phillybear 366 Posted January 6, 2008 NFL Sunday Countdown spent half an hour on the Pitts/Jax game, then spent 4 minutes on the Seattle/Wash game about an hour into the show. No respect. Fock you, ESPN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 man this game is interesting. the SEA defense looked like the best unit in the league tonite. Do you realize they played most likely the worst or one of the worst Off. in the playoffs. At home where their stadium may be the loudest in the NFL? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
49ers_suck 0 Posted January 6, 2008 Do you realize they played most likely the worst or one of the worst Off. in the playoffs. At home where their stadium may be the loudest in the NFL? so you're saying the hawks D was made to look better than the are due to the crappy competition? i'll give you the 12th man, but the skins offense has played well the last few weeks. i think the packers will be a bit concerned about that defense, who will have a lot of momentum going into lambeau. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 so you're saying the hawks D was made to look better than the are due to the crappy competition? i'll give you the 12th man, but the skins offense has played well the last few weeks. i think the packers will be a bit concerned about that defense, who will have a lot of momentum going into lambeau. No doubt the Settle D played good, and is pretty fast and aggressive. But Yes I think by playing Todd Collins and the sad Skinds Oline they were prone to looking better than they are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted January 6, 2008 I still don't understand how playing .500 ball on the road is disappointing. I mean do you expect them to be undefeated on the road? Every year I always say if you go 4-4 on the road, and then win 6-8 home games, which means you are a dominant home team, then you will win 10-12 games a year. that's pretty damn good. The Hawks are 12-12 on the road the past 3 years and have been a dominant home team. That's pretty damn good. That means thay have a 50/50 shot at winning in GB. I like those odds. The problem is, Green Bay is a lot better than your average opponent. So if you're only a .500 team on the road, you have a pretty slim chance of beating a much-better-than-average team like Green Bay on the road. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 GB is the favorite. They have shown to be the better team. But that doesn't mean Seattle can't win. It should be a solid game, it comes down to QB play. Favre can put up some stinkers and other times Favre can be almost flawless. If he comes out and plays like he has for the majority of the season I don't know how Seattle can win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted January 6, 2008 Remind me the score of that game in Carolina? Though, I agree...forecasts this early are pointless. And barring a torrential downpour, or high winds...weather will most likely not be a factor. there was no score into the 3rd...but thats ok..because no one outsode of seahawks fans watched it, it wasnt really THAT bad, i guess... all i know is john kasay hit a chip shot fg that went straight for the middle..it hit the wind and did a 90 degree turn and ended up 2 sections over to the left.... why are packer fans falling all over themselves to bring up a seattle clunker? gb has had clunkers as well... gb is only a season removed from being an 8-8 team and as of the last month..they are back to that form..dont get mad at me about that..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted January 6, 2008 NFL Sunday Countdown spent half an hour on the Pitts/Jax game, then spent 4 minutes on the Seattle/Wash game about an hour into the show. No respect. Fock you, ESPN. oh, theyll start liking them now a lil.... that small D that all of a sudden was a bad thing...top 4 in sacks...kearney 2nd in sacks..all of a sudden that was bad vs a 36 yr old qb that couldnt scramble... now..oh boy...they are fast and get after it.... i hope a bus full of ESPN guys slides off an icy bristol road.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seattle_pt1 0 Posted January 6, 2008 What the 'H' makes you say something so ignorant??Send us some facts Mr Seattle Wow, sorry to get your panties in a crinkle . Calm down, you will be okay . It is my opinion only, but I don't think the Packers are not as strong as their record indicates. Their division and schedule was as weak as the Hawks. I think the 2 teams are very evenly matched on offense and defense. So, it comes down to home field advantage and coaching (In my opinion). You get a leg up with the home field, we get a leg up with coaching. It will be a close game and the Packers are very beatable at home. Maybe we can revisit this in a week and see who is right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted January 6, 2008 plus seattle gets a leg up with special teams.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 6, 2008 there was no score into the 3rd...but thats ok..because no one outsode of seahawks fans watched it, it wasnt really THAT bad, i guess... all i know is john kasay hit a chip shot fg that went straight for the middle..it hit the wind and did a 90 degree turn and ended up 2 sections over to the left.... why are packer fans falling all over themselves to bring up a seattle clunker? gb has had clunkers as well... gb is only a season removed from being an 8-8 team and as of the last month..they are back to that form..dont get mad at me about that..... Falling all over myself? You brought up the weather in the Carolina game as saying Seattle has played in it...and I just wanted to be reminded of the outcome of that game. Does not seem like they were used to it, or ok...they lost to a terrible terrible Carolina team. And yes, GB lost to Chicago in crappy conditions too. As of last month they are back to that form? Because of one bad game against Chicago? Or a game without plenty of starters against the best team in the NFC who was playing well at the time? Im not