Well, it's that time. The Super Bowl is around the corner and everyone is making their predictions. So here are some thoughts and predictions on the upcoming Super Bowl, both in terms of the actual game and its implications. Here are some of the stories going into it:
Peyton Manning's Legacy:
Would winning this second Super Bowl automatically make him the greatest quarterback of all-time? What does it do to his legacy if he loses? Does just making it to three Super Bowls already make him the greatest? And more importantly, as a Patriots fan, but Richard Sherman hater, do I even want either of these teams to win?
Here's the thing about Manning's legacy: it's pretty much set in stone at this point. Win or lose, he's always going to be considered a top five quarterback all-time. And, of course, the greatest of all time debate is never going to have a clear cut winner. It's entirely subjective. If the reason people still don't rank Tom Brady over Joe Montana is that Brady has lost two of his five Super Bowls while Montana won all four of his, then how can Manning be placed above Montana going two for three himself? He's still lost a Super Bowl, and didn't even appear in as many as Montana (and only appeared in about half as many as Brady).
Sports fans tend to be all about the "now," but I'm not sure you can really erase the past, especially in regards to a player's "legacy." What about the fact that Peyton Manning didn't even make the Super Bowl until almost a full decade into his career? Three Super Bowl appearances will always be impressive. It's less impressive when considering this is three in the span of sixteen years (fifteen years as a starter, minus the injured year). That's 20% of his seasons as a starter in the NFL. If Brett Favre has taught us anything, it's just how difficult it is to even get to the Super Bowl, going to two Super Bowls early in his career, then only even sniffing the NFC Championship a couple of times for the remainder of his career. (By comparison, Tom Brady has been to five Super Bowls in the span of twelve years as a starter - minus the injured year- meaning he's been to 41% of the Super Bowls available to him as a starter. Just saying.)
I'm also one of these weird sports fans who doesn't feel that championships mean everything. When looking at a player's legacy, you have to also use the regular season. You can't just ignore certain aspects of his career. Shoot, even as a Patriots fan and as someone who thinks Tom Brady is arguably the greatest ever, you can't just ignore his history of shaky play in the post season. With Brett Favre, you can't just ignore the entire second half of his career. And similarly, you can't just ignore Peyton Manning's first decade in the league. Manning has steadily gotten better in the post season as the years went by, but he's still someone that has traditionally looked much better in the regular season than in the post season.
Yes, Manning is having perhaps his best post season to date. And that bears keeping in mind too! But does one good post season suddenly override years and years and years of underperforming in the post season? If we're talking about his overall legacy, it can't. The legacy isn't just "what you did last." It's everything.
Win or lose, to my mind Peyton Manning is clearly a top five quarterback in the history of the league. I wouldn't put him above Tom Brady or Joe Montana just because he wins a second ring. It helps his case, especially against a stout defense like the Seahawks. I don't see this really changing his legacy that much though unless he comes out flat, throws two or three interceptions, and loses big time as a result. If he plays horribly in the Super Bowl and loses his second, it'll be hard to shake the idea of Manning being a great regular season quarterback who just couldn't keep it going into the post season.
I would just address this argument pre-emptively: "Well, Peyton Manning has taken two different teams to the Super Bowl! That's far more impressive than taking the same team over and over again." This is an argument many have been making to put Manning in his "rightful" spot above Tom Brady. I think this argument is extremely flawed and is a disservice to both the Patriots and this year's Broncos team. First of all, the "two teams" argument is almost entirely arbitrary. When you really look at the make-up of this Broncos team, does it really look that different from the make-up of his Colts teams in years past? Prolific offense? Check. At least one really, really good wide out? Check. A great slot receiver? Check. An amazing offensive line? Check. A somewhat pedestrian defense? Check. Honestly, the Denver Broncos could very well be the Indianapolis Colts. It's built almost exactly the same way as Manning's Colts were. There is definitely something to be said about Manning going to three Super Bowls under three different head coaches! That's definitely something people can use to knock Brady a bit. For all of the different offensive coordinators Brady's had, he's only ever had Bill Belichick.
