Anyone Else Dreading a Patriots/Seahawks Super Bowl? (1 Viewer)

[tombonneau]

In your opinion......how would BB and the NEPs attack and be successful against the SEA D?...and let's not lay that "BB's magic and the greatest coach of all time and they use his currency as poop in Agrentina and when Brady goes to Disneyland...Mickey wears his ears" schtick....how's that offense stick it to that D?

Take away the middle with Gronk and use the short passing game to move the ball, occasionally take deep shots, maybe throw in a few cheat plays.

Shouldn't be too bad, biggest thing to worry about is their safeties and Sherman jumping routes.

I think Pats would actually commit pretty heavy to the run even if slogging away at 3-3.5ypc and use run to setup pass. The lockdown strength of Sherman is somewhat negated by him likely being on the #3 option in LaFell. (Would be interesting if his & PC ego would try to match him up on Gronk.)

I wouldn't expect more than 21-24 from Pats which hopefully would be enough. But a few years ago Brady pretty much lit up this same scheme and D. Obviously teams very different (AH in jail the biggest difference) but I don't think it's a Denver bloodbath.

Either way, not sure how any fan of football would not want to see each conference's best team playing each other. Far more enjoyable IMO than seeing lame wild card teams get hot for a few games then fade away the next season. Even as a Manning & Seattle hater, I was very happy that they played the SB because I always want to see best vs best.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

In your opinion......how would BB and the NEPs attack and be successful against the SEA D?...and let's not lay that "BB's magic and the greatest coach of all time and they use his currency as poop in Agrentina and when Brady goes to Disneyland...Mickey wears his ears" schtick....how's that offense stick it to that D?

IMO, I think NE has the best offense in the league, one uniquely equipped to handle virtually anything you throw at it. That combined with the fact that I feel Seattle is way overrated and have not faced a QB or an offense anywhere near as good as NEs in a long time. Like I said, I could be wrong, but I hope we get to find out.

I do agree NE would make for the best matchup. But that D is going to make Brady move around. We know that's not when Brady is at his best. I'm just at a point I've bet against Seattle so much and been proven wrong every one of those times I can't deny them any more. They're really just too fast. Faster than anything Brady has seen. Even more than that, they all play smart and have a very high football IQ. And the NE D has me worried about that matchup with Lynch after watching that game last night. NE doesn't have a Luke Keuchly to constantly stand Lynch up.

Your points are all valid and should NE advance I worry about the same things (but I do think NEs D is a lot better than they showed yesterday). I just feel that Sea stats are inflated by playing a lot of stiffs over the past couple of months. Put them on a neutral field against a good qb, with a resilient team and I think the results could be a lot different than what many f not most might think. Again, I really hope we get to find out.

From 11/17 - that's close enough to a "couple months," right?

Seattle's remaining opponents are a combined 41-19 for a .683 winning percentage. In the next five games, the opponents' winning percentage is .740 (37-13) and the winning percentage for the opponents in the five remaining division games is .680 (34-16).

8 out of their last 11 games were against Car, Stl, SF, ARI & Oak

Nuff said.

Pats been pounding a soft division for years.

What are the pats great wins? Indy & Denver. thats about it

At times the division has been soft, no different than most other divisions imho.

What is\are the Seahawks biggest win(s)?

Pats played Den (when they were still good), Cin (when they were still good), Det, GB, Indy, SD etc.

And, FWIW, Mia & Buf were hardly pushovers this year.

NE lost to GB, or did I miss that?? wasnt that long ago, Seattle destroyed them once, and will again probably, would love a healthy Rodgers for that one.

The NFC West is a solid division had 2 playoff teams, granted arizona lost their top 2 qbs and made it.

Give me a break with Cincy, Detroit and SD, pretenders every one

Again, what are the Sea marque wins??

The NFC west is offensively challenged, yes, no?

Yes NE lost a relatively close game to GB on the road.

Cincy was hottest team in the league at the time, Det was pretty good, Indy made the final four and SD was pretty good (albeit b4hand).

Are you claiming that Sea's sched was anywhere near as difficult as NEs?

 

[Deamon]

In your opinion......how would BB and the NEPs attack and be successful against the SEA D?...and let's not lay that "BB's magic and the greatest coach of all time and they use his currency as poop in Agrentina and when Brady goes to Disneyland...Mickey wears his ears" schtick....how's that offense stick it to that D?