talking trash here, or even say GB will win...but seems you are still quite a bit defensive about the Seahawks...its quite laughable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 6, 2008 Wow, sorry to get your panties in a crinkle . Calm down, you will be okay . It is my opinion only, but I don't think the Packers are not as strong as their record indicates. Their division and schedule was as weak as the Hawks. I think the 2 teams are very evenly matched on offense and defense. So, it comes down to home field advantage and coaching (In my opinion). You get a leg up with the home field, we get a leg up with coaching. It will be a close game and the Packers are very beatable at home. Maybe we can revisit this in a week and see who is right. Their division was not quite as weak as the hawks...nor was the schedule really. I think GB has a better offense...a bit better weapons at WR, and going into the playoffs a better running game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted January 6, 2008 Falling all over myself?You brought up the weather in the Carolina game as saying Seattle has played in it...and I just wanted to be reminded of the outcome of that game. Does not seem like they were used to it, or ok...they lost to a terrible terrible Carolina team. And yes, GB lost to Chicago in crappy conditions too. As of last month they are back to that form? Because of one bad game against Chicago? Or a game without plenty of starters against the best team in the NFC who was playing well at the time? Im not talking trash here, or even say GB will win...but seems you are still quite a bit defensive about the Seahawks...its quite laughable. youre kidding..i point out more negatives about seattle in threads then i do the positives.... YOU are the one that gets all riled up when i dared say that seattle has a shot against Goliath... Goliath if he were average the year before and had no fighting experience, that is.... 3-2 in the last 5 is nearly 500....loss sat and theyll have finished the season at 3-3 in their last 6...thats 500... they were 500 last year....hence the term, returning to form.... as for gbs running game.... if seattle could hold westbrook, sjax and others under 100..why should grant do more?... he might..but i dont see it..and gb may need to bring in a te to help block..if so..thats another possible wide out taken away.... if favre has all day to throw..yikes.... if hes pressured...itll come down to who gets the breaks and makes the most of them.... can seattle stop alexander? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted January 6, 2008 Falling all over myself?You brought up the weather in the Carolina game as saying Seattle has played in it...and I just wanted to be reminded of the outcome of that game. Does not seem like they were used to it, or ok...they lost to a terrible terrible Carolina team. And yes, GB lost to Chicago in crappy conditions too. As of last month they are back to that form? Because of one bad game against Chicago? Or a game without plenty of starters against the best team in the NFC who was playing well at the time? Im not talking trash here, or even say GB will win...but seems you are still quite a bit defensive about the Seahawks...its quite laughable. im not talking trash either... i know more about these 2 teams as a combo then anyone here..so dammit, i want to talk... if gb wins..ill be mad..but its still my home town team and beats seeing dallas or wash in it..i have 5 packers on my mail route..it isnt as if i hate the team... i just love how the natl media rips seattle apart..you can tell the few who watch their games... others have no clue..1 person says something and everyone else follows along... carolina game....small on D..nothing special...alexander old.... when the reality is this... they have a decent 2 rb system..alexander has been a true teammate when he comes off the bench..the D is super fast.. hass is the one who is the X factor..no one is favre..hass is favre-lite with favres old gunslinger attitude..he will still try to force balls.. i dont know if seattle will win but i feared wash more than i do gb...it isnt a knock on gb..more of a matchup deal..same reason gb has to like their chances... next year gb goes to seattle..seriously...these 2 teams cant get enough of themselves.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 I like how GBs Off. matches up with the Seattle D. GB basically goes tight formation and runs it right up the gut. Or they go 5 wide. 5 wide should create problems for Seattle, who thrives on keeping the 3 LBs in and rushing the passer. Favre gets rid of it so quick also, no 7 step drops. Seattle matches up well with straight forward I formation with 1 TE. That allows the LBs to be agressive. I'm not sure how good the 3rd 4th and 5th CBs are for Seattle.....so I won't comment there. But I think GBs style of play matches up well. With and aggressive D you basically have to spread them out or run it right at them, that is basically all GB does. Unless GB decides to throw it deep and change everything like in the Dallas game, I think it is an ideal matchup. Wow looking at the schedule Seattle has been untested. They basically have no quality wins. (TB 1st week of the season was the only win vs a playoff team) My only concern about this game is if Seattle gets an early score and maybe a int. McCarthy sometimes just forgets about the run even when running well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted January 6, 2008 Everybody should stop bringing up the Seattle loss to Carolina. You are making yourselves look very foolish. Seattle lost to Carolina the week after they clinched the NFC West division. It was Seattle's 3rd trip East in four weeks. Considering the letdown and jet lag factors, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that can be learned from that game. Seattle was ahead of Tampa Bay for the 3 seed, and considering the schedule Seattle had to finish the season (Baltimore and Atlanta), the 3 seed was locked up as well. The game vs Carolina was meaningless in every sense of the word. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted January 6, 2008 Wow looking at the schedule Seattle has been untested. They basically have no quality wins. (TB 1st week of the season was the only win vs a playoff team) You are right except for one little detail: Seattle also beat a playoff team yesterday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted January 6, 2008 Wow looking at the schedule Seattle has been untested. They basically have no quality wins. (TB 1st week of the season was the only win vs a playoff team) This is the same argument made the last few years. And then Seattle makes the playoffs and starts to win games. The schedule is what it is, but Seattle is a very good team nevertheless. The Seahawks have won more playoff games (4) than any other NFC team over the last 3 years. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other NFC team that has won more than 2 in that time span. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted January 6, 2008 The game vs Carolina was meaningless in every sense of the word. I agree but for a different reason. Having watched that game, the wind made it almost impossible for Hasselbeck to pass in the Carolina game. And Seattle relies on the pass. The Seahawks should be ok with any weather as long as there wasn't terrible wind like that day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted January 6, 2008 The Seahawks have won more playoff games (4) than any other NFC team over the last 3 years. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other NFC team that has won more than 2 in that time span. Problem for the Seahawks though, is, all 4 of those playoff wins were at home. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 19 Posted January 6, 2008 It is my opinion only, but I don't think the Packers are not as strong as their record indicates. Their division and schedule was as weak as the Hawks. The Packers played in the third-best division in football.... seattle played in the eight-best (worst) division in football The Packers played all of the NFC East teams (not a losing team in the bunch) who are the second best division in football and the best in the NFC.... seattle played all of the NFC south teams who are only slightly better than the NFC West, the worst division in football Packers 13-3 seahawks 10-6 sorry for bringing facts.... you can continue now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted January 6, 2008 seattle played all of the Afc south teams who are only slightly better than the NFC West, the worst division in footballPackers 13-3 seahawks 10-6 sorry for bringing facts.... you can continue now The part in bold is anything but a fact. The AFC South was the best or second-best division in the NFL this year. You are way off on that part. Also, Seattle's competition in the NFC West was better than New England's competition in the AFC East, but even so the NFC West competition was definitely bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 You are right except for one little detail: Seattle also beat a playoff team yesterday. Yea....I was talking about the regular season....obviously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted January 6, 2008 Yea....I was talking about the regular season....obviously. Obviously. But you were saying Seattle has been untested, based on having only beaten one playoff team. Since your criteria that playoff opponents equal a test, then you can't ignore the fact that yesterday's game was a test that they passed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 19 Posted January 6, 2008 The part in bold is anything but a fact. The AFC South was the best or second-best division in the NFL this year. You are way off on that part.Also, Seattle's competition in the NFC West was better than New England's competition in the AFC East, but even so the NFC West competition was definitely bad. I meant to say NFC south there.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted January 6, 2008 Ah. I guess it was last season that the Hawks played the AFC South. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bouve-Rules 0 Posted January 6, 2008 Gold jacket, green jacket, who give's a shyte..... Packers Roll in Lambeau - no question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 I understand the schedule is what it is....and its not college football where you can schedule games yourself.. But all I am pointing out was how shocked I was when I actually looked at it....sure they had a couple blowouts vs ther 9ers and what not...but just look at their away games...blew out the 9ers and thats it....they were blown out by Pitt, lost to the Cards, lost to the Browns, lost to Carolina, and had close wins against the likes of Atlanta STL and Philly. All of this talk about being bad on the road means even more when they are losing to sub-par teams (Arz and Carolina...and then having narrow wins agaisnt even worse teams..ATL and St. Louis.) It was just shocking to me thats all... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 Obviously. But you were saying Seattle has been untested, based on having only beaten one playoff team. Since your criteria that playoff opponents equal a test, then you can't ignore the fact that yesterday's game was a test that they passed. Yea and they won yesturday against a Redskins team that starts Todd Collins, struggled to make it into the playoffs in the NFC.....and played in Seattle (one of the best home field advantages in teh NFL...if not the best)... So yea that was basically their best win by far. The TB win was week 1 when teams were rusty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seattle_pt1 0 Posted January 6, 2008 I understand the schedule is what it is....and its not college football where you can schedule games yourself.. But all I am pointing out was how shocked I was when I actually looked at it....sure they had a couple blowouts vs ther 9ers and what not...but just look at their away games...blew out the 9ers and thats it....they were blown