more he does it, the more he's in his element with his baseball style during broken plays or during hurry up 'O.' Where the Donkos had the speed to catch Cam, there are many occasions where even a speedier front seven can't always solve Russ's elusiveness. The problem is our coaches are often too slow to adjust to the appropriate game plan. I could definitely see us falling short in the end, with Russ being hit hurried and sacked multiple times. I could also see us winning by a hair because of Manning's less-than-stellar-of-late play against Russ pulling a few Rabbits out of his hat. Don't forget that our D knows Manning better than Carolina does, and he's playing worse than he did in XLVIII.

 

[Largent80]

Carolinas o line had no problems with our pass rush, and they looked like kids vs. men against Denver. Couple that with our o line and i say no.

 

[Throwdown]

I think it'd go down to the wire. Like literally whoever made the first big play was going to win. That defense and their containment and pressure of Newton was wild. And while Newton isn't Russell, Russell has a quickness that Newton doesn't. I'm pretty sure we'd be able to employ some type of quick passing to remedy some of the trouble the pressure brought, did Carolina even try that?

The defense would probably be fine, their run game wouldn't get off the ground, and we'd literally dare manning to try us deep.

Yesterday's Broncos vs Seahawks would be pretty fun to watch.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

In the playoffs this year the Panthers played 3 very good defenses. By halftime against the first one they had dropped 31 point on 'em, and by halftime of the second one they dropped 24 points on 'em. Then they went up against Denver and just got manhandled.

Seattle's defense allowed 24 points, not 31, and was playing on skates for the first 20 minutes (at 10am, which impacts defensive effectiveness significantly). After Seattle had adjusted for body clock and found the right cleats to wear, the Panthers offense was mostly shut down, never crossing the 50 yard line in the final 2.5 quarters. I thought their early lead said a lot about the field conditions and early start and Kris Richard's soft zones. It did little to show that Cam Newton was unstoppable.

And besides that, Seattle's defense was not truly elite in my opinion last season, they padded their defensive numbers against bad offenses but struggled against good offenses. I honestly find it laughable that Seattle finished #1 in scoring D and #2 in yardage, which if anything is an indictment against using simple stats to evaluate defenses. I love the LOB, but they were several steps down from where they were from 2013-2014.

The Cardinals defense was pretty awful after they lost Matheiu. Both Wilson and Newton picked them apart, and Rodgers completed back to back hail mary's on it.

Really at no point this season did Newton impress me by beating a good defense that was playing their best. Seattle was hamstrung defensively in both their games against Carolina as was Arizona. And neither of those defenses, even at their best in 2015, would hold a candle to the 2015 Denver D. Which is why I correctly predicted Newton would get his ass kicked in the SB. He simply hasn't had success against an elite D firing on all cylinders before.

I don't know (and NONE of us truly know) how a Seahawks vs. Broncos SB would have turned out. Mere speculation. "That's why they play the games" is my comment. But, I think the fact that our knowledgeable fans can give due credit to the Broncos says a lot. I told a friend of mine (a Broncos fan) after the game about the general feel here, which was well-received, of course. Ya never know how the ball would bounce. Any Given Sunday.

But, it's certainly clear that Kearly dismantled Popeye's mostly disparaging "opinion" in a Wade Phillips-over-the-Panthers- (and those attention getting dabs) -manner. No PM's necessary here, Popeye. I think if you had your facts straight, your blanket statement assessment wouldn't have come acroass as more self-serving about a team you look to hate rather than to contribute to an otherwise honest thread discussion. unno:

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Yeah, Kearl's right that I forgot about the pick six.

In any case, that doesn't change my basic point very much at all: the Panthers were really in control throughout their playoff run and just got absolutely manhandled by the Broncos defense, which had done the same thing to Brady and the Pats offense two weeks before.

And OF COURSE you'd have to play the game as every team always has a chance to win, but if you're interested in an honest discussion as you claim I think it's pretty hard to call my take self-serving. The question was if the team that won the Super Bowl would have beaten a wild card team that got knocked out in the divisional round (and well, let's be honest, only made it out of the WC round on a blown chip shot).

The Hawks have a still young core in place and there's no reason why they shouldn't be one of the top teams in the NFL moving forward over the next three or four years (that's obvious), but if you think saying that the Hawks this year we're closer to somewhere between "good" and "great" rather than the "great" they were a year or two ago I don't think you actually want to have the honest conversation you claim to be asking for.

 

[brimsalabim]

The donks really rattled Cam and he never recovered. I think a big part of that was due to inexperiance in the big game. We have been there before twice and likely would have responded to the initial punch better.

 

[TAB420]

Broncos game plan against the Panthers was the same game plan they used in SB 48, stack the box to stop the run and force the QB to beat them, our's did just that. Are D outscoring their O didn't hurt any either.

 

[hoxrox]

Yeah they stacked the box and forced Cam to throw the ball and he couldn't. I like our chances with Russell.

 

[jammerhawk]

I'd be doubtful with our OLine.

 

[IndyHawk]

I'd be doubtful with our OLine.

I could care less about those who say we would have gotten beat, they love to use that Carolina game as some example. We lost one half due to silly turnovers that usually do not happen and I bet we don't see that in some time. When we go to the spread our OL does well enough, our defense showed it is good enough to beat anyone (later in season). I don't understand why a Bronco win is a given. Our spread is better than that Panther whatever offense, if you watched the game closely you saw how the pass opened the run for both teams but when they tried the other way it didn't work well. I like our odds had we gotten there when you factor in our experience, the D, RW, Wr's and Beast would likely have done better with more time to heal. We won't ever know that's true but I hope it bothers the players like it does to some of us knowing it was there for the taking because they were good enough but let it slip away.

