Best SB Winner Since 2010

[lancerman]

5 minutes ago, Nzd07 said:

And neither of you have presented an argument as to why New England was better. Seattle had a harder schedule. And if you want to bring DVOA into the conversation, you have to acknowledge the 2013 Broncos' insane 33.7% offensive DVOA.

New England was a top team in both defense and offense in both 2016 in 2014. Denver was not as good in defense as 2013. Seattle neither year had a dominant offense. Seattle is likely running into one of the top 3 offenses they played that year in addition to the best defense they'd play that year. 

Also remember the 2016 Patriots did play a historically great offense in the Falcons and they really only gave up 3 defensive TD's. And only 7 points in the whole 2nd half. 

Seattle did not have a dominant offense. It's very likely they are held 13-17 points. Since 2014 the Patriots were only held to that many points a handful of times. 2 were in meaningless games at the end of the season, one was with a 3rd string QB who got shut out, and one  were against Denver at Denver. 

[Nzd07]

Just now, lancerman said:

New England was a top team in both defense and offense in both 2016 in 2014. Denver was not as good in defense as 2013. Seattle neither year had a dominant offense. Seattle is likely running into one of the top 3 offenses they played that year in addition to the best defense they'd play that year. 

Also remember the 2016 Patriots did play a historically great offense in the Falcons and they really only gave up 3 defensive TD's. And only 7 points in the whole 2nd half. 

Seattle did not have a dominant offense. It's very likely they are held 13-17 points. Since 2014 the Patriots were only held to that many points a handful of times. 2 were in meaningless games at the end of the season, one was with a 3rd string QB who got shut out, and one  were against Denver at Denver. 

Yes, the defense did do well against a historic offense. However, Shanahan's playcalling was very suspect after they got the big lead. And let's be honest; the Seahawks actually shut out the Broncos. The TD came in super late garbage time against backups. So I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that Seattle had the best defense since the 02 Bucs. I think Seattle's defense would just be too much for them. You also have to remember that the Pats were struggling on offense until they opened up their passing attack and wore out Atlanta's weak depth at edge rusher. I'd put the line at Seattle -3.5 on a neutral site.

[lancerman]

12 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

That's just the thing though - Denver's defense in 2013 was pretty bad, Von Miller was injured most of that season. If the Broncos coaches had any sort of brain (The coach was John Fox, so maybe you have a point) they would not trust that defense to win a game for them. 

They just happened to show up against the Chargers and Patriots. People forget that the Broncos defense is what kept Seattle from running away with that game in the first quarter. (Denver turned the ball over early, Broncos defense managed to keep them out of the end zone early in the game)

The Broncos were trying to throw the ball on the Chargers, they just didn't achieve as much success doing it as the normally did.

Anyways, this is beside the point.

There is precedent for Peyton Manning lead teams and Peyton Manning more specifically not showing up for big games in the playoffs. Seattle wasn't dominating teams like that consistently at any point in the regular season, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that SB game was an outlier for the Seahawks and that Peyton Manning did what he had done before in postseason games - choke.

 

This is the big thing to me. Seattle wasn't doing that all year to every team they played. Much worse offenses were scoring more and having more success against them. So they just happened to do it against a team with a QB who is famous for not showing up in playoff games and who historically has had tremendous difficulty against very physical secondaries. And so much of the mystique of dominance is based off that game. 

Also not for nothing (no offense Bolt) but acting like 2013 Chargers were world beaters and not acknowledging that the 2013 Patriots were one of the worst Patriots teams we've seen in YEARS to make the point is kind of dubious. 

[Xmad]

Recency bias is real with the Eagles.... Seahawks are probably the most dominant despite what many patriots fans would say.

[Bolts223]

4 minutes ago, Nzd07 said:

Yes, the defense did do well against a historic offense. However, Shanahan's playcalling was very suspect after they got the big lead. And let's be honest; the Seahawks actually shut out the Broncos. The TD came in super late garbage time against backups. So I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that Seattle had the best defense since the 02 Bucs. I think Seattle's defense would just be too much for them. You also have to remember that the Pats were struggling on offense until they opened up their passing attack and wore out Atlanta's weak depth at edge rusher. I'd put the line at Seattle -3.5 on a neutral site.

Would it be too much for them?

In 2015, Brady threw for 310 passing yards in the AFC Championship game against the Broncos defense in Denver. (A defense that I personally think was even better than the 2013 Seahawks defense)

This was with a completely depleted offensive line and in a stadium where Brady has historically struggled to play in.

So I'm not sure that I buy that the Seahawks defense would be too much for the Patriots to overcome.