out by Pitt, lost to the Cards, lost to the Browns, lost to Carolina, and had close wins against the likes of Atlanta STL and Philly. All of this talk about being bad on the road means even more when they are losing to sub-par teams (Arz and Carolina...and then having narrow wins agaisnt even worse teams..ATL and St. Louis.) It was just shocking to me thats all... Okay, we lost to Arizona on a fumbled hand off as we were driving for the winning score. We lost to Carolina and Atlanta after we had clinched the division and had nothing to play for....We did get blown out by Pitts (a playoff team) as the Packers got blown out by the Bears (non-playoff team). Lost in OT on the road to a tough Cleveland team after missing a game winning field goal. So, we are what a field goal and fumbled handoff from being 13-3? We can both twist the schedules anyway you want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seattle_pt1 0 Posted January 6, 2008 Yea and they won yesturday against a Redskins team that starts Todd Collins, struggled to make it into the playoffs in the NFC.....and played in Seattle (one of the best home field advantages in teh NFL...if not the best)... So yea that was basically their best win by far. The TB win was week 1 when teams were rusty. ....and the Packers beat the Chargers and Giants early in the season when they were both playing like crap and playing inconsistent QBs (Rivers and Manning). We can go back and forth all day, I am sure Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 Okay, we lost to Arizona on a fumbled hand off as we were driving for the winning score. We lost to Carolina and Atlanta after we had clinched the division and had nothing to play for....We did get blown out by Pitts (a playoff team) as the Packers got blown out by the Bears (non-playoff team). Lost in OT on the road to a tough Cleveland team after missing a game winning field goal. So, we are what a field goal and fumbled handoff from being 13-3? We can both twist the schedules anyway you want. I'm just using the formula of... Win counts as a Win Loss counts as a Loss Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seattle_pt1 0 Posted January 6, 2008 I'm just using the formula of... Win counts as a Win Loss counts as a Loss Okay, but you were detailing "close" wins and "blow out" losses to teams that the Hawks played.....So, I was justifying what you had laid out in your argument Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 19 Posted January 6, 2008 So, we are what a field goal and fumbled handoff from being 13-3? We can both twist the schedules anyway you want. so you are two plays away from getting 3 more wins??? This is even funnier than your strength of schedule argument that you botched.... You are the biggest homer in a forum full of homers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 ....and the Packers beat the Chargers and Giants early in the season when they were both playing like crap and playing inconsistent QBs (Rivers and Manning). We can go back and forth all day, I am sure I make teh point of the 1st week teams are rusty....and you are going to use week 3 win vs the Chargers to counter? So week 3 doesn't count for the Packers and week 15 doesn't count for Seattle......ok....lets not count any part of the season.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 Okay, but you were detailing "close" wins and "blow out" losses to teams that the Hawks played.....So, I was justifying what you had laid out in your argument I was just point out 1st the lack of good Teams the Seahawks faced and the lack of any solid dominate win they had....besides the 9ers games.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seattle_pt1 0 Posted January 6, 2008 so you are two plays away from getting 3 more wins??? This is even funnier than your strength of schedule argument that you botched.... You are the biggest homer in a forum full of homers Damn, my math skills have been exposed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted January 6, 2008 The Packers played in the third-best division in football.... seattle played in the eight-best (worst) division in footballThe Packers played all of the NFC East teams (not a losing team in the bunch) who are the second best division in football and the best in the NFC.... seattle played all of the NFC south teams who are only slightly better than the NFC West, the worst division in football Packers 13-3 seahawks 10-6 sorry for bringing facts.... you can continue now does it matter that seattle also beat the skins and eagles this year? they knocked the cowboys out of the playoffs last year and own eli....its been ages since the seahawks lost to the nfc east... u can bring facts...but youll have to dig deeper for something more impressive.. people are wasting too much time trying to discount wins and magnify losses....does ANYONE outside of being packers or seahawks fans KNOW the teams? because the whole "schedule" argument usually means you dont....people sound like an ESPN panel here.... if seattle beats GB, people will make excuses for why gb just wasnt that good afterall...cmon now..giving a team a lil credit wont kill anyone.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,952 Posted January 6, 2008 Now I didn't watch the Seahawks losses to Carolina and ATL... but going back.. vs Carolina Hasselbeck played the whole game...threw it 41 times... vs ATL he was in long enough to throw it 25 times and the Defensive stats indicate that the starters played most if not all of the game... So don't give me this O we had nothing to play for stuff...The Packers had nothing to play for and dominated the Lions....Giants had nothing and hung with the Pats... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seattle_pt1 0 Posted January 6, 2008 I was just point out 1st the lack of good Teams the Seahawks faced and the lack of any solid dominate win they had....besides the 9ers games.. Vikings x2 Bears x2 Lions x2 Chiefs Raiders The pack dominated the Raiders..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
