A question about the Seahawks (1 Viewer)

[Steelers4Life]

First off, I don't question their strength of schedule. They can only beat who's on their schedule. I'm more concerned with HOW they played against the teams they beat and where they beat them.When I look at their home regular season schedule, I see blowout wins over Houston, San Francisco, Arizona, St. Louis, and Indianapolis' backups. That's great, and that's what they should be able to do. Against the only 3 good teams they played at home (Atlanta, Dallas, NY Giants, and none of them were really that good), they won by only 3 each time, but a win is a win. In the playoffs, it was an impressive win over the Redskins after they lost Alexander, and they beat up Carolina. Of course, Carolina has no 2nd WR and was down to their 4th string RB. However, on the road they seemed to struggle even with teams they should soundly beat. 1. They got beat by 12 against the Jaguars, a team the Steelers took to OT even with Maddox turning the ball over 4 times.2. They lost to the Redskins on the road. 3. They beat the Rams by 6 in a game that was close throughout.4. They were only up by 7 at Arizona until a late TD sealed the game.5. They were up relatively big at San Francisco, but allowed the 49ers to come back and only lose by 2.6. They needed a late TD to win by 4 at Tennessee.7. They had an impressive 42 point win in Philly, but the Eagles were without McNabb and TO, and they didn't seem to care much.8. And they lost, albeit with backups, at Green Bay.I'm wondering why. I've asked a couple times in other threads, and the only response I got was one person saying jet lag may have been part of it.Does their gameplan change on the road? Does the defense depend that much on the "12 man?" Do they just execute much better at home?

 

[gump]

Don't the majority of NFL teams play better at home? Haven't a lot of SB champs benefited from an easy schedule or huge home field advantage? Isn't history littered with Champ. teams that had mediocre records on the road?Didn't Seattle go 5-3 on the road, including winning 4 of their last 5?This is the NFL, and Seattle is just not a dominant team. They are, however, a team that is 1 win away from a Lombardi trophy.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Don't the majority of NFL teams play better at home? Haven't a lot of SB champs benefited from an easy schedule or huge home field advantage? Isn't history littered with Champ. teams that had mediocre records on the road?

Didn't Seattle go 5-3 on the road, including winning 4 of their last 5?

This is the NFL, and Seattle is just not a dominant team. They are, however, a team that is 1 win away from a Lombardi trophy.

I'm not saying they aren't a good team. Not saying anything close to that, because I expect the Steelers to have their hands full next Sunday.And yes, most teams play better at home.

But in this case, there seems to be a huge difference between how they played at home vs how they played on the road. Their opponent is one that actually played better away from Heinz Field, so I'm wondering if anything is noticibly diiferent when the Seahawks play on the road compared to at home.

Like I showed, they only played 2 decent teams on the road this year and lost both times. And more importantlt, they struggled with teams on the road that I wouldn't expect them to struggle with. Even at home, they beat the teams they should've beaten and barely got by the few decent teams they played there, but at least they won the games.

 

[G3-175SE]

First off, I don't question their strength of schedule. They can only beat who's on their schedule. I'm more concerned with HOW they played against the teams they beat and where they beat them.

When I look at their home regular season schedule, I see blowout wins over Houston, San Francisco, Arizona, St. Louis, and Indianapolis' backups. That's great, and that's what they should be able to do. Against the only 3 good teams they played at home (Atlanta, Dallas, NY Giants, and none of them were really that good), they won by only 3 each time, but a win is a win. In the playoffs, it was an impressive win over the Redskins after they lost Alexander, and they beat up Carolina. Of course, Carolina has no 2nd WR and was down to their 4th string RB.

However, on the road they seemed to struggle even with teams they should soundly beat.

1. They got beat by 12 against the Jaguars, a team the Steelers took to OT even with Maddox turning the ball over 4 times.

2. They lost to the Redskins on the road.

3. They beat the Rams by 6 in a game that was close throughout.

4. They were only up by 7 at Arizona until a late TD sealed the game.

5. They were up relatively big at San Francisco, but allowed the 49ers to come back and only lose by 2.

6. They needed a late TD to win by 4 at Tennessee.

7. They had an impressive 42 point win in Philly, but the Eagles were without McNabb and TO, and they didn't seem to care much.

8. And they lost, albeit with backups, at Green Bay.

I'm wondering why. I've asked a couple times in other threads, and the only response I got was one person saying jet lag may have been part of it.

Does their gameplan change on the road? Does the defense depend that much on the "12 man?" Do they just execute much better at home?

The Steelers have shown they can play on the road and win, that is obvious from their route to the SB. Seattle might not win as easily but in my gut I think the Seahawks will win. Both teams deserve to be there. I think both are the strongest from their conferences. i know that most thought it was the Colts but if Ben R had not been hurt, the Steeler record would have been much different.