[lancerman]

Just now, Nzd07 said:

Yes, the defense did do well against a historic offense. However, Shanahan's playcalling was very suspect after they got the big lead. And let's be honest; the Seahawks actually shut out the Broncos. The TD came in super late garbage time against backups. So I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that Seattle had the best defense since the 02 Bucs. I think Seattle's defense would just be too much for them. You also have to remember that the Pats were struggling on offense until they opened up their passing attack and wore out Atlanta's weak depth at edge rusher. I'd put the line at Seattle -3.5 on a neutral site.

Shanahan's play calling really didn't change. They just weren't very efficient against the Patriots defense. They converted 1 of 8 third downs. And their 3 offensive TD drives weren't all that long. The first 2 were less than 2 minutes long and the third was about 4 minutes and change.They had horrible TOP throughout the game because they were terribly inefficient and in the few times they did score offensively they did it fast, and when they weren't they were getting run off the field fast because they couldn't convert third downs.

The Atlanta offense scored 14 points in the first half and 7 points in the 2nd half. That's not a bad performance. And realistically even one of those TD's in the first half was converted after an uncharacteristic fumble by Blount. And another 7 points was an uncharacteristic pick six by Brady who just set the single season record for TD:INT ratio (IE: not something you should bet on replicating).

The Patriots on the other hand were having long drives all day, they just had redzone issues down the stretch the first half that didn't manifest the 2nd half. When you really run the numbers that game, it's not surprising how the outcome occurred. 

As it pertains to the Seahawks the Patriots really aren't as much of a fined tuned timing paced offense like the the Broncos were. Also Gronk. I'm going to be honest, as good as that defense was, they do not have a real answer. Also stats aside, the Patriots were a pretty bad match up for the Seahawks. Too much versatility on offense, mismatches with Gronk, the RB's receiving out of the backfield killed them in 14 and would have been an issue in 2013 too. 

[Nzd07]

Just now, Bolts223 said:

Would it be too much for them?

In 2015, Brady threw for 310 passing yards in the AFC Championship game against the Broncos defense in Denver. (A defense that I personally think was even better than the 2013 Seahawks defense)

This was with a completely depleted offensive line and in a stadium where Brady has historically struggled to play in.

So I'm not sure that I buy that the Seahawks defense would be too much for the Patriots to overcome.

Brady played like crap that same year against Denver.  '13 Seahawks caused a lot more turnovers, they were better.

[Bolts223]

1 minute ago, Nzd07 said:

Brady played like crap that same year against Denver.  '13 Seahawks caused a lot more turnovers, they were better.

I'm really not sure that the 2013 Seahawks defense could've dragged Peyton Manning's corpse along with a mediocre o-line to a SB title like the Broncos defense did.

Anyways, Brady played the Broncos twice that year. Went for around 300 yards in both games with an o-line that consisted of more backups than it did starters.

I'm pretty confident he could do just fine on a neutral field against the 2013 Seahawks defense.

I do however think it's pretty likely that the 2013 Seahawks offense would struggle a lot against the 2016 Patriots defense.

 

[Nzd07]

Just now, lancerman said:

Shanahan's play calling really didn't change. They just weren't very efficient against the Patriots defense. They converted 1 of 8 third downs. And their 3 offensive TD drives weren't all that long. The first 2 were less than 2 minutes long and the third was about 4 minutes and change.They had horrible TOP throughout the game because they were terribly inefficient and in the few times they did score offensively they did it fast, and when they weren't they were getting run off the field fast because they couldn't convert third downs.

The Atlanta offense scored 14 points in the first half and 7 points in the 2nd half. That's not a bad performance. And realistically even one of those TD's in the first half was converted after an uncharacteristic fumble by Blount. And another 7 points was an uncharacteristic pick six by Brady who just set the single season record for TD:INT ratio (IE: not something you should bet on replicating).

The Patriots on the other hand were having long drives all day, they just had redzone issues down the stretch the first half that didn't manifest the 2nd half. When you really run the numbers that game, it's not surprising how the outcome occurred. 

As it pertains to the Seahawks the Patriots really aren't as much of a fined tuned timing paced offense like the the Broncos were. Also Gronk. I'm going to be honest, as good as that defense was, they do not have a real answer. Also stats aside, the Patriots were a pretty bad match up for the Seahawks. Too much versatility on offense, mismatches with Gronk, the RB's receiving out of the backfield killed them in 14 and would have been an issue in 2013 too. 

