NFL.com Power Rankings: Seahawks are #1 (UPDATED 9/8)

[jonkchar]

I despise elliott harrison. He'll look for any way he can to knock the seahawks. Having said that, #2 is pretty decent

 

[scutterhawk]

I get being a little skeptical of Grahams blocking but people are going way too far with it. He just wasn't asked to block. It's not like he got mauled repeatedly it just wasn't a big part of their offense. He's 6'7 270 pounds, he will be an adequate blocker at worst.

I don't have a huge problem with it and if Seattle slips in a little bit because of injuries or a bad game it will probably be GB who would be in a position to capitalize.

You're assuming that the Packers themselves, will be injury free, and won't have any setbacks of their own, and will be totally fit and able to power over any team in the NFC.
I don't think that the Packers, or any other team for that matter, that is immune to injuries, or bad games.

 

[scutterhawk]

If you cannot admit they were kicking our ass for 55 minutes then had a combination of vanilla play calling and sheer luck bite them in their ass to let us back in the game.. then you are a blind homer and nothing more.

It's entirely OKAY to admit the Seahawks had a ton of luck fall their way that afternoon. And if you don't believe the Packers with a healthy Rodgers are a scary opponent for anyone, especially if the playoff matchup is in January at Lambeau.. again.. you are a blind homer and nothing more.

Bullshit, the Packers took advantage of the passes to Kearse that went for interceptions, but even the almighty Aaron Rodgers was unable to capitalize on those turnovers, and put the game away.
Rodgers should be a lot healthier this next meeting, but I'm pretty sure that the Seahawks Secondary will be a lot healthier for that game also.
Like I said before, I'm not taking anything away from Rodgers, but it ain't like the Seahawks will be spotting them any points either.
It's like some of you guys believe that Rodgers is a 'One Man Gang', and doesn't need his fellow teammates to help him win games. LOL.

 

[scutterhawk]

I agree with the ranking. I think Green Bay is the favorite in the NFC considering they had the equivalent of a boxer having the first 11 rounds won then catching an unfortunate KO at the end.

I laughed at this hot take though..

I'm not detracting from what Rodgers has going for him, BUT, you have to temper that enthusiasm with some reality, and that is, Rodgers is going to need his Receivers to ALSO step it up on their end of the passing game.

Since.. you know.. Rodgers has only thrown for over 4000 yards every year he's been healthy and started all 16. The Packers chemistry is never a question. How smoothly Graham translates into this offense with Wilson and the run game IS a question however.

Go ahead and laugh, even WITH Rodgers throwing all those 4,000 Yards (Just like Peyton Manning did the Year before :stirthepot: ) Do you honestly believe that a healthy Seahawks Secondary won't challenge every pass play that Rodgers throws?, yeah, me neither.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

How can you not like the Graham trade? A center who missed a ton of time last year for the second best TE in the game?

And im so tired of the blocking argument, he's a big strong guy, will he ever be Zack Miller blocking? No, but Miller was one of the best in the league at it.

You know how Jimmy helps the running game most? By being out there.... Go ahead and put 8-9 guys in the box, RW audibles to the 1-1 matchup where a lb is trying to cover Graham........ By him simply being out there forcing the d to be honest, helps lynch and the rush game a ton.

Yeah you're right--screw blocking. And besides, it'll be Rodgers who will be worrying about the blocking now that we got Clark, a healthy Jordan Hill and Irving back in camp 48 pounds heavier, adding strength without losing his freakish quickness, playing in a contract year. GO HAWKS!

 

[HansGruber]

Might be easier to take that seriously if the Packers hadn't been completely pummeled every time they've faced the NFCW (or any quality defense) over the last 4 seasons.

 

[Chukarhawk]

Sounds bad but I predict Erin gets hurt and misses at least 3 games this year possibly more.

 

[RastaHawk12!]

Seattle is #2 on the list. Not exactly a dis

True.
I don't mind our boys having a chip on their shoulder going onto Lambeau either.