IMO, I think NE has the best offense in the league, one uniquely equipped to handle virtually anything you throw at it. That combined with the fact that I feel Seattle is way overrated and have not faced a QB or an offense anywhere near as good as NEs in a long time. Like I said, I could be wrong, but I hope we get to find out.

I do agree NE would make for the best matchup. But that D is going to make Brady move around. We know that's not when Brady is at his best. I'm just at a point I've bet against Seattle so much and been proven wrong every one of those times I can't deny them any more. They're really just too fast. Faster than anything Brady has seen. Even more than that, they all play smart and have a very high football IQ. And the NE D has me worried about that matchup with Lynch after watching that game last night. NE doesn't have a Luke Keuchly to constantly stand Lynch up.

Your points are all valid and should NE advance I worry about the same things (but I do think NEs D is a lot better than they showed yesterday). I just feel that Sea stats are inflated by playing a lot of stiffs over the past couple of months. Put them on a neutral field against a good qb, with a resilient team and I think the results could be a lot different than what many f not most might think. Again, I really hope we get to find out.

From 11/17 - that's close enough to a "couple months," right?

Seattle's remaining opponents are a combined 41-19 for a .683 winning percentage. In the next five games, the opponents' winning percentage is .740 (37-13) and the winning percentage for the opponents in the five remaining division games is .680 (34-16).

8 out of their last 11 games were against Car, Stl, SF, ARI & Oak

Nuff said.

Pats been pounding a soft division for years.

What are the pats great wins? Indy & Denver. thats about it

At times the division has been soft, no different than most other divisions imho.

What is\are the Seahawks biggest win(s)?

Pats played Den (when they were still good), Cin (when they were still good), Det, GB, Indy, SD etc.

And, FWIW, Mia & Buf were hardly pushovers this year.

NE lost to GB, or did I miss that?? wasnt that long ago, Seattle destroyed them once, and will again probably, would love a healthy Rodgers for that one.

The NFC West is a solid division had 2 playoff teams, granted arizona lost their top 2 qbs and made it.

Give me a break with Cincy, Detroit and SD, pretenders every one

Again, what are the Sea marque wins??

Yes NE lost a relatively close game to GB on the road.

The NFC west is offensively challenged, yes, no?

Cincy was hottest team in the league at the time, Det was pretty good, Indy made the final four and SD was pretty good (albeit b4hand).

Are you claiming that Sea's sched was anywhere near as difficult as NEs?

SEA schedule was easier for sure. However, the SEA team now is MUCH better then the SEA team early in the season. It's almost pointless to compare what these teams did in the regular season.

Would be a great matchup, I'd love to see it.

 

[Deamon]

In your opinion......how would BB and the NEPs attack and be successful against the SEA D?...and let's not lay that "BB's magic and the greatest coach of all time and they use his currency as poop in Agrentina and when Brady goes to Disneyland...Mickey wears his ears" schtick....how's that offense stick it to that D?

Take away the middle with Gronk and use the short passing game to move the ball, occasionally take deep shots, maybe throw in a few cheat plays.

Shouldn't be too bad, biggest thing to worry about is their safeties and Sherman jumping routes.

I think Pats would actually commit pretty heavy to the run even if slogging away at 3-3.5ypc and use run to setup pass. The lockdown strength of Sherman is somewhat negated by him likely being on the #3 option in LaFell. (Would be interesting if his & PC ego would try to match him up on Gronk.)

I wouldn't expect more than 21-24 from Pats which hopefully would be enough. But a few years ago Brady pretty much lit up this same scheme and D. Obviously teams very different (AH in jail the biggest difference) but I don't think it's a Denver bloodbath.

Either way, not sure how any fan of football would not want to see each conference's best team playing each other. Far more enjoyable IMO than seeing lame wild card teams get hot for a few games then fade away the next season. Even as a Manning & Seattle hater, I was very happy that they played the SB because I always want to see best vs best.

I really don't think RS would match up on Gronk. Gronk would own him, and RS would be taken completely out of the game on all those snaps that Gronk is just blocking on. He would likely be on Lafell. Gronk would have a huge game. Sea was #1 vs WR's this year, but only #16 vs TE's.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I don't care who is in the SB. These are 4 good teams. I just don't want any injuries to significant players.

