Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. Donation richjohnson
    TANSTAAFL
    05 Jan '07 08:58
    It seems like many people have written them off as contenders this year. Why?
  2. 05 Jan '07 09:12
    Originally posted by richjohnson
    It seems like many people have written them off as contenders this year. Why?
    they wear more pads than the cheerleaders
  3. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    05 Jan '07 12:19
    Originally posted by richjohnson
    It seems like many people have written them off as contenders this year. Why?
    laugh at them. they suck. 9-7? over the NFC WEST ??

    OUT.
  4. 05 Jan '07 13:44
    Originally posted by Ramned
    laugh at them. they suck. 9-7? over the NFC WEST ??

    OUT.
    Wow, I just checked their schedule, and just... wow.

    I knew that they lost a couple of games to easy teams (as I mentioned in another thread already) but now, after looking at their full schedule, how is this team not at LEAST 11-5?!?!

    1 game vs. Detroit (barely won by a field goal, lol)
    2 games vs. Arizona (1-1)
    2 games vs. St. Louis (squeaked out a 2 point win in each)
    1 game vs. Minnesota (huge loss)
    1 game vs. Oakland (lol)
    1 game vs. Tampa Bay (lol)
    1 game vs. Green Bay (lol)
    2 games vs. San Francisco (both losses)

    The 5 games I left out are (what I consider) the tougher competitors. In those games they were 2-3. (I included the Giants in this, otherwise it would've been 1-3.) They beat Denver by 3 and beat up the Giants. However, they also got crushed by Chicago, lost to Kansas City, and lost to San Diego in a close one.

    That being said, looking at their weaker opponents, I am really starting to worry about the sorry state of the NFC. What a weak schedule to begin with, and then barely winning against Detroit and St. Louis... Splitting with freakin ARIZONA... getting beat up by Minnesota... and losing BOTH games against San Fran...

    Christ Almighty, I just might end up placing a bet on those Cowboys afterall...
  5. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    05 Jan '07 20:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by lioyank
    Wow, I just checked their schedule, and just... wow.

    I knew that they lost a couple of games to easy teams (as I mentioned in another thread already) but now, after looking at their full schedule, how is this team not at LEAST 11-5?!?!

    1 game vs. Detroit (barely won by a field goal, lol)
    2 games vs. Arizona (1-1)
    2 games vs. St. Louis (squeaked out a San Fran...

    Christ Almighty, I just might end up placing a bet on those Cowboys afterall...
    I've followed the Seahawks all season, and injuries has really been their downfall. We lost Alexander early for six weeks. We lost Hasslebeck for four weeks. Jeremy Stevens (our starting TE and a very important piece of our West Coast offense) was out six weeks. Darrell Jackson (our 1st receiver) has been out 3 weeks. Bobby Engram (our 2nd receiver) was out 9 weeks. During this last game in Tampa Bay the announcers pointed out that our five main offensive guys from last season have not played in the same game together all season.

    The worst has been on the O-line. Last year we had Hutchinson, who is of course a great LG. But when he lined up next to All-Pro LT Walter Jones and Pro-bowler C Robbie Tobeck, we had the best O-line in football. After he left we kept trying to fill in the LG position but nothing seemed to work. And to make matters worse we had . . . you guessed it . . . injuries. The first LG replacement Floyd "Pork Chop" Womack was out from week 3 to week 8. Our starting RT was out four games from weeks 8-11. Our starting C has been out the last 8 weeks. Now even Chris Gray, our starting RG and franchise record holder for most consecutive started games, is out. With all these injuries, players were getting switched in and out and around in our OL. We never could get any consistency.

    Now when our offense finally appears to be getting back on track, we got injured hard in our defense. We lost Marcus Tubbs, our run stopper, in the beginning of the season. Now our number 1, 2, and 4 CB's are through (actually Trufant isn't on IR yet, but he's basically out unless maybe we get to the NFC champ game or the SB). That sucks considering that our secondary has been our Achille's heal.

