Jon Gruden changed things up in the playoffs the last few years, and tried to "outsmart" the other team and get away from throwing to AJ Green so much. How'd that work out? My question is, is there a time in the playoffs where Manning's team has lost to a team that wasn't as good as his team? Sometimes, other teams are just better. Seahawks beat the Broncos in every phase of the game on Sunday.

And those signals probably clued them in to specific plays and such that they had seen over and over again in film. Peyton couldn't show them anything they hadn't already seen.

 

Also, this is football. Do not overthink (what Manning is also guilty of) what teams are capable of doing and not doing on both sides of the ball. Do not discredit Manning's lack of physical ability. He normally can overcome his own deficiencies.

Jon Gruden changed things up in the playoffs the last few years, and tried to "outsmart" the other team and get away from throwing to AJ Green so much. How'd that work out? My question is, is there a time in the playoffs where Manning's team has lost to a team that wasn't as good as his team? Sometimes, other teams are just better. Seahawks beat the Broncos in every phase of the game on Sunday.

I would say half of his losses in the playoffs have been against teams they were favored against. This game was not one of those despite the line moving in their favor. Those in the know knew the Broncos were screwed going in to this game.

Not be so predictable. With Peyton, it's always been a "here's what we do — try to stop it" sort of thing. That works in the regular season, but you have to be able to change things up some in the playoffs to keep opposing defenses and coaches guessing. Peyton never does this.

 

Again, though, what (besides having Percy Harvin available) did Seattle do differently from what they did all year? Every team has things they like to do, and things they do very well, and none of that is exactly a secret at any point in time during the season. Really, this game came down to Seattle being the better team, not Peyton Manning being too predictable.

Not be so predictable. With Peyton, it's always been a "here's what we do — try to stop it" sort of thing. That works in the regular season, but you have to be able to change things up some in the playoffs to keep opposing defenses and coaches guessing. Peyton never does this.

 

Let's say Peyton did change up his signals, how does that give him more time? How does that allow the receivers to do anything after the catch?

Let's say Peyton did change up his signals, how does that give him more time? How does that allow the receivers to do anything after the catch?

 

I think the whole point is, they knew where the WRs were going to be. A whole lot easier to defend something when you know exactly where to position yourself.

Richard Sherman and the Seahawks said that they knew what Manning was doing from film study and watching his eyes. They said if he would've changed things up, just a little, they could've been exposed....:idunno:

 

Not a chance. The only way that the Broncos could of hung w/ Seattle was if Moreno would have been healthy and Manning could have stretched the secondary vertically. Moreno was still busted up, and the only deep ball that Manning threw should have been picked. Seattle's tackling and communication was the key. All of those crossing routes that went for 10+ after the catch were only going for 6-7 if they were even completed.

Not a chance. The only way that the Broncos could of hung w/ Seattle was if Moreno would have been healthy and Manning could have stretched the secondary vertically. Moreno was still busted up, and the only deep ball that Manning threw should have been picked. Seattle's tackling and communication was the key. All of those crossing routes that went for 10+ after the catch were only going for 6-7 if they were even completed.

 

So you think they're lying?

I think the whole point is, they knew where the WRs were going to be. A whole lot easier to defend something when you know exactly where to position yourself.

 

Don't know that it would have mattered as quickly as the rush was getting there. Seattle was awesome in their game planning and execution. I love watching a good defense and that one was a pleasure to watch. I was hoping for a competitive game and most years would not have watched as long as I did and it was entirely due to wanting to see what that D could do next.

So you think they're lying?

 

No, I'm saying that it wouldn't have mattered. The Broncos had to stretch the Seahawks, and Manning, IMO doesn't have the arm to do it w/out decent separation b/n his receiver and DB. Those receivers were not going to get separation.

There was only one way that the Broncos could have won the game. Turnovers by the Seahawks would have kept it closer. However, the Broncos clearly outmatched, turned it over numerous times, giving the Seahawks an average field position at their own 40. Still not sure the Broncos would have won with 4-5 turnovers. This was a nightmare matchup for them. If you can't throw it over the top against them to keep them honest, you just won't win.

 

Back to the topic. Manning certainly should take some blame in this one, but his style of no mobility and pocket passing with timing routes was the wrong prescription. However, he is not anything else, so how could he change it up. The Seahawks would have let them run all day at 4-5 yard clip, and they knew that wouldn't beat them. Palmer no where near as efficient as Manning, but the same style of QB, and nowhere near as good, beat them in Seattle, however the difference was that the Cards could play defense and had familiarity with them and one thing Palmer can do is throw it over the top to keep you honest.

 

I just don't think this game was a good gauge to determine if he is or isn't a big game QB. The game was never on the line, like it was for Big Ben and Eli a few years ago. But I bet the vast majority of GM's and head coaches would take him in a NY minute for a year or two.

Not be so predictable. With Peyton, it's always been a "here's what we do — try to stop it" sort of thing. That works in the regular season, but you have to be able to change things up some in the playoffs to keep opposing defenses and coaches guessing. Peyton never does this.

 

Does that fault rest on the QB or the coaching staff? Possibly both.

 

As far as things working in the regular season but suddenly not in the playoffs, that may be a little too simplistic. Wouldn't it seem logical that by the second half of the regular season teams start having a pretty good idea of what each other do so in theory Peyton and others would have to start changing things up? Again, just thinking more than making assertions.

Even the Seahawks are saying they knew what was coming, but I'm off-base on my statement that a big part of Peyton's problem is the lack of willingness to change it up in the playoffs?

Na, you are probably right on target there, it was the psychological evaluation that gave me notice.

There was only one way that the Broncos could have won the game. Turnovers by the Seahawks would have kept it closer. However, the Broncos clearly outmatched, turned it over numerous times, giving the Seahawks an average field position at their own 40. Still not sure the Broncos would have won with 4-5 turnovers. This was a nightmare matchup for them. If you can't throw it over the top against them to keep them honest, you just won't win.

 

Back to the topic. Manning certainly should take some blame in this one, but his style of no mobility and pocket passing with timing routes was the wrong prescription. However, he is not anything else, so how could he change it up. The Seahawks would have let them run all day at 4-5 yard clip, and they knew that wouldn't beat them. Palmer no where near as efficient as Manning, but the same style of QB, and nowhere near as good, beat them in Seattle, however the difference was that the Cards could play defense and had familiarity with them and one thing Palmer can do is throw it over the top to keep you honest.

 

I just don't think this game was a good gauge to determine if he is or isn't a big game QB. The game was never on the line, like it was for Big Ben and Eli a few years ago. But I bet the vast majority of GM's and head coaches would take him in a NY minute for a year or two.

 

Lest we forget, Big Ben has 2 of the worst games in Super Bowl history. One was a win, but more of a win for the defense and refereeing.

Lest we forget, Big Ben has 2 of the worst games in Super Bowl history. One was a win, but more of a win for the defense and refereeing.

 

Yes you are correct, but he made probably the best most perfect throw in crunch time I have ever seen in a huge game. It was a great throw and just as great a catch for Holmes to get his feet down in bounds. The Eli throw, though clutch (scramble more impressive), was a once in a lifetime catch by Tyree, impressive none the less.