Still, the Patriots team is built entirely differently from years past. Almost every year is dramatically different in terms of offensive schemes and personnel. The Patriots teams that Tom Brady has taken to the post season since 2004 have been extremely different. By all means, the 2011 Super Bowl run as well was an entirely different team on both sides of the ball. Just because it's the same uniform doesn't mean it's the same team. When these guys like Brady and Manning start pushing 15, 20 years in their career? Any Super Bowl they make is going to be with a very different team.
Let's also not forget that the Broncos team Manning inherited was not a bad team. They went 8-8 and made the playoffs the year before Manning's arrival. They already had a number of offensive weapons in place. The defense was a little better before Manning, but that team's only missing ingredient was a quarterback. Of course the Broncos are going to look much, much better with Peyton Manning under center than Tim Tebow. It's not like Manning went to the Oakland Raiders or the Dallas Cowboys. He went to a good team that had a good system in place and just needed that one part. Manning's greatness is that he elevated that team, but he didn't make it himself and himself alone.
Of course, I might be rooting for Manning here, if only because I do want to see Wes Welker get a ring. Patriots fans really lay down their hate of Welker these days, but he's been a solid receiver and a fun guy to follow. He deserves a ring (even though I would prefer it have been with the Pats). And frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing Peyton Manning get another ring too, if only so people shut up about Eli being better. (One more ring doesn't remove ten years of mediocre - at best - play.)
Richard Sherman:
What's easy to forget coming into this Super Bowl is that Richard Sherman might not even be Seattle's best defensive back! Free safety Earl Thomas has very quietly been performing at a very high level. Thomas is every bit as critical to the Legion of Boom as Sherman, and yet no one is talking about him (perhaps because Thomas doesn't talk about himself in the same way as Sherman does).
Let's not get the wrong idea here: Richard Sherman is certainly one of the best cornerbacks in the league. The (unfortunate) reality is that he can say anything he wants because he more often than not, backs it up. This, of course, doesn't suggest that you can't beat Sherman. He got torched on a number of plays in last year's playoff games (something no one has ever addressed...) But the guy more or less always backs up the talk (even if he only talks when they're ahead, or when he wants to come up with an excuse as to why he got beat or they lost).
Now, I'll just touch a little bit on this: I initially hated Richard Sherman. And I still do, but not as much as I did before. I'm all for trash talking. In fact, I actually have been enjoying a number of the things he's been saying in the lead up to the Super Bowl. He's got a little back and forth going with the Broncos players (including Manning). It seems like it's in good fun. That's the key to what I perceive as acceptable trash talking. I'm all for this kind of stuff. I'm all for trash talking on the field to try and get in your opponent's head. And certainly, Sherman carries a level of honesty that is actually kind of refreshing from the tight-lipped Patriot Way many fans are accustomed to. Still, I do believe in sportsmanship. When you make a play, celebrate with your team. Don't go and taunt the other team. Don't go on television and freak out about how great you are and how crappy another player is (especially when it was another player - Colin Kaepernick - who cost them the game, not Michael Crabtree).
Richard Sherman has proven to be just as sore a winner as he is a loser. If this is what sports allows as perfectly acceptable, I have to wonder what we're doing here. If it's all ok because the only thing that matters is winning, then how is sports not the most self-serving and self-important institution in the history of mankind? And like it or not, every single one of these professional athletes is a role model. That's why it's so frustrating that the league just gives their players a slap on the wrist. (See Marshawn Lynch - who I really like - but has been arrested for a DUI and had virtually no consequences from the league.)
And of course, let's not forget that Richard Sherman was caught for using performance-enhancing drugs a few years ago and got off - not because it was proven he didn't use them, but because of a legal technicality saying the sample wasn't entirely handled correctly. By all means, Sherman tested positive for PEDs and somehow no one cares because of a technicality. (Meanwhile, Spygate remains the most blown out of proportion "cheating" scandal in the history of sports...)
Sherman has been classless on the field. It's frustrating to hear him speak later in the week, when he's more collected and obviously very intelligent. In the aftermath of his strange and absurd rant post-game against San Francisco, he later apologized and told kids that they shouldn't taunt other players and he regretted his actions. I mean, I get that whole "heat of the moment" argument, but why is Richard Sherman the only player in the league who has done that? You don't think all those New England players are competitors too? Shoot. Tom Brady's post-game conferences this year have shown how pissed he gets when he loses, but you still never ever see him make any comments putting down other players (or even the other team!)