 

[Incogneto]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team. In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

 

[Not Really Mel Kiper]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them. Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

 

[Steelers4Life]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team. In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

OK, makes sense for a West Coast team to struggle on the East Coast.Then what about the fact that they beat the 49ers by 2 in San Francisco after giving up a big lead and only led by 7 against the Cardinals in AZ until they scored with 5 minutes left?

And further, with the benefit of home-field advantage, how did they only beat the Cowboys, Falcons, and Giants by a combined 9 points? We aren't talking about teams that were really that good. 2 of them weren't even playoff teams in the NFC, and one was a one-and-done. None of them would've been an AFC playoff team.

Again, I'm not talking about WHO they beat. I'm talking about how they looked while doing it. They seemed to struggle with a lot of teams that were clearly inferior to them talent-wise.

 

[Slider]

So, show us what the Steelers did on the road or at home against quality D's. You lost at home to New England and Jacksonville. Yeah, you beat Baltimore by 1. On the road you lost to Indy, Baltimore and Cincy. Wow and beat San Diego by 2. Okay, so you beat up on Minnesota, the Pack and Cleveland. Looks like Seattle did about what your team did. Have no clue who will win the Bowl but I think Seattle is every bit as good as the Steelers on paper. They're O is 1 and 2 in points and yards and the Steelers O is 9 and 16. The Steelers D is 3 and 4 where Seatltle's D is 7 and 16. Your bias look at things is okay though.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

 

[Not Really Mel Kiper]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team.  In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

OK, makes sense for a West Coast team to struggle on the East Coast.Then what about the fact that they beat the 49ers by 2 in San Francisco after giving up a big lead and only led by 7 against the Cardinals in AZ until they scored with 5 minutes left?

And further, with the benefit of home-field advantage, how did they only beat the Cowboys, Falcons, and Giants by a combined 9 points? We aren't talking about teams that were really that good. 2 of them weren't even playoff teams in the NFC, and one was a one-and-done. None of them would've been an AFC playoff team.

Again, I'm not talking about WHO they beat. I'm talking about how they looked while doing it. They seemed to struggle with a lot of teams that were clearly inferior to them talent-wise.

How many seahawk games did you watch this year?

 

[Steelers4Life]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team.  In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

OK, makes sense for a West Coast team to struggle on the East Coast.Then what about the fact that they beat the 49ers by 2 in San Francisco after giving up a big lead and only led by 7 against the Cardinals in AZ until they scored with 5 minutes left?

And further, with the benefit of home-field advantage, how did they only beat the Cowboys, Falcons, and Giants by a combined 9 points? We aren't talking about teams that were really that good. 2 of them weren't even playoff teams in the NFC, and one was a one-and-done. None of them would've been an AFC playoff team.

Again, I'm not talking about WHO they beat. I'm talking about how they looked while doing it. They seemed to struggle with a lot of teams that were clearly inferior to them talent-wise.

How many seahawk games did you watch this year?

6 or 7. I have the Ticket. Why?

 

[mad sweeney]

First off, I don't question their strength of schedule. They can only beat who's on their schedule. I'm more concerned with HOW they played against the teams they beat and where they beat them.

When I look at their home regular season schedule, I see blowout wins over Houston, San Francisco, Arizona, St. Louis, and Indianapolis' backups. That's great, and that's what they should be able to do. Against the only 3 good teams they played at home (Atlanta, Dallas, NY Giants, and none of them were really that good), they won by only 3 each time, but a win is a win. In the playoffs, it was an impressive win over the Redskins after they lost Alexander, and they beat up Carolina. Of course, Carolina has no 2nd WR and was down to their 4th string RB.

However, on the road they seemed to struggle even with teams they should soundly beat.

1. They got beat by 12 against the Jaguars, a team the Steelers took to OT even with Maddox turning the ball over 4 times.

2. They lost to the Redskins on the road.

3. They beat the Rams by 6 in a game that was close throughout.

4. They were only up by 7 at Arizona until a late TD sealed the game.

5. They were up relatively big at San Francisco, but allowed the 49ers to come back and only lose by 2.

6. They needed a late TD to win by 4 at Tennessee.

7. They had an impressive 42 point win in Philly, but the Eagles were without McNabb and TO, and they didn't seem to care much.

8. And they lost, albeit with backups, at Green Bay.

I'm wondering why. I've asked a couple times in other threads, and the only response I got was one person saying jet lag may have been part of it.

Does their gameplan change on the road? Does the defense depend that much on the "12 man?" Do they just execute much better at home?

