We Are STILL In Disbelief And Denial In Bronco Country

[billio155]

Bronco maniac, I'm glad you posted on our site. You seem to be licking your wounds and wondering what the future holds for your team. Here is the way I see it, before the Super Bowl I thought the Hawks would bunch the Broncos in the mouth-hard-and I didn't see the Broncos responding. And here is why, your entire 53 man roster and fan base thought you only needed one man to win the game. The "We have Peyton!" cry was heard on the sidelines as well as the message boards and editorials leading up to the big game. But what happens when Peyton struggles? Who is going to pick up slack? Who is going to make a play? The answer to the question is nobody. 52 players sat on their hands and did nothing. It was an epic failure by the Bronocs, but the real question is why? Why did this happen? The bottom line is this: Peyton Manning is an incredible Qb, leader, and role model; however, he sucks all the air out of the locker room. The entire coaching staff and active roster are subservant to Peyton Manning wishes. If Peyton wants to run the two minute drill longer, well then, it will run longer. If Peyton wants the defense to to play a certain zone coverage so he can practice against that coverage, then the defense will run that zone coverage. If a Wr drops a ball or runs a route incorrectly, it's Peyton Manning getting on the player and not the coaching staff. I could go on and on, the bottom line is the Broncos will never form into a true team as long as Manning is in your locker room, his shadow is so massive, it leaves a leadership void for both players and coaches alike. That sounds absurd, but it's true.

 

[HawkFan72]

I would say that Seattle was probably the worst matcup that the Broncos could have faced.

Which is exactly why I was rooting so hard for Denver to make it to the Super Bowl.

I did not want to face the Patriots. Giving Tom Brady a chance to get payback for the "You Mad Bro" stuff, a tougher New England Team used to cold weather (at the time we thought the Super Bowl was going to be cold), and an East Coast team who would draw lots of fans in the crowd.

I knew the Broncos would be the best matchup for us and I was relieved when I saw we would be playing them. Their schedule was cake, their D is soft, and their offense is finesse. And the weather was supposed to be cold. The Seahawks were a nightmare matchup for them.

 

[MVP53]

A few points, Denver has STILL won 28 games the last 2 years. So, I don't think they need to blow anything up, "commit to the power run game", "get a more mobile QB" or change their entire scheme. They are committed to what they are doing, and should remain committed to it for the next couple years until Peyton retires. Let's not forget, they were one botched play away from possibly winning a SB last year, and, as many others have noted, could have fared much better against SF this year.

A couple bad playoff games doesn't mean you blow it up & start from scratch, and in the NFL, I don't think you can try to build your team to specifically compete against 1 other team.

All that said, I was specifically struck by how bad Denver's OL was in the SB. I like our pass rushers, but Avril, Clemons & Bennett were able to just basically bull rush and push the OL back 3 yards on a number of occasions. Admittedly, I did not watch a ton of Denver football this year, so I don't know if they just had a lousy game, or if there are problems that run deeper than that. I would think the "best offense of all time" would have a better OL than what I saw SB Sunday.

 

[v1rotv2]

Disregard everything that's been said here. Keep things just the way they are, it will work out. See ya next season.

 

[NINEster]

Bronco maniac, I'm glad you posted on our site. You seem to be licking your wounds and wondering what the future holds for your team. Here is the way I see it, before the Super Bowl I thought the Hawks would bunch the Broncos in the mouth-hard-and I didn't see the Broncos responding. And here is why, your entire 53 man roster and fan base thought you only needed one man to win the game. The "We have Peyton!" cry was heard on the sidelines as well as the message boards and editorials leading up to the big game. But what happens when Peyton struggles? Who is going to pick up slack? Who is going to make a play? The answer to the question is nobody. 52 players sat on their hands and did nothing. It was an epic failure by the Bronocs, but the real question is why? Why did this happen? The bottom line is this: Peyton Manning is an incredible Qb, leader, and role model; however, he sucks all the air out of the locker room. The entire coaching staff and active roster are subservant to Peyton Manning wishes. If Peyton wants to run the two minute drill longer, well then, it will run longer. If Peyton wants the defense to to play a certain zone coverage so he can practice against that coverage, then the defense will run that zone coverage. If a Wr drops a ball or runs a route incorrectly, it's Peyton Manning getting on the player and not the coaching staff. I could go on and on, the bottom line is the Broncos will never form into a true team as long as Manning is in your locker room, his shadow is so massive, it leaves a leadership void for both players and coaches alike. That sounds absurd, but it's true.

