NFC teams that would have beat Denver in the SB this year

[HI-FI]

OP is still upset about the Niners going in on that ass.

SF would've beat this Denver team. I knew it then, that's why I was so pissed about that NFCCG loss. It was there for us.

[AchillesHeel]

Russell Wilson played really well. If he was a "game manager" tonight then you have to call Aikman's SB performances game management too. Wilson played a very Aikman-like game. Tremendous accuracy and always the right decision.

Agreed. Wilson was great.

[spurraider21]

^pretty much, and since Mono said what I have been saying, some of his followers will now agree as well.

Yes wilson did play well. He ran the system nicely.

Agreed. Wilson was great.

waiting for more, tbh

[DeadlyDynasty]

Can't do it, stat-padding is not recognized in the DD cons ution. He was a bit player, but did his part that game. The D was otherworldly and Percy Harvin's 7 plays of game tape all year worked in his favor as his 2 big runs gashed them early and the KO return sealed the deal. The bulk of Russ's contributions came with the game well in hand. He didn't play poorly, though.

[spurraider21]

Can't do it, stat-padding is not recognized in the DD cons ution. He was a bit player, but did his part that game. The D was otherworldly and Percy Harvin's 7 plays of game tape all year worked in his favor as his 2 big runs gashed them early and the KO return sealed the deal. The bulk of Russ's contributions came with the game well in hand. He didn't play poorly, though.

i recall Wilson being deadly on 3rd downs even in the first half. i don't have the number off hand, but i can dig around later

[DeadlyDynasty]

i recall Wilson being deadly on 3rd downs even in the first half. i don't have the number off hand, but i can dig around later

The bulk of which came on those first 2 fg drives iirc...like I said, he did his part but in the grand scheme of things D/ST decided this game well before it was actually over. He did more than Lynch, though--who was the obvious focal point of the D

[spurraider21]

The bulk of which came on those first 2 fg drives iirc...like I said, he did his part but in the grand scheme of things D/ST decided this game well before. He did more than Lynch, though--who was the obvious focal point of the D

oh of course. it would be moronic to say the Seahawks won because of Wilson's play. when your D/ST outscores their O, its really impossible to argue your QB was your key player. but he was the best player on the Seahawks offense on the big stage, and imo it would also be moronic to say Wilson didn't play a really good game (again, not that it necessarily decided the game).

and to be fair, its hard to ac ulate numbers when your team doesn't have possession. short field on one drive, then donks go on a drive, throw a pick 6, go on another drive until they kill all the clock. after the half the seahawks get the ball and percy takes it all the way. Wilson would probably have had bigger numbers the way he was playing

[spurraider21]

Seattle 3rd downs:

1st Drive:

3rd and 9, throws a 12 yard pass to Kearse.
3rd and 6, runs for 5 yards.

Result: FG


2nd Drive:

3rd and 7, throws to Tate for 9 yards
3rd and 4, throws to Baldwin for 6 yards
3rd and 5, throws to Baldwin for 37 yards
3rd and goal from the 14, incomplete pass

Result: FG


3rd Drive: Short field off the INT, no 3rd downs

Result: 1-yard touchdown run by Lynch


that was the entirety of the Seahawks first half possessions, when the game was still in the balance. they went 4-6 on 3rd downs (all plays by Wilson). take out any of those conversions, and they don't get any points on that drive. also keep in mind that 3rd and goal from the 14 was the play where Kearse had it due to a perfect throw, but the defender was able to get a hand in there and Kearse couldn't hang on. i think Russell played pretty well in the first half given his opportunities. in the 2nd half he had both td's as well.

[mojorizen7]

Non-bias post here:

Seattle
Carolina
Philly
GB
NO
Arizona
Chicago
Dallas
NY
Lions
St. Louis
Minny
ATL
TB
Redskins

did I miss anyone?

Not with Clemens at QB...or with our secondary. But i get your point.

This board ain't big on stats(go figure) but here's this...

