HawkShack.com

MNF 55-51 was the best ever by far I have ever seen.

This is the new NFL boys!

Sea O puts up like 24 pts in game. That is sooo 1990.

You have to do 50 plus now to be in the running

Not if you're into defense it wasn't. And you didn't put up no 50 on us now did you?

I agree with Cbob. Although it was entertaining for awhile, there was simply too much scoring, too many commercial breaks, too many kickoffs with touchbacks, too many penalties, and so on. It made the game longer, not more exciting. There were 21 penalties for almost 200 yards between the two teams. While Kansas City looked great at times, their were other times they looked awful, turning the ball over 5 times and collecting 13 of those 21 penalties.

It was a sloppy game.

I thought it was a fun game to watch. Completely out of the norm for the NFL as it was more like a College game.
George Allen must be spinning in his grave just about now...

NorthHawk wrote:I thought it was a fun game to watch. Completely out of the norm for the NFL as it was more like a College game.
George Allen must be spinning in his grave just about now...

Yea, but best game ever played?

That's one of the reasons why I'm not as enamored with CFB as I am the NFL, ie no defense, especially for Pac 12 teams.

I prefer football, over basketball.... just my 2 cents.

It literally was just watching my kids pee wee games again, except, in a bigger stadium.

Rambo2014 wrote:MNF 55-51 was the best ever by far I have ever seen.

This is the new NFL boys!

Sea O puts up like 24 pts in game. That is sooo 1990.

You have to do 50 plus now to be in the running

Hmmm.... could have sworn over 30 was the norm on the Rams strainer of a defense.... if that's the norm, where teams literally go out of their way to LOSE the game ( like the Rams did by passing the ball three times to give KC the ball back with all three timeouts and over a minute left, when they been getting diced all game) ..then I'm good with a little defense, a running game, and a clutch qb... guess I'm old fashioned that way, prefer football, to laser ball or whatever the hell that was.

HumanCockroach wrote:It literally was just watching my kids pee wee games again, except, in a bigger stadium.

Actually the Rams=Chiefs was more like 8 man football than PW FB.

The ratings were up, so the NFL will probably try to find a way to promote more Offense
at the expense of the Defense.

Rambo2014 wrote:MNF 55-51 was the best ever by far I have ever seen.

This is the new NFL boys!

Sea O puts up like 24 pts in game. That is sooo 1990.

You have to do 50 plus now to be in the running

We averaged 50 points over 3 games back in 2012, yet still played defense. The Rams defense just sucks. I wonder how that will do in the playoffs?

I see the Rams and Saints in the NFC Champ game with Rams winning 62-54..the onto a rematch with the Chiefs, Steelers, or Patriots and win the SB 54-48 ish.

Aseahawkfan wrote:We averaged 50 points over 3 games back in 2012, yet still played defense. The Rams defense just sucks. I wonder how that will do in the playoffs?

Both the Rams and the Chiefs are very suceptible because of their non existant defenses. I could very easily see the Chiefs getting upset in the playoffs by some team like the Texans, the Rams by someone like the Bears. Except for HFA, those 1 and 2 loss records don't mean too much, especially for the Rams, which has such a lousy fan base.

Defense wins championships.
Rams don't have one.
Nothing else to say

Pope

Maybe RD, I've never watched 8 man.... but my sons pee wee games ( at least that's what we called it in 7th and 8th grade) almost always ended with a score identical to that, and was almost spot on... occasionally a big play on defense, otherwise the offense went right down the field (fast) and scored...

Played 10 games and a playoff game in 8th grade... of those 11... 8 finished with both teams in the 50s... lol

As for the Rams, Seattle gave the blueprint to beat them twice this season, but couldn't finish the deal, somebody eventually will pay attention.... could even be Seattle, who knows? The truth is, a decent defense, and an efficient running, can ( and likely will) get the job done.

HumanCockroach wrote:Maybe RD, I've never watched 8 man.... but my sons pee wee games ( at least that's what we called it in 7th and 8th grade) almost always ended with a score identical to that, and was almost spot on... occasionally a big play on defense, otherwise the offense went right down the field (fast) and scored...

Played 10 games and a playoff game in 8th grade... of those 11... 8 finished with both teams in the 50s... lol

Well, check out Hawktawk's thread about the ACH (Almira-Coulee City-Hartline) Warriors 8-man football where they hung a 100 burger in a game earlier this season.

Most of that first drive and a few other Rams drives were helped a lot by some really bad calls. For the night the Chiefs had twice as many penalties. As Andy Reid said after the game "I don't know about all those penalties but they called them".

I did think about the fact that Seattle hung with the Rams and could well have won twice while watching that game. Frankly Im more concerned about seeing the chiefs in a few weeks than I would be if we get in the tourney and get a third crack at the Rams. Probably need to beat one to get the chance to play the other one again .

Hawktawk wrote:Most of that first drive and a few other Rams drives were helped a lot by some really bad calls. For the night the Chiefs had twice as many penalties. As Andy Reid said after the game "I don't know about all those penalties but they called them".

I did think about the fact that Seattle hung with the Rams and could well have won twice while watching that game. Frankly Im more concerned about seeing the chiefs in a few weeks than I would be if we get in the tourney and get a third crack at the Rams. Probably need to beat one to get the chance to play the other one again .

I agree. IMO I would love a 3rd crack at the Rams for several reasons:

It is extremely difficult to beat a team three times in one season. We match up well with them at a lot of positions, especially now that Cooper Kupp is out for the season. The Rams don't have a dedicated fan base, and a whole lot of 12's will travel to LA, negating much of their HFA. The weather and field conditions won't be a factor.

I would much rather face the Rams in the playoffs than I would either the Saints or the Bears on their home fields.

Well the bears have a real question mark at QB now with Trubisky nursing a throwing arm although Daniels played well enough yesterday. Nobody's beating the saints if they play like they have all year. Brees must have drank some vampire blood. Hes better than hes ever been and hes got a complete team around him now.

Hawktawk wrote:Well the bears have a real question mark at QB now with Trubisky nursing a throwing arm although Daniels played well enough yesterday. Nobody's beating the saints if they play like they have all year. Brees must have drank some vampire blood. Hes better than hes ever been and hes got a complete team around him now.

Brees is having a career year, which for him is really saying something. IMO he's having one of the best seasons for a QB in the modern era. The interception he threw yesterday was only the 2nd all season out of how many passing attempts? Plus they have a very good running attack and they play decent defense, much better than what the Rams have shown. Their home venue is nearly as intimidating as our digs. There's little doubt that they are the team to beat in the NFC.

The New NFL? Copy that, Frisbee Football, all we need is a good Labrador Retriever to snag em. Dad and I used to train them in Milton-Freewater, maybe I have a new career! The last team these high flyers want to play is the Hawks. Keep you Defense off the field, control the clock, tire their defense out, keep the circus outta town!