1. They were dead tired in the 90degree/90% humidity by the middle of the 2nd quarter. I've never seen a team more limp out on a field. Simple case of not being in game shape and not ready for the weather2. A very bad PI call late in 1st half led to a WAS TD. Bonked a field goal last minute to go into OT. Bend don't break D was still getting it's footing. Kept getting them in 3rd/long and letting them convert. Defensive wakeup call that changed their season.

3. Rams are a division opponent with a massive psychological advantage. They were still in contention at the time.

4. AZ, don't really remember this game, but it was a division game and anything can happen. Sill, won on the road against a talented but headless team.

5. SF, another division game on the road, anything can happen. Played down to a bad team, bent but didn't break. Crushed the Niners later at home.

6. TEN, by this point, they'd clinched division and 1st week bye. Still needed a win or 2 for HFA, but the stakes were lowered by now. Defensive back injuries hampered our backfield.

7. PHI, this same Eagles team went to NY the next week and took the Giants to OT. Regardless of how the Eagles played, the Hawks came out and dominated on the road, on primetime, in front of a hostile crowd

8. Resting starters, best player on the team (Jones) didn't even suit up.

As for the home wins, Atlanta had blown Philly (healthy) week 1 and was the toast of the NFC, NYG was the #1 offense and was a favorite to go deep in the playoffs, and Dallas was pulling wins out and challenging the Giants. All 3 we played and beat while they were at the top of their games. People can talk all they want about missed FGs, but the D kept them out of the end zone/FG range for those tries. Those were all big wins.

The W is the key. a 3 point win is still a win, ask Vinatieri. I think for the most part they played down to their opponents but when push came to shove they found a way to win and not drop an easy one.

 

[Steelers4Life]

So, show us what the Steelers did on the road or at home against quality D's. You lost at home to New England and Jacksonville. Yeah, you beat Baltimore by 1. On the road you lost to Indy, Baltimore and Cincy. Wow and beat San Diego by 2.

Okay, so you beat up on Minnesota, the Pack and Cleveland.

Looks like Seattle did about what your team did.

Have no clue who will win the Bowl but I think Seattle is every bit as good as the Steelers on paper. They're O is 1 and 2 in points and yards and the Steelers O is 9 and 16. The Steelers D is 3 and 4 where Seatltle's D is 7 and 16.

Your bias look at things is okay though.

I asked a legit question as to why the Seahawks struggled on the road this year.If you want to look at the Steelers' schedule and results, fine. They were a superior team on the road than they were at home.

They lost to the Pats. It was a tough game.

They lost to the Jags in OT without both Roethlisberger and Ward. I'd say taking an AFC playoff team to OT without those 2 is pretty solid.

They also lost to Baltimore on the road with Maddox under center, losing by only 3 in OT.

They had a nice primetime win at San Diego, and they had dominating road performances against Cincy and Minnesota. They dominated the Bears in Heinz Field.

They followed that up with dominating road performances at Denver and Indy in the playoffs.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

 

[Not Really Mel Kiper]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team.  In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

OK, makes sense for a West Coast team to struggle on the East Coast.Then what about the fact that they beat the 49ers by 2 in San Francisco after giving up a big lead and only led by 7 against the Cardinals in AZ until they scored with 5 minutes left?

And further, with the benefit of home-field advantage, how did they only beat the Cowboys, Falcons, and Giants by a combined 9 points? We aren't talking about teams that were really that good. 2 of them weren't even playoff teams in the NFC, and one was a one-and-done. None of them would've been an AFC playoff team.

Again, I'm not talking about WHO they beat. I'm talking about how they looked while doing it. They seemed to struggle with a lot of teams that were clearly inferior to them talent-wise.

How many seahawk games did you watch this year?

6 or 7. I have the Ticket. Why?

Then why are you asking the question? Shouldn't you be able to answer it on your own......oh wait.....you just want to get Hawk fans

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

FWIW Super Bowl 40 in Tempe, AZ Steelers/Cowboys was at least 2:1 Steelers fans. I can't imagine this game being anything close to 50/50 in the stands.

 

[greenroom]

So, show us what the Steelers did on the road or at home against quality D's. You lost at home to New England and Jacksonville.  Yeah, you beat Baltimore by 1. On the road you lost to Indy, Baltimore and Cincy.  Wow and beat San Diego by 2.

Okay, so you beat up on Minnesota, the Pack and Cleveland.

Looks like Seattle did about what your team did.

Have no clue who will win the Bowl but I think Seattle is every bit as good as the Steelers on paper. They're O is 1 and 2 in points and yards and the Steelers O is 9 and 16. The Steelers D is 3 and 4 where Seatltle's D is 7 and 16. 

Your bias look at things is okay though.

I asked a legit question as to why the Seahawks struggled on the road this year.If you want to look at the Steelers' schedule and results, fine. They were a superior team on the road than they were at home.

They lost to the Pats. It was a tough game.