This may be the most enlightened observation on the kryptonite of a Peyton Manning team I've ever read. Nice!!!

 

[Hasselbeck]

Get a quarterback with the ability to throw the deep pass? Or how about use a double move? Seriously you guys need to get physical and get a run game and actually tell Peyton to STFU.

This is a really terrible take. :lol:

There's one team in the league that had the secondary capable of stopping Peyton Manning ... that happens to be the World Champions.

Their offense would have been just as good as it was all year against any other team in the NFC. No question in my mind. Where their issues would have been would have been on the defensive side of the ball. They would have a lot of trouble slowing down most of the NFC offenses.. but the game would have been a lot closer.

Denver's worst possible matchup in the playoffs was a game against Seattle though. And thats why the game was a 35 point blowout. San Francisco's defense is physical yes, but they don't have anywhere near the secondary Seattle has. I truly believe had SF won the NFC Championship, the Super Bowl would have been almost a carbon copy of Super Bowl 47 where it was a shootout.

But yeah.. Peyton Manning is not the problem in Denver. Just stop with that right now. Without Peyton that is a fringe .500 team.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Broncos fans would be in a lot less shock if they didn't wear such ridiculous homer glasses through the regular season.

 

[onanygivensunday]

Watching what Denver does in FA and the draft this year will show us how Elway plans to change the makeup of the team.

Will he stay with the "we can simply outscore every team" philosophy and go for more offensive weapons?... or does he bolster the back seven of the defense getting bigger/stronger/faster?

I believe that he will go in the latter direction.

That's what I would do.

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

Donkey fans used to laugh at Colts legend Manning when he shit himself in the playoffs. This is nothing new. Now you are paying the giant foreheaded goof so much money that you can't afford to toughen up, except through the draft and by then the Colt great will be retired.

DON'T YOU EVER TALK ABOUT THE SEAHAWKS! LOB!

 

[volsunghawk]

But yeah.. Peyton Manning is not the problem in Denver. Just stop with that right now. Without Peyton that is a fringe .500 team.

Manning is and isn't the problem at the same time, imo.

The thing is that Manning's work ethic and talent are almost unparalleled in the NFL. He's going to rightfully go down in the conversation for greatest QB of all time. The problem is with how teams have been built around that talent. It makes sense to build a high-powered offense that takes advantage of Manning's accuracy and timing. It makes sense to build a defense that invests heavily in the pass rush because the opponent will often be playing from behind due to Manning's usual brilliance. And it makes sense to pay Manning commensurate with what the top QBs in the league deserve. The Colts did this, and the Broncos - to a significant degree - have done this. And that's a big part of why Manning's teams have consistently won double-digit games in the seasons he has started except 2 seasons (rookie year and 2001) out of 15 years. That's just ludicrous excellence and consistency.

But the problem with that approach - however sensible - is that it leads other parts of the team to suffer either through scheme or not having the money to pay them. The LB corps usually suffers, and Indy would regularly jettison decent LBs instead of rewarding them with bigger deals. The secondary suffers due to the money spent on the pass rushers. The run game suffers.

Now, when Manning is on his game, those other parts being neglected to some degree usually don't matter. They function as supporting parts and don't need to carry the load in any way, really. But the problem for the Broncos - and for all of Manning's teams historically - is that the postseason usually sees the quality of opponents increase. The teams Manning faces are more balanced and have better defenses. And Manning is like any other QB in that an elite defense can fluster him and get him off his game. The chances of facing a good, great, or elite defense in the postseason is much higher than in the regular season (heh, unless you play in the NFC West).

So, what happens to our Seahawks when Russell Wilson has an off game? The run game picks up the load. The defense clamps down. We win more often than not. What happens to the Broncos (and previously the Colts) when Manning has an off game? Everything falls apart because everything is BASED on Manning. If you're a Manning critic/hater, you'll probably chalk that up to Manning being Manning. Me, I think that might be part of it, but I chalk it up more to the Broncos and Colts doing what most teams would do if they had a guy like Manning... build around him. They just failed to put better pieces around him that could compensate for when he's not on his game. Bill Polian was terrible at drafting solid depth while in Indy, and Denver has struggled to build a run game that could be the focal point of the offense or enough defensive depth to account for injuries and matchups.

