Mike and Mike this morning September 10 discussing the Hawks

Anyone catch Mike and Mike this morning? Don't have a link, I listen to it using the ESPN radio app (free) and you can download a lot of shows and listen to them

edit: here's the ESPN link, you might need to sign up or something. I recommend getting the ESPN Radio app:

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=11498980



Anyway, I personally really enjoy listening to Mike and Mike. And it's the one show I listen to daily. Seems that some people don't like them. That can be a discussion for another day

Chris Carter is sitting in for Golic today (I don't like CC as much) and he and Greeney are talking about "NFL Mulligans" i.e. after week 1, what is the one pick you had pre-season that you'd like to change

Here are some bullet points:

* Greeney said he'd like to change his Seahawks pick. That's pretty interesting seeing as how there were a lot of interesting things that happened in Week 1.

* Greeney said he originally had the Seahawks at 10 and 6, but now after going through the schedule with CC, they both estimate possibly 14 and 2.

* And they also discussed while it is easy to overreact after week 1, is it possible that Seattle is really that good?

* Greeney said he and Golic discussed it more yesterday and when ranking the teams would almost rank the Hawks # 1, no one # 2, and then start the rest of the league from # 3 on

Interesting stuff, especially coming from CC. I do think that it seems the media has become very polarizing on the Hawks, either they've really fully supported the Hawks or they are very stubborn in staying against the Hawks.

In the first case, I don't want to say media has jumped on the bandwagon, because I'd rather see it as the Super Bowl really opened their eyes to the Hawks and they are fully aware of how good they are. In the second case, I think if anything, the stubborn people staying against the Hawks need to open their eyes a bit more.

As an example, picking against the Hawks just because history is not on their side is fairly ignorant. That means you are taking nothing else into account: what you see, what you hear, what you feel. You are just going by history alone.

Thoughts?

As a person who just finished watching every single game from this weekend (condensed games) on Game Rewind—and as a Seahawks fan homer, I can tell you that without a doubt, from the kickoff to the final play, the Seahawks looked better in all aspects of the game than any other team in the league.

There is not a single offense/defense/special teams that I fear, granted it's just the first game and every team is getting warmed up and aren't in "mid-season form" just yet (including Seattle) but I guess the closest that I saw would maybe be Minnesota or Detroit's O and San Frans D.

But I think whoever said Seattle is #1 in power rankings, no #2, and the rest of the league #3, at this point, is very accurate.

I really think the rest of those out there refusing to believe this as truth are either homer fans of other teams and are blindly praying and hoping that if they played Seattle that Seattle would beat themselves or they're basing things off "history" and how it's rarely ever been done before..., because there has not been one argument that I've heard against the Hawks that is based in fact or stats.

We are just that good.... Enjoy it!

chawx":23606o3p said:

As a person who just finished watching every single game from this weekend (condensed games) on Game Rewind—and as a Seahawks fan homer, I can tell you that without a doubt, from the kickoff to the final play, the Seahawks looked better in all aspects of the game than any other team in the league.

Click to expand...

True true. Something else interesting about the Packers game. You got to think that the Packers did have an interesting idea to not throw at Sherman. If it worked they would have been geniuses. But that really discounts how talented the entire defense is. Maybe it's good Sherman draws so much attention to himself because it will get in the heads of all teams that play against us. If they even have to tell themselves "No, let's not throw at Sherman" or "Yes, let's throw at Sherman" that already alone will get in opponent's heads.

chawx":23606o3p said:

But I think whoever said Seattle is #1 in power rankings, no #2, and the rest of the league #3, at this point, is very accurate.

Click to expand...

Both Greeney and Golic said this yesterday on an NFL Ranking show. Greeney brought it up this morning on Mike and Mike and CC agreed. They then both went through the Hawks schedule. They had definite wins for the Hawks through Game 11. Game 12, 49ers @ SF, they couldn't decide and said it could go either way. Game 13, Eagles @ Philly, same thing. Then 49ers again.

No conclusive losses for those three, just not sures, the rest they picked as Hawks wins, and that they both thought the Hawks would get to double digit wins before any possible loss.

