HawkShack.com

I never suggest this sort of thing, but troll this douche, he has it coming! He's now changed the title from Seahawks will need more than luck to beat New England, to this. Gee thanks for giving them credit douche nozzle.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000460764/article/seattle-seahawks-deserve-credit-but-that-effort-wont-win-a-title

BTW here's the article he wrote before the season, it perfectly explains why he hates the Seahawks so much. He writes articles like the bird-cage-liner below about how the Seahawks cannot repeat, because Aaron Rodgers.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000343846/article/seattle-seahawks-treacherous-2014-schedule-thwarts-repeat-bid

Troll this clown if you are bored, he needs it.

We ll....he may be a 'national troll', but what isn't true? Maybe he's just repeating what all the other talking heads said today, but, If we play 56 minutes against New England like we played against GB, do you think we will win? I don't. However, I do see that game as an apparition not a trend and will hold on to the hope that we play closer to the level from last year's SB and not the game last Sunday.

He was riding the Seahawks early and hard next year. I didn't agree with his picks this year but eh... It's not like he's Pete Prisco.

jshawaii22 wrote:We ll....he may be a 'national troll', but what isn't true? Maybe he's just repeating what all the other talking heads said today, but, If we play 56 minutes against New England like we played against GB, do you think we will win? I don't. However, I do see that game as an apparition not a trend and will hold on to the hope that we play closer to the level from last year's SB and not the game last Sunday.

I'm with js. I don't see the trollish content in that article at all. There are a few things that I might not fully agree with, such as his criticism of McCarthy's 1st quarter decisions to kick FG's at the one or his rapping him for calling for so many running plays in the 4th quarter and his assumption that all the Packers had to do was let Rodgers drop back a couple more times and they would have ran out the clock. Those are all big assumptions, but fair criticisms.

But the rest of his article is spot on. From Green Bay's POV, they did collapse. They stopped us cold for 56 minutes, giving up just a fake FG TD, then suddenly couldn't stop our running or passing game from then on out. They had two completely unforced and costly errors as they should have returned the last int rather than give himself up and in the biggest choke job since Tony Romo's fumbled snap, they botched the onsides kick as Bostic defied his instructions and went for the ball rather than block for Jordy Nelson and had it bounce off his helmet. Russell's 2 point conversion pass completion was nothing more than an answered prayer. He was completely out of options and figured he'd just heave it into the air and hope for the best as he had nothing to lose. If it was a 3rd down play rather than a conversion attempt, no way does he heave it 30 yards in the air like that.

It's a gross understatement to say that we'll have to play a lot better than we did in the first 56 minutes of the NFCCG if we expect to compete in the Super Bowl. Hell, we'd have to play a lot better than that if our opponent in two weeks was Jacksonville, let alone one of the two or three best teams in the league.

As Schein and a lot of other football people stated, including most of us in this forum, the Seahawks deserve all the credit in the world for taking advantage of Green Bay's brain farts and our play in those last 4 minutes and in OT was simply amazing, but make no mistake about it: Our win last Sunday had more than a fair share of luck associated with it.

I get why people are starting to get annoyed though. The media is acting like Seattle was dominated in all phases of the game. They weren't. They dominated the turnover battle. Lacy averaged 3.5 yards per carry. Rogers had less than 200 yards and 2 interceptions.

Give them credit for being opportunistic and forcing turnovers but they weren't dominated the way the media is acting like they were.

I hear all kinds of people talking about how Lagarrette Blount is going to run over the Seahawks in the Super Bowl and it's laughable. LaGarrette Blount is a slow straight line runner against the fastest best tackling team in the NFL. It sometimes boggles my mind how guys who are paid to watch miss the important details in favor of a desired narrative.

This matchup makes me nervous but it damn sure isn't because of Blount.

kalibane wrote:I get why people are starting to get annoyed though. The media is acting like Seattle was dominated in all phases of the game. They weren't. They dominated the turnover battle. Lacy averaged 3.5 yards per carry. Rogers had less than 200 yards and 2 interceptions.

Give them credit for being opportunistic and forcing turnovers but they weren't dominated the way the media is acting like they were.