 

[tombonneau]

In your opinion......how would BB and the NEPs attack and be successful against the SEA D?...and let's not lay that "BB's magic and the greatest coach of all time and they use his currency as poop in Agrentina and when Brady goes to Disneyland...Mickey wears his ears" schtick....how's that offense stick it to that D?

Take away the middle with Gronk and use the short passing game to move the ball, occasionally take deep shots, maybe throw in a few cheat plays.

Shouldn't be too bad, biggest thing to worry about is their safeties and Sherman jumping routes.

I think Pats would actually commit pretty heavy to the run even if slogging away at 3-3.5ypc and use run to setup pass. The lockdown strength of Sherman is somewhat negated by him likely being on the #3 option in LaFell. (Would be interesting if his & PC ego would try to match him up on Gronk.)

I wouldn't expect more than 21-24 from Pats which hopefully would be enough. But a few years ago Brady pretty much lit up this same scheme and D. Obviously teams very different (AH in jail the biggest difference) but I don't think it's a Denver bloodbath.

Either way, not sure how any fan of football would not want to see each conference's best team playing each other. Far more enjoyable IMO than seeing lame wild card teams get hot for a few games then fade away the next season. Even as a Manning & Seattle hater, I was very happy that they played the SB because I always want to see best vs best.

I really don't think RS would match up on Gronk. Gronk would own him, and RS would be taken completely out of the game on all those snaps that Gronk is just blocking on. He would likely be on Lafell. Gronk would have a huge game. Sea was #1 vs WR's this year, but only #16 vs TE's.

Thanks for the stat, I thought SEA was average vs TEs but didn't want to look it up.

I also imagine the bigger corners match up better vs bigger WRs than smaller ones like DA & Edelman.

The more I think about it the more I think it would be an all-time SB. I'll be real interested to see how Seattle looks vs GB as this is the first legit offense they will have played since Dallas. You can only play the teams on your schedule, I know, but since their bye the Hawks have only played 4 teams that finished the season over .500:

They lost to Chiefs & Cowboys and beat Cards with Lindley/Stanton and a slumping Sanchez-led Eagles.

Far from battle-tested which is why this Pack game is so interesting.

 

[ShamrockPride]

I honestly just think this is Seattle's to lose at this point. I don't see any of the remaining three teams being able to stand toe to toe with Seattle. And I don't understand how people continue to argue this.

Look at the last three super bowl blowouts. Ravens, Bucs, Seahawks. All GOAT-tier defenses. This is indisputable. Seattle's D has hardly changed since last year. The Pats lost by one point two years ago...when most of the Hawks were in their second or third year in the league. They're pretty much all entering their primes. And that's just talking about the defense. Then there is their young offense led by a still young, elite, improving Russ, as well with Lynch still in his prime. I don't get where people find reasons of how Seattle will be defeated in their next two games.

 

[proninja]

Colts/Seahawks would be a great one I think. Luck is the golden boy going against the best D in the league.

I'd guess we see one of those in the next 5 years, and very likely they will be the consensus best two QB's in the league at that point in time.

 

[proninja]

Seattle is not that great in domes.

That being said, they do know the Arizona stadium quite well.

Still think the venue really favours New England.

Don't get how a dome favors either a cold weather team or a wet weather team more than the other.

Pats may be a cold weather team, but they've done well in domes and domes often favour teams that can throw the ball. I know Brady had some dome troubles in superbowls vs the Giants, but I think it would be a clear running vs throwing teams battle and that would favour New England a bit.

Also, Seattle is historically bad in domes. 8-15 in domes since 2009. Also they're 3-6 all time in University of Phoenix's stadium, and Wilson is 6-6 in domes in his career. Lynch loves tearing it up on grass fields.

Will it be a major storyline? No. But I think I'd give the Pats the edge there.

You do realize the Seahawks play home games on turf right?

There is no need to confuse him with the facts

 

[proninja]

We shall see, I like most of the numbers, but Sea - 5.5 vs NE is too high (imho), maybe it opens at 4, more likely 3.5 and settles on 2 - 2.5 before it is all said and done.

Shocker of the century here

 

[tombonneau]

We shall see, I like most of the numbers, but Sea - 5.5 vs NE is too high (imho), maybe it opens at 4, more likely 3.5 and settles on 2 - 2.5 before it is all said and done.

Shocker of the century here

No way is that too high. Opens in the classic Sports Guy Vegas Zone at 5.5 and Vegas will let bettors settle the line. Given Pats struggles vs good Ds in playoffs and Hawks crushing Manning (and whatever they do to Rodgers should they advance) I think that line moves the other way and ends up at 6.5. Doubt it would hit 7.

