SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
What Toffee said. What better way to flip it right back to the drama queens than to get in the playoffs and do some damage??
chris98251":3v0ci704 said:I am hoping, I want another shot at the Rams, the league may fix the game but I want that shot, knocking them out would be great, also they want anyone to get in but us, we are the last team they want to see.
The Chiefs concern me less because they have a horrible defense that can't stop the run. I'm not saying we're a better team or anything, the matchup just looks a lot easier on paper than I initially expected.pittpnthrs":1nc79m40 said:knownone":1nc79m40 said:After watching KC tonight I'm not at all afraid of them. Seattle would have controlled the time of possession and those Mahomes turnovers would have absolutely killed KC. Seriously, the Hawks win that game by 10+ if they were in the Rams shoes.
The 51 points that they hung on the team that beat us twice wasnt enough to concern you? Granted, teams with winning records are only averaging 29 points a game against us (thats a lot), but come on man. We should probably beat at least one team with a winning record before proclaiming a win over a team like KC.
I still see us at 8-8 and at the best, maybe a 1st round win if we're lucky and sneak into the playoffs. Nothing more than that. If Carolina beats us, that will pretty much cement the 'can beat the bottom feeders, but cant beat the upper tier' stigma for the Hawks.
knownone":2d5su59f said:The Chiefs concern me less because they have a horrible defense that can't stop the run. I'm not saying we're a better team or anything, the matchup just looks a lot easier on paper than I initially expected.
All that nonsense about giving up 29 ppg and how we haven't beat a team with a winning record is entirely dependent on a limited sample size that is relative to this point in the season.
For instance, if the Seahawks win and the Packers and Cowboys win, Seattle will have 3 wins over teams with a winning record. Which would put their points allowed against winning teams at 25. We can then factor in defensive TDs and bring that total down to 21 points allowed/game against teams with winning records.
What does all that mean? Absolutely nothing... but remember while you are doubting the Seahawks legitimacy as a contender, 1TD is all that separates the Seahawks and Rams for the division lead. You can pretend the gap between Seattle and the Rams is bigger than it is but that's the reality of the situation. Why? Because parallelism is a transitive property, so if you hold the Rams in high esteem, then you must hold the Seahawks equidistant to the Rams.
(this is all in good fun btw, I don't know why I come off so grumpy in text)
pittpnthrs":2uile38p said:Its true, I don't see the Seahawks as a legitimate contender. Why would I, they are .500 and again, haven't beaten a good team yet.
MontanaHawk05":1wuwkdf6 said:pittpnthrs":1wuwkdf6 said:Its true, I don't see the Seahawks as a legitimate contender. Why would I, they are .500 and again, haven't beaten a good team yet.
A lot of good teams are .500 or thereabouts right now. That's the NFC this year.
Seattle beat a good quarterback just last Thursday. Are you going to respond by telling us how terrible Rodgers has become?
pacific101":kc9ijma8 said:The Seattle Seahawks are going all the way this season, the Emerald City Miracle part doh awaits us!
SoulfishHawk":20w75j99 said:Whatever man. Why are you taking this personal? I say plenty. I get that you don't like me, but you know nothing about me. But, I'll gladly bow out if I'm such a horrible poster. Montana been an ass to me for a long while now, for no good reason. Whatever makes you feel better. Guess I thought I was welcomed here, clearly not. Have a great holiday.
Go Hawks
SoulfishHawk":i9dd7wyo said:Absolutely, would LOVE too see the Rams again. They stood toe to toe with them, both games. They also were not intimidated one bit. I'm loving this rivalry, and it's going to get a lot bigger the next couple of years. That would be one hell of a playoff game if we could face them down there, and I'm sure Hawks fans would represent well as always.
pittpnthrs":j7kc2uys said:MontanaHawk05":j7kc2uys said:pittpnthrs":j7kc2uys said:Its true, I don't see the Seahawks as a legitimate contender. Why would I, they are .500 and again, haven't beaten a good team yet.
A lot of good teams are .500 or thereabouts right now. That's the NFC this year.
Seattle beat a good quarterback just last Thursday. Are you going to respond by telling us how terrible Rodgers has become?
Good lord. So beating a good QB that's surrounded by a crappy supporting cast is the same thing as beating a good team? Green Bay sucks this year.
By the way, who are all of these good teams that are .500 right now and what are you basing their goodness off of?
Mad Dog":30fpov5g said:pittpnthrs":30fpov5g said:MontanaHawk05":30fpov5g said:pittpnthrs":30fpov5g said:Its true, I don't see the Seahawks as a legitimate contender. Why would I, they are .500 and again, haven't beaten a good team yet.
A lot of good teams are .500 or thereabouts right now. That's the NFC this year.
Seattle beat a good quarterback just last Thursday. Are you going to respond by telling us how terrible Rodgers has become?
Good lord. So beating a good QB that's surrounded by a crappy supporting cast is the same thing as beating a good team? Green Bay sucks this year.
By the way, who are all of these good teams that are .500 right now and what are you basing their goodness off of?
Dallas, Philly, Carolina, Minnesota, GB, Atlanta, Seattle. All somewhere between 4-6 and 6-4.
Goodness is based on roster talent and recent years successes. All those teams have had a top NFC seed in the last 4 years.
pittpnthrs":14f0qn78 said:Mad Dog":14f0qn78 said:pittpnthrs":14f0qn78 said:MontanaHawk05":14f0qn78 said:A lot of good teams are .500 or thereabouts right now. That's the NFC this year.
Seattle beat a good quarterback just last Thursday. Are you going to respond by telling us how terrible Rodgers has become?
Good lord. So beating a good QB that's surrounded by a crappy supporting cast is the same thing as beating a good team? Green Bay sucks this year.
By the way, who are all of these good teams that are .500 right now and what are you basing their goodness off of?
Dallas, Philly, Carolina, Minnesota, GB, Atlanta, Seattle. All somewhere between 4-6 and 6-4.
Goodness is based on roster talent and recent years successes. All those teams have had a top NFC seed in the last 4 years.
Your basing your opinion on what some of those teams used to be. Dallas, GB, Atlanta, and Seattle arent good teams. They are average teams. Only on fan forums can a team be .500 without beating another team with a winning record and be considered good.
Ad Hawk":12li66p2 said:pittpnthrs":12li66p2 said:Mad Dog":12li66p2 said:pittpnthrs":12li66p2 said:Good lord. So beating a good QB that's surrounded by a crappy supporting cast is the same thing as beating a good team? Green Bay sucks this year.
By the way, who are all of these good teams that are .500 right now and what are you basing their goodness off of?
Dallas, Philly, Carolina, Minnesota, GB, Atlanta, Seattle. All somewhere between 4-6 and 6-4.
Goodness is based on roster talent and recent years successes. All those teams have had a top NFC seed in the last 4 years.
Your basing your opinion on what some of those teams used to be. Dallas, GB, Atlanta, and Seattle arent good teams. They are average teams. Only on fan forums can a team be .500 without beating another team with a winning record and be considered good.
Hypothetical question: If every team in the league won and lost close to the same number of games, are they all "average" or all "bad" or all "good"?
Parity can make even great teams look mediocre at times. The difference between average and good, or good and great, may be one game or two with a win/loss point difference of 4 or 5 points.