General

Topic   If you don't like the Seahawks....

Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
23-Dec-2012(#1)
.... Then you can suck it.

image

HOLD MAH DIIIICK
williamsdm1111
Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
24-Dec-2012(#2)
Ha ha. Go hawks
Modest_Oddity
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
24-Dec-2012(#3)
I don't know how my lions beat them.

image
Reed
Because Halo. GameTZ Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
24-Dec-2012(#4)
Jaguars winning the Superbowl next year with Tebow, WRITE THAT CRAP DOWN FOOL.
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#5)
I'd hate to waste paper on that Reed.

Save the Earth.
Reed
Because Halo. GameTZ Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
24-Dec-2012(#6)
The Seahawks have been in the league since the 70s and still no Superbowl wins? gosh darn. You guys are due for one...
d3vanj
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader
* 24-Dec-2012(#7)
Seahawks are the most disgusting team in the league right now. They won't be stopped.

Just be ready for everybody to be a Seahawks fan by mid-January.


image
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#8)
Fudge all the Russell Wilson naysayers.

Of course everybody's going to be on board the bandwagon of a team that's put up 150 points in three games.
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#9)
42 of which was against what's widely considered to be the best team in the NFL. That more then makes up for only embarrassing crap teams the weeks before.
ClearSights
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 6 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#10)
They won 4 games in a row to crappy teams, congrats. Ill wait to see what they can do in the playoffs
d3vanj
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#11)
they demolished the 9ers. I think that is more than enough to prove that they don't just beat crappy teams. they dropped 40+ on one of the best defenses the NFL has seen in a long time.


image
Squirrel_Sniper
Gold Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#12)
ClearSights wrote:
> They won 4 games in a row to NFL teams, congrats. Ill wait to see
> who they can destroy in the playoffs

Fixed
Chad
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#13)
the lee has their trumped up charges against the sherminator hoping to stifle the seahawks express non-stop ride to the super bowl. hawks over broncos, 84-12 as manning cries, wishing he had accepted that private jet ride that the mastermind carroll had offered him.
CenturionElite
GameTZ Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 51 Reviews
Secret Santa
24-Dec-2012(#14)
Dolphins beat you guys  * smile *

image
Now Playing: Left 4 Dead 2, Hitman Absolution, Call of Duty Black ops 2

thegutter111
Double Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Canada
24-Dec-2012(#15)
the most dominant sports franchise of all time
ClearSights
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 6 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#16)
^ I wasn't going to point that out, but yeah, they lost to Miami..., again ill wait to see what they can do in the playoffs.
CenturionElite
GameTZ Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 51 Reviews
Secret Santa
24-Dec-2012(#17)
Seahawks seem to have trouble on the road. You guys better hope you dont go up against GB. Flying east in a hostile environment is most likely a loss.



image
Now Playing: Left 4 Dead 2, Hitman Absolution, Call of Duty Black ops 2

thegutter111
Double Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Canada
24-Dec-2012(#18)
not if they score more touchdowns
Reed
Because Halo. GameTZ Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
24-Dec-2012(#19)
Another team can technically score more touchdowns and still lose....stfu Canadian!
thegutter111
Double Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Canada
24-Dec-2012(#20)
obv
Archer
gosh darnmit, how are we not doing "phrasing"?! GameTZ Gold Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Has Written 1 Review Secret Santa
24-Dec-2012(#21)
This conversation has given me a chubby!
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#22)
Let's see how they do on the road playing playoff caliber teams.
Archer
gosh darnmit, how are we not doing "phrasing"?! GameTZ Gold Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Has Written 1 Review Secret Santa
24-Dec-2012(#23)
CenturionElite wrote:
> Dolphins beat you guys  * smile *
>
>

They also beat the Bengals, who made the playoffs also. Teams change as the year goes on. Hawks and Bengals are both peaking right now. Will it continue into the playoffs, who knows. Will either win the SB? No. But each teams fans has a right to be proud of their team. Especially when making the playoffs is not common place for them.


Go Hawks!
CenturionElite
GameTZ Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 51 Reviews
Secret Santa
24-Dec-2012(#24)
Dolphins should be in the playoff hunt. They lost to the Kets after our kicker missed a game winning FG in both regulation and OT. We let the Cardinals score with 5 seconds left to tie the game and we lost in overtime. The Colts got lucky on a bullcrap free for all catch into double coverage.

Anyways no point dwelling on the past. I am cheering for you guys or the Bengals, since we beat those two and it would make me feel better knowing we could have possibly beaten a SB team.

image
Now Playing: Left 4 Dead 2, Hitman Absolution, Call of Duty Black ops 2

d3vanj
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#25)
I'm rooting for a Bengals and Seattle superbowl to be honest.


image
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#26)
Archer is correct mostly, except that the Hawks WILL be winning the Super Bowl. Russ needed a few games to get his stride goin, now he's just big pimpin' slangin dat dick all over your teams.

ClearSights - HMD

Centurion - I personally hope they play GB in the playoffs, so they can embarrass them too, just like the Niners, and then make up for the crapty Golden Tate TD by shutting up all the haters.
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#27)
And Devan is right, a Bengals/Hawks SB would be amazing. No one would have predicted that crap.
ClearSights
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 6 Reviews
* 24-Dec-2012(#28)
Ill be posting again in this thread when they lose and I will say "lol". Mark my words
d3vanj
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#29)
Nick, at the beginning of the year what did you expect from Wilson?

I thought he would be an upper tier game manager (ala Alex Smith, but actually pretty good) -- I didn't see him as someone who could win very many games for his team. I was totally wrong, and I really want to see the kid succeed for years to come. He is really fun to watch, and with an awesome run game to lean on and a top tier defense, Hawks will be a threat for a good while.


image
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#30)
I've been on the Russ Wagon from the start, although I was slightly uncomfortable about it. I mean, I was excited for Flynn when we picked him up in the off-season too so I kind of felt bad about him getting booted out of the starting job, but when Russ showed up it was like "Whoa, hold on, I don't know what it is exactly, but we have something special here".

I've been overwhelmed by how badass he actually is though, and so SMART.
Reed
Because Halo. GameTZ Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
24-Dec-2012(#31)
d3vanj wrote:
> I'm rooting for a Bengals and Seattle superbowl to be honest.
>
>

Neither team makes it. I still have Broncos and 49ers.
d3vanj
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#32)
I see the Broncos there too, but I really don't know if anybody can stop the Seahawks. Everything started clicking for them at the right time.


image
reaperecc3
Silver Good Trader Has Written 2 Reviews
24-Dec-2012(#33)
Sparta wrote:
> I don't know how my lions beat them.
>
>

WOOOO LIONS!!!!!!!!
Chad
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#34)
d3vanj wrote:
> Nick, at the beginning of the year what did you expect from Wilson?
>
> I thought he would be an upper tier game manager (ala Alex Smith,
> but actually pretty good) -- I didn't see him as someone who could
> win very many games for his team. I was totally wrong, and I really
> want to see the kid succeed for years to come. He is really fun to
> watch, and with an awesome run game to lean on and a top tier defense,
> Hawks will be a threat for a good while.
>
>

i said something along the lines of "its not every day you get to watch the first game of a first ballot HOFer" in week 1 regarding dangeRUSS.
Modest_Oddity
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
* 24-Dec-2012(#35)
reaperecc3 wrote:
> Sparta wrote:
>> I don't know how my lions beat them.
>>
>>
>
> WOOOO LIONS!!!!!!!!
woo...!

>_>
<_<


image



image
Chad
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
24-Dec-2012(#36)
The one thing I don't get at all is how people are saying Luck is actually having a better rookie season than Wilson.

wilson: 7th in qb rating (98.0), 7th in y/a (7.67), 9th in comp % (63.4%), 25 td : 10 int (can't find formal, stats, appears to be around 6th), 31st yards/game (191)
luck: 29th in qb rating (75.6), 18th in y/a (6.98), 33rd in comp % (54.3%) 21 td : 18 int (appears to be around 32nd), 7th in y/g (279)

Wilson is unquestionably having the better season. The fact that the 2 man race is between RG3 and luck is absurd. What, the argument is that luck has a more complex offense/is being asked to do more doesn't matter, what matters is the execution to those plans. Of course, on the same rationale, RG3 is the unquestioning best rookie qb, though Morris and Martin deserve more discussion in the OROTY debate. But get luck out of there.
Reed
Because Halo. GameTZ Subscriber 400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
24-Dec-2012(#37)
Let's go CHIEFS!!!!! Beat the Broncos so my team can have the #1 pick!!!
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
* 25-Dec-2012(#38)
I wouldn't get too excited. They'll be playing on the road in the playoffs, and that doesn't bode well for them. They've only won 3 road games all year, and they were to crapty teams. They've lost to some pretty crappy teams too, including Arizona, Detroit, Miami, and St. Louis. Most of their wins have been pretty close games, aside from blowouts of bad teams--the ailing Niners excepted.

Wilson is thriving primarily due to defenses not being schemed to manage very mobile QBs. Once they get better at it, the cream of these new breed will rise (RG3 has potential), whereas the rest will sink (the likes of Wilson and Kaepernick). Without the threat of the option, they lose the majority of their potency. They just don't have the vision, awareness, and throwing mechanics of an elite, professional QB. It's pretty evident when they're consistently throwing under 200 yards/game.
TerrHeel
For-e-VER GameTZ Gold Subscriber 250 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
25-Dec-2012(#39)
I'm not a Seahawks fan, and I'm very confident that Wilson is legit. And winning by 120 points in the last three weeks is definitely something to get excited about, especially after destroying the Niners. I'm not saying the Seahawks will win the Super Bowl (though I wouldn't even be shocked with the way they're going, but if I were a playoff team, I wouldn't want anything to do with them right now. And keep in mind, they've beaten some really good teams: New England, San Fran, Green Bay (regardless of the legitimacy of that final play, they took them down to the wire and had a shot), Chicago. They play great D, they have a great running game, and Wilson doesn't make bad decisions.
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#40)
Chad wrote:
> The one thing I don't get at all is how people are saying Luck is
> actually having a better rookie season than Wilson.
>
> wilson: 7th in qb rating (98.0), 7th in y/a (7.67), 9th in comp %
> (63.4%), 25 td : 10 int (can't find formal, stats, appears to be around
> 6th), 31st yards/game (191)
> luck: 29th in qb rating (75.6), 18th in y/a (6.98), 33rd in comp %
> (54.3%) 21 td : 18 int (appears to be around 32nd), 7th in y/g (279)
>
> Wilson is unquestionably having the better season. The fact that
> the 2 man race is between RG3 and luck is absurd. What, the argument
> is that luck has a more complex offense/is being asked to do more
> doesn't matter, what matters is the execution to those plans. Of
> course, on the same rationale, RG3 is the unquestioning best rookie
> qb, though Morris and Martin deserve more discussion in the OROTY
> debate. But get luck out of there.

Wilson definitely has better looking stats. I think much of the hullabaloo surrounding Luck has much to do with him taking a 1-16 team to the playoffs. I would say he has better long term potential than Wilson, however. He is a much better throwing QB, mechanics-wise. Wilson has definitely been the benefactor of a solid defense, great running game, a good O line, and his mobility--none of which Luck has. Take away any of those things, and Wilson looks a lot less impressive.

Luck is carrying his team--and back from the brink at that. Wilson is riding on the back of the rest of his team.
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#41)
TerrHeel wrote:
> I'm not a Seahawks fan, and I'm very confident that Wilson is legit.
> And winning by 120 points in the last three weeks is definitely something
> to get excited about, especially after destroying the Niners. I'm
> not saying the Seahawks will win the Super Bowl (though I wouldn't
> even be shocked with the way they're going, but if I were a playoff
> team, I wouldn't want anything to do with them right now. And keep
> in mind, they've beaten some really good teams: New England, San Fran,
> Green Bay (regardless of the legitimacy of that final play, they took
> them down to the wire and had a shot), Chicago. They play great D,
> they have a great running game, and Wilson doesn't make bad decisions.

Just note that all of those wins were at home, playing in the toughest stadium for road teams in the NFL. They'd be playing on the road in the playoffs, where they haven't played well.
Chad
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
* 25-Dec-2012(#42)
Wilson has great field vision. You don't have a 2.5:1 TD to INT ratio without good vision.
His awareness is great. He avoids and makes plays, he reads the option exceptionally, he observes open/1on1 deep coverage well.
His throwing mechanics are fine, fast release, a little unorthodox to get a higher release point, but by no means a Tebowesque motion. Most importantly it is quick.

Chicago game is where they really opened up the playbook to him. Since that game he has faced the DVOA 1st, 5th, 27th and 3rd ranked defenses. If they wanted to could have shredded the Cardinals, Bills and 9ers defense for over 300 yards.

The option is not a simple removing of a threat. It takes tons of discipline to not let it destroy you. The 49ers played the read option right, hence him not getting 80 yards rushing on them, but Lynch got his 100 yards.

Wilson is the real deal and the seahawks of December are not the seahawks of October. They can win on the road. The path to the super bowl will be a hard one, but no team out there wants to face the hawks right now.
TerrHeel
For-e-VER GameTZ Gold Subscriber 250 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
25-Dec-2012(#43)
The Chicago game was on the road, and if you watched it you'd know that Wilson single-handedly led his team to victory, taking them down the field on two straight possessions for touchdowns against a Bears defense that is near the top of the league, tying the game, then winning it in overtime. And I don't care if you're home or away, you don't just shred the Niners like they did last night. One other thing I have to point out- Andrew Luck has plenty of mobility. I feel like you're looking at stats and not watching these games. He's shown plenty of scrambling ability, and has run in probably a half dozen scores on the ground. Not to mention his mobility in the pocket to sidestep the rush and avoid getting sacked. I think Luck, RGIII, and Wilson are all on their way to being stars for the next decade.
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
* 25-Dec-2012(#44)
You're right, the Seahawks are not the same now as in October. It's primarily the defense, though. It really helps when your defense scores 4 TD's and creates 13 turnovers (almost as many as the previous 12 weeks combined) in the month. But again, those were at home and/or against bad teams that everyone beats up on. Wilson has had bright spots but is still up and down and has been definitely riding the the improving defense and running game. When he does well and carries his team without a defense or running game like Brees, Rodgers, and (at times) Brady, get back to me.
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#45)
TerrHeel wrote:
> The Chicago game was on the road, and if you watched it you'd know
> that Wilson single-handedly led his team to victory, taking them down
> the field on two straight possessions for touchdowns against a Bears
> defense that is near the top of the league, tying the game, then winning
> it in overtime. And I don't care if you're home or away, you don't
> just shred the Niners like they did last night. One other thing I
> have to point out- Andrew Luck has plenty of mobility. I feel like
> you're looking at stats and not watching these games. He's shown
> plenty of scrambling ability, and has run in probably a half dozen
> scores on the ground. Not to mention his mobility in the pocket to
> sidestep the rush and avoid getting sacked. I think Luck, RGIII,
> and Wilson are all on their way to being stars for the next decade.

The Bears (particularly the offense) have been inconsistent. They've gotten crushed by some bad teams. Luck is mobile in the pocket for sure. He relies on it to scramble to buy time to throw--the bad O line doesn't help--whereas Wilson scrambles to run. Luck is more like a Rodgers in mobility, whereas Wilson is more like a Newton. They're both definitely more mobile than a traditional QB, though.
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
25-Dec-2012(#46)
Some of you guys crack me up.
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#47)
Nick wrote:
> Some of you guys crack me up.

Or maybe you've spent so many years following a really terrible team that you've forgotten what the football of legitimately good teams is like--based on the performance of a team beyond just a few games. :)

Cardinal fans were on the verge of a massive communal circle jerk when their team went 4-0 at te beginning of the season. Just saying.
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
25-Dec-2012(#48)
In actuality I think everybody has forgotten the natural swing of things.

Sure, you have the dominant legacy teams that seem to be good every year (Pats, Pitt, Ravens, etc)

Then, there are the teams that are sub par, such as the Hawks, who start to make the right moves and go through that rebuilding process, and when it finally pays off, nobody wants to accept that now we're going to be a powerhouse for the next decade.

Nobody wants to admit that the NFC West is somewhat legit now with the Niners and Hawks. Did everybody forget that for nearly 10 years before the past two seasons the 49ers were a super sub par team? Now everyone is on their dicks calling them the best team in the NFL.
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#49)
Nick wrote:
> In actuality I think everybody has forgotten the natural swing of
> things.
>
> Sure, you have the dominant legacy teams that seem to be good every
> year (Pats, Pitt, Ravens, etc)
>
> Then, there are the teams that are sub par, such as the Hawks, who
> start to make the right moves and go through that rebuilding process,
> and when it finally pays off, nobody wants to accept that now we're
> going to be a powerhouse for the next decade.
>
> Nobody wants to admit that the NFC West is somewhat legit now with
> the Niners and Hawks. Did everybody forget that for nearly 10 years
> before the past two seasons the 49ers were a super sub par team? Now
> everyone is on their dicks calling them the best team in the NFL.

The Seahawks are moving into being a good team. I think it's very premature to say dominant and for a decade at that. And I don't know who is saying the Niners are the best team in the league. They're lacking an elite QB and a solid receiving corps to be considered complete. I really don't think there is any complete team out there, and there is no team that is dominant or unstoppable. There are teams that show hints and promises--and the Seahawks are one that are showing very early signs that need to be proved--but none are clear.

I'd still argue the NFC North shows the strongest potential to be the toughest division, if it weren't for the disappointing implosion of the Lions due largely to a lack of discipline. The other three a strong playoff contenders; the Lions have so much talent and potential to be there too. The AFC East would have been up there too, if the Jets had a QB and the Steelers weren't plagues with injuries.
Chad
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#50)
steelers are afc north. afc east a weak division.

nfc west will be the dominant division in 3 years. hawks and niners are here to stay and rams are a few moves away from being elite, which if they have a decent front office should be easy given their bounty of picks.

hawks defense has been dominant throughout the season. their recent success in turn overs has been long over due, early in the season they werent getting the lucky bounces, now its been a riches of bounces their way. part of that has to be with the offenses increased efficiency, longer sustained drives giving actual breaks to the defense.

of course in the playoffs any given team can beat another any given week. right now, hawks can move the ball on anyone in the race and match up well defensively against everyone. not to say any given games the other offense can't take the flow. At Washington is about the best match up we could hope for. Match up very well with them defensively and can put up points on them offensively. At dallas would be a bit harder, unlikely that witten will have stone hands 2 games in a row against the hawks, but still a very much winnable game. Falcons match up comes down to if Sherman is there or not. Without sherman, I don't think we can stop their passing game since either jones or white will have a non-elite cb on them. Even with browner on them that could be exploited. Sherman could man up against one, but browner will need Thomas' help to shut down the other. At GB will be the hardest game. GB in January is just rough. Best scenario is blizzard like conditions forcing a run game in which case lynch dominates. Worst case is freezing cold but dry, GB probably takes that. At SF or home against the 6 seed are both winnable games.
KrownKlown
Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
25-Dec-2012(#51)
I plan to movie to the Washington area in the next few years, and it doesn't hurt that fellow alum Russell Wilson is the QB. Manning is my favorite player, so I root for the Broncos, but Hawks are 2 on the depth chart.

I just hope people will stop acting like 49ers are the greatest team after giving up 28 plus to NE in one half, followed by a "yes sir, may I have another" beating from the Hawks. Too bad the Hawks are in the same conference as the Packers. I cant stand them, but when Rodgers is on they are as good as anyone.
DaveSGE

(abuse)
* 25-Dec-2012(#52)
Chad wrote:
> The one thing I don't get at all is how people are saying Luck is
> actually having a better rookie season than Wilson.
>
> wilson: 7th in qb rating (98.0), 7th in y/a (7.67), 9th in comp %
> (63.4%), 25 td : 10 int (can't find formal, stats, appears to be around
> 6th), 31st yards/game (191)
> luck: 29th in qb rating (75.6), 18th in y/a (6.98), 33rd in comp %
> (54.3%) 21 td : 18 int (appears to be around 32nd), 7th in y/g (279)
>
> Wilson is unquestionably having the better season. The fact that
> the 2 man race is between RG3 and luck is absurd. What, the argument
> is that luck has a more complex offense/is being asked to do more
> doesn't matter, what matters is the execution to those plans. Of
> course, on the same rationale, RG3 is the unquestioning best rookie
> qb, though Morris and Martin deserve more discussion in the OROTY
> debate. But get luck out of there.


When Luck has a competent O-Line, RB, and defense to create a ton of shorter fields -- let me know... Because Wilson has all of these.

Andrew Luck is forced to win games with the entirety of the team on his shoulders. Wilson can throw the ball 10 times and come away with a victory because of the defense and Lynch.

You take Luck away from the Colts and they're 2-14 -- Take Wilson away from the Seahawks and Matt could potentially still have them in playoff contention.

Luck has also set multiple rookie records thus far this year and has already successfully completed over five 4th quarter comebacks...another rookie record.

Also, last I checked, being 10-5 is the exact definition of executing plans.

EDIT: Just to throw it out there, Wilson also came into a stable coaching staff as well. Luck was thrown into a rookie coach who brought in a new offensive coordinator and THEN had his coach leave due to leukemia, which changed everything, and had that create even more pressure to win due to the "Do it for Chuck" campaign that started... Mentally, I'd imagine that's a lot of pressure unlike any other to know your coach is facing leukemia and everyone is expecting you to come in and be Peyton Manning and save the franchise.... Wilson has faced very little in comparison.
Jerry
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Secret Santa
25-Dec-2012(#53)
None of these guys can even compare to Doug Flutie. How many of them have their own cereal?!
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#54)
DaveSGE wrote:
> Chad wrote:
>> The one thing I don't get at all is how people are saying Luck
> is
>> actually having a better rookie season than Wilson.
>>
>> wilson: 7th in qb rating (98.0), 7th in y/a (7.67), 9th in comp
> %
>> (63.4%), 25 td : 10 int (can't find formal, stats, appears to be
> around
>> 6th), 31st yards/game (191)
>> luck: 29th in qb rating (75.6), 18th in y/a (6.98), 33rd in comp
> %
>> (54.3%) 21 td : 18 int (appears to be around 32nd), 7th in y/g
> (279)
>>
>> Wilson is unquestionably having the better season. The fact that
>> the 2 man race is between RG3 and luck is absurd. What, the argument
>> is that luck has a more complex offense/is being asked to do more
>> doesn't matter, what matters is the execution to those plans.
> Of
>> course, on the same rationale, RG3 is the unquestioning best rookie
>> qb, though Morris and Martin deserve more discussion in the OROTY
>> debate. But get luck out of there.
>
>
> When Luck has a competent O-Line, RB, and defense to create a ton
> of shorter fields -- let me know... Because Wilson has all of these.
>
>
> Andrew Luck is forced to win games with the entirety of the team on
> his shoulders. Wilson can throw the ball 10 times and come away with
> a victory because of the defense and Lynch.
>
> You take Luck away from the Colts and they're 2-14 -- Take Wilson
> away from the Seahawks and Matt could potentially still have them
> in playoff contention.
>
> Luck has also set multiple rookie records thus far this year and has
> already successfully completed over five 4th quarter comebacks...another
> rookie record.
>
> Also, last I checked, being 10-5 is the exact definition of executing
> plans.
>
> EDIT: Just to throw it out there, Wilson also came into a stable coaching
> staff as well. Luck was thrown into a rookie coach who brought in
> a new offensive coordinator and THEN had his coach leave due to leukemia,
> which changed everything, and had that create even more pressure to
> win due to the "Do it for Chuck" campaign that started... Mentally,
> I'd imagine that's a lot of pressure unlike any other to know your
> coach is facing leukemia and everyone is expecting you to come in
> and be Peyton Manning and save the franchise.... Wilson has faced
> very little in comparison.

Exactly.

On a side note, I hope Seattle has the good sense to trade Matt Flynn in the off season. It's such a waste to have such a good QB sitting on the bench as a backup to a QB that is not much--if at all--better himself. He can't be cheap either. Trade him for a receiver or low draft pick to get a receiver, and the Seahawks start to look a bit scary. The WR and TE positions are really the only ones that need some shoring up right now. Rice is really the only star receiver right now and then a bunch of nobodies.
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#55)
I disagree. Baldwin has the potential to be a solid WR at the 2 spot...and Tate has the potential as well to be a solid 3 like Avant.

image
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#56)
They're serviceable but nothing special. None of them--Rice included probably--are Pro Bowl level receivers.
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
25-Dec-2012(#57)
Bladwins a pimp and Tate is a cocky little crap, both are awesome.
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#58)
Nick wrote:
> Bladwins a pimp and Tate is a cocky little crap, both are awesome.

A pimp and a crap with very unimpressive stats. There are 2nd and 3rd receivers on lots of teams that have stats that destroy both of theirs combined.
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#59)
Tom Brady won 3 Super Bowls with WRs who couldn't even cut it on other teams, including the Seahawks (Branch)...

Sidney Rice, Golden Tate and Baldwin are more than serviceable to compete for a Super Bowl.

image
TerrHeel
For-e-VER GameTZ Gold Subscriber 250 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
25-Dec-2012(#60)
Stats are meaningless. Tate has made a lot of big plays from what I've seen.
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#61)
Exactly -- A lot of good Calvin Johnson hitting 2,000 receiving yards is going to do for the Lions this year.

image
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#62)
DaveSGE wrote:
> Tom Brady won 3 Super Bowls with WRs who couldn't even cut it on other
> teams, including the Seahawks (Branch)...
>
> Sidney Rice, Golden Tate and Baldwin are more than serviceable to
> compete for a Super Bowl.
>
>

He's also Tom Brady, one of the best QBs of all time. Russell Wilson is...Russell Wilson.
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#63)
atomheartmother wrote:
> DaveSGE wrote:
>> Tom Brady won 3 Super Bowls with WRs who couldn't even cut it on
> other
>> teams, including the Seahawks (Branch)...
>>
>> Sidney Rice, Golden Tate and Baldwin are more than serviceable
> to
>> compete for a Super Bowl.
>>
>>
>
> He's also Tom Brady, one of the best QBs of all time. Russell Wilson
> is...Russell Wilson.

Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl with mediocre WRs and so did Brad Johnson. They did this with stellar defensive play and a strong running game... Russell Wilson is better than both of those quarterbacks.

Feel free to continue to try and argue your invalid point.

image
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#64)
Let me know how many Super Bowls Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Terrell Owens, and Randy Moss have won...

image
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#65)
DaveSGE wrote:
> atomheartmother wrote:
>> DaveSGE wrote:
> |>> Tom Brady won 3 Super Bowls with WRs who couldn't even cut it
> on
>> other
> |>> teams, including the Seahawks (Branch)...
> |>>
> |>> Sidney Rice, Golden Tate and Baldwin are more than serviceable
>> to
> |>> compete for a Super Bowl.
> |>>
> |>>
>>
>> He's also Tom Brady, one of the best QBs of all time. Russell Wilson
>> is...Russell Wilson.
>
> Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl with mediocre WRs and so did Brad Johnson.
> They did this with stellar defensive play and a strong running game...
> Russell Wilson is better than both of those quarterbacks.
>
> Feel free to continue to try and argue your invalid point.
>
>

Apples to oranges. Those were completely different eras of football. This is an era of pass first and often offenses. When is the last time a team with mediocre receivers and QB even WENT to the Super Bowl?
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#66)
DaveSGE wrote:
> Let me know how many Super Bowls Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson,
> Calvin Johnson, Terrell Owens, and Randy Moss have won...
>
>

Fitzgerald has been to one and he was a huge reason they went. They might now have without him. Look at the teams these guys are on. They either have a weak (or no QB) or are on an utterly incomplete team.

How about Jennings, Cruz, Wallace, and Welker? See, I can name receivers too...They also happened to win the Super Bowl, by the way.
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#67)
atomheartmother wrote:
> DaveSGE wrote:
>> atomheartmother wrote:
> |>> DaveSGE wrote:
>> |>> Tom Brady won 3 Super Bowls with WRs who couldn't even cut
> it
>> on
> |>> other
>> |>> teams, including the Seahawks (Branch)...
>> |>>
>> |>> Sidney Rice, Golden Tate and Baldwin are more than serviceable
> |>> to
>> |>> compete for a Super Bowl.
>> |>>
>> |>>
> |>>
> |>> He's also Tom Brady, one of the best QBs of all time. Russell
> Wilson
> |>> is...Russell Wilson.
>>
>> Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl with mediocre WRs and so did Brad
> Johnson.
>> They did this with stellar defensive play and a strong running
> game...
>> Russell Wilson is better than both of those quarterbacks.
>>
>> Feel free to continue to try and argue your invalid point.
>>
>>
>
> Apples to oranges. Those were completely different eras of football.
> This is an era of pass first and often offenses. When is the last
> time a team with mediocre receivers and QB even WENT to the Super
> Bowl?

Different ERA of football? The St. Louis Rams went one year prior to Trent Dilfer winning his Super Bowl and that Rams team is arguably the second greatest offensive team of all time... The Bucs played a QB who threw for 4,700 yards that season, Rich Gannon.