I really think the rest of those out there refusing to believe this as truth are either homer fans of other teams and are blindly praying and hoping that if they played Seattle that Seattle would beat themselves or they're basing things off "history" and how it's rarely ever been done before..., because there has not been one argument that I've heard against the Hawks that is based in fact or stats.

Click to expand...

Again, with our sample of 1 game to work off of, unlike any other team, they seemed to win almost effortlessly. It definitely was not their best effort, they know and the 12s know they can do a lot better, and the final score was an "easy" 20 point win, and could have potentially had even more disparity

We are just that good.... Enjoy it!

Click to expand...

I want to, I am just always overly cautious But yeah, week 1 was awesome.

Well the 49ers look better.

So I might put them closer to us, for certain a #2.

Sure Dallas is a disaster and frankly they were running on the 49ers at will with Murray (save for the fumble) until Romo decided to be stupid and audible out of the run play. But the 49ers are also missing some important pieces so I am doubting that they would be that easy to run on without them.

Regardless, the 49ers seem to have addressed their biggest weakness, the secondary. I would argue their secondary is at least average, likely better. That was their big weakness against us and they came close to filling it.

On the other hand, our weakness at the OL looks less of an issue. It is one game and perhaps GB is just a disaster, but if we beat a good team we beat it with an OL that was nowhere near the oh no factor as last year. But we also lost corner depth bigtime, to the point where I am very concerned about how we handle 4 WR sets.

Either way, we can pretty much count on some outstanding football this year from the team.

I was disappointed we lost some important people, but that happens when you are popular. The Hawks should be #1 based on last year and the continuation of solid play this year, but you cannot discount the 49ers look improved and shelled their first opponent too.

At this point, based on Dallas getting shelled you almost have to put the 49ers at #2, if not 1.5. Not sure we will learn much from the Bears game either. Either the 49ers are very very good or their opponents are terrible. Likely both.

It could very well be neck and neck again this year with them.

byau":1p65gxyk said:

Maybe it's good Sherman draws so much attention to himself because it will get in the heads of all teams that play against us. If they even have to tell themselves "No, let's not throw at Sherman" or "Yes, let's throw at Sherman" that already alone will get in opponent's heads.

Click to expand...

This is one of the truest things said on this forum recently.

The very fact that Sherman has gotten to the point where teams have to gameplan around Sherman. And that means either deciding to thrown, or to not throw. That alone gives us an advantage.

Cartire":227npll8 said:

byau":227npll8 said:

Maybe it's good Sherman draws so much attention to himself because it will get in the heads of all teams that play against us. If they even have to tell themselves "No, let's not throw at Sherman" or "Yes, let's throw at Sherman" that already alone will get in opponent's heads.

Click to expand...

This is one of the truest things said on this forum recently.

The very fact that Sherman has gotten to the point where teams have to gameplan around Sherman. And that means either deciding to thrown, or to not throw. That alone gives us an advantage.

Click to expand...

I'll add....
To hell with anybody that says Sherm ain't the best because he doesn't follow the #1.
Shutting down half the field on The double check guy?
Come on man.

Cartire":3kad48ps said:

byau":3kad48ps said:

Maybe it's good Sherman draws so much attention to himself because it will get in the heads of all teams that play against us. If they even have to tell themselves "No, let's not throw at Sherman" or "Yes, let's throw at Sherman" that already alone will get in opponent's heads.

Click to expand...

This is one of the truest things said on this forum recently.

The very fact that Sherman has gotten to the point where teams have to gameplan around Sherman. And that means either deciding to thrown, or to not throw. That alone gives us an advantage.

Click to expand...

playing defense is that much easier when you only have to defend 2/3 of the field.

Sherman Island. Est. 2014.

pmedic920":1xayrzl6 said:

Cartire":1xayrzl6 said:

byau":1xayrzl6 said:

Maybe it's good Sherman draws so much attention to himself because it will get in the heads of all teams that play against us. If they even have to tell themselves "No, let's not throw at Sherman" or "Yes, let's throw at Sherman" that already alone will get in opponent's heads.

Click to expand...

This is one of the truest things said on this forum recently.

