Broncos in the Super Bowl: Belong or not Belong?

"It's not embarrassing at all. I would never use that word,'' [Peyton] Manning said after the game. "The word 'embarrassing' is an insulting word, to tell you the truth." 

Manning completed 34 of 49 passes for 280 yards and a touchdown pass to Demaryius Thomas, but he couldn't find a route over the Seahawks' "Legion of Boom" secondary and also threw two interceptions. The Seahawks pounded the Broncos 43-8. 

Manning's total quarterback rating of 24.4 was his lowest of the season and the worst in a Super Bowl since Rex Grossman's 7.1 in 2006. 

"We played a great team," Manning said. "We needed to play really well in order to win, and we didn't come anywhere close to that."

Manning, to be compared to Grossman, big ouch.

Reference: Peyton Manning insulted by question.

I posted the following on Google+, and it generated a discussion:

No matter how you slice-and-dice it, Broncos clearly didn't belong in SB48.

Yes they did, they were the best team in the AFC. They didn't measure up to Seattle and rightfully got their arses handed to them, but that's a different topic.

The Broncos earned the right to be there. They just weren't ready for the Seahawks. As Sean said, that's a different topic.

Of course, you're right, gents. I'm just trying to get a better grip on what happened to the Broncos. No question about how great of a team they are, but the Saints and 49ers lost to, but at least played competitively against, the Seahawks. The Seahawks didn't just spring 43 points on them in one play, so the Broncos had so many opportunities to score and get back in the game... but ultimately couldn't do it. At the end of the day, I would've enjoyed a 49ers-Seahawks Super Bowl much better. 

So no one is allowed a bad/off day? You guys are ridiculous. 

How so Brian? Being ridiculous by saying Denver did belong in the Super Bowl but didn't measure up to Seattle? Explain yourself please because you sound ridiculous. 

Ah, Ron. Yes, he is wrong a lot. But he readily admits it :)

lol... actually what I admitted most to, more specifically, is that belonging in the Super Bowl and playing well in it are two different things. To me, this lopsided win by the Seahawks is a reminder that athletes are all human beings and that in any given game we may see the best and the worst of them. I love sports, and I try to understand more deeply what happens in a game and how athletes perform. So I watch, read and listen as much as I can.

The Broncos and Seahawks both had the league-best records and played well in the playoffs. They were great in different ways, but otherwise evenly matched. A lot of attention was put on the No. 1 offense vs. No. 1 defense. But they were even as well on the flipside: Broncos, 19th on defense; Seahawks, 17th on offense... in terms of yardage. So the scenario was set for a really competitive Super Bowl...

Then, it was not, and I was scratching my head afterwards: how... why...?

I scanned through all the Super Bowls, and except for a handful, they were all pretty evenly played games... judging simply by the scores. So, history bears itself out that the NFL playoff structure does work (I was questioning before): By and large, the two best teams end up facing each other in the big game.

ESPN John Clayton, known as The Professor, said something like: The best defense will trump the best offense in any given game. I don't know, yet, if this is true in general, but on the face of it, it was true for the Seahawks and Broncos. (This, too, is another story, because it was actually a team beatdown: Seahawks' offense and special teams played very well, not just their defense.)

So, gents, if you didn't like this post, then you really won't like my quip on Twitter after the game: That the Broncos should be put on Super Bowl probation, or something. They're 2-5 now. Yeah, I don't think they belong (lol).

No problem with your post, it's social media, people post their opinions.

Yep, definitely. Thanks, Sean.

I read how the Seahawks prepared to defend the Broncos, and knew to avoid, or minimize, blitzing. Manning apparently has a history of burning defenses that blitz. Their D linemen were amazingly fast; it seemed like they were in the gaps, before the O linemen could blink their eyes. Seahawks even dropped a lineman into coverage on occasion - an amazing strategy.

On the whole, though, what's your take on how two pretty evenly matched teams play so lopsidedly?

I think it was a beat down by seattle's defense. Their DL simply overwhelmed Denver's OL. They hit manning early and often, got their hands on a couple balls and stuffed the run. The coverage took away anything deep, dictated him to go underneath, and immediately hammered whoever caught it. I don't think there where many yards after catch. It was one of the most dominating defense games I've seen in a long time.

Oh, and Seattle's offense helped by not turning the ball over, extending drives and getting some points. I don't know the time of possession but I'm guessing it was big in favor of Seattle and by the end of the game Denver's defense was gassed.

It was definitely a stunning performance to watching. Seattle put on a football clinic for everyone to learn from.

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!

Ron Villejo, PhD