    Injuries are a part of football of course, but the Seahawks have seen more than their fair share of them this season. Fortunately we come from a very bad (but improving) division. Our offense has looked good of late, and our near win over San Diego was actualy reassuring, if a loss can be. We also went into Tampa Bay and beat them pretty solidly which is what you'd expect of a playoff team. I think we have what it takes to seal the deal against Dallas, and we'll see from there. But honestly, if our offense had been more healthy this season so that more of the starters could have gelled, I'd guess we'd have won at least 11 and probably 12 or even 13 games.
  6. Donation richjohnson
    TANSTAAFL
    05 Jan '07 21:18
    Originally posted by telerion
    I've followed the Seahawks all season, and injuries has really been their downfall. We lost Alexander early for six weeks. We lost Hasslebeck for four weeks. Jeremy Stevens (our starting TE and a very important piece of our West Coast offense) was out six weeks. Darrell Jackson (our 1st receiver) has been out 3 weeks. Bobby Engram (our 2nd receiver) wa ...[text shortened]... ld have gelled, I'd guess we'd have won at least 11 and probably 12 or even 13 games.
    Good points. As the Steelers proved last year, the regular season record does not determine how you do in the playoffs. The Seahawks are still the reigning NFC champions, and with the addition of Branch (at least when he holds onto the ball), their offense looks even better than last year now that they're mostly healthy. (I see Womack is listed as "questionable" - any chance he'll play tomorrow?)
  7. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    05 Jan '07 22:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by telerion
    I've followed the Seahawks all season, and injuries has really been their downfall. We lost Alexander early for six weeks. We lost Hasslebeck for four weeks. Jeremy Stevens (our starting TE and a very important piece of our West Coast offense) was out six weeks. Darrell Jackson (our 1st receiver) has been out 3 weeks. Bobby Engram (our 2nd receiver) wa ld have gelled, I'd guess we'd have won at least 11 and probably 12 or even 13 games.
    dreadful, how they barely topped St. Louis. Think. Where would Seattle be if kicker missed a FG? Hmm..1st team to be eliminated? There you have it, the Seattle Seahawks.

    Not NFC champs for long, graciously.
  8. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    06 Jan '07 04:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Ramned
    dreadful, how they barely topped St. Louis. Think. Where would Seattle be if kicker missed a FG? Hmm..1st team to be eliminated? There you have it, the Seattle Seahawks.

    Not NFC champs for long, graciously.
    Still bitter that your team is second in the lowly NFC West? Maybe if your guys hadn't sucked, it wouldn't have come down to FG's.


    Heck you are lucky you weren't third.
  9. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    06 Jan '07 04:48
    Originally posted by richjohnson
    Good points. As the Steelers proved last year, the regular season record does not determine how you do in the playoffs. The Seahawks are still the reigning NFC champions, and with the addition of Branch (at least when he holds onto the ball), their offense looks even better than last year now that they're mostly healthy. (I see Womack is listed as "questionable" - any chance he'll play tomorrow?)
    The condition of Pork Chop is a big concern for me. This is especially so given that Chris Gray (our other starting guard) missed the last game due to injury. We do have a promising rookie, Rob Sims from Ohio State that has filled in at times during the season, but I'd be a lot happier with Womack as long as his injury won't be a liability.
  10. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    08 Jan '07 01:36
    Dallas sure looked good!!
  11. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    08 Jan '07 02:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by telerion
    Still bitter that your team is second in the lowly NFC West? Maybe if your guys hadn't sucked, it wouldn't have come down to FG's.


    Heck you are lucky you weren't third.
    "lowly?"
    So much for rising as you said earlier.
    And the Rams? I'd say it's a good start with all the moves they had made.

    If your guys hadn't sucked, I suppose the 49ers (ah ha ha) wouldn't have swept you? Heck you were lucky you weren't 3rd, only 6 points away.

    Too bad Seattle is going to get malled by the Bears, like they did eariler. Not much point for a mediocre team to make the playoffs, is there?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Jan '07 03:24
    Originally posted by Ramned
    "lowly?"
    So much for rising as you said earlier.
    And the Rams? I'd say it's a good start with all the moves they had made.

    If your guys hadn't sucked, I suppose the 49ers (ah ha ha) wouldn't have swept you? Heck you were lucky you weren't 3rd, only 6 points away.

    Too bad Seattle is going to get malled by the Bears, like they did eariler. Not much point for a mediocre team to make the playoffs, is there?
    You said Dallas was going to "win convincingly" over the Seahawks. Your predictive powers seem a bit suspect.
  13. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    08 Jan '07 12:14 / 1 edit
    I doubt I said such a thing. Matter of fact, I said it should be a sloppy game, and how right I was.
  14. Donation richjohnson
    TANSTAAFL
    08 Jan '07 21:56
    Originally posted by Ramned
    Too bad Seattle is going to get malled by the Bears, like they did eariler. Not much point for a mediocre team to make the playoffs, is there?
    That was way back on 1 Oct, and was the 'hawks 1st game without Alexander. However, even with Alexandre back if Hasselbeck plays that poorly again then Seattle will probably lose. But lately Grossman has not been very good - I'm guessing this game will come down to which team makes fewer turnovers (as usual).
  15. Standard member GalaxyShield
    Mr. Shield
    08 Jan '07 23:02
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Considering they're playing the Bears though, who have also been playing badly the last 4 games or so, I'd say it's anyone's game.