Could we have beaten these Broncos?

[hawkfan68]

Denver's front seven would have crushed the Seahawk OL. The biggest weakness of the team is right there. Strength of Denver's defense is the front seven. RW would have been sacked about 10-12 times behind that pathetic sieve of OL. Let's be a little realistic here...I'm a Seahawk fan but that OL wouldn't have held up against the Bronco pass rush. They looked bad against teams with a lesser front seven.

 

[DavidSeven]

Never bet against an elite pass rush in a championship game. We've learned that lesson. I literally bet against Carolina for that reason alone (okay, that plus DEN's DBs over-matching CAR's receivers), even though CAR's OL was a strength.

DEN vs. SEA? You're talking about the #1 pass rush vs. 30th/31st OL? If our OL wasn't dead last, it was close.

Russell and our defense would've found some magic somewhere, but damn, that would've been an ugly game. The one advantage we'd have is we don't crumble quite as feabily as CAR.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

We might have beat them if we had Graham and Rawls but even then it is no guarantee with that pass rush and our ridiculous OL. At least Wilson would lose with class unlike Newton if that was the outcome. It'd have been close in any case because Wilson is nails and Newton is a fig.

 

[chris98251]

Carolina's defense is not slouch, we corrected and gave them all they could handle, Denver would have given us problems but, if Bevell doesn't wait a half to fix stuff we could create match up issues and Russell gets the ball out and reads faster then Cam and his rolling out and escape artist aspect would not let Denver go all in like they did against Cam every play.

 

[Seafan]

Depends on which version of Wilson/Bevell showed up.

 

[themunn]

Plays were there to be made against the Broncos - Newton has the same problem Kaepernick has - he throws the ball too hard and turns makeable catches into receiver "drops".

Denver's monster pass-rush might have caused us problems, but without any deep threat our defense would have held the Broncos to less than 10 no problem.

 

[Ozzy]

Could we have beaten them? Of course we could of beaten them. Would we have beaten them? I think if we play them 10 times we win 6-7 out of the 10. Carolina killed themselves with turnovers and Cam not being the most accurate QB struggled with the short routes that were given to him because of the pass rush. I think Wilson would of played much better under those circumstances and not allowed the moment to overwhelm him being in a SB since he has been there before. It wouldn't of been easy and we probably don't drop 30 but I think Wilson makes a couple more plays and finds a way to win.

 

[Popeyejones]

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.

Gotcha :th2thumbs:

Just two things:

1) I brought up the Hawks because the Hawks are half of the question and it's impossible to answer it without discussing them. To talk about the Broncos I talked about what the Broncos had done in the playoffs, what the Panthers had done in the playoffs (they played the Hawks), and what the Broncos did to the Panthers. To talk about what hypothetically might have happened if the hawks made it through the divisional round and made it through the championship round and played the Broncos it's simply impossible to not talk about the Hawks. There's no way to answer the question without addressing half of it.

2) In this thread I said the Hawks are clearly well set up moving forward, but this year they were a wild card team that didn't look particularly good in the playoffs and got knocked out in the divisional round. I said that this year the Hawks were better than "good" but not quite "great." If you seriously believe that's a "thinly veiled jab" I simply don't know what to tell you. (I'd explain why I think they were better than "good" but not "great" but that probably won't get us anywhere, and it's off-topic).

 

[lobohawk]

Definitely better than Carolina did. Probably down to the last drive and would require no early turnovers like the Hawks had against Carolina.

I think the onus would have been on Bevell to properly game plan in those two weeks for the given pressure that would have been applied. Even with OL issues, I think the Hawks were better positioned in passing game than Carolina, primarily due to Russell and the Hawk receivers.

 

[ZagHawk]

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

Cam's O-Line was significantly better than the Hawks and they got worked. RW would have been on his back the entire game. He may have protected the ball better, but lets not kid ourselves on just how bad the Seahawks O-Line has been this year against good defenses.

 

[PackerNation]

Honestly, no. I think Denver wins this time around. They didn't limp into the SB, they came with almost everyone relatively healthy and Von Miller who is a flat out game changer.