 

[bigskydoc]

As for "I'm Jimmy"'s blocking, one should not compare him to our historically great blocking tight end. One should compare him to who we had last year. Everyone agrees that, as a receiver, he is light years ahead of Willson/ McCoy/ Helfet. As a blocker, how far behind can he be, really?

-bsd

 

[Seahawkfan80]

If you cannot admit they were kicking our ass for 55 minutes then had a combination of vanilla play calling and sheer luck bite them in their ass to let us back in the game.. then you are a blind homer and nothing more.

It's entirely OKAY to admit the Seahawks had a ton of luck fall their way that afternoon. And if you don't believe the Packers with a healthy Rodgers are a scary opponent for anyone, especially if the playoff matchup is in January at Lambeau.. again.. you are a blind homer and nothing more.

Bullshit, the Packers took advantage of the passes to Kearse that went for interceptions, but even the almighty Aaron Rodgers was unable to capitalize on those turnovers, and put the game away.
Rodgers should be a lot healthier this next meeting, but I'm pretty sure that the Seahawks Secondary will be a lot healthier for that game also.
Like I said before, I'm not taking anything away from Rodgers, but it ain't like the Seahawks will be spotting them any points either.
It's like some of you guys believe that Rodgers is a 'One Man Gang', and doesn't need his fellow teammates to help him win games. LOL.

But but but Wroggers is the ultimate..........As you stated, they got some interceptions and we dominated. Is ok for the author to deal more BS.......bs is good stuff. As long as it keeps our team tight.


Go Hawks..... :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:

 

[bigskydoc]

Popular narrative was that Green Bay dominated the game until the onside kick at 2:09 left in the game (or perhaps at 3:52 left when the Hawks started their TD drive). Nothing could be further from the truth.

I was at the game, and I remember afterwards folks were asking me if I had been nervous. I really had not been. The game unfolded like a typical Seahawks game. Slow starting first quarter followed by a suffocating ending. I was watching the stat line develop, and once the second quarter got rolling, the result seemed inevitable to me. I only started to get nervous after the Wilson TD because I wasn't sure if there was enough time to kick it deep and force a 3 and out with only 2:09 left. Then the onside kick happened and it was sealed in my mind.

How is it that people think the Packers dominated a game where they were gifted four crazy interceptions, excellent field position, and a heavily injured Seattle secondary, but could not capitalize on any of them to come away with a decisive win? In fact, they couldn't even manage to come up with a single touchdown after the first quarter.


Just look at the stat lines



We pretty much won every quarter but the atrocious first. We rolled just like usual once the first quarter was in the rearview mirror.





Not the lopsided performance before "the Hawks finally came alive with two minutes left" one might expect from the narrative.






and we all remember what OT looked like.


To say that the Packers dominated for 55 minutes, or until 2:09, or until whatever cutoff you choose, is just repetition of the ignorant media narrative. The true story was of one team who was able to overcome adversity, injury, and mistakes and another team that wasn't. At most, the Packers dominated for all of 15 minutes.

- bsd

 

[ptisme]

Their were four teams last year that were pretty even.
New England beat Seattle
Seattle beat Green Bay
Green Bay beat New England
Dallas beat Seattle
Green Bay beat Dallas....


We'll see how this season goes and injuries could happen... But I'm telling you guys, Green Bay is an entirely different animal at Lambeau...

 

[Ambrose83]

Their were four teams last year that were pretty even.
New England beat Seattle
Seattle beat Green Bay
Green Bay beat New England
Dallas beat Seattle
Green Bay beat Dallas....


We'll see how this season goes and injuries could happen... But I'm telling you guys, Green Bay is an entirely different animal at Lambeau...

ya they are, ask the 9ers and kap about that.

 

[ptisme]

Their were four teams last year that were pretty even.
New England beat Seattle
Seattle beat Green Bay
Green Bay beat New England
Dallas beat Seattle
Green Bay beat Dallas....


We'll see how this season goes and injuries could happen... But I'm telling you guys, Green Bay is an entirely different animal at Lambeau...

ya they are, ask the 9ers and kap about that.

