- Thread starter
- #1
StoningtonQB
ESPN Refugee
I don't put much stock into what Richard Sherman has to say, but for those who do, this was based on an interview with him after the game:
Y! SPORTS
Y! SPORTS
He hates to admit it, but says “the NFC Championship was the Super Bowl. The 49ers were the second-best team in the NFL.”
“A good offense that has really studied film and really done its due diligence will see plays that other teams have had success with and install them as a surprise,” Sherman says. “Brandon Browner got beat in Arizona on posts from two outside receivers, and flats from the slot receivers. And they were the only team that ran it. Kam was the safety and he tried to undercut the post and they just banged it in there. Denver had never run it, and they put it in because of Arizona. That’s chess.”
I don't think there is any question the NFCCG was the real Super Bowl. Denver isn't equipped to beat either team and it showed. The got mauled by the superior team.
I don't think there is any question the NFCCG was the real Super Bowl. Denver isn't equipped to beat either team and it showed. The got mauled by the superior team.
They tried their slant's but Kam put the beat on Welker and Thomas,Decker locked up the whole game and Moreno is not a good RB imo.
They tried their slant's but Kam put the beat on Welker and Thomas,Decker locked up the whole game and Moreno is not a good RB imo.
They tried their slant's but Kam put the beat on Welker and Thomas,Decker locked up the whole game and Moreno is not a good RB imo.
SF has a superior Oline, Running game, and vastly superior defense compared to the Broncos.
While the final score wouldn't of been 43-8 if it had been SF in the superbowl because SFs secondary is got it's weaknesses, they would of still beat up on the Broncos and won by say 31 -20.
SF has a superior Oline, Running game, and vastly superior defense compared to the Broncos.
While the final score wouldn't of been 43-8 if it had been SF in the superbowl because SFs secondary is got it's weaknesses, they would of still beat up on the Broncos and won by say 31 -20.
The Broncos only had to beat the Chargers and Patriots to get to the SB; neither of those teams were playoff-ready AT ALL and Denver had a virtual cakewalk. That said, I think the Denver D would have been much more equipped to deal with Kaeptain Kaengeroo and Frank Gore than Russell Wilson's offense; not to mention that the 49ers D is not even close to Seattle's dominance.
So I agree.
I agree. The Seahawks were the worst imaginable match-up for Denver. Seattle's secondary is second to none. I knew Manning and Co would have a difficult time passing the ball, let alone running it. San Fran would have beat them up but with our weakness in the secondary, probably only win by 10-14. I look for Harbaugh to strengthen the secondary this offseason.
After Bam put his first hit on a Bronco wideout in a crossing route, everytime a Denver receiver caught the ball after that, they would take a step and fall to the ground. They at least tried to make it look like they slipped or something, but it was obvious that they wanted no part of being targeted for tackles.
And, RS was absolutely correct, Denver was not the second best team in the Super Bowl. As I said many times on these boards, i wasn't worried about Denver like I was before the 9er game, even though up untill then, the 9ers hadnt had much recent success in Seattle.
Gore had a productive season, but when he hits the wall, it could come fast.
Lol, okay. I think Kaengeroo would have run all over them and then ripped their secondary to shreds. He is the main reason San Fran lost to Seattle but also the main reason they were ahead to begin with. You gotta take the good with the bad, as long as he continues to progress, which I believe he has. Frank has still got something left in the tank.
Cannot wait for next season.