The very fact that Sherman has gotten to the point where teams have to gameplan around Sherman. And that means either deciding to thrown, or to not throw. That alone gives us an advantage.

Click to expand...

I'll add....
To hell with anybody that says Sherm ain't the best because he doesn't follow the #1.
Shutting down half the field on The double check guy?
Come on man.

Click to expand...

pmedic: "PAtrick Peterson didn't track receivers Wk 1, how does the Sherman-Revis-Peterson debate look now?"

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=96289

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... -week-1-2/ :th2thumbs:

Great thread and description, thank you for posting as I never bother to listen to those guys. (too early for me). Also, thanks for putting a date on it since there was a previous thread like this and I would not have clicked on it if I didn't see it was a new one.

IMO the reason the Hawks have been taken "a little" lightly by some in the national media is all the player losses. Not until they actually saw the 2014 version in a real meaningful game did reality jolt some of them to their senses.

All this stuff makes me smile big.

It is a long season and injuries have already hurt the roster a little. I do think the Hawks are mentally able to plug the next man in better than most teams.

I'm really going to enjoy this season, just like last season. Except, this season will bring some offensive displays that we didn't see much of last year.

Go, Hawks!

Cartire":2qtu7jqy said:

byau":2qtu7jqy said:

Maybe it's good Sherman draws so much attention to himself because it will get in the heads of all teams that play against us. If they even have to tell themselves "No, let's not throw at Sherman" or "Yes, let's throw at Sherman" that already alone will get in opponent's heads.

Click to expand...

This is one of the truest things said on this forum recently.

Click to expand...

Thanks Cartire, apperciate it!

The very fact that Sherman has gotten to the point where teams have to gameplan around Sherman. And that means either deciding to thrown, or to not throw. That alone gives us an advantage.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of power for one player to disrupt a game plan like that. Agreed

pmedic920":2qtu7jqy said:

I'll add....
To hell with anybody that says Sherm ain't the best because he doesn't follow the #1.
Shutting down half the field on The double check guy?
Come on man.

Click to expand...

Using only half the field is a painful way to play if it continues or even enters the thoughts of people's minds. Green Bay did us a favor there. No matter how good you are, playing with only half the field (or 2/3 the field whatever) is severely confining, especially considering you are only subtracting one player so it's 10 guys for 2/3 a field instead of 11 guys for a full field.

Almost like 6-6 half-court basketball. You're going to run into people and be confined.

ivotuk":3043g2yr said:

Great thread and description, thank you for posting as I never bother to listen to those guys. (too early for me). Also, thanks for putting a date on it since there was a previous thread like this and I would not have clicked on it if I didn't see it was a new one.

Click to expand...

You're welcome and thanks for the thanks.

As far as "too early", yup they are early. I use the ESPN app (I highly recommend it) you can download the shows ..something like a week's worth of shows. Any of them. Was really fun post Super Bowl to download the shows from before SB48 and after SB48


Another easy way to listen to Mike and Mike is there "best of" podcast. Not as good as the full show though and the cuts are not very good, I'm guessing they rather get these up quickly


http://espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=2445552

I do listen to Mike and Mike and like them a lot. My favorites in fact. I won't get too much into it. I'll just say if I have a choice of shows to listen to, right now Mike and Mike is always my first. Followed by Elise and Jerry and Furness, then First Take and Softy (I have to be in the mood to listen to First Take and to listen to Softy)

byau":11kl8xsu said:

ivotuk":11kl8xsu said:

Great thread and description, thank you for posting as I never bother to listen to those guys. (too early for me). Also, thanks for putting a date on it since there was a previous thread like this and I would not have clicked on it if I didn't see it was a new one.

Click to expand...

You're welcome and thanks for the thanks.

As far as "too early", yup they are early. I use the ESPN app (I highly recommend it) you can download the shows ..something like a week's worth of shows. Any of them. Was really fun post Super Bowl to download the shows from before SB48 and after SB48


Another easy way to listen to Mike and Mike is there "best of" podcast. Not as good as the full show though and the cuts are not very good, I'm guessing they rather get these up quickly


http://espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=2445552

I do listen to Mike and Mike and like them a lot. My favorites in fact. I won't get too much into it. I'll just say if I have a choice of shows to listen to, right now Mike and Mike is always my first. Followed by Elise and Jerry and Furness, then First Take and Softy (I have to be in the mood to listen to First Take and to listen to Softy)

Click to expand...