Combined win % by division
NFC west .656
AFC West .578
AFC East .531
NFC South .484/AFC North .484
NFC North .453
NFC East .437
AFC South .375

[DeadlyDynasty]

Being the best player on the O wasn't necessarily a great feat tonight. He made some nice throws though and did what was asked of him. Like you said it's what the situation asked for, just manage this comfortable margin we afforded you, and he prevailed.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Seattle 3rd downs:

1st Drive:

3rd and 9, throws a 12 yard pass to Kearse.
3rd and 6, runs for 5 yards.

Result: FG


2nd Drive:

3rd and 7, throws to Tate for 9 yards
3rd and 4, throws to Baldwin for 6 yards
3rd and 5, throws to Baldwin for 37 yards
3rd and goal from the 14, incomplete pass

Result: FG


3rd Drive: Short field off the INT, no 3rd downs

Result: 1-yard touchdown run by Lynch


that was the entirety of the Seahawks first half possessions, when the game was still in the balance. they went 4-6 on 3rd downs (all plays by Wilson). take out any of those conversions, and they don't get any points on that drive. also keep in mind that 3rd and goal from the 14 was the play where Kearse had it due to a perfect throw, but the defender was able to get a hand in there and Kearse couldn't hang on. i think Russell played pretty well in the first half given his opportunities. in the 2nd half he had both td's as well.

Pretty much what I said, tbh...did the bulk of his work to get them 6 pts, D/ST pretty much procured the next 23, then it was quittin' time for Denver

[spurraider21]

Being the best player on the O wasn't necessarily a great feat tonight. He made some nice throws though and did what was asked of him. Like you said it's what the situation asked for, just manage this comfortable margin we afforded you, and he prevailed.

what else could he do? play defense and special teams?

[spurraider21]

Pretty much what I said, tbh...did the bulk of his work to get them 6 pts, D/ST pretty much procured the next 23, then it was quittin' time for Denver

Kearse hangs onto a perfect throw and thats 1 TD drive instead of a FG drive. the guy played nearly flawless, its not his fault his D/ST happened to play a great game too. he can only do what he can do. its literally impossible for Wilson to do anything more than be "the best player on offense"

[DeadlyDynasty]

Kearse hangs onto a perfect throw and thats 1 TD drive instead of a FG drive. the guy played nearly flawless, its not his fault his D/ST happened to play a great game too. he can only do what he can do. its literally impossible for Wilson to do anything more than be "the best player on offense"

Look at that play again, the defender made a great play--neither ones fault. Yeah, the situation was the D/ST made the game. It's not his fault, but it also just is what it is. I mean the committee probably just picked a defensive name out of the hat to win MVP (could've been any of them), and Harvin was the easy next choice (shouldve been tops, but whatever). Is that his fault? No, but that's how it played out.

[spurraider21]

I agree that it was a great defensive play, but on a 3rd and goal from the 14, it takes a terrific throw to even have that opportunity. Again, I'm not trying to run circles around your argument, I am well aware that the defense/ST dominated the game. I'm just saying Wilson played great (even if those efforts weren't required for them to win). I don't think he should have been MVP. I would have gone with Chancellor or Harvin ahead of Smith

[DeadlyDynasty]

You have to look at it from a basic perspective, what did we know going into the game?:
-The Seahawks had the best defense in the NFL (check)
-Lynch was their biggest weapon, and went beastmode previous 2 playoff games
-Broncos had a stout run (check)
-Broncos have the MVP and an elite offense
-RW has proven to be a solid game manager throughout the year (check)

What did we not know that ultimately affected the game?
-Harvin. Harvin. Harvin.
-That Peyton and the offense would play probably the worst game of the year (again, save for late game stat-padding when it was 29-0 or w/e it was)

So when you get down to it what stood out the most in that SB? Miscues and TOs by Manning and O (that's a point for the D), and Percy Harvin (ST and 2 huge runs on).

Are those not the 2 factors things that clearly stood out in that game? Cause it's sure as what I saw when the TOD was announced after Harvin's game-ending KO

[spurraider21]

I'm not sure why you keep going back to this point. I have made it VERY clear that I am not arguing that Wilson's play is the reason they won the game. I even SPECIFICALLY said that "Wilson played great (even if this was not required for them to win)."