I wanted Seattle to make it to see a rematch, of course, if Green Bay was out of the running. I think it might have been a better game. Seattle would have had experience with a 3rd trip in just as many years.

But I think Denver sneaks out a tight game. Certainly would have ben better than watching Cam choke all game. Wilson is a better QB.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

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.

Gotcha :th2thumbs:

Just two things:

1) I brought up the Hawks because the Hawks are half of the question and it's impossible to answer it without discussing them. To talk about the Broncos I talked about what the Broncos had done in the playoffs, what the Panthers had done in the playoffs (they played the Hawks), and what the Broncos did to the Panthers. To talk about what hypothetically might have happened if the hawks made it through the divisional round and made it through the championship round and played the Broncos it's simply impossible to not talk about the Hawks. There's no way to answer the question without addressing half of it.

2) In this thread I said the Hawks are clearly well set up moving forward, but this year they were a wild card team that didn't look particularly good in the playoffs and got knocked out in the divisional round. I said that this year the Hawks were better than "good" but not quite "great." If you seriously believe that's a "thinly veiled jab" I simply don't know what to tell you. (I'd explain why I think they were better than "good" but not "great" but that probably won't get us anywhere, and it's off-topic).

Not to worry, I'm not offended by your jab. I expect it. I don't think you need to hide from it. It's typical and even expected in the friendly banter between opposing team's fans.

I think the only other thing about the whole assessment is that while the Hawks record might suggest they were not that close to a home game or making the playoff path a bit more favorable... they really were. They had a couple of bad plays that impacted games that really cost them playoff positioning as well as gave other teams more favorable. That's always going to happen. But, since you keep pointing to the positioning as being the determining factor about how good of a team they were, keep that in mind. My overall take it there's really very little difference at all between teams that get the great label simply because of record and playoff seeding. Chew on that awhile.

 

[rcaido]

Yes!

Overall we had the best talent all around. Although our defense was not consistent this year, its enough to shutdown Manningless offense. He did everything possible to keep Carolina in the game.

Our offensive line would have struggled but Wilson doesn't crumble like Fig Newton under pressure.

 

[bandiger]

I think this team would have done better, mainly Wilson is use to a porous O-line while Cam had it experience it for the second time in the season. Falcons/Broncos were the only ones to bring that type of pressure to Cam.

 

[Hawks46]

It's a close game that I would probably have us winning 6/10 times. Maybe 50/50. Our offense is miles better than Denver's, while Denver's defense is better than ours, but not by a ton.

People are saying that Denver's pass rush would annihilate our OL and at times it would. Thing is, I think we run on their DL better than we could on Carolina's.

Football is a game of individual matchups. Denver matched up perfectly on Carolina's offense, while the reverse was mostly true as well. The Panthers are strong up the middle, but their Tackles are weak. Denver's main strength is their edge rush. Newton had no time to throw, and he's not great in those situations.

Pressure up the middle is what has doomed us all year. Our Tackles are better than Carolina's. I'm not saying Gilliam stones Miller, but he does a sight better than the Panthers' RT, and GIlliam is athletic enough to force Miller out a bit wider. Wilson only needs a few opportunities to make some big plays, and he's used to avoiding the rush with our poor OL. How many times have we seen a crappy and inconsistent game from our offense, but Wilson makes a few impact plays and it's the difference? Newton was kept clean for most of the year and wasn't used to it.

On the other side, Okung has played well against Ware, going back to Ware's Cowboys days when he was younger. I don't think he gets owned nearly as bad as the Panthers' LT.

Lastly, I think our WR's are going to play better than Carolina's did. Baldwin has had good games against Talib and has really upped his game this year. Lockett on the other side also is a bit of a mismatch. I like Harris and he's a good CB, but Lockett moved into the slot is a mismatch on most CB's right now. I'm not saying our WR's dominate, especially with limited time against that pass rush, but they'll do better than Carolina's, and Talib has shown a bit of a weakness to quicker WR's like Baldwin and Lockett.

The short of it is, if we played our best game and Denver played their best game, our talent on offense is so much better that I see the difference there. The Panthers basically shut the Broncos offense down, and I'd see us doing the same thing.