It was questionable in the sense that he didn't run the ball as much as a team with the lead generally does. And the Falcons' defense by all measures that year was pretty terrible. Really, none of the playoff teams that New England played in 2016 had a good sack rate. Seattle would've presented a much bigger challenge to the offensive line than any of those teams did. And of course the secondary is one of the best we've seen. While Gronk would still get his, I just don't think Brady would have enough time. And everyone else would have trouble getting open. Obviously Seattle probably doesn't score a lot, but I think they win the TOP and limit the score. Again, I'd set the line at -3.5 , not saying it'd be easy and the Patriots could very well win. I just think Seattle was a more quality opponent.

[lancerman]

13 minutes ago, Nzd07 said:

Brady played like crap that same year against Denver.  '13 Seahawks caused a lot more turnovers, they were better.

You really have to look at the context of that. Brady went into the season losing Wes Welker who was his best and most reliable WR for the better part of a decade. Hernandez killed someone and was cut before the season started. Gronk spent most of the year on IR. Tom Brady went into that season with the 3 primary receiving targets of the last year out. Then consider that Amedola really hadn't found his place on the offense yet and Edelman was just starting to emerge. Also the Thompkins and Dobson experiments were still going on. Then on the running side you had Ridley as the starter who was so bad he got benched for fumbling. 

Then realize that year Brady had one of his worst years statistically and gave the organization such pause that they drafted a potential replacement for him the next off season. 

[Nzd07]

Just now, Bolts223 said:

I'm really not sure that the 2013 Seahawks defense could've dragged Peyton Manning's corpse along with a mediocre o-line to a SB title like the Broncos defense did.

Anyways, Brady played the Broncos twice that year. Went for around 300 yards in both games with an o-line that consisted of more backups than it did starters.

I'm pretty confident he could do just fine on a neutral field against the 2013 Seahawks defense.

I do however think it's pretty likely that the 2013 Seahawks offense would struggle a lot against the 2016 Patriots defense.

 

You can't discredit a team because their quarterback didn't suck. By every measure, 2013 Seattle had the better defense. Less points given up and more turnovers per drive. And you seem way more confident than you should, lol. New England would have a difficult time scoring without some turnovers.

[Nzd07]

Just now, lancerman said:

You really have to look at the context of that. Brady went into the season losing Wes Welker who was his best and most reliable WR for the better part of a decade. Hernandez killed someone and was cut before the season started. Gronk spent most of the year on IR. Tom Brady went into that season with the 3 primary receiving targets of the last year out. Then consider that Amedola really hadn't found his place on the offense yet and Edelman was just starting to emerge. Also the Thompkins and Dobson experiments were still going on. Then on the running side you had Ridley as the starter who was so bad he got benched for fumbling. 

Then realize that year Brady had one of his worst years statistically and gave the organization such pause that they drafted a potential replacement for him the next off season. 

You can go through and find so many variables on so many teams. We discuss the teams as they are on the field. I'll even give you Gronk as he is so important. I would still take Seattle by a bit.

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, Nzd07 said:

It was questionable in the sense that he didn't run the ball as much as a team with the lead generally does. And the Falcons' defense by all measures that year was pretty terrible. Really, none of the playoff teams that New England played in 2016 had a good sack rate. Seattle would've presented a much bigger challenge to the offensive line than any of those teams did. And of course the secondary is one of the best we've seen. While Gronk would still get his, I just don't think Brady would have enough time. And everyone else would have trouble getting open. Obviously Seattle probably doesn't score a lot, but I think they win the TOP and limit the score. Again, I'd set the line at -3.5 , not saying it'd be easy and the Patriots could very well win. I just think Seattle was a more quality opponent.

Falcons defense got better as the year went on. They basically shutdown Aaron Rodgers the week before (if we are using single games as evidence). Grady Jarrett got hot towards the end of the year. 

[Bolts223]

Just now, Nzd07 said:

You can't discredit a team because their quarterback didn't suck. By every measure, 2013 Seattle had the better defense. Less points given up and more turnovers per drive. And you seem way more confident than you should, lol. New England would have a difficult time scoring without some turnovers.

You do realize that the Broncos defense was consistently put in FAR FAR worse situations because of the ineptitude of the offense? They had to be on the field FAR more than the 2013 Seahawks defense did.

Anyways, I'm not here to argue which defense was better. They were roughly the same caliber of defense, I'm just using the 2015 Broncos for a comparison.

[Nzd07]

Just now, Bolts223 said:

You do realize that the Broncos were consistently put in FAR FAR worse situations because of the ineptitude of the offense. They had to be on the field FAR more than the 2013 Seahawks defense did.

Again, you can't discredit a defense because their quarterback didn't suck. Not even going to debate this because it's dumb.