Who?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Packers were given a short field most of the day. They didn't dominate anything.

 

[rideaducati]

I don't recall a team that was as complacent as the Packers have been this year ever being better the following year. Especially when you consider the team to beat that they couldn't beat last year got even better. Good luck.

 

[rideaducati]

Their were four teams last year that were pretty even.
New England beat Seattle
Seattle beat Green Bay
Green Bay beat New England
Dallas beat Seattle
Green Bay beat Dallas....


We'll see how the season goes and injuries could happen... But I'm telling you guys, Green Bay is an entirely different animal at Lambeau...

This is all true, but the Packers still have 8 road games this season too. It is possible that the Packers win week two but lose more games than the Seahawks and not get home field advantage because they are a "different animal" home and away. It's not like the Packers had a very tough home schedule last season and that could be a reason for the difference too. Seattle's defense travels rather well and is still capable of disrupting offenses.

 

[Popeyejones]

I keep seeing people pick the Packers because they're bringing back all their players. Aren't these same players that couldn't get it done last year?

I don't have a problem with people picking GB but having 'all their players are returning' could make them better but it could also make them the same.

FWIW outside of Seattle I think folks generally think that the Packers were a better team in the NFCCG that just sh!t the bed on some really bad bounces.

I'm not saying this is correct, just relaying a general impression.

Regarding returning all of their players, he made two points which might relate to their ranking in relation to the Seahawks:

1) They're returning all their players, whereas the Hawks are plugging in two new starts along the O-Line, one on D-line, and one at CB. For a pre-season ranking, when you don't know how new starters will perform, it's pretty normal to make the conservative guess that returning starters are a benefit to an already good team.

2) He also included that the Packers don't have any major injuries anyone is coming back from, which also isn't true for the Hawks.

To be clear I couldn't care less about offseason power rankings and I'm not arguing that the Packers SHOULD be above the Seahawks, but I think his justification for why HE thinks they are at least makes sense, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[ptisme]

Their were four teams last year that were pretty even.
New England beat Seattle
Seattle beat Green Bay
Green Bay beat New England
Dallas beat Seattle
Green Bay beat Dallas....


We'll see how the season goes and injuries could happen... But I'm telling you guys, Green Bay is an entirely different animal at Lambeau...

This is all true, but the Packers still have 8 road games this season too. It is possible that the Packers win week two but lose more games than the Seahawks and not get home field advantage because they are a "different animal" home and away. It's not like the Packers had a very tough home schedule last season and that could be a reason for the difference too. Seattle's defense travels rather well and is still capable of disrupting offenses.

True.... Defense does travel. GB isn't exactly cream puffs on the road, it's just that they are in a different gear at home. I could definitely see them losing at Arizona and at Minnesota... Also, they did have some good teams at home last year: New England, Dallas, Detroit and Carolina. Philly was considered one of the better teams in the league (7-2) when they got blown out of the stadium in November...

 

[ptisme]

I keep seeing people pick the Packers because they're bringing back all their players. Aren't these same players that couldn't get it done last year?

I don't have a problem with people picking GB but having 'all their players are returning' could make them better but it could also make them the same.

FWIW outside of Seattle I think folks generally think that the Packers were a better team in the NFCCG that just sh!t the bed on some really bad bounces.

I'm not saying this is correct, just relaying a general impression.

Regarding returning all of their players, he made two points which might relate to their ranking in relation to the Seahawks:

1) They're returning all their players, whereas the Hawks are plugging in two new starts along the O-Line, one on D-line, and one at CB. For a pre-season ranking, when you don't know how new starters will perform, it's pretty normal to make the conservative guess that returning starters are a benefit to an already good team.

2) He also included that the Packers don't have any major injuries anyone is coming back from, which also isn't true for the Hawks.

To be clear I couldn't care less about offseason power rankings and I'm not arguing that the Packers SHOULD be above the Seahawks, but I think his justification for why HE thinks they are at least makes sense, even if you don't agree with it.

Outstanding post!!