 

[Alexander]

It's a close game that I would probably have us winning 6/10 times. Maybe 50/50. Our offense is miles better than Denver's, while Denver's defense is better than ours, but not by a ton.

People are saying that Denver's pass rush would annihilate our OL and at times it would. Thing is, I think we run on their DL better than we could on Carolina's.

Football is a game of individual matchups. Denver matched up perfectly on Carolina's offense, while the reverse was mostly true as well. The Panthers are strong up the middle, but their Tackles are weak. Denver's main strength is their edge rush. Newton had no time to throw, and he's not great in those situations.

Pressure up the middle is what has doomed us all year. Our Tackles are better than Carolina's. I'm not saying Gilliam stones Miller, but he does a sight better than the Panthers' RT, and GIlliam is athletic enough to force Miller out a bit wider. Wilson only needs a few opportunities to make some big plays, and he's used to avoiding the rush with our poor OL. How many times have we seen a crappy and inconsistent game from our offense, but Wilson makes a few impact plays and it's the difference? Newton was kept clean for most of the year and wasn't used to it.

On the other side, Okung has played well against Ware, going back to Ware's Cowboys days when he was younger. I don't think he gets owned nearly as bad as the Panthers' LT.

Lastly, I think our WR's are going to play better than Carolina's did. Baldwin has had good games against Talib and has really upped his game this year. Lockett on the other side also is a bit of a mismatch. I like Harris and he's a good CB, but Lockett moved into the slot is a mismatch on most CB's right now. I'm not saying our WR's dominate, especially with limited time against that pass rush, but they'll do better than Carolina's, and Talib has shown a bit of a weakness to quicker WR's like Baldwin and Lockett.

The short of it is, if we played our best game and Denver played their best game, our talent on offense is so much better that I see the difference there. The Panthers basically shut the Broncos offense down, and I'd see us doing the same thing.

That's basically my take, as well, except I lean closer to 6/10 rather than an even 50-50. I don't think our offense would do a whole lot against that defense, and at times it would be ugly, but you wouldn't need much to eek out a win. You'd just have to avoid a complete disaster, and I think they would have.

 

[drdiags]

Well the Broncos are the new measuring stick as SB Champions. With a barely functional running game with a gimpy Lynch and some backups I don't think the Seahawks win. I thought Okung was hurt so not sure he plays in the SB and his backup is going to be toast against Ware.

It would have been an interesting game but I think it is a difficult one. Denver's offense would have been the unknown. Seattle's defense you figure could hold Denver to under 20. Denver punched around the Seahawks offense in the preseason, so if history would have repeated itself, you would think Denver does it again in the SB. Just like the Seahawks got Elway's dander up after the pre-season shellacking the Broncos got up here in '13.

Cardinals, Packers, Vikings and Skins fans are asking the same thing. Panthers were the best the NFC could offer and they picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

 

[Rob12]

Denver's pass rush is absolutely insane. I don't think people realize how good they really were. They applied pressure on Newton all day, and gave him happy feet. I didn't see the Seahawks applying anywhere near that same pressure.

Denver's pass rush against our offensive line would have been bad news.

With that said, I give the Seahawks a 50/50 shot, like some already have here. If they played 10 times, I'd bet the Seahawks win five of them. But I don't see any of the games being all that pretty.

The answer to the question is yes, but on that day, not likely. Denver wanted it... Von Miller was an a man amongst boys and I get shivers thinking of what he would have done to our line.

 

[fire_marshall_bill]

They are definitely beatable. Someone on KJR was saying that Kam's holdout cost the team two wins. I'd say more like one, but 10-6 seems like a skewed record. It was a weird year for sure. The Hawks could have still beaten any team though.

 

[Mtjhoyas]

I'm with Kearly on this....

I think Seattle would have lost a close game. Denver's defense was truly Elite. Seattle's defense, while good, was by no means elite. I'm rehashing some similar points, but they really did struggle against good offenses. From a statistical standpoint, those struggles were masked by dominating some really poor offenses (which to their credit, still means something).

It's a stupid analogy, but I equate it to the kid who hits .400 in high school baseball, but was 0-15 against the top pitchers in the league. Sure, he's a good hitter because he he hit 400, but you can't say he was elite as he couldn't hit good pitching.