I said Harvin and Chancellor were more deserving MVP candidates. I'm not sure what else you want me to say . Literally my only point in this is that Wilson played a great game. You seem to be incorrectly taking my argument as "Wilson played great and led Seattle to a win." Is your agenda really that strong that you can't concede that simple point without making a bunch of side arguments that don't address what I'm saying?

[DeadlyDynasty]

Then what do you want, tbh?...great is a ing stretch. He had a poor man's Nick Foles game, leave it at that. The voters have spoken and if RW was truly "great" then it would've been an easy MVP choice instead of some nondescript defensive player. That's a no-brainer. If the powers that be felt he was "great," than it would've been FAR more simpler and PC to award the offensive player the MVP over some pissant who caught a snagger.

Men far more credible than us and tasked with presented that decided stat-padding wasn't "great" enough to offset one play.

Again, and for the last time--where are you going with this/establish a goal? If it's to say he was "great" that game, I disagree. The pros saw the same thing as I did and c'est la vie

[spurraider21]

I'm again going to say that I am not arguing that he was worthy of SuperBowl mvp, so i am curious as to why you keep making that your main point. oh and at your appeal to authority shenanigans when we on this forum routinely go against what the "more qualified" say on a daily basis.

but if you will only go so far as to say he played a poor man's Nick Foles game, then whatever, this conversation really has nowhere to go. the team didn't require a very good/great qb performance to win this game, but they got one anyway

[DeadlyDynasty]

I'm again going to say that I am not arguing that he was worthy of SuperBowl mvp, so i am curious as to why you keep making that your main point. oh and at your appeal to authority shenanigans when we on this forum routinely go against what the "more qualified" say on a daily basis.

but if you will only go so far as to say he played a poor man's Nick Foles game, then whatever, this conversation really has nowhere to go. the team didn't require a very good/great qb performance to win this game, but they got one anyway

It doesn't, and for the record running around in circles and forgetting what your argument is from post to post is not Berkeley material, and I can't blame them tbh

[spurraider21]

It doesn't, and for the record running around in circles and forgetting what your argument is from post to post is not Berkeley material, and I can't blame them tbh

i never forgot what my main point was nor did i run in circles. instead, all you did was build arguments as to why wilson shouldn't have been superbowl mvp which was something i never even attempted to argue. if i was dok i would just spam giant jpg's of reading comprehension books, but i'll take the high road

[spurraider21]

i'll actually make it really easy for you. here are all my posts in this thread regarding Wilson. please show me where my argument ever changed, or where I ever asserted he should be MVP or was the reason they won. enlighten me

wilson outplayed manning anyway. threw for 2 touchdowns, and had Kearse drop one that hit him in the hands. was also an absolute force on 3rd downs

the defense held Lynch to 39 yards on 15 carries. Wilson made them pay for stacking the box and constant blitzing. Again, I'm well aware that Wilson isn't the reason the Seahawks won. Their defense and special teams outscored the Broncos offense . But Wilson did play well in the meantime, better than Manning at least. gotta give him that much.

i recall Wilson being deadly on 3rd downs even in the first half. i don't have the number off hand, but i can dig around later

oh of course. it would be moronic to say the Seahawks won because of Wilson's play. when your D/ST outscores their O, its really impossible to argue your QB was your key player. but he was the best player on the Seahawks offense on the big stage, and imo it would also be moronic to say Wilson didn't play a really good game (again, not that it necessarily decided the game).

and to be fair, its hard to ac ulate numbers when your team doesn't have possession. short field on one drive, then donks go on a drive, throw a pick 6, go on another drive until they kill all the clock. after the half the seahawks get the ball and percy takes it all the way. Wilson would probably have had bigger numbers the way he was playing

Seattle 3rd downs:

1st Drive:

3rd and 9, throws a 12 yard pass to Kearse.
3rd and 6, runs for 5 yards.

