Lady Luck... According to espn

[MizzouHawkGal]

Obviously it's a very difficult task to win one Super Bowl let alone repeat. I don't think anyone here just assumes it'll happen, we're simply confident that we have a decent opportunity/chance. There's nothing wrong with that.

Conversely, those who say, "It rarely happens, therefore it won't happen now" are similar to people who think that there is no possibility of life on other planets simply because we haven't found any yet, or those who believed man couldn't fly because no one had yet figured out aerodynamics.

All I know is that we are in a better position then New England was to achieve it and probably the nearest in makeup to the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys (which if they didn't let front office politics ruin the whole thing) were perfectly positioned to reel off 3-4 more Superbowl wins.

 

[Hawks46]

No team can win it all without a little lady luck especially when it comes to injuries

This. Plus, I reread the article 3 times, and nowhere in it does it say Seattle won't repeat.

The author actually goes on to dispell "conventional wisdom" about how success is tied to the amount of 1st and 2nd round draft choices on your squad. He also mentions Seattle is the league's 2nd youngest team.

He prognosticates nothing. Nothing. His premise of "lady luck" is actually correct. In 2012, it was unlucky that we lost Clemmons to injury the game before Atlanta. Sure, it was a crappy FedEx field, and maybe we were lucky to not lose Russell Wilson or Marshawn Lynch to injury, but no one can refute that we probably win @ Atlanta with more pressure on Matt Ryan in base packages, and CLemmons was much better against the run than Irvin was at that point. If we were "lucky" and came out of that game with no injuries, do we beat Atlanta ? Probably. Do we win @ SF ? Likely; we had just crushed them, were the hottest team in the league and had them on their heels and with low confidence facing our team. Do we beat the Ravens in the SB ? I don't know, but it's a good shot.

So why is the article "garbage"? Seriously, the author cites past history, but doesnt' say Seattle won't make it. I read this thread first, then the article. Then I reread the entire article 3 times. I honestly can't understand why the torches and pitchforks came out about said article, other than people are too freaking sensitive.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Didn't read this article, but obviously have seen the same silly argument made in a number of places, that repeating is tough and that lowers our chances. It's of course completely illogical and irrational, as it seems to suppose that winning the Super Bowl in some way hinders your opportunity to win the following one without ever offering a reason as to why.

Anyway, we're one of 32 teams, so it's safe to say that if the bet is Seahawks vs. the field for who raises the Lombardi in February, the field is the better bet (assuming even odds). That said, it's pretty clear that we should be a plurality favorite at this point.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm all for writing a critical article of the Hawks, but holy crap have some substance and do some research to back up your opinions.

Lady Luck smiled on the Seahawks in 2013 and perhaps will again this year -- but don't count on it.


Conventional wisdom holds that first- and second-round draft selections are the essence of football success. Yet the Seahawks won the Super Bowl the past season with the league's second-lowest total of games played by first- and second-round selections;

That's your argument? The Hawks already disproved this argument...............LAST YEAR! This is like when you argue with a kid and they say "yeah but!" I know you won the SB last year with very few 1st and 2nd rounders.............YEAH BUT JUST WAIT TIL THIS YEAR!

Stupid.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Obviously it's a very difficult task to win one Super Bowl let alone repeat. I don't think anyone here just assumes it'll happen, we're simply confident that we have a decent opportunity/chance. There's nothing wrong with that.

Conversely, those who say, "It rarely happens, therefore it won't happen now" are similar to people who think that there is no possibility of life on other planets simply because we haven't found any yet, or those who believed man couldn't fly because no one had yet figured out aerodynamics.

All I know is that we are in a better position then New England was to achieve it and probably the nearest in makeup to the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys (which if Jerry Jones hadn't ruined the whole thing) were perfectly positioned to reel off 3-4 more Superbowl wins.

FIFY Mizzou

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Obviously it's a very difficult task to win one Super Bowl let alone repeat. I don't think anyone here just assumes it'll happen, we're simply confident that we have a decent opportunity/chance. There's nothing wrong with that.

Conversely, those who say, "It rarely happens, therefore it won't happen now" are similar to people who think that there is no possibility of life on other planets simply because we haven't found any yet, or those who believed man couldn't fly because no one had yet figured out aerodynamics.

All I know is that we are in a better position then New England was to achieve it and probably the nearest in makeup to the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys (which if Jerry Jones hadn't ruined the whole thing) were perfectly positioned to reel off 3-4 more Superbowl wins.

FIFY Mizzou

Heh, nice change and true at that. :th2thumbs:

 

[scutterhawk]

How soon we all forget. It wasn't very many years ago that we were measuring our seasons hopes on the chance to make it to the playoffs where, as everyone here would point out, "it's a crap shoot".

Even though the Hawks are the best team in the NFL, it's still a crap shoot in the playoffs.