 

[Grahamhawker]

All I can add is with this year's Hawks, Could and Would seemed to be vastly different things.

Could, yes.
Would, not betting the farm on it.

 

[Alexander]

I think people are overreacting to what happened. There's no question Denver's defense played an incredible game, and deserve to be applauded not just for a great Super Bowl, but a great season. You could easily make the argument that the 2015 Denver defense is comparable to the 2013 Seattle defense. I'm very impressed with the job Elway has done in completely transforming that team.

That said, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, Denver scored 7 points on defense, and it came early enough in the game that Carolina was playing catchup the whole time. Defensive scores are basically pure luck. Obviously, the more fumbles you force, the more chances you have, and Denver is one of the best at forcing fumbles. But once the ball is out, everything that follows is basically a function of random chance. Which leads to my next point: Denver had incredibly good fumble recovery luck. They recovered 5 out of 7 total fumbles in the game. If they had been similarly unlucky as Carolina and recovered only 2 out of 7, I think it's doubtful they win the game. If Carolina had scored on one of their turnovers, I think it's doubtful that Denver wins the game.

The difference in single-game VOA between the two teams was only 12% (DEN 9%, CAR -3%), which is very small for one game. So it's not like Denver put a beatdown on Carolina. Denver's DEFENSE put a beatdown on Carolina's OFFENSE, and even then they needed some luck and ace special teams play to overcome their own horrible offense. If you replayed the game 10 times, I think Carolina wins at least half the time. I think the pre-game spread was probably too large (people overrated the Panthers offense and didn't appreciate that the Denver defense would keep things tight), but it was right to favor Carolina.

As for the Hawks, I think they would've fared much better than Carolina. People point to the bad O-line as the reason why they would've gotten whipped, and certainly that would've been a mismatch in Denver's favor. But pass protection is not just a function of the O-line, it's also a function of the QB (getting rid of the ball on time), the WRs (getting open), and the coaches (scheming protection and designing plays that get the ball out quick). Carolina's offense was a very poor matchup for Denver's defense because they couldn't compensate for their weakness at OT by relying on a quick passing game, due to Cam's lack of accuracy and his receivers' general suckitude. When the Hawks were really struggling early this season, they too combined poor pass blocking with an ineffective short passing game, to predictably disastrous results. Once they figured out the quick passing game, the pass protection suddenly looked a lot better. Team's with all-world DTs like Aaron Donald could still stop them, but as good as Jackson/Wolfe are for Denver, they're not at Donald's level (or even Kawaan Short's level).

Plus, for all the superficial similarities between Cam and Russ (they're both black, mobile QBs who run a lot), there are some very big differences in their styles that I think would've made a difference. Whereas Cam mostly uses his mobility to present an extra rusher to the defense, which they then have to account for, Russ mostly uses his mobility to get outside the pocket and make big plays in the passing game. Teams can't rush the edge too aggressively against Wilson if they want to avoid getting killed by the sandlot plays. I think that aspect would've helped slow Denver's edge rush a bit. Plus, while Wilson tends to perform well under duress (relative to most QBs), Cam does not. Basically, the Hawks would've gone in with a worse OL, but a better QB, a MUCH better set of receivers, a comparable defense (Carolina's D was a bit better in total DVOA, while the Hawks D was better in weighted DVOA), and superior special teams.

So yeah, I think Seattle would've won. But they screwed up the beginning of the season, had to play back-to-back road games at 10 AM, and crapped the bed in the first half against Carolina, so we'll never really know

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

^^^ Yeah, Kearl's right that I forgot about the pick six.

In any case, that doesn't change my basic point very much at all: the Panthers were really in control throughout their playoff run and just got absolutely manhandled by the Broncos defense, which had done the same thing to Brady and the Pats offense two weeks before.

And OF COURSE you'd have to play the game as every team always has a chance to win, but if you're interested in an honest discussion as you claim I think it's pretty hard to call my take self-serving. The question was if the team that won the Super Bowl would have beaten a wild card team that got knocked out in the divisional round (and well, let's be honest, only made it out of the WC round on a blown chip shot).

The Hawks have a still young core in place and there's no reason why they shouldn't be one of the top teams in the NFL moving forward over the next three or four years (that's obvious), but if you think saying that the Hawks this year we're closer to somewhere between "good" and "great" rather than the "great" they were a year or two ago I don't think you actually want to have the honest conversation you claim to be asking for.

Thanks Popeye,

Don't get hung up on the use of the words "honest discussion." Note the context of how I used it. I'm not clamoring for it. It was a compliment to the fine folks of .net - that an honest discussion was already taking place. Honestly wondering about the Hawks facing that Defense, on yet another unacceptable playing surface I might add.

What I meant by self-serving was more simply that you're a 49er-lovin fan that can't resist taking a veiled jab at the Hawks when you could have given your opinion without doing so. "Great" teams don't always win the Super Bowl. Injuries happen, circumstances, etc. "Good", "Great" whatever. It's irrelevant, subjective - which is why you could have chosen to recognize that this thread was already honest (.net giving props to that Denver Defense) in discussing the chances the Hawks may have had.

The grit these Seahawks continually show in the face of adversity exemplifies a characteristic of a great team. A great team doesn't get beat often and when this team does lose it's not by double digits. A great team is one that every opponent knows is a force to be reckoned with as they prepare for a game. "Good" teams are not feared. Opponents know they're in for a battle when they play the Hawks. There's a healthy fear there because they know the capabilities of this Hawks team. I could go on and on.

Hope that clarifies.