 

[Deamon]

Seattle is not that great in domes.

That being said, they do know the Arizona stadium quite well.

Still think the venue really favours New England.

Don't get how a dome favors either a cold weather team or a wet weather team more than the other.

Pats may be a cold weather team, but they've done well in domes and domes often favour teams that can throw the ball. I know Brady had some dome troubles in superbowls vs the Giants, but I think it would be a clear running vs throwing teams battle and that would favour New England a bit.

Also, Seattle is historically bad in domes. 8-15 in domes since 2009. Also they're 3-6 all time in University of Phoenix's stadium, and Wilson is 6-6 in domes in his career. Lynch loves tearing it up on grass fields.

Will it be a major storyline? No. But I think I'd give the Pats the edge there.

You do realize the Seahawks play home games on turf right?

There is no need to confuse him with the facts

Again, I didn't know they had turf, but makes sense.

And again, this year's SB is on grass. I still see the field/city/etc as slightly advantageous to the pats over the hawks.

 

[Deamon]

We shall see, I like most of the numbers, but Sea - 5.5 vs NE is too high (imho), maybe it opens at 4, more likely 3.5 and settles on 2 - 2.5 before it is all said and done.

Shocker of the century here

No way is that too high. Opens in the classic Sports Guy Vegas Zone at 5.5 and Vegas will let bettors settle the line. Given Pats struggles vs good Ds in playoffs and Hawks crushing Manning (and whatever they do to Rodgers should they advance) I think that line moves the other way and ends up at 6.5. Doubt it would hit 7.

Holy. Ya I'd take NE at -5.5 all day on that. I guess we'll see when the line comes out but can't see it at 6.5.

 

[proninja]

We shall see, I like most of the numbers, but Sea - 5.5 vs NE is too high (imho), maybe it opens at 4, more likely 3.5 and settles on 2 - 2.5 before it is all said and done.

Shocker of the century here

No way is that too high. Opens in the classic Sports Guy Vegas Zone at 5.5 and Vegas will let bettors settle the line. Given Pats struggles vs good Ds in playoffs and Hawks crushing Manning (and whatever they do to Rodgers should they advance) I think that line moves the other way and ends up at 6.5. Doubt it would hit 7.

Holy. Ya I'd take NE at -5.5 all day on that. I guess we'll see when if the line comes out but can't see it at 6.5.

Fixed your post. Seahawks still have to beat GB. I don't anticipate NE having much trouble with Indy.

 

[Deamon]

We shall see, I like most of the numbers, but Sea - 5.5 vs NE is too high (imho), maybe it opens at 4, more likely 3.5 and settles on 2 - 2.5 before it is all said and done.

Shocker of the century here

No way is that too high. Opens in the classic Sports Guy Vegas Zone at 5.5 and Vegas will let bettors settle the line. Given Pats struggles vs good Ds in playoffs and Hawks crushing Manning (and whatever they do to Rodgers should they advance) I think that line moves the other way and ends up at 6.5. Doubt it would hit 7.

Holy. Ya I'd take NE at -5.5 all day on that. I guess we'll see when if the line comes out but can't see it at 6.5.

Fixed your post. Seahawks still have to beat GB. I don't anticipate NE having much trouble with Indy.

I don't see you guys having much trouble with GB either.

Aren't you a Seattle fan? I've never heard of a Hawks fan worried about maybe losing a game

 

[proninja]

We shall see, I like most of the numbers, but Sea - 5.5 vs NE is too high (imho), maybe it opens at 4, more likely 3.5 and settles on 2 - 2.5 before it is all said and done.

Shocker of the century here

No way is that too high. Opens in the classic Sports Guy Vegas Zone at 5.5 and Vegas will let bettors settle the line. Given Pats struggles vs good Ds in playoffs and Hawks crushing Manning (and whatever they do to Rodgers should they advance) I think that line moves the other way and ends up at 6.5. Doubt it would hit 7.

Holy. Ya I'd take NE at -5.5 all day on that. I guess we'll see when if the line comes out but can't see it at 6.5.

Fixed your post. Seahawks still have to beat GB. I don't anticipate NE having much trouble with Indy.

I don't see you guys having much trouble with GB either.