It's only a "crap shoot" if you're not working hard to improve, or that you're relying on luck, or the stars to come into alignment.
Russell Wilson doesn't rest on yesterdays accomplishments, and neither does Pete Carroll.
Fact is, it's looking like the Seahawks have started stepping up the pace on the Offensive scheme, and opening up the play book, and they can do this because with a healthy Percy Harvin, P-Rich and the like, we have the pieces in place to force Defenses to either step up their game or be run over.
Looks like the Packers got the memo, because they're trying to do the same thing, because they know that if you're going to run with the big dogs, you're going to have to get off the porch, and fix what wasn't working.

 

[Tokadub]

So why is the article "garbage"? Seriously, the author cites past history, but doesnt' say Seattle won't make it. I read this thread first, then the article. Then I reread the entire article 3 times. I honestly can't understand why the torches and pitchforks came out about said article, other than people are too freaking sensitive.

Not trying to make fun of you too hard here just joking kinda, but you read that whole article 3 times??? I tried to read it but it just seemed so illogical and he started listing some meaningless stats (in my opinion) and he was going off on huge rants that don't have anything to do with football like:

"Unified Field Theory of Creep: Reader Randall Pierce of Fredericksburg, Virginia: "On August 15th, my wife received an email from Pottery Barn urging her 'not to miss out' on 'spooktacular Halloween costumes.'" Get your Halloween shopping done before Labor Day!"

"Sir, I Have Applied My Lip Gloss, Sir! On TNT's summer ratings hit "The Last Ship", about a virus apocalypse that kills most of humanity, when the titular vessel stops at a naval base and aerial recon shows everyone ashore is dead, the XO says, "I don't like the looks of this." Really! Then the captain goes along with the landing party, just like on "Star Trek." Half the plots on the many "Star Trek" serials boiled down to this formula:"

Once I started running into that kind of excessive random blabbing I began to just speed read through it looking for anything that looked remotely worthy of my time. About half way through I just skipped right to Seattle and closed the article afterwards.


I think his quote about our team proves this was a worthless read and this guy has no idea what he's talking about:

"Yet somehow the Seahawks won this passing league without throwing well themselves"

Ok yeah... over 100 QB Rating, 8.25 yards per attempt (3rd in league for QBs with at least 1300 yards), 2.88 Touch Down/Interception Ratio, 27 Touchdowns... THROWING FOR MASS YARDS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THROWING WELL JUST WATCH ELI MANNING

 

[Shadowhawk]

So why is the article "garbage"? Seriously, the author cites past history, but doesnt' say Seattle won't make it. I read this thread first, then the article. Then I reread the entire article 3 times. I honestly can't understand why the torches and pitchforks came out about said article, other than people are too freaking sensitive.

Not trying to make fun of you too hard here just joking kinda, but you read that whole article 3 times??? I tried to read it but it just seemed so illogical and he started listing some meaningless stats (in my opinion) and he was going off on huge rants that don't have anything to do with football like:

"Unified Field Theory of Creep: Reader Randall Pierce of Fredericksburg, Virginia: "On August 15th, my wife received an email from Pottery Barn urging her 'not to miss out' on 'spooktacular Halloween costumes.'" Get your Halloween shopping done before Labor Day!"

"Sir, I Have Applied My Lip Gloss, Sir! On TNT's summer ratings hit "The Last Ship", about a virus apocalypse that kills most of humanity, when the titular vessel stops at a naval base and aerial recon shows everyone ashore is dead, the XO says, "I don't like the looks of this." Really! Then the captain goes along with the landing party, just like on "Star Trek." Half the plots on the many "Star Trek" serials boiled down to this formula:"

Once I started running into that kind of excessive random blabbing I began to just speed read through it looking for anything that looked remotely worthy of my time. About half way through I just skipped right to Seattle and closed the article afterwards.


I think his quote about our team proves this was a worthless read and this guy has no idea what he's talking about:

"Yet somehow the Seahawks won this passing league without throwing well themselves"

Ok yeah... over 100 QB Rating, 8.25 yards per attempt (3rd in league for QBs with at least 1300 yards), 2.88 Touch Down/Interception Ratio, 27 Touchdowns... THROWING FOR MASS YARDS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THROWING WELL JUST WATCH ELI MANNING

Putting in random stuff like that is Easterbrook's shtick. I stopped reading his articles years ago because he comes off like a smarmier version of Bruno Kirby's character in "Good Morning Vietnam:" someone who thinks he is uproariously funny but is painfully wrong.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

One thing that separates us from a lot of recent Super Bowl winners. We weren't just a middle of the playoff pack team that "got hot at the right time" and won it. The Hawks were legitimately the best team in the league all year and then proved it in the playoffs. Having kept most of the team intact would make it logical we could make a similar run this year.

In contrast:
Baltimore had to win 2 road games to get to the Super Bowl and had the luckiest of TDs in Denver to win. Then they got gutted in the off-season
Giants had to win two road games and barely qualified for the playoffs.
Packers also had to go on the road and win.

Injuries is the only unkown variable that could prevent us from being at the top of the standings like last year.