He seems very much that guy that you totally love when he's on your team, but when he's not, you totally hate him. I certainly appreciate the freshness he's brought to this week's media blitz. It's more interesting than a Patriots/Giants Super Bowl where everyone is showing too much respect to each other to the point where it seems borderline fake. Still, if I were a Seattle fan, I'd be a little bit worried. We've seen this before: players who are so cocky to the point where they seem to care more about themselves than the team. At first it seems fine, but over time those players start to pick the team apart.
Offense vs. Defense
And of course, we have another instance of a prolific offense facing off against a stout defense. Peyton Manning and company shattered records and presumably go into the Super Bowl as favorites (probably in the same way that the Patriots were favorites in 2011, actually - in that Vegas put them as favorites, but most football analysts picked the Giants). I suspect it's the same deal. Already, I've seen most analysts pick the Seahawks. Still, Denver seems to be the favorites.
My thought is just that we've seen this before. In 2001, we saw the defensive minded Patriots take on the Greatest Show on Turf and hold the best offense in the league to 17 points. We saw it again in 2002 with the defensively focused Buccaneers beating the last great Raiders offense. We saw it with the team that was previously the most prolific offense in NFL history! The New York Giants held the record breaking Patriots offense to just 14 points! They did it again in 2011, holding one of the best offenses in the league to just 17 points. You could even argue that the Saints did it to the Colts in 2009. Though not a great defense, the Saints ballhawking defense peaked just in time for the playoffs. They held Arizona to just 14 points in the Divisional Round, then held the vaunted Manning offense to just 17 points in the Super Bowl.
When it comes to offense versus defense Super Bowls, the stats heavily favor the defense.
Cold Weather
It sounds like this cold weather Super Bowl won't be so terrible after all. The forecast shows no inclement weather and the temperatures to be around 30 degrees. Fans and analysts (and presumably players) have sighed a little relief. I still don't get it. Apparently, our high school and college football teams can play in 4 degree weather, but not professional athletes?
And don't give me that nonsense about "it impacts the game." While that's true, does it not impact both teams? It's not like it affects just one team - like bad officiating impacted Carolina. (For the record, I think San Fran wins that game regardless, but that was one of the most lopsided officiating jobs I've seen in years, with a number of terrible, terrible calls and noncalls blatantly aided the 49ers.) Maybe I'm the only person who doesn't want to just always watch football played in these stale, safe, and artificial environments. Weather should be a factor!
If anything, this couldn't be more well set up for Peyton Manning to further pad his legacy. An outdoor playoff game (where he's traditionally struggled), in the cold (when he's traditionally struggled)? He wins now, no one would ever make that argument again. Further, are the Broncos or Seahawks really that great if they need warm weather and artificial conditions to win a Super Bowl? Everyone talks about how unfair a cold weather Super Bowl would be for a team built in warm weather, but why does the opposite never apply? What about warm weather Super Bowls that feature teams built for colder climates?
Listen, I'm not saying we always play Super Bowls in cold weather, but c'mon. It can't just be in Texas, Florida, California, and Louisiana every year. Bring some diversity to it! OH NO! THEY MIGHT HAVE TO PLAY IN SNOW!??!? Bologna. This is football.
Predictions:
I might be rooting a bit for the Broncos, but otherwise I have no real investment in this game. I do see it going to the Seattle Seahawks with a bit of a lopsided score. I see it being 31-16 with Marshawn Lynch the MVP. I think Manning throws two interceptions, with Lynch slowly getting stronger over time. I know, I know. "The most prolific offense only scores one, maybe two touchdowns? Really?" Yeah. I do think that. And I think that because that's exactly what happened last time the most prolific offense went up against a great defense. Of course, the Broncos offensive line is better than the '07 Patriots line. And the Seahawks pass rush isn't as good as the '07 Giants rush. But I don't see Manning being able to rely on the running game. He'll only be able to do so much with short ins and outs.
I see Manning's stats being something like 24-40 for 290 yards with 1 TD and 2 INTs. One of the backs might fumble as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment