0-2 Would Not Be The Time To Panic.

[hawksfansinceday1]

It pisses me off that a Superbowl team has to play on the road for the opener, against the defense that always gives them trouble, with a 10:00AM start, then follow it up on the road again at Green Bay.

If you want to set the schedule so that it's hardest on Seattle and but them behind the 8 ball, assign them to 2 really tough road games to open the season. Especially since they've played more games than anyone else in the NFL in the past 2 years..

However, if you love the Patriots, give them a Thursday night home opener so that they get an easier start, and it gives them 10 days off before their next game.

That sounds fair doesn't it?

And if you love the Stealers have them play on the Thursday night opener resulting in 10 days off with their next opponent being the 49ers who played Monday night and then have to travel across the country to Pissburgh on a very short week. Let's face it, NFL gives their favored franchises more than their fair share of breaks.

 

[sutz]

1. Absolutley no need to panic two games in, regardless of outcome. Always prefer to win, of course, and there are disturbing ramifications that could happen re: playoff seeding, but still, we won't be that bad off.

2. I almost (almost, not definitively...take this with some introspection) wish we don't get the #1 seed for a change. Our team rises to meet challenges now, they don't shrink away from them, and I'd love to see us get to the SB with a road playoff win under their belt. We really need at least the #2 seed, though, so still not a lot of margin for error. I just don't think that missing HFA throughout is that much of a disaster. Our last couple of road playoff games, we were in it until the end, in typical PC era Seahawk fashion. Frankly, we were a only couple of plays away from being undefeated in the playoffs the last 3 years.

3. I'd rather have these games now, instead of GB in December or the Lambs after they have a head of steam on a roll toward the playoffs.

We'll be fine, IMHO. I'm certainly not giving up on them in September, that's for sure.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

I also agree with the OP.....going 0-2 might cause some "sweat". Going 0-3 would mean that we are in "deep sh*t"!

 

[Overseasfan]

These first two games are hardest of the year so going 0-2 wouldn't be that much of an issue and we still could probably make the post-season but winning in GB would send a strong message that last week isn't going to be a regular thing.

 

[RastaHawk12!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3Y2i-1mD0

We'll win, but I have said all along we could go 0-2 and I won';t be worried.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

I'll be as cool as a cucumber if we lose on Sunday. I predicted us to start 0-2. I still think we finish 12-4.

 

[AgentDib]

GB has Wilson's number in the passing game. They know our routes, the know Wilson's tendencies, and they know our WRs.

What do you base this on? Three ugly quarters of football that Kearse and Wilson played in the NFC championship game? That kind of stuff just happens, and they (finally) had things clicking in the fourth quarter. In the first game that year we absolutely had their number on the way to 36 points, and not the other way around.

We both have had a ton of personnel turnover. The Packers are now the second youngest team in the NFL with lots of changes along their defense. On the other hand, Jimmy Graham and Tyler Lockett had 0 snaps the last time we played (obviously), while Chris Matthews had 7 and Ricardo Lockette had 45. Things are just different.

 

[seahawk Dan]

I haven't accepted 0-2. I always believe my team has chance to win. The fat lady ain't started singing yet, boys!

Go 'Hawks! Kick some cheesehead butt!!! :thfight7:

I agree we are a very good team just have had a lot of off season distractions . I also can accept 0-2 but I also know that accepting that does not get you any were , WE CAN BEAT THEM AND WE WILL :thirishdrinkers:

 

[Hasselbeck]

It pisses me off that a Superbowl team has to play on the road for the opener, against the defense that always gives them trouble, with a 10:00AM start, then follow it up on the road again at Green Bay.

If you want to set the schedule so that it's hardest on Seattle and but them behind the 8 ball, assign them to 2 really tough road games to open the season. Especially since they've played more games than anyone else in the NFL in the past 2 years..

However, if you love the Patriots, give them a Thursday night home opener so that they get an easier start, and it gives them 10 days off before their next game.

That sounds fair doesn't it?

The Super Bowl champ opens the year on Thursday night. Been that way for over a decade now. Just last season we had that same perk.

The team does play 4 teams off their bye week, but all 4 games are at home.. and the Cardinals game is a Week 10 SNF matchup where we are also coming off a bye week. So the scheduling gripe is kind of grasping for straws here IMO.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

No doubt, 0-2 will be nothing after they win the games with the Bears and Lions.

 

[Cyrus12]

GB is the better team. Rodgers might put up 400 yds passing and Lacey will put up over a 100. if we come out with the same offensive plan as last week it could be embarassing. i do agree that if hawks lose at home to da bears it is time to panic and making the playoffs might be tough. this is not the same team heart and soul wise that weve seen the last 3 yrs.

 

[Shadowhawk]

Last year's four losses came against two AFC teams, the terrible Rams who posed no threat in postseason tiebreakers, and the Cowboys who did but fortunately got refereed out of a chance to face us. When Week 17 came, those circumstances left us in good position to get the #1 seed.

This year, the Rams could likely make a run at the division title, and the Packers will at theirs. If we lose to both of them and another NFC team, we're definitely in worse position than we were last year. AFC losses are always preferable to NFC losses.

It could hurt us down the road. But if Aaron Rodgers goes down at some point in the season it probably won't matter if they beat us week two. If we win but (heaven forbid) Russell Wilson gets hurt, the win probably won't help us much in the long run either. As you pointed out, the loss to the Cowboys really could have hurt us last year but it didn't. This team has a long season ahead of them. As long as they can keep improving and are playing their best football when the playoffs come around, they will be fine.

And if the Hawks have to go on the road in the postseason? They'll prove they don't have to host a playoff game in order to win one.

 

[Siouxhawk]

We'll be playing them again in January, Aros. Might be at their house again in that one. I see them developing in a great postseason rival.

 

[ivotuk]

It pisses me off that a Superbowl team has to play on the road for the opener, against the defense that always gives them trouble, with a 10:00AM start, then follow it up on the road again at Green Bay.

If you want to set the schedule so that it's hardest on Seattle and but them behind the 8 ball, assign them to 2 really tough road games to open the season. Especially since they've played more games than anyone else in the NFL in the past 2 years..

However, if you love the Patriots, give them a Thursday night home opener so that they get an easier start, and it gives them 10 days off before their next game.

That sounds fair doesn't it?

The Super Bowl champ opens the year on Thursday night. Been that way for over a decade now. Just last season we had that same perk.

The team does play 4 teams off their bye week, but all 4 games are at home.. and the Cardinals game is a Week 10 SNF matchup where we are also coming off a bye week. So the scheduling gripe is kind of grasping for straws here IMO.

Well my point is, I think both Superbowl teams should be rewarded with an easier start. But it's just a point, not a real issue. I was just grumpy when I posted it and my posts tend to reflect my mood :3-1:

0-2 would not worry me at all because if you look at it from a scheduling point of view you can ask the question, "What if these 2 games had been after week 2 and not back to back? Would anybody be worried if we started 2 - 2?

These are the 2 toughest games we are likely to play all year, and they just happen to be scheduled as the first 2. I think this is actually beneficial because later in the season it's 2 less travel/away games. As teams start to wear down from the season, they will have to come to the Clink. Bad news for them.

 

[seahawk Dan]

I think we win. I've typed this in a few different places but I'll post it again. GB couldn't even slow down the Bears running game and Lynch and Wilson will rush for over 200 combined. They also don't get near the pass rush the Rams do. I think the offense rolls and the linebackers will play much better which solves a ton of our problems on that side of the ball.

I do agree with the main point that an 0-2 start isn't the end of the world. Seahawks will be just fine when all is said and done.

Very Good Point The Packers are more what the Seahawks need write know than a team like the rams

 

[AROS]

This thread needs to be bumped for obvious reasons. :16:

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

The mods have their work cut out for them. Good luck.

This was expected, by myself at least. The season starts now.

 

[AROS]

BUMP

 

[Cyrus12]

0-3 vs Jimmy Clausen...can't happen...if it does..implosion...but it won't...

 

[Hawk-Lock]

Expected this. Not worried at all. Next real test will be in 3 weeks in Cinci when we go into that game 2-2.