Lol... Yeah, you're really helping your case...

2006 The Seahawks went with crapty WRs and Matty H at QB.... Or is 6 years ago a different era of football too?

Let's go with the team that beat the Seahawks -- The Steelers. This was before Ben Roethlisberger got going... In 2006, Ben threw for 2,300 yards and the Steelers didn't even have a 1,000 yard receiver... But I guess that doesn't count at all, right?

Defense > Offense... No ERA of football will ever change that... Ask the New England Patriots in 2007-2008.

Keep trying...you're failing each time.

LOL @ 10 years ago being a different era of football.


image
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#68)
atomheartmother wrote:
> DaveSGE wrote:
>> Let me know how many Super Bowls Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson,
>> Calvin Johnson, Terrell Owens, and Randy Moss have won...
>>
>>
>
> Fitzgerald has been to one and he was a huge reason they went. They
> might now have without him. Look at the teams these guys are on. They
> either have a weak (or no QB) or are on an utterly incomplete team.
>
> How about Jennings, Cruz, Wallace, and Welker? See, I can name receivers
> too...They also happened to win the Super Bowl, by the way.


Yeah, Randy Moss was really on an incomplete team in 2007 when the Patriots went 18-1...

I can really see your point again...
DaveSGE

(abuse)
* 25-Dec-2012(#69)
Oh and PLEASE, PLEASE fill me in on when Wes Welker won a Super Bowl.

Thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're even typing about.

PS: I like how Brady is one of the best QBs ever and could win a SB with a bunch of nobodies on offense, but give him Randy Moss and Wes Welker and he can't get the job done at all... Amazing.

image
Nick
Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
25-Dec-2012(#70)
I would try to argue points, but Dave has everything covered for me.

So I guess I'll just stick with my original, "suck it"
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#71)
I should have realized he was clueless when he stated the Jets and Steelers played in the same division.

image
USAF_Trader
GameTZ Subscriber Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
* 25-Dec-2012(#72)
atomheartmother wrote:
> DaveSGE wrote:
>> Let me know how many Super Bowls Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson,
>> Calvin Johnson, Terrell Owens, and Randy Moss have won...
>>
>>
>
> Fitzgerald has been to one and he was a huge reason they went. They
> might now have without him. Look at the teams these guys are on. They
> either have a weak (or no QB) or are on an utterly incomplete team.
>
> How about Jennings, Cruz, Wallace, and Welker? See, I can name receivers
> too...They also happened to win the Super Bowl, by the way.

Ouch......one of those 4 don't belong.....Yeah.......Wes Welker has just as many super bowls as Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson,Calvin Johnson, Terrell Owens, and Randy Moss....

Edit: Damn....Dave caught that.....
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
* 25-Dec-2012(#73)
Oh no, an anachronism! I should probably dedicate more than
4 seconds to thinking of a list next time. Whatever. Been to a Super Bowl. That is beside the point of the argument. Way to find an irrelevant part and ignore the substance of the argument. Like any true non-argumenter.

Regardless, there's nothing more to say than $5 says the Seahawks don't make it past the 2nd round of playoffs. They've shown they perform terribly on the road, which is where they'll be playing most, if not all, of the playoffs. I'd be surprised if they made it past the Wild Card.
DaveSGE

(abuse)
* 25-Dec-2012(#74)
Talk about ignoring the substance...

Thanks for ignoring the Tom Brady example, Randy Moss example, etc... all which prove completely otherwise the point you're trying to make. It's cool, I'm not going to fabricate statements like you like to do in order to prove a point

Congrats.

image
atomheartmother
Bronze Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#75)
DaveSGE wrote:
> Talk about ignoring the substance...
>
> Thanks for ignoring the Tom Brady example, Randy Moss example, etc...
> all which prove completely otherwise the point you're trying to make.
> It's cool, I'm not going to fabricate statements like you like to
> do in order to prove a point
>
> Congrats.
>
>

I'm not sure what you're point was regarding Brady and those receivers. Enlighten me. How does that relate to the Seahawks current situation?
DaveSGE

(abuse)
25-Dec-2012(#76)
Your claim was that Brady is exempt from winning a SB with crapty WRs because he's good. However, the fact remains that Brady lost TWO Super Bowls when his WRs were excellent -- once with Welker/Moss and one with Welker/Gronkowski/Hernandez

Yet, Russell Wilson having legitimately better WRs than the guys Brady won with is irrelevant because Brady is one of the best?

Your argument holds no water at all. If WRs were why teams win Super Bowls, Brady would have had a 19-0 Season...instead, he ended up 18-1.

Defense wins championships. It doesn't matter what era of football you're talking about -- defense ALWAYS wins. The Giants proved this twice, the Steelers have proven it twice, the Ravens, the Buccaneers, the Patriots (3 times)... And that's just over the course of the last 12 years of football... Hell, you can even argue that the Packers proved it as well considering their defense was stout the year they won it... That's 10 out of the last 12 Champions... Who did the Giants have in 2007? David Tyree? Plaxico Burress? Lol... Right.

To even argue that the early part of the last decade was a different era is a joke. The Eagles couldn't win a SB with Terrell Owens in 2004 and they had a ridiculous Pass:Run ratio just like teams are starting to have this year and going forward. Andy Reid was notorious for passing the ball 65%+ of the time...yet you say that was in a different era?

It's been proven more than once that "Game Managers" at the QB position can win Super Bowls by minimizing mistakes and allowing the defense and run game to do the leg work. Russell Wilson has proven that he can take pressure off of his defense and his running game which only makes the Seahawks that much more dangerous as an overall team.

None of your claims in this entire discussion have held any weight or water. They're about as legitimate as a CZ diamond. You're completely delusional.

image
Jerry
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Secret Santa
25-Dec-2012(#77)
I think you guys should just kiss and get it over with......
USAF_Trader
GameTZ Subscriber Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
25-Dec-2012(#78)
I mean, I don't think Seattle makes it out of the Wild Card if they do not win the division, but what Russell Wilson did year was pretty incredible. Does he win the RoTY? I actually think Andrew Luck should win it. Seattle was a 7-9 team last year and Indy was 2-14. The only moves Indy made was drafting Luck, and trading for Vontae Davis from Miami. I agree with Dave when he says if Luck isn't on Indy, the team is garbage. Russell Wilson still has an incredible defense and a top 10 running back in the league.

What Seattle has done is pretty crazy. They are going to be a force in the upcoming seasons. They have a couple of guys that are UFA's that need to be resigned, and I'm sure there are players like Kam that wants to get out of their rookie deals. They have a lot of cap room, which makes it scary. They have room to make some noise in FA. I just don't know if the read option will win a Super Bowl. I guess we'll wait and see. This is a good team and they are fire hot right now.
KrownKlown
Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally Has Written 3 Reviews
25-Dec-2012(#79)
DaveSGE wrote:
> Your claim was that Brady is exempt from winning a SB with crapty
> WRs because he's good. However, the fact remains that Brady lost TWO
> Super Bowls when his WRs were excellent -- once with Welker/Moss and
> one with Welker/Gronkowski/Hernandez
>
> Yet, Russell Wilson having legitimately better WRs than the guys Brady
> won with is irrelevant because Brady is one of the best?
>
> Your argument holds no water at all. If WRs were why teams win Super
> Bowls, Brady would have had a 19-0 Season...instead, he ended up 18-1.
>
> Defense wins championships. It doesn't matter what era of football
> you're talking about -- defense ALWAYS wins. The Giants proved this
> twice, the Steelers have proven it twice, the Ravens, the Buccaneers,
> the Patriots (3 times)... And that's just over the course of the last
> 12 years of football... Hell, you can even argue that the Packers
> proved it as well considering their defense was stout the year they
> won it... That's 10 out of the last 12 Champions... Who did the Giants
> have in 2007? David Tyree? Plaxico Burress? Lol... Right.
>
> To even argue that the early part of the last decade was a different
> era is a joke. The Eagles couldn't win a SB with Terrell Owens in
> 2004 and they had a ridiculous Pass:Run ratio just like teams are
> starting to have this year and going forward. Andy Reid was notorious
> for passing the ball 65%+ of the time...yet you say that was in a
> different era?
>
> It's been proven more than once that "Game Managers" at the QB position
> can win Super Bowls by minimizing mistakes and allowing the defense
> and run game to do the leg work. Russell Wilson has proven that he
> can take pressure off of his defense and his running game which only
> makes the Seahawks that much more dangerous as an overall team.
>
> None of your claims in this entire discussion have held any weight
> or water. They're about as legitimate as a CZ diamond. You're completely
> delusional.
>
>

Whoa son, don't talk smack about my country. You can get some fine quality gemstones in the Czech Republic.
pr0phet
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
25-Dec-2012(#80)
Chad wrote:
> of course in the playoffs any given team can beat another any given
> week. right now, hawks can move the ball on anyone in the race and
> match up well defensively against everyone. not to say any given
> games the other offense can't take the flow. At Washington is about
> the best match up we could hope for. Match up very well with them
> defensively and can put up points on them offensively. At dallas
> would be a bit harder, unlikely that witten will have stone hands
> 2 games in a row against the hawks, but still a very much winnable
> game. Falcons match up comes down to if Sherman is there or not.
> Without sherman, I don't think we can stop their passing game since
> either jones or white will have a non-elite cb on them. Even with
> browner on them that could be exploited. Sherman could man up against
> one, but browner will need Thomas' help to shut down the other. At
> GB will be the hardest game. GB in January is just rough. Best scenario
> is blizzard like conditions forcing a run game in which case lynch
> dominates. Worst case is freezing cold but dry, GB probably takes
> that. At SF or home against the 6 seed are both winnable games.

I like this analysis. If nothing gets overturned you could be without your two top CB's until the Superbowl....Good luck!

Topic   If you don't like the Seahawks....