Aren't you a Seattle fan? I've never heard of a Hawks fan worried about maybe losing a game

Any given Sunday. And I think it's likely the Seahawks win against GB, it certainly isn't a given, and if anybody is going to do something special against them, it's Rodgers. He's the best QB in the league.

 

[Deamon]

We shall see, I like most of the numbers, but Sea - 5.5 vs NE is too high (imho), maybe it opens at 4, more likely 3.5 and settles on 2 - 2.5 before it is all said and done.

Shocker of the century here

No way is that too high. Opens in the classic Sports Guy Vegas Zone at 5.5 and Vegas will let bettors settle the line. Given Pats struggles vs good Ds in playoffs and Hawks crushing Manning (and whatever they do to Rodgers should they advance) I think that line moves the other way and ends up at 6.5. Doubt it would hit 7.

Holy. Ya I'd take NE at -5.5 all day on that. I guess we'll see when if the line comes out but can't see it at 6.5.

Fixed your post. Seahawks still have to beat GB. I don't anticipate NE having much trouble with Indy.

I don't see you guys having much trouble with GB either.

Aren't you a Seattle fan? I've never heard of a Hawks fan worried about maybe losing a game

Any given Sunday. And I think it's likely the Seahawks win against GB, it certainly isn't a given, and if anybody is going to do something special against them, it's Rodgers. He's the best QB in the league.

Yes he is. But he is gimpy, it showed today. He did get in a groove in the 2nd half though, but your d is MUCH faster and better then Dallas'. I'm excited for a sea/ne superbowl, should be a fun one and 2 weeks of intense arguing by two cocky and often arrogant fan bases (not saying you). Can't wait.

 

[fred_1_15301]

No love loss between Brady and Sherman. Please let this happen.

I change my mind. I'm starting to dread this.

 

[cstu]

Yes he is. But he is gimpy, it showed today. He did get in a groove in the 2nd half though, but your d is MUCH faster and better then Dallas'. I'm excited for a sea/ne superbowl, should be a fun one and 2 weeks of intense arguing by two cocky and often arrogant fan bases (not saying you). Can't wait.

:X :

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Yes he is. But he is gimpy, it showed today. He did get in a groove in the 2nd half though, but your d is MUCH faster and better then Dallas'. I'm excited for a sea/ne superbowl, should be a fun one and 2 weeks of intense arguing by two cocky and often arrogant fan bases (not saying you). Can't wait.

why would pats fans be arguing with seattle fans?

 

[Godsbrother]

Certainly not my first choice but as long as New England loses another Super Bowl, I'll be fine with it.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Yes he is. But he is gimpy, it showed today. He did get in a groove in the 2nd half though, but your d is MUCH faster and better then Dallas'. I'm excited for a sea/ne superbowl, should be a fun one and 2 weeks of intense arguing by two cocky and often arrogant fan bases (not saying you). Can't wait.

why would pats fans be arguing with seattle fans?

I think the point is that there are a few Patriots fans and a few Seahawks fans in this forum who are just complete obnoxious trolls/tools. The universe may explode if these 2 teams collide. I'm changing my vote again and I really hope this happens

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

well, there's fans of all kinds of teams that are obnoxious trolls and tools in here --- that won't change regardless of who plays in the superbowl

are you claiming all these people trolling pats fans on a regular basis are seahawks fans?

I didn't know there was even more than 1 or 2 of those guys who post here

they just might be a little unhappier because it doesn't happen to be their teams in there, that's all

 

[fred_1_15301]

No the Seahawks fans are not trolling the Pats fans and the Pats fans are not trolling the Seahawks fans. There are only a few trolls in each of these fanbases IMO (at least on this site). I'm just curious what will happen when said trolls of these 2 respective fanbases start trolling each other. I agree that other teams have these types of fans but we're not seeing it as much because A). They're not as successful as the Seahawks and Pats and B). They're not as popular as the Seahawks and Pats.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I don't remember seeing pats fans trolling and arguing with balt fans last week

were seahawks fans doing it?

I can't recall seeing a post from a seahawks fan other than that one scientist guy, and I don't think I've seen him lately.

maybe you're projecting a bit?

first off, pats/seahawks are not in the superbowl right now, so let's stop the jinxing, but as far as pats/colts go they'll be playing that game on sunday and we'll find out who wins -- we have no need to argue about it with indy fans.

they have an extremely dangerous team, which is why they're here in the first place -- not like some of those other chumps and losers wasting space in the nfl

edit: hey, wait...if Seahawks fans are not trolling the Pats fans and the Pats fans are not trolling the Seahawks fans, who are all these people trolling pats fans and seahawks fans...?