Result: FG


2nd Drive:

3rd and 7, throws to Tate for 9 yards
3rd and 4, throws to Baldwin for 6 yards
3rd and 5, throws to Baldwin for 37 yards
3rd and goal from the 14, incomplete pass

Result: FG


3rd Drive: Short field off the INT, no 3rd downs

Result: 1-yard touchdown run by Lynch


that was the entirety of the Seahawks first half possessions, when the game was still in the balance. they went 4-6 on 3rd downs (all plays by Wilson). take out any of those conversions, and they don't get any points on that drive. also keep in mind that 3rd and goal from the 14 was the play where Kearse had it due to a perfect throw, but the defender was able to get a hand in there and Kearse couldn't hang on. i think Russell played pretty well in the first half given his opportunities. in the 2nd half he had both td's as well.

Kearse hangs onto a perfect throw and thats 1 TD drive instead of a FG drive. the guy played nearly flawless, its not his fault his D/ST happened to play a great game too. he can only do what he can do. its literally impossible for Wilson to do anything more than be "the best player on offense"

I agree that it was a great defensive play, but on a 3rd and goal from the 14, it takes a terrific throw to even have that opportunity. Again, I'm not trying to run circles around your argument, I am well aware that the defense/ST dominated the game. I'm just saying Wilson played great (even if those efforts weren't required for them to win). I don't think he should have been MVP. I would have gone with Chancellor or Harvin ahead of Smith

I'm not sure why you keep going back to this point. I have made it VERY clear that I am not arguing that Wilson's play is the reason they won the game. I even SPECIFICALLY said that "Wilson played great (even if this was not required for them to win)."

I said Harvin and Chancellor were more deserving MVP candidates. I'm not sure what else you want me to say . Literally my only point in this is that Wilson played a great game. You seem to be incorrectly taking my argument as "Wilson played great and led Seattle to a win." Is your agenda really that strong that you can't concede that simple point without making a bunch of side arguments that don't address what I'm saying?

I'm again going to say that I am not arguing that he was worthy of SuperBowl mvp, so i am curious as to why you keep making that your main point. oh and at your appeal to authority shenanigans when we on this forum routinely go against what the "more qualified" say on a daily basis.

but if you will only go so far as to say he played a poor man's Nick Foles game, then whatever, this conversation really has nowhere to go. the team didn't require a very good/great qb performance to win this game, but they got one anyway

[DeadlyDynasty]

but i'll take the high road

Like you did after broadcasting your rejection letter and bitterness towards that fine ins ution? Yes, the high road suits you well...a word of advice to a young man like yourself, though. Brush up on your tactics, don't get too emotional, and start getting acquainted with the nose candy if you're going to enter that racket, cause those slickricks will see through your bull and rip you apart. You've already been rejected once which means you're not good enough as is right now--so get an edge and thank me when you pass the bar.

[spurraider21]

Like you did after broadcasting your rejection letter and bitterness towards that fine ins ution? Yes, the high road suits you well...a word of advice to a young man like yourself, though. Brush up on your tactics, don't get too emotional, and start getting acquainted with the nose candy if you're going to enter that racket, cause those slickricks will see through your bull and rip you apart. You've already been rejected once which means you're not good enough as is right now--so get an edge and thank me when you pass the bar.

way to once again refuse to address points i made, while throwing around accusations like "you are changing your argument and running in circles."

the context of the post regarding the high road was how i would address your apparent troubles with reading comprehension, where instead of childishly mocking, i laid out all my posts.

berkeley is a top 10 law school in the country, and there's no shame in getting rejected from there. i had even mentioned in a previous thread that Berkeley and Stanford are complete pipe dreams, but I applied nonetheless. i wasn't expecting to get into Berkeley, and I got rejected. bitterness after rejection is not uncommon or unexpected at all.

but i applaud you, marvelous work, taking a personal shot in an attempt to deflect and avoid addressing points i have made. what's next, a momma joke?

[DeadlyDynasty]

Again, you're hiding behind semantics. Why would you even bother to go through all that bull just to illustrate how much you thought he was "so "great", despite being the clear 3rd most important reason for victory. I said he wasn't and illustrated why (all but 6 of his pts came in bull time).

So you're understanding is that he was "great" in compiling 6 pts with the game over at 29-0, or that he became great with the garbage time TDs and ulative yards (so much of which came on incredible YAC--including both TDS).

If 6 pts when the game essentially ended id your barometer for greatness, than yeah--this conversation's about over.