If you want a good listen on the ESPN app, check out the Robin Lundberg show on 9/5 following the GB win.

bigtrain21":17rypyft said:

If you want a good listen on the ESPN app, check out the Robin Lundberg show on 9/5 following the GB win.

Click to expand...

Downloading now! Love the ESPN app

I was looking around for different shows to listen to on 9/5 following the Hawks vs Packers. The show summary for Lundberg was "Is week 1 really a must win for the Jets?" so I skipped it (my being short on time and all... after all I got 4 hours of Mike and Mike each day to listen to ).

So that being said, dude thanks for the recommendation. Can't wait to listen

TwistedHusky":35menxbr said:

Well the 49ers look better.

So I might put them closer to us, for certain a #2.

Sure Dallas is a disaster and frankly they were running on the 49ers at will with Murray (save for the fumble) until Romo decided to be stupid and audible out of the run play. But the 49ers are also missing some important pieces so I am doubting that they would be that easy to run on without them.

Regardless, the 49ers seem to have addressed their biggest weakness, the secondary. I would argue their secondary is at least average, likely better. That was their big weakness against us and they came close to filling it.

Click to expand...

That was a hard game to judge. The 49ers played well, but it was against Dallas and Romo. I will say I expected them to play a lot worse and they seemed to do a solid job. I'll have to rewatch it.

I can't decide on Denver or SF at #2. If Denver hadn't collapsed like that I would have had them #2. If SF had done a more convincing job against Dallas, I would have had them # 2. And in fact I don't even know where to put Philly. Second half puts them at # 2. First half puts them way way down

Thinking about it now I can see Mike and Mike's point that the Seahawks are # 1 and no one is # 2. Hawks were very solid, not spectacular, and in playing not spectacular had a very convincing victory, whereas other top teams were not convincing and so the debate should start again at # 3.

Interesting stuff.

byau":3oyldk11 said:

bigtrain21":3oyldk11 said:

If you want a good listen on the ESPN app, check out the Robin Lundberg show on 9/5 following the GB win.

Click to expand...

Downloading now! Love the ESPN app

I was looking around for different shows to listen to on 9/5 following the Hawks vs Packers. The show summary for Lundberg was "Is week 1 really a must win for the Jets?" so I skipped it (my being short on time and all... after all I got 4 hours of Mike and Mike each day to listen to ).

So that being said, dude thanks for the recommendation. Can't wait to listen

Click to expand...

Oh it's great. Complete with a 49ers fan intern or producer. It's the best one I found by far. He even takes calls.

bigtrain21":n4uqohsk said:

byau":n4uqohsk said:

bigtrain21":n4uqohsk said:

If you want a good listen on the ESPN app, check out the Robin Lundberg show on 9/5 following the GB win.

Click to expand...

Downloading now! Love the ESPN app

I was looking around for different shows to listen to on 9/5 following the Hawks vs Packers. The show summary for Lundberg was "Is week 1 really a must win for the Jets?" so I skipped it (my being short on time and all... after all I got 4 hours of Mike and Mike each day to listen to ).

So that being said, dude thanks for the recommendation. Can't wait to listen

Click to expand...

Oh it's great. Complete with a 49ers fan intern or producer. It's the best one I found by far. He even takes calls.

Click to expand...

Shoot, right from the top of the show he goes right into the Hawks and how dominating they looked

Paraphrased and leaving out some stuff (typing as fast as I can while listening)

"Sorry RJ, know how much you hate them, but the Seahawks are 'kinda' the truth. They are 'kinda' good. You forget, you're doing all these preseason projections and you forget what you last saw. What you last saw was the Super Bowl. And last night, the Seahawks were probably still picking off pieces of the Broncos out of their uniforms. It was such a beatdown. A blowout can be very entertaining and that was the most entertaining blowout I've ever seen (referring to SB48). One team functioning at the highest level and taking the soul of an opponent. That's what happened to Denver. And Seattle came out last night and still looked like that team. Pretty darn dominant. They do things physically that intimidate. One play that stands out, Aaron Rodgers had a clear first down and didn't run for it. He sort of just half threw the ball away to his receiver. The idea of getting popped was in his head, otherwise he could have taken off and gotten an easy first down. He probably wouldn't have taken a shot, but the idea of taking a shot is still there"

(Assuming RJ mentioned in the first line is the 49er intern?)