 

[fred_1_15301]

sigh -- forget it

 

[parrot]

I honestly just think this is Seattle's to lose at this point. I don't see any of the remaining three teams being able to stand toe to toe with Seattle. And I don't understand how people continue to argue this.

Maybe they are looking at things like the fact that over their 7 game winning streak they have played against, on average, the 20th ranked scoring offense in the league - with the 3rd ranked Eagles in there as an outlier, with Mark Sanchez at QB - and recognizing the 1st and 4th or 6th scoring offenses may present slightly different challenges.

 

[JIslander]

Others trolling Pats fans? That's rich. You all are here 24/ 7 beating your chest about the teams greatnes,takibg Mobtsna and Unitas with you...All we can do is react and hope to instill some humility (ha!). And if that poll about "why do you trolls hate us" wasn't Pats fans doing the trolling nothing is...

 

[ShamrockPride]

I honestly just think this is Seattle's to lose at this point. I don't see any of the remaining three teams being able to stand toe to toe with Seattle. And I don't understand how people continue to argue this.

Maybe they are looking at things like the fact that over their 7 game winning streak they have played against, on average, the 20th ranked scoring offense in the league - with the 3rd ranked Eagles in there as an outlier, with Mark Sanchez at QB - and recognizing the 1st and 4th or 6th scoring offenses may present slightly different challenges.

They didn't have a problem with the GOAT offense who had two weeks to prepare last SB. They beat Brady two years ago, that offense had the same players. And I won't go thru it in depth cause I already did that with the post you quoted me from, but that defense was even younger then, they're entering their primes now.

 

[proninja]

If only there was some sort of history with the Seahawks under Wilson against top quarterbacks we could look back on to see how much the recent stretch against subpar offenses matters.

 

[JohnnyU]

Troll is about the most predominate word used by Pats fans. Talk about insecurity. As a UK fan I understand why everyone hates you, but learn to live with it and ignore it, instead of getting on these boards and demanding we love you.

 

[parrot]

I honestly just think this is Seattle's to lose at this point. I don't see any of the remaining three teams being able to stand toe to toe with Seattle. And I don't understand how people continue to argue this.

Maybe they are looking at things like the fact that over their 7 game winning streak they have played against, on average, the 20th ranked scoring offense in the league - with the 3rd ranked Eagles in there as an outlier, with Mark Sanchez at QB - and recognizing the 1st and 4th or 6th scoring offenses may present slightly different challenges.

They didn't have a problem with the GOAT offense who had two weeks to prepare last SB. They beat Brady two years ago, that offense had the same players. And I won't go thru it in depth cause I already did that with the post you quoted me from, but that defense was even younger then, they're entering their primes now.

You're right, there's no reason any other team should bother taking the field with them.

Btw, Brady completed passes to 8 guys in that game two years ago. 6 of them are gone, and one is on IR.

 

[parrot]

If only there was some sort of history with the Seahawks under Wilson against top quarterbacks we could look back on to see how much the recent stretch against subpar offenses matters.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Run It Up]

So when do we actually talk about the Pats and Seahawks as teams as opposed to fan bases?

 

[ShamrockPride]

I honestly just think this is Seattle's to lose at this point. I don't see any of the remaining three teams being able to stand toe to toe with Seattle. And I don't understand how people continue to argue this.

Maybe they are looking at things like the fact that over their 7 game winning streak they have played against, on average, the 20th ranked scoring offense in the league - with the 3rd ranked Eagles in there as an outlier, with Mark Sanchez at QB - and recognizing the 1st and 4th or 6th scoring offenses may present slightly different challenges.

They didn't have a problem with the GOAT offense who had two weeks to prepare last SB. They beat Brady two years ago, that offense had the same players. And I won't go thru it in depth cause I already did that with the post you quoted me from, but that defense was even younger then, they're entering their primes now.

You're right, there's no reason any other team should bother taking the field with them. Btw, Brady completed passes to 8 guys in that game two years ago. 6 of them are gone, and one is on IR.

The main key cogs are the same. You really think Brandon Lafell or Amendola is going to win them the game if the secondary takes Gronk and Edelman out of the equation?

