This. Denver players simply seemed bewildered and unfocused the entire game. How can that happen in the SB?

The other team was on adderall

Because he's wrong, Seattle was that much better.

What should Denver have done differently?

I don't think Denver was confused or bewildered or badly prepared, they were just overmatched and lost in every way possible.

Must have been the thick air.

Pretty unlikely that Seattle was THAT much better if the Vegas line had Denver favored by 2.5 points. I mean I know some of you guys are NFL geniuses but how wrong do you think that line was? Like 16 points bad? Do you think people are that stupid?

Line started with Seattle as a slight fav and quickly moved to Denver after heavy early betting.

I'd argue people missed on two things.

1- how much better the NFC was than the AFC
2- how specifically bad of a matchup Denver was to Seattle (somewhat a result of 1). (not being able to pass block/having a bad/old/hurt secondary that made them unable to exploit the Hawk's weaknesses).

But also I'm not really saying Seattle is that much better than Denver as much as I'm saying that yesterday Seattle WAS so much better than Denver that there's nothing they could have done differently/better in terms of preparation to be competitive.

that last sentence completely contradicts itself. if seattle is not that much better than denver then them being so much better specifically yesterday must be a result of some preparation failures and not doing things correctly.

I definitely agree that Seattle WAS better than Denver (which is in the running for biggest understatement of the year already).

It's just highly unlikely that an event that has the most money wagered on it is going to have a drastically incorrect line unless there is a big discrepancy (as in NE ML vs. NYG 2007).

Denver getting its ass pounded like that is close to a 3 SD event; it should basically never happen. There's pretty much no chance that assuming neutral preparation and other factors that such a thing should ever happen more than 2-5% of the time, which strongly suggests that John Fox is a gigantic idiot (and/or Pete Carroll is very smart).

Seattle isn't 40 points better than Denver.

But Seattle beating 40 Denver by 40 points doesn't have to mean that

1- The line was wrong
2- Denver wasn't prepared.

I think Seattle likely was better than Denver than the line showed, but not to a super extreme degree. (I mean fwiw- noted Vegas insider Clark was calling the money line free money and wasn't the talk that all the sharps pounded Seattle?)

But everything clicked for Seattle yesterday and there wasn't a thing
Denver could do. Sometime it all works out. Sometimes you get 16 points on D/special teams and good fumble luck and convert a ****ton of 3rd downs, Etc.

Getting away from MARKETS, I'd still like to see somebody tell me what Denver could have done differently? Unless we're just talking better pep talks so that they didn't lose every matchup on the field, I don't see a lot of playcalling choices they made that would have worked better than what they were trying.

Well Dids is obv wrong, and maybe never played sports to understand that when you have an idiot coach (i had a few) that sometimes, even when you have similar talent, the other team just comes out and blows your ****ing doors off. And your coach has no idea how to adjust which makes it look even worse than just getting beat badly. Yesterday was an embarrassment...and Denver is good enough they shouldn't have gotten beat as bad as they did unless...they were ill-prepared.

Dids, what do you think the line would be if this was a best of 3 and they played again in 2 weeks?

edit: ok since u already responded...what they could have done differently is...oh i dunno....be sure and not give them 2 free points to start the game and swing momentum completely in favor of Seattle. Make sure to keep max protect in for Peyton instead of thinking your line could handle their front 4...lots of things. Football is a game of momentum for sure and that opening play spelled doom for Denver right off the bat.

That and PSH dying....man, knew it was going to be a bad day. Congrats Seahawks fans, you guys deserve a title. I like the city too.


also, I don't mean any disrespect about the not playing sports, but its definitely been true that you can not be prepared and against a very good team you will get the **** kicked out of you if you let them get on top early.

If you're going to post like a horrible sports radio caller you could at least have filled in the location field so I can make a "Vince in XXXX" joke.

Your only piece of actual strat is to suggest mass protect? Against the best secondary in the game? Dudes weren't open with everybody in the route. No way keeping a TE/RB (who Peyton throws to a ton) in makes anything better.

dids, so your theory is that every single player for Seattle was inspired and playing out of their skins and every single player for Denver was having a bad day? Isn't it much more likely that one coach adjusted better than the other?

one other possibility being ignored itt

I mean mostly my theory is that we can't really know that fuzzy stuff, so why not focus on the more tangible stuff we can.

I don't pretend to know why players do or don't rise to the levels that they do. In general I think it's goofy to question to competitive drive of people playing any sport at such an elite level (and goofy to attribute too much of that to coaching).

But if you're trying to say that Fox did a bad job, the argument would be helped by some specific things they could have done differently beyond handing out more adderall and being more inspirational. (and yes, this is obviously motivated by the fact that as a Seahawks fan I'd rather believe that we're great rather than that the other guys screwed up, but I think the evidence supports my point of view).

I guess the other thing that should be said is that Seattle's D is so good against the pass that once they had an early lead the game was more likely to be out of control. So maybe (and I don't think the halftime line reflected this, I thought I saw a tweet saying it was Denver -6, but I could be wrong) Seattle's a slight fav in a game that's 10-10 at half, but a much greater one moving forward if it's 17-3 because they crush a one-handed team?

Dids, since you're going to a pompous prick..ill oblige you.

Why did Seattle almost lost to terrible teams such as Houston and Tampa Bay, what do you think the exact reasons are for that?

edit: and to ask me such a question as to what exactly I think Denver could have done differently in order to be more successful I don't even know what to say. No, I obviously havent had time to break down film and look at all the minor details that go into coaching in which these guys get paid millions of dollars to do.

All we have is that a team that has been the most proficient offensive machine in NFL history looked completely dumbfounded in just about every aspect of the game. Its not to take away how well Seattle played, its just pretty obvious that Denver, who has a coach known around here as being an idiot, was probably not too well prepared. And thus lost in blowout fashion in the biggest game of the year.

Also, being properly prepared isn't always about schematics. It can also be about motivation, and motivation sometimes stems from confidence that your coach has instilled in you with how he gameplans....theres so many variables its impossible for me to give you an exact answer. And you know that, and thats why Im calling you a prick.

Very bad offensive line play and poor run defense. The run defense was dramatically improved later in the season (and because Denver was down so quickly didn't face much of a test in the superbowl), and the o-ine still stinks, they just weren't exposed because Denver's beat up secondary couldn't stop the pass at all.

The O-line still isn't very good, but it's way, way better than it was against Houston and Tampa.

McQ - Whoever - Jeanpierre - Sweezy - Bowie is not an NFL-caliber line.

point spreads are about even action to ensure a house win, not about what vegas thinks the final score will be

edit: lol john fox

So why wasn't Denver -14?

I only didn't mention the injuries because per the FO preview I read yesterday their metrics said the line didn't get any better when Unger and Beno were back. (but I think some of that may be level of competition).

how would that promote even action? everybody and their mother would be on seattle +14

edit: if you're asking why denver wasn't more of a fav i'm guessing because the sharps would have slammed seattle too hard

Jim,

I'm arguably the most sports gambling ignorant person in this conversation. Even I get how lines are set. You're missing the point that kyle and kc are making.

And Dids I sincerely apologize for being a bit of a dick. I knew there was a reasonable chance that Seattle came out and put the clamps on Denver and welp, it happened. I avoided SE until about 30 minutes ago because I really didnt want to get into the mess of it.

Seeing Moreno sit there like a ****ing dumbass watching Smith run in front of him to take that duck to the house just didnt sit right with me. Its one thing to lose, but when that happened, coupled with the safety...i knew that Denver was not in it mentally. They just werent ready.

It was blatantly obvious, and I really dont mean to take anything from Seattle, they were a very good team, probably better, but when you see your team not even trying (the miss tackles on Kearse, another example) it just leaves you bitter.

Again, Congrats.

ihavenoideawhatimdoing.jpg

No, they aren't.

Trivial example: Somehow through divine intervention I know the true line on a game is -2 Blue Team. If betting action is such that the line is being pushed to +2 Blue Team and people are slamming -2 Red Team, I may shift the line some for risk management purposes but there's no reason not to accept bets that I perceive to be heavily +EV for us.

This happens often in smaller cap sports and also occasionally occurs in big games (NE/NYG ML/point spread).

Your average idiot bookie who doesn't have an adequate bankroll to take on additional bets that have positive expectation might "balance the line" but organizations who are in the business of accepting positive expectation bets (in their mind) don't hedge for the sake of "collecting the vig."

EDIT: They "balance the action" as an effect of the above scenario. It is not the cause.