I hear all kinds of people talking about how Lagarrette Blount is going to run over the Seahawks in the Super Bowl and it's laughable. LaGarrette Blount is a slow straight line runner against the fastest best tackling team in the NFL. It sometimes boggles my mind how guys who are paid to watch miss the important details in favor of a desired narrative.

This matchup makes me nervous but it damn sure isn't because of Blount.

Oh, I agree. You look at the box score and it was virtually equal. We had 20 first downs, they had 19. We outgained them in passing and rushing yardage. Penalties and turnovers killed us.

And not that it's an excuse, but there was a random element that was at work in the NFCCG that will not be present in the Super Bowl: The weather. It was a great equalizer in our game just as it was in the Saints game last year. It's becoming pretty apparent that we are not a good bad weather team.

Blount isn't going to hurt us. If anything is going to hurt us it will be the lack of a pass rush which has been very inconsistent this season. New England hasn't given up a sack in their two playoff games, and if the pressure isn't there and Sherman and Thomas don't come back at full strength, Brady could make our D look like Swiss cheese.

Yea, we had Lady Luck smile on us at the right times last Sunday. But it should not be allowed to obscure the fact that we are a damn good football team.

Our Offense has to come to play early this time. We can't turn the ball over like we did on Sunday - it's not our game.
It was an atrocious showing for most of the first half and NE won't let us off the hook like GB did.

So going from our early performance, Schein is correct. This type of game won't win us anything. We might even get embarrassed if it happens again.

True North... on the other hand what is the value in saying "if a team turns the ball over 5 times they can't expect to win"? Thanks Captain Obvious.

The truth of the matter though is that aside from Wilson and the Receivers the Seahawks played a good game. I mean seriously, turn the ball over 5 times and still win time of possession? That's insane. Should the Packers have won? yep they should have. But most articles being written are written as if Seattle as an entire team laid an egg for 55 minutes of football had no right to even share the field with the Packers. It's getting old.

Yeah, that is the national narrative alright. Good; it'll motivate our boys to hear that the Hawks were lucky, the Hawks sucked, the Packers were the better team, etc..... Uh, NO. They were not the better team. If they were - they would have scored some TDs; if they were - we would not have had 100 more yards from scrimmage; If they were - we would not have beaten them after giving them the ball within our 25 yard line three times (5 times total). Our D (which last time I checked is a PART of this team) held the vaunted GB offense to 300 yards and 22 points....& most of those points came at the hands of our offense/ST choking out turn-overs.

Make no mistake - This was not a good game and if we play this way again, we will not deserve another Lombardi. But, contrary to Mr. Roger's opinion (and every Packer interviewed along with all of the talking heads not in the PNW), the Packers were NOT the best team on the field Sunday. They didn't finish, they could not manage more than 6 points in the second 1/2 (a trend for the Hawks - home & away). Our D played VERY well, the offense (except for Beast Mode) struggled mightily but managed to string together long sustained drives in crunch time. Beast Mode had 157 yards and RW was nearly perfect after he was so bad. I'm not giving him a pass on the INTs, I'm saying he showed mettle.

I'd be broken-hearted if I were a Packer fan and would likely feel the same way they do. I do realize that I proudly sport blue and green goggles and see the game through that lens. BUT this notion that we were out-played for 55 minutes is simply not seeing the whole truth. It is LAZY journalism. Our D played great, and our O and ST shot themselves in the foot over and over again with turnovers and poor decision making. But as an entire team for an entire game, we won! Aaron's post game presser is just another reason to dislike him. What a blamer; I'd be disappointed if RW ever did that.

The more I look back on the game, the more appalling the GB offense looks (conversely, the more awesome I realize our defense played). All those turnovers that gave them incredible field position in the first quarter alone, and all they could come up with the entire game was a single TD. The biggest debacle for them is 3 for 14 on 3rd down. I don't care whose fault it is, but that sucks if you're GB.

I-5 wrote:The more I look back on the game, the more appalling the GB offense looks (conversely, the more awesome I realize our defense played).

The reason?
You know the outcome, and can now see the game separately from the narrative the media was/is painting for us.
During the game, as you listen to the idiots like Joe Buck "call the game", (ie. fill our heads with HIS narrative of what's happening) it's hard to not see things the way they are telling you it's happening.