They lost to the Jags in OT without both Roethlisberger and Ward. I'd say taking an AFC playoff team to OT without those 2 is pretty solid.

They also lost to Baltimore on the road with Maddox under center, losing by only 3 in OT.

They had a nice primetime win at San Diego, and they had dominating road performances against Cincy and Minnesota. They dominated the Bears in Heinz Field.

They followed that up with dominating road performances at Denver and Indy in the playoffs.

So those Steeler Glasses work like the Broncos Glasses. You see whatand how you want to see the results. Bottom line each team can make up a excuse why the lost. Bottom line is that both teams got the Job done. Both are playing the best football and to be honest the game will come down to who performs better on Sunday.

 

[Steelers4Life]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team.  In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

OK, makes sense for a West Coast team to struggle on the East Coast.Then what about the fact that they beat the 49ers by 2 in San Francisco after giving up a big lead and only led by 7 against the Cardinals in AZ until they scored with 5 minutes left?

And further, with the benefit of home-field advantage, how did they only beat the Cowboys, Falcons, and Giants by a combined 9 points? We aren't talking about teams that were really that good. 2 of them weren't even playoff teams in the NFC, and one was a one-and-done. None of them would've been an AFC playoff team.

Again, I'm not talking about WHO they beat. I'm talking about how they looked while doing it. They seemed to struggle with a lot of teams that were clearly inferior to them talent-wise.

How many seahawk games did you watch this year?

6 or 7. I have the Ticket. Why?

Then why are you asking the question? Shouldn't you be able to answer it on your own......oh wait.....you just want to get Hawk fans

Nah, not at all. It's not like I scouted the team as I watched. I'd guess people who really care about the team would have more insight into this stuff than I would, and I was right. When you look at their schedule and results, while the schedule wasn't a tough one, the results are far less impressive if you consider who they beat, when they beat them, and how badly they beat them. I figured Seahawks fans would have more insight than me as to why.I'm not the type to post stuff just to piss of the opposing teams' fans.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team.  In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

OK, makes sense for a West Coast team to struggle on the East Coast.Then what about the fact that they beat the 49ers by 2 in San Francisco after giving up a big lead and only led by 7 against the Cardinals in AZ until they scored with 5 minutes left?

And further, with the benefit of home-field advantage, how did they only beat the Cowboys, Falcons, and Giants by a combined 9 points? We aren't talking about teams that were really that good. 2 of them weren't even playoff teams in the NFC, and one was a one-and-done. None of them would've been an AFC playoff team.

Again, I'm not talking about WHO they beat. I'm talking about how they looked while doing it. They seemed to struggle with a lot of teams that were clearly inferior to them talent-wise.

How many seahawk games did you watch this year?

6 or 7. I have the Ticket. Why?

Then why are you asking the question? Shouldn't you be able to answer it on your own......oh wait.....you just want to get Hawk fans

I'll tell you what, inside and outside this forum I have never seen a group of fans so sure that they will win as the Steelers fans (mentioned on FSN and ESPN also). I think that is great, and I wish I could have that kind of confidence in any of my teams (I'm even a Pistons and Wings fan). If they do lose, it will be devastating. Since I have limited experience with Steelers fans I don't know if this is a prevailing theme but it just makes a loss ten times worse. For me a loss is bad enough as is.

 

[Steelers4Life]

So, show us what the Steelers did on the road or at home against quality D's. You lost at home to New England and Jacksonville.  Yeah, you beat Baltimore by 1. On the road you lost to Indy, Baltimore and Cincy.  Wow and beat San Diego by 2.

Okay, so you beat up on Minnesota, the Pack and Cleveland.

Looks like Seattle did about what your team did.

Have no clue who will win the Bowl but I think Seattle is every bit as good as the Steelers on paper. They're O is 1 and 2 in points and yards and the Steelers O is 9 and 16. The Steelers D is 3 and 4 where Seatltle's D is 7 and 16. 

Your bias look at things is okay though.

I asked a legit question as to why the Seahawks struggled on the road this year.If you want to look at the Steelers' schedule and results, fine. They were a superior team on the road than they were at home.

They lost to the Pats. It was a tough game.

They lost to the Jags in OT without both Roethlisberger and Ward. I'd say taking an AFC playoff team to OT without those 2 is pretty solid.

They also lost to Baltimore on the road with Maddox under center, losing by only 3 in OT.

They had a nice primetime win at San Diego, and they had dominating road performances against Cincy and Minnesota. They dominated the Bears in Heinz Field.

They followed that up with dominating road performances at Denver and Indy in the playoffs.

So those Steeler Glasses work like the Broncos Glasses. You see whatand how you want to see the results. Bottom line each team can make up a excuse why the lost. Bottom line is that both teams got the Job done. Both are playing the best football and to be honest the game will come down to who performs better on Sunday.