 

[Kaiser]

Ditch manning and built an offense built aroud the players, not just one of them. Manning is like the death star, terrifying for a defense but if you throw one wrench in the exaust port and screw up his timing, its over. Stationary QB's are wormfood against seattle.

Your defense is living in the past. Height is in for receivers and TEs, and has been for years. Pete was the first to do anything about it, and there is now zero fear against guys like boldin and graham for us. Denvers secondary is small AND slow. The LBs need 1 more solid player and theyll be fine.

#1 though as others have said, is competition. I hate the 49ers, but god damn it do i respect what they can do. Thats just one example of a hard nosed team that steeled the hawks for the superbowl. When you got beat by the f***ing chargers, i knew seattle could win that matchup if it happened. The AFC looks more liKe the AFL with its original stereotypes intact.

 

[onanygivensunday]

Broncos fans would be in a lot less shock if they didn't wear such ridiculous homer glasses through the regular season.

Totally agree... but who can actually blame them?

For the most part, their passing game was unstoppable and essentially no other team could pressure Manning and their receivers enough to impede their offense from systematically marching down the field drive after drive... after drive. They were a scoring machine... and nobody could stop it... so why should they think that Seattle could be the lone exception?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

The OL issues were exaberated with the Clady injury.

 

[DrDix]

If people think all it takes is personnel change, then think again.

Watch the full Sound FX of SB48. There is two huge differences: the culture, and the intensity.


You heard it from Russ, from everyone all year. They go all out at practice. The intensity and speed the Seahawks play at is unmatched. Denver, like KJ said, would lose 90/100 times. You cannot simulate the intensity.

The different football cultures shown in Sound FX is astonishing. The Seahawks are a TEAM. Denver was exposed for NOT being a team. It's so clear.

 

[Hawks46]

In my earlier post, I had the Niners beating the Broncos by 17 in a higher scoring game, but that was a lazy post. Our teams are so evenly matched, it was lazy analysis to speculate the Niners beat the Broncos easy( I still think they do, but not as easily).

Here's the question: how do we think Arizona matches up with them ? Not to hijack the thread, but AZ's secondary is better than the Niners and I honestly think their defense is more physical across the board. The Niners have the better offense though, but with Fitz and co. at WR, they have a better WR corps. Does Palmer slice up the Broncos' weak secondary ?

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

In my earlier post, I had the Niners beating the Broncos by 17 in a higher scoring game, but that was a lazy post. Our teams are so evenly matched, it was lazy analysis to speculate the Niners beat the Broncos easy( I still think they do, but not as easily).

Here's the question: how do we think Arizona matches up with them ? Not to hijack the thread, but AZ's secondary is better than the Niners and I honestly think their defense is more physical across the board. The Niners have the better offense though, but with Fitz and co. at WR, they have a better WR corps. Does Palmer slice up the Broncos' weak secondary ?

I think AZ has a real good shot at beating them. Their D is similar to ours though of course not as strong in the back end. But they can and likely will apply plenty of pressure on Peyton and he has never done well with pressure in his face (like most pocket QBs).

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

But yeah.. Peyton Manning is not the problem in Denver. Just stop with that right now. Without Peyton that is a fringe .500 team.

Manning is and isn't the problem at the same time, imo.

The thing is that Manning's work ethic and talent are almost unparalleled in the NFL. He's going to rightfully go down in the conversation for greatest QB of all time. The problem is with how teams have been built around that talent. It makes sense to build a high-powered offense that takes advantage of Manning's accuracy and timing. It makes sense to build a defense that invests heavily in the pass rush because the opponent will often be playing from behind due to Manning's usual brilliance. And it makes sense to pay Manning commensurate with what the top QBs in the league deserve. The Colts did this, and the Broncos - to a significant degree - have done this. And that's a big part of why Manning's teams have consistently won double-digit games in the seasons he has started except 2 seasons (rookie year and 2001) out of 15 years. That's just ludicrous excellence and consistency.

But the problem with that approach - however sensible - is that it leads other parts of the team to suffer either through scheme or not having the money to pay them. The LB corps usually suffers, and Indy would regularly jettison decent LBs instead of rewarding them with bigger deals. The secondary suffers due to the money spent on the pass rushers. The run game suffers.

