Rare Post For Me As I Stay Quiet 99% of the Time

Too many things to talk about but lets keep it simple, so you don't think Manning was locked in a room studying, inventing, two steps ahead of the defense LAST TIME he played in the SB? Go ahead and support your view but that just doesn't make sense.

Okay, first let me say I don't care what your supposed record is. I don't know why people at this site to do this when it cannot be verified. But even if it could be verified, it wouldn't change the fact that it's an Argument from Authority fallacy. The fact you're 8-1 in SBs does not make your right about this one.

Now for your points, I will tell you why they are wrong one by one.

1. Seattle's homefield advantage. Who cares? Yes, like every other team, Seattle has a homefield advantage. It's maybe a little better than other places, but probably not the advantage many think. It's certainly no bigger an advantage than Denver has in the thin air at Mile High. They both had the same home record, 7-1, and both won their home playoff games, but whereas Denver's advantage was still there in the playoffs, did you see all the red in Seattle's game this past weekend? In the MNF Saints game, the Hawks fans were hitting decibals of 130+. This (more important) game they never hit 110. That's because a good quarter of those tickets went to either Niner fans or rich and less passionate Seattle fans who can pay those kinds of dollars to get a seat while the loyal "screamers" could not. So what I'm saying is that Seattle just beat the Niners with about the same HFA that exists in every other stadium-- which is why you saw the Niners much more coordinated on offense and not needing to burn time-outs.

Additionally, this Seahawks team had the same road record as the Broncos, 6-2, with the losses coming by 6 at Indy, the same place where Denver lost, and at the Niners by 2, a game in which the Hawks had a late lead.

Finally, while it's true the Hawks are better at home than on the road, they are not technically on the road. They're on a neutral field and while it's true most people will be rooting for the Denver there at Metlife, it's unlikely they will scream enough to disrupt the Hawks offense. Either way, a neutral field is not a road game. So both teams are on the road.

2. I'll give a small nod to the experience for the Broncos. Not sure it will make much of a difference, but it's true that Denver has an older team. Of course, older is small consolation when it's the fourth quarter and you're sucking win and your old legs can no longer cover the WRs speeding by you. Manning was certainly more experienced in big games than Brees at the time too. Didn't help. And in some spots, especially on defense where there Broncos had injuries, some players who are fill in are really green. The Hawks are young, but they are playing almost no rookies. Just Willson as backup tightend.

3. It's hard to believe you used karma as a reason to bet on a team at a gambling site. What next? The rosary? Casting of the bones? Even if you think Sherman is a bad guy, which is silly if you know his full story, there are plenty of times in sports where the bad guy wins. Hell, even A-Rod has a World Series ring and Aaron Hernansez was part of a National Championship team. Karma may eventually come for Sherman (as well as us all) but instant karma is a subject best left to bad pop music philosophers.

As for distractions, this Seahawks team seem impervious to them. Remember, this is the same team that suffered through a rash of suspensions and all that preseason hype after the Harvin signing. The Broncos may win the game, but the Seahawks won't lose beecause they're distracted. Not this team.

Anyway, your points have not changed my mind about who will win the game. DVOA puts the Hawks at about a 58% chance to win the game. It's your money, though, and BOL.

Another valuable  lesson learned.

Do your homework, don't assume.

Hey, tried my best to give you guys good solid info BACKED BY HISTORY.