What part of my analysis of the Steelers' games do you not agree with? They lost 2 games because of Tommy Maddox being in there, just like the Seahawks would've lost a couple games this year if Seneca Wallace had been forced to play because of a Hasselbeck injury.

 

[Steelers4Life]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team.  In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

OK, makes sense for a West Coast team to struggle on the East Coast.Then what about the fact that they beat the 49ers by 2 in San Francisco after giving up a big lead and only led by 7 against the Cardinals in AZ until they scored with 5 minutes left?

And further, with the benefit of home-field advantage, how did they only beat the Cowboys, Falcons, and Giants by a combined 9 points? We aren't talking about teams that were really that good. 2 of them weren't even playoff teams in the NFC, and one was a one-and-done. None of them would've been an AFC playoff team.

Again, I'm not talking about WHO they beat. I'm talking about how they looked while doing it. They seemed to struggle with a lot of teams that were clearly inferior to them talent-wise.

How many seahawk games did you watch this year?

6 or 7. I have the Ticket. Why?

Then why are you asking the question? Shouldn't you be able to answer it on your own......oh wait.....you just want to get Hawk fans

I'll tell you what, inside and outside this forum I have never seen a group of fans so sure that they will win as the Steelers fans (mentioned on FSN and ESPN also). I think that is great, and I wish I could have that kind of confidence in any of my teams (I'm even a Pistons and Wings fan). If they do lose, it will be devastating. Since I have limited experience with Steelers fans I don't know if this is a prevailing theme but it just makes a loss ten times worse. For me a loss is bad enough as is.

I sure hope you don't think that's what I think, because I'm not sure of anything. I think the Steelers are favored because they should be favored based on how and where both teams have won games this year, but I'm definitely not overly confident about it. The Seahaws are a very good team, but my point was that it seems to me that they don't always play up to their talent, especially when they aren't at home.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

FWIW Super Bowl 40 in Tempe, AZ Steelers/Cowboys was at least 2:1 Steelers fans. I can't imagine this game being anything close to 50/50 in the stands.

I'll be there to see for myself. If you're in fact right I'll link you a digital photo with all the terrible towels and then hopefully Seattle hoisting the Vince Lombardi trophy. EDIT TO ADD: Here is an article I found and I've seen others from the NY Times, Detroit Free Press, and heard on various levels of sports radio. Just 34 percent of the tickets go to the teams and while many will be sold to Steelers fans, a lot of these tickets go as business issue. It's too bad for all of us. I can tell you I have watched ticket brokers, E-Bay and ads from everywhere and all the tickets being sold are mostly in the end zones. All the fat cats from LA, NY, Detroit, etc will be filling all the good seats while the fans get the screw. I think this is ridiculous even if my team would be at a disadvantage with more Steeler fans. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seah...805_blai29.html

 

[fred_1_15301]

They had a nice primetime win at San DiegoLook I'm a Steeler fan but we really need to drop this "who have they beaten" crap. Bottom line is the Seahawks had a great record and they beat the teams they were supposed to beat. You're minimizing Seattle's wins against Dallas and NYG and overemphasizing the Steelers win in San Diego? San Diego was no better than either Dallas or the Giants and the Steelers needed a last second field goal to win that one. It just seems like you're making an excuse for every Steeler loss and stressing how impressive each Steeler win was. You're doing the exact opposite for the Seahawks. Do I think the Steelers will win? I'm very confident they will. However, lets try to give the Hawks some credit on a great season--one that was in fact better than the Steelers season up to this point.

 

[mad sweeney]

IMO, the 'Hawks aren't a bad road team, they are a bad Early morning team. In 4 games that started at 1pm EST, they were 2-2, with one of the games being the late comback against Tennessee...

OK, makes sense for a West Coast team to struggle on the East Coast.Then what about the fact that they beat the 49ers by 2 in San Francisco after giving up a big lead and only led by 7 against the Cardinals in AZ until they scored with 5 minutes left?

And further, with the benefit of home-field advantage, how did they only beat the Cowboys, Falcons, and Giants by a combined 9 points? We aren't talking about teams that were really that good. 2 of them weren't even playoff teams in the NFC, and one was a one-and-done. None of them would've been an AFC playoff team.

Again, I'm not talking about WHO they beat. I'm talking about how they looked while doing it. They seemed to struggle with a lot of teams that were clearly inferior to them talent-wise.

How many seahawk games did you watch this year?

6 or 7. I have the Ticket. Why?

Then why are you asking the question? Shouldn't you be able to answer it on your own......oh wait.....you just want to get Hawk fans

I'll tell you what, inside and outside this forum I have never seen a group of fans so sure that they will win as the Steelers fans (mentioned on FSN and ESPN also). I think that is great, and I wish I could have that kind of confidence in any of my teams (I'm even a Pistons and Wings fan). If they do lose, it will be devastating. Since I have limited experience with Steelers fans I don't know if this is a prevailing theme but it just makes a loss ten times worse. For me a loss is bad enough as is.

I sure hope you don't think that's what I think, because I'm not sure of anything. I think the Steelers are favored because they should be favored based on how and where both teams have won games this year, but I'm definitely not overly confident about it. The Seahaws are a very good team, but my point was that it seems to me that they don't always play up to their talent, especially when they aren't at home.

They play up to their opponents (or down as it were). A weak schedule doesn't account for 7 probowlers (5 offensive starters!) and at least 2 all-pros. The fact that all but Strong and unofficial ROY Tatupu are repeats at the probowl attests to that. The team is an offensive juggernaut, thouygh not fancy like previous Rams teams and such. Their defense can hold their own and gets tight just outside the red-zone. They will show up to face an awesome Steelers team and they WILL bring their A-game. The O-line has been together for 4+ years (Locklear only 1.5, but the other 4...), picking up the Blitzes will be handled very well. Their communication is incomparable. There won't be any overlooking a weak road team here, they will play up to the competition. Should be an exciting and close game.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

FWIW Super Bowl 40 in Tempe, AZ Steelers/Cowboys was at least 2:1 Steelers fans. I can't imagine this game being anything close to 50/50 in the stands.

I'll be there to see for myself. If you're in fact right I'll link you a digital photo with all the terrible towels and then hopefully Seattle hoisting the Vince Lombardi trophy.

I and 40,000+ Steelers fans will be right next to you.

 

[Steelers4Life]

They had a nice primetime win at San Diego

Look I'm a Steeler fan but we really need to drop this "who have they beaten" crap. Bottom line is the Seahawks had a great record and they beat the teams they were supposed to beat. You're minimizing Seattle's wins against Dallas and NYG and overemphasizing the Steelers win in San Diego? San Diego was no better than either Dallas or the Giants and the Steelers needed a last second field goal to win that one. It just seems like you're making an excuse for every Steeler loss and stressing how impressive each Steeler win was. You're doing the exact opposite for the Seahawks. Do I think the Steelers will win? I'm very confident they will. However, lets try to give the Hawks some credit on a great season--one that was in fact better than the Steelers season up to this point.

No, I'm not. I specifically said that I'm talking more about HOW they won the games and how close games were with teams I'd have expected them to crush, especially on the road. I've said time and time again in multiple threads that I expect the Super Bowl to be a great game, and I've given the Seahawks a lot of credit for having a very good team.

If they truly are a team that plays up or down to their competition, they're going to need to play a strong game to win the Super Bowl. I'm sure they're capable of it, and I'll be the first to congratulation the Seahawk fans if they win.

Personally, I'd say beating SD on the road on Monday Night Football is a little stronger than beating the Giants or Cowboys at home, but that's not what this thread was started for. And I didn't make excuses for the Steelers' losses aside from pointing out that Maddox started 2 of the 5 losses. They were outplayed when they lost to the Pats, Bengals, and Colts.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

FWIW Super Bowl 40 in Tempe, AZ Steelers/Cowboys was at least 2:1 Steelers fans. I can't imagine this game being anything close to 50/50 in the stands.

I'll be there to see for myself. If you're in fact right I'll link you a digital photo with all the terrible towels and then hopefully Seattle hoisting the Vince Lombardi trophy.

I and 40,000+ Steelers fans will be right next to you.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...dpost&p=4251747I edited my link. I think 40,000 is the high end but as I said before, about half would be right (33,500).

 

[Steelers4Life]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

FWIW Super Bowl 40 in Tempe, AZ Steelers/Cowboys was at least 2:1 Steelers fans. I can't imagine this game being anything close to 50/50 in the stands.

I'll be there to see for myself. If you're in fact right I'll link you a digital photo with all the terrible towels and then hopefully Seattle hoisting the Vince Lombardi trophy.

I and 40,000+ Steelers fans will be right next to you.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...dpost&p=4251747I edited my link. I think 40,000 is the high end but as I said before, about half would be right (33,500).

FWIW, Troy Aikman said in the closing minutes of the NFC Championship broadcast that SB XXX in Tempe, Arizona was 70-75% Steelers fans.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

FWIW Super Bowl 40 in Tempe, AZ Steelers/Cowboys was at least 2:1 Steelers fans. I can't imagine this game being anything close to 50/50 in the stands.

I'll be there to see for myself. If you're in fact right I'll link you a digital photo with all the terrible towels and then hopefully Seattle hoisting the Vince Lombardi trophy.

I and 40,000+ Steelers fans will be right next to you.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...dpost&p=4251747I edited my link. I think 40,000 is the high end but as I said before, about half would be right (33,500).