Those defensive stops were HUGE WINS for Seattle! Five freaking times they had the ball in the red zone, three times from gift turnovers, and they came away with just 16 lousy points mostly from field goals! That's a WIN for our defense, especially against the leagues #1 offense.

Conversely, look what we did with chances we had at the end of the game. We outscored them 26-6 in the second half! When you look at it that way, it's like we kicked their rear ends the last part of that game...and we DID!

The media wants you to focus on the lead the Packers had, not on the points we were getting to catch up, while holding their offense to 6 lousy points in the second half! That's a BUTT WHIPPING!!!

We out gained them in total yards rushing yards, passing yards, and obviously points. The media narrative had it WRONG.
The Packers didn't give us anything we TOOK IT FROM THEM FORCIBLY!

monkey wrote:The reason?
You know the outcome, and can now see the game separately from the narrative the media was/is painting for us.
During the game, as you listen to the idiots like Joe Buck "call the game", (ie. fill our heads with HIS narrative of what's happening) it's hard to not see things the way they are telling you it's happening.

Those defensive stops were HUGE WINS for Seattle! Five freaking times they had the ball in the red zone, three times from gift turnovers, and they came away with just 16 lousy points mostly from field goals! That's a WIN for our defense, especially against the leagues #1 offense.

Conversely, look what we did with chances we had at the end of the game. We outscored them 26-6 in the second half! When you look at it that way, it's like we kicked their rear ends the last part of that game...and we DID!

The media wants you to focus on the lead the Packers had, not on the points we were getting to catch up, while holding their offense to 6 lousy points in the second half! That's a BUTT WHIPPING!!!

We out gained them in total yards rushing yards, passing yards, and obviously points. The media narrative had it WRONG.
The Packers didn't give us anything we TOOK IT FROM THEM FORCIBLY!

I know, when I re-watched the game I saw they had a stat right before Half-Time, turnovers/points off turnovers. The Packers read 4/6 and I just thought that is awesome. People who think this win was luck undervalue defense, IMO. Our defense denied them when they gave themselves the opportunity to score (turnovers) while their D failed when we put ourselves into position to score.

TOTALLY AGREE ON ALL POINTS BUT ONE.

We outscored them 26-6 in the second half!

We outscored them 28-6 in the second half; sorry to split hairs. They can whine all they want (knowing Rogers it will be awhile) - but they LOST!

I said to colleagues last week that the only way I saw us losing was if we beat ourselves. Well, we gave that much more of a try than we ever have under Pete's leadership. Seriously, when has a PC lead team choked out 5 turn-overs? It was horrible to watch...YET - your SEATTLE SEAHAWKS snatched a victory from the Packers mediocre finger-tips. Their measly 300 yards were as pathetic as the play-calling. The magician Rogers threw for 178 and two picks...about 90 yards less than a typical game. Their bowling ball of a running back (called Beast Mode 2 by some) Eddie Lacy ran for less than 80 yards. They scored 8.1 fewer points, they had 130 fewer yards then they averaged over the last ten games.....but the Hawks were lucky.
The score was only close because Seattle tried with all their might to beat themselves. Thankfully, OUR team played to win for 60 whole minutes.

All I know is, it is damn hard to win any game when no matter the opportunities provided all you can do is score FG's. GB had more than their share of opportunities, and couldn't do anything about it. That's the truth of the matter IMHO. The Pack "should" have won the game with the opportunities presented to them, but they didn't, Seattle however made the absolute MOST out of every single one of theirs when it counted most.

Seattle is NOT turning the ball over 5 times in the SB it isn't going to happen no matter how smart Bill happens to be, or how talented their defense is, just isn't going to happen. Anyone, banking on that, are in for a LOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGG afternoon of being dissapointed.

Seattle is about to prove to the rest of the world ( again) that they ARE the best team in the last decade or so, eventually they'll figure it out, no matter how lazy, or ignorant, or jealous or biased they happen to be.

On a side note, would ANYONE be surprised to see Wilson end up being the MVP of the SB? I certainly wouldn't, not in the slightest. I think Lynch should be the favorite for the award going against a Pats defense that has had issues with the run game, but wouldn't even minutely be surprised to see #3 grabbing that award.

I just hope the emotion of this win doesn't take the wind out of their sails.
I've never seen them as a whole with such a lack of composure after a win.