Now, when Manning is on his game, those other parts being neglected to some degree usually don't matter. They function as supporting parts and don't need to carry the load in any way, really. But the problem for the Broncos - and for all of Manning's teams historically - is that the postseason usually sees the quality of opponents increase. The teams Manning faces are more balanced and have better defenses. And Manning is like any other QB in that an elite defense can fluster him and get him off his game. The chances of facing a good, great, or elite defense in the postseason is much higher than in the regular season (heh, unless you play in the NFC West).

So, what happens to our Seahawks when Russell Wilson has an off game? The run game picks up the load. The defense clamps down. We win more often than not. What happens to the Broncos (and previously the Colts) when Manning has an off game? Everything falls apart because everything is BASED on Manning. If you're a Manning critic/hater, you'll probably chalk that up to Manning being Manning. Me, I think that might be part of it, but I chalk it up more to the Broncos and Colts doing what most teams would do if they had a guy like Manning... build around him. They just failed to put better pieces around him that could compensate for when he's not on his game. Bill Polian was terrible at drafting solid depth while in Indy, and Denver has struggled to build a run game that could be the focal point of the offense or enough defensive depth to account for injuries and matchups.

This sums the whole question up very well. Excellent post Volsung. A team will nearly always beat an individual and Peyton's "teams" really aren't most of the time. Also, physical teams usually beat "soft" teams and the Donks aren't physical. IMO Seattle won that game on the Kam hit on Dermaryius on like Denver's third offensive snap. Didn't really see it at the time, but on re-watching you can see the body language of the Donkeys just turn to "crestfallen" after that hit.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

In my earlier post, I had the Niners beating the Broncos by 17 in a higher scoring game, but that was a lazy post. Our teams are so evenly matched, it was lazy analysis to speculate the Niners beat the Broncos easy( I still think they do, but not as easily).

Here's the question: how do we think Arizona matches up with them ? Not to hijack the thread, but AZ's secondary is better than the Niners and I honestly think their defense is more physical across the board. The Niners have the better offense though, but with Fitz and co. at WR, they have a better WR corps. Does Palmer slice up the Broncos' weak secondary ?

If Palmer doesn't throw interceptions I believe Arizona wins by 10-14 points their pass rush is as good or better than ours and you get Fitzgerald against that secondary. Arizona wins.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Hi Seahawk fans once again.....

Your lambasting us and disgracing us in the Super Bowl has sure left a HUGE mark on our team.

Questions are rising... We have MANY FA's to discuss and address.

We are still licking our wounds from that ass pounding we got. Most of us have already let it go, some are still head hunting and willing to trade the farm for a specific player in the draft already.

We fought hard to get there. We had numerous defensive injuries. Not excuses but facts. Yet here we are as a fan base, pissed off. According so many different voices, the throwing them under the bus fact became a mass murder scene.

Funny I come here for some sort of realistic perspective?

Your defense is obviously superior and many have wondered what we need to do? Get that same sort of dominant force? But it's not just that. Our "1st ranked offense" did absolutely nothing. So if it's all about meeting you again next year, and defense plays the ultimate goal, a 13-8 final would be in our favor?

Von Miller would've made it less of a blowout, but you still would've lost. Nobody challenged your offense in the playoffs, while the Hawks had to go to war against two great teams. The cold weather SB venue hurt Manning. I don't want to dis on Manning, though--50/50 he's out of there. What, he wants to go another year to get to the SB to play against...? No. He's gone.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Totally agree... but who can actually blame them?

For the most part, their passing game was unstoppable and essentially no other team could pressure Manning and their receivers enough to impede their offense from systematically marching down the field drive after drive... after drive. They were a scoring machine... and nobody could stop it... so why should they think that Seattle could be the lone exception?

Who can blame them? I can. One can choose to wear homer glasses (think Bevell is consistently great and that our offense basically had zero problems all year because of where our points per game average was, for example) or make a concerted effort to look at things in an unbiased fashion. The 49ers nearly beat us, for instance, yet they would not have smacked Denver around the way we did had they gotten to the Super Bowl. I'm confident they would have won, but it would have been far closer. There are a billion subtleties and little intricacies when it comes to trying to really evaluate how good or bad a team is. It's just not a simple thing to do.