Seattle fans, love it, go take a listen Can't wait to hear the rest of the show. He goes between the beatdown of SB48 and the beatdown of the Packers. Not sure yet if it will be great listening for the analytical sports fan, definitely great listening so far for the homer sports fan boy in me




For those that want to listen, found Lundberg's archive online here.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/newyork/po ... id=7911589


Nice one BigTrain21 thanks!

byau":1za1o0pt said:

TwistedHusky":1za1o0pt said:

Well the 49ers look better.

So I might put them closer to us, for certain a #2.

Sure Dallas is a disaster and frankly they were running on the 49ers at will with Murray (save for the fumble) until Romo decided to be stupid and audible out of the run play. But the 49ers are also missing some important pieces so I am doubting that they would be that easy to run on without them.

Regardless, the 49ers seem to have addressed their biggest weakness, the secondary. I would argue their secondary is at least average, likely better. That was their big weakness against us and they came close to filling it.

Click to expand...

That was a hard game to judge. The 49ers played well, but it was against Dallas and Romo. I will say I expected them to play a lot worse and they seemed to do a solid job. I'll have to rewatch it.

I can't decide on Denver or SF at #2. If Denver hadn't collapsed like that I would have had them #2. If SF had done a more convincing job against Dallas, I would have had them # 2. And in fact I don't even know where to put Philly. Second half puts them at # 2. First half puts them way way down

Thinking about it now I can see Mike and Mike's point that the Seahawks are # 1 and no one is # 2. Hawks were very solid, not spectacular, and in playing not spectacular had a very convincing victory, whereas other top teams were not convincing and so the debate should start again at # 3.

Interesting stuff.

Click to expand...

See, I'm in the same boat with SF. Sure, they beat Dallas, but two of their TD's were due to the defense. Their offense only scored 21, and put up 319 yards of total offense against the very worst defense in the league. I didn't see the game, but those wouldn't be thriling numbers for me if I was a SF fan.

As for their secondary, I know they looked better, but Dez Bryant was out for half of the game, so that has to make an impact.

Also, if they look that bad against the run now, good teams can take advantage of that. It's too early to tell, but I can't see them as being better than Denver as the 2nd best team in the league.

Hawks46":ncc9up4t said:

See, I'm in the same boat with SF. Sure, they beat Dallas, but two of their TD's were due to the defense. Their offense only scored 21, and put up 319 yards of total offense against the very worst defense in the league. I didn't see the game, but those wouldn't be thriling numbers for me if I was a SF fan.

As for their secondary, I know they looked better, but Dez Bryant was out for half of the game, so that has to make an impact.

Also, if they look that bad against the run now, good teams can take advantage of that. It's too early to tell, but I can't see them as being better than Denver as the 2nd best team in the league.

Click to expand...

Another way to look at this:

We played Green Bay and beat them soundly by 20 and gave them a short field on one of their drives.

SF beat Dallas by only 11 and was gifted a couple scores, and the venue was definitely niner-friendly, almost a home-game.

Who played the more convincing game against the tougher opponent?

:49ersmall: 'nuff said.

Ad Hawk":ascy4iv0 said:

Another way to look at this:

We played Green Bay and beat them soundly by 20 and gave them a short field on one of their drives.

SF beat Dallas by only 11 and was gifted a couple scores, and the venue was definitely niner-friendly, almost a home-game.

Who played the more convincing game against the tougher opponent?

:49ersmall: 'nuff said.

Click to expand...

Yup, that explains it really succinctly

#1: Hawks
#2: jury is out
#3: Denver, SF
#4: Philly? Cincinatti?

After that I am not sure I would even place anyone #5 yet either for the same arguments. I don't think any team (Hawks included) played to their potential. That's week 1 for ya.