It's a good thing we have 2 weeks to recapture the drive and focus.

What lack of composure do you mean after the game? I thought they showed raw emotion, but nothing too unprofessional (OK, maybe Baldwin lol)

Hawk Sista wrote:
We outscored them 28-6 in the second half; sorry to split hairs. They can whine all they want (knowing Rogers it will be awhile) - but they LOST!

Thanks good catch.
Oh and brilliant post.

All great posts. Packers need to look only at themselves to understand why they lost.

kalibane wrote:I get why people are starting to get annoyed though. The media is acting like Seattle was dominated in all phases of the game. They weren't. They dominated the turnover battle. Lacy averaged 3.5 yards per carry. Rogers had less than 200 yards and 2 interceptions.

Give them credit for being opportunistic and forcing turnovers but they weren't dominated the way the media is acting like they were.

I hear all kinds of people talking about how Lagarrette Blount is going to run over the Seahawks in the Super Bowl and it's laughable. LaGarrette Blount is a slow straight line runner against the fastest best tackling team in the NFL. It sometimes boggles my mind how guys who are paid to watch miss the important details in favor of a desired narrative.

This matchup makes me nervous but it damn sure isn't because of Blount.

Stats be damned the game felt like a loss when Russ threw the 4th pick. Seattle made an amazing comeback against an overconfident arrogant coach and team. And of course the media wont respect it or give Seattle its due. If Luck had done it why he'd be legendary. Actually he did vs. KC last postseason making up for a dreadful start with a white hot finish. I don't remember everyone lamenting that KC had choked, it was about the great Luck led comeback.

And now everyone is predictably climbing on NE's jock just like last year. Never mind their QB has played average to poor in 4 of 5 of his Super bowl appearances and has proven to be very susceptible to good defensive teams, Jets, Bills, Giants twice in the SB, Ravens.
I always worry but I have a feeling Seattle has come too far to lose now. Blount is going to get smoked like a blunt and the only real weapon Gronk is going to get introduced to Mr Chancellor.
It wont be blowing 25 mph in Glendale and it wont be raining anything but skittles,Wilson rainbows for tds and Seahawks blue confetti. Chalk up another victim. Then we will get another montage of all the idiots who went on the air and wrote Seattle off.

I just can't wrap my mind around there being an emotional let down after this win. That's not what this team is about. I think it's more likely that they understand how close they were to throwing it away and tighten up in their preparation. That's just my read on this team.

Now if it were Holmgren's team I could totally see it. But right now my concern is simply about health of ET and Sherman and our WRs getting open on the outside. Thankfully we have 2 weeks for the injuries.

Hawktawk wrote: If Luck had done it why he'd be legendary. Actually he did vs. KC last postseason making up for a dreadful start with a white hot finish. I don't remember everyone lamenting that KC had choked, it was about the great Luck led comeback.

DING DING! We have a winner!

kalibane wrote:I just can't wrap my mind around there being an emotional let down after this win. That's not what this team is about. I think it's more likely that they understand how close they were to throwing it away and tighten up in their preparation. That's just my read on this team.

Now if it were Holmgren's team I could totally see it. But right now my concern is simply about health of ET and Sherman and our WRs getting open on the outside. Thankfully we have 2 weeks for the injuries.

I agree.
I see the exact opposite myself. I see this team rallying even TIGHTER around each other after that amazing comeback.
I see this team, playing even harder for each other, insulating themselves from the doubters even more, rallying even more, because this game just confirms everything Pete has been preaching all along to them, and what they've been telling themselves.
When they play the way they are capable of playing, the only team that can beat the Seahawks is the Seahawks.

I think the Pats are in for a RUDE awakening.
I don't like the match ups as much as I did against the Packers or Denver, New England is a much more balanced team, and therefore, will match up with us better.
Where we have the HUGE advantage though IMO, (so long as Sherm and Earl come back at something like full health anyway), is our toughness.
The Pats are a pretty tough team, but they've yet to face a team like the Seahawks, or a defense like the one they will see in February.
It's the physicality that separates us from the Green Bay's and Denvers of the world. I think New England, while good, and a better match up, are about to find that they simply cannot out punch this team.
By fourth quarter, we'll be comfortably in the lead again, not calling a blowout, just a comfortable lead in the fourth quarter.