FWIW, Troy Aikman said in the closing minutes of the NFC Championship broadcast that SB XXX in Tempe, Arizona was 70-75% Steelers fans.

I heard that too. He meant in the city and at the events. In Detroit it will be 90% Steelers fans if not more. In the stadium, it's a different story.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

First off, I don't question their strength of schedule.  They can only beat who's on their schedule.  I'm more concerned with HOW they played against the teams they beat and where they beat them.

When I look at their home regular season schedule, I see blowout wins over Houston, San Francisco,  Arizona, St. Louis, and Indianapolis' backups.  That's great, and that's what they should be able to do.  Against the only 3 good teams they played at home (Atlanta, Dallas, NY Giants, and none of them were really that good), they won by only 3 each time, but a win is a win.  In the playoffs, it was an impressive win over the Redskins after they lost Alexander, and they beat up Carolina.  Of course, Carolina has no 2nd WR and was down to their 4th string RB. 

However, on the road they seemed to struggle even with teams they should soundly beat.

1. They got beat by 12 against the Jaguars, a team the Steelers took to OT even with Maddox turning the ball over 4 times.

2. They lost to the Redskins on the road. 

3. They beat the Rams by 6 in a game that was close throughout.

4. They were only up by 7 at Arizona until a late TD sealed the game.

5. They were up relatively big at San Francisco, but allowed the 49ers to come back and only lose by 2.

6. They needed a late TD to win by 4 at Tennessee.

7. They had an impressive 42 point win in Philly, but the Eagles were without McNabb and TO, and they didn't seem to care much.

8. And they lost, albeit with backups, at Green Bay.

I'm wondering why.  I've asked a couple times in other threads, and the only response I got was one person saying jet lag may have been part of it.

Does their gameplan change on the road?  Does the defense depend that much on the "12 man?"  Do they just execute much better at home?

Your bias is really showing through.

I find it hilarious that every Seattle win has a footnote beside it, but you don't bother to say things like:

1. The Jacksonville loss was in week 1 - not a really telling game considering it has been over 4 months since the game was played.

2. In Seattles slim win at home against Atlanta, they coasted in the 2nd half (they were ahead 21-0 at half time. Also note that Seattle outyarded Atlanta 444-238.

3. In Washington's loss, Brown missed two field goals, including a late one, that would have prevented the game from going to OT.

4. They were up by two scores against the Rams until a late field goal made it a 6 point game.

5. There was still over 5:00 left in the game when they scored that "late" TD against the Cardinals. They won by 14 points plain and simple.

etc.

It's funny how Pitts loss to NE comes out as a loss to the Super Bowl champs and not as a loss to a team plagued by injuries, playing their worse football in three years, and a team who had lost to Carolina the week before and who got smoked by SD the next week.

Every win and loss get be footnoted.

 

[mad sweeney]

First off, I don't question their strength of schedule. They can only beat who's on their schedule. I'm more concerned with HOW they played against the teams they beat and where they beat them.

When I look at their home regular season schedule, I see blowout wins over Houston, San Francisco, Arizona, St. Louis, and Indianapolis' backups. That's great, and that's what they should be able to do. Against the only 3 good teams they played at home (Atlanta, Dallas, NY Giants, and none of them were really that good), they won by only 3 each time, but a win is a win. In the playoffs, it was an impressive win over the Redskins after they lost Alexander, and they beat up Carolina. Of course, Carolina has no 2nd WR and was down to their 4th string RB.

However, on the road they seemed to struggle even with teams they should soundly beat.

1. They got beat by 12 against the Jaguars, a team the Steelers took to OT even with Maddox turning the ball over 4 times.

2. They lost to the Redskins on the road.

3. They beat the Rams by 6 in a game that was close throughout.

4. They were only up by 7 at Arizona until a late TD sealed the game.

5. They were up relatively big at San Francisco, but allowed the 49ers to come back and only lose by 2.

6. They needed a late TD to win by 4 at Tennessee.

7. They had an impressive 42 point win in Philly, but the Eagles were without McNabb and TO, and they didn't seem to care much.

8. And they lost, albeit with backups, at Green Bay.

I'm wondering why. I've asked a couple times in other threads, and the only response I got was one person saying jet lag may have been part of it.

Does their gameplan change on the road? Does the defense depend that much on the "12 man?" Do they just execute much better at home?

Your bias is really showing through.

I find it hilarious that every Seattle win has a footnote beside it, but you don't bother to say things like:

1. The Jacksonville loss was in week 1 - not a really telling game considering it has been over 4 months since the game was played.

2. In Seattles slim win at home against Atlanta, they coasted in the 2nd half (they were ahead 21-0 at half time. Also note that Seattle outyarded Atlanta 444-238.

3. In Washington's loss, Brown missed two field goals, including a late one, that would have prevented the game from going to OT.

4. They were up by two scores against the Rams until a late field goal made it a 6 point game.

5. There was still over 5:00 left in the game when they scored that "late" TD against the Cardinals. They won by 14 points plain and simple.

etc.

It's funny how Pitts loss to NE comes out as a loss to the Super Bowl champs and not as a loss to a team plagued by injuries, playing their worse football in three years, and a team who had lost to Carolina the week before and who got smoked by SD the next week.

Every win and loss get be footnoted.

Easy on the OG poster, he was asking legitimate questions about our road performance. Reasons why we had, on paper, close games on the road against lesser opponents. In his post he made all the right moves, recognizing the Seahawks as the legitmate NFC rep for the SB and complimented us on our impresive playoff wins. Both sides have footnotes for losses and wins and I think all he was asking for is an explanation. You did a decent job giving reasons on some of those losses, but no need to go after him. There are enough less savory Steeler fans out there to get on.I hope my earlier post was a little helpful explaining what may have factored into some of the road troubles.

 

[Odogs]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

FWIW Super Bowl 40 in Tempe, AZ Steelers/Cowboys was at least 2:1 Steelers fans. I can't imagine this game being anything close to 50/50 in the stands.

I'll be there to see for myself. If you're in fact right I'll link you a digital photo with all the terrible towels and then hopefully Seattle hoisting the Vince Lombardi trophy.

I and 40,000+ Steelers fans will be right next to you.

Me too!

 

[Odogs]

Teams are very close in tallent in the NFL....no team is just going to blow out every team which is not as good as them.

Why did the steelers only beat the Ravens by 1 at home?

I don't expect them to blow everyone out. I'd have expected them to be much more convincing in their wins against teams other than St. Louis, Houston, or San Francisco.The Steelers always play tight games with the Ravens, and they played better on the ROAD this year. In the end, they have a good number of quality wins, mostly on the road, to hang their hat on. They won @ SD in primetime, they won convincingly in Cincy and Minnesota during the regular season, and dominated the Colts and Broncos on the road the past 2 weeks. They also manhandled the Bears in Heinz Field.

I look at the Seahawks and I see a team that blew out bottom feeding teams but struggled against all of the good teams they faced this year, and they struggled against a number of teams they shouldn't have.

They won at home 31-16 over the Rams and the game wasn't that close, 42-10 to Houston, and 41-3 to San Francisco. If you look at the Rams they were a totally different team without Marc Bulger and they probably would have been around 500 with him. So the 37-31 win in week 5 came at a time the Rams were still a team that had a chance and St Louis has been a pretty good home team over the past few years. The Tennessee game was one that they had a nine game winning streak playing a team that still has enough in the tank to challenge people now and again. Dallas and the Giants were good teams and at the time, Dallas was the best team in the NFC. This isn't college football and any team in the NFL can win any given day. Buffalo beat the Chiefs 13-3, Tampa lost to San Francisco, Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore. Plus San Francisco and the Rams are division oppenents and like the Ravens, it is about familiarity.

Seattle does not play that well on grass for sure because the team is really built for speed and execution of routes and schemes on turf.

Plus the Super Bowl is not a road game. Although Pittsburgh will have more fans outside the stadium than Seattle, inside from all I've been reading will be no more than 50 percent Steeler faithful. If Seattle can draw in the neutral crowd it's only a slight advantage at best for the Steelers. Not sure if this is any kind of answer you were looking for but I did my best.

FWIW Super Bowl 40 in Tempe, AZ Steelers/Cowboys was at least 2:1 Steelers fans. I can't imagine this game being anything close to 50/50 in the stands.

I'll be there to see for myself. If you're in fact right I'll link you a digital photo with all the terrible towels and then hopefully Seattle hoisting the Vince Lombardi trophy. EDIT TO ADD: Here is an article I found and I've seen others from the NY Times, Detroit Free Press, and heard on various levels of sports radio. Just 34 percent of the tickets go to the teams and while many will be sold to Steelers fans, a lot of these tickets go as business issue. It's too bad for all of us. I can tell you I have watched ticket brokers, E-Bay and ads from everywhere and all the tickets being sold are mostly in the end zones. All the fat cats from LA, NY, Detroit, etc will be filling all the good seats while the fans get the screw. I think this is ridiculous even if my team would be at a disadvantage with more Steeler fans. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seah...805_blai29.html

It's true that 34% of the tickets go to these two teams, but counting all of the other teams 75% of the tickets go to NFL teams. The remaining 25% go to corporate sponsors(I don't have a link, I heard it on Fox Sports Radio). There was also a ticket broker on and he said they get a lot of their tickets from NFL players and most of these tickets were being bought by Steeler fans.