 

[parrot]

I honestly just think this is Seattle's to lose at this point. I don't see any of the remaining three teams being able to stand toe to toe with Seattle. And I don't understand how people continue to argue this.

Maybe they are looking at things like the fact that over their 7 game winning streak they have played against, on average, the 20th ranked scoring offense in the league - with the 3rd ranked Eagles in there as an outlier, with Mark Sanchez at QB - and recognizing the 1st and 4th or 6th scoring offenses may present slightly different challenges.

They didn't have a problem with the GOAT offense who had two weeks to prepare last SB. They beat Brady two years ago, that offense had the same players. And I won't go thru it in depth cause I already did that with the post you quoted me from, but that defense was even younger then, they're entering their primes now.

You're right, there's no reason any other team should bother taking the field with them. Btw, Brady completed passes to 8 guys in that game two years ago. 6 of them are gone, and one is on IR.

The main key cogs are the same. You really think Brandon Lafell or Amendola is going to win them the game if the secondary takes Gronk and Edelman out of the equation?

Nice backtrack. But no, I already said you're right, no one should bother taking the field with them. I'm not sure why Green Bay is even making the flight.

 

[devouredbychaos]

I honestly just think this is Seattle's to lose at this point. I don't see any of the remaining three teams being able to stand toe to toe with Seattle. And I don't understand how people continue to argue this.

Maybe they are looking at things like the fact that over their 7 game winning streak they have played against, on average, the 20th ranked scoring offense in the league - with the 3rd ranked Eagles in there as an outlier, with Mark Sanchez at QB - and recognizing the 1st and 4th or 6th scoring offenses may present slightly different challenges.

They didn't have a problem with the GOAT offense who had two weeks to prepare last SB. They beat Brady two years ago, that offense had the same players. And I won't go thru it in depth cause I already did that with the post you quoted me from, but that defense was even younger then, they're entering their primes now.

You're right, there's no reason any other team should bother taking the field with them. Btw, Brady completed passes to 8 guys in that game two years ago. 6 of them are gone, and one is on IR.

The main key cogs are the same. You really think Brandon Lafell or Amendola is going to win them the game if the secondary takes Gronk and Edelman out of the equation?

Yes. You're not giving Belichick enough credit. He's not some slouch like John Fox.

 

[Shutout]

I honestly just think this is Seattle's to lose at this point. I don't see any of the remaining three teams being able to stand toe to toe with Seattle. And I don't understand how people continue to argue this.

Maybe they are looking at things like the fact that over their 7 game winning streak they have played against, on average, the 20th ranked scoring offense in the league - with the 3rd ranked Eagles in there as an outlier, with Mark Sanchez at QB - and recognizing the 1st and 4th or 6th scoring offenses may present slightly different challenges.

They didn't have a problem with the GOAT offense who had two weeks to prepare last SB. They beat Brady two years ago, that offense had the same players. And I won't go thru it in depth cause I already did that with the post you quoted me from, but that defense was even younger then, they're entering their primes now.

You're right, there's no reason any other team should bother taking the field with them. Btw, Brady completed passes to 8 guys in that game two years ago. 6 of them are gone, and one is on IR.

The main key cogs are the same. You really think Brandon Lafell or Amendola is going to win them the game if the secondary takes Gronk and Edelman out of the equation?

Yes. You're not giving Belichick enough credit. He's not some slouch like John Fox.

They beat the Pats AT HOME 2 years ago and the Patriots now are a completely different team.

It's just a guess or a hunch on my part but I think if Gronk gets to this SB, he's going to make this his show. Again, just a hunch.

But, in my mind, I can build a case for any of these teams winning it.

Give me one of those games where Luck is hot and Hilton and Allen and maybe an unsung guy like Moncrief get some points on the board quick and Seattle could be in for a long day. Playing against Rodgers or Brady in the SuperBowl? That alone gives those teams a 50/50 shot.

 

[ShamrockPride]

If anything I'd be more tempted to say a ne/sea sb would be defensive battle. Along the lines of 07 giants/pats. Maybe another field goal each way.

 

[proninja]

So when do we actually talk about the Pats and Seahawks as teams as opposed to fan bases?

If they each win this weekend seems like a good time

 

[Alkahsu]

Seattle is not that great in domes.

That being said, they do know the Arizona stadium quite well.

Still think the venue really favours New England.

Don't get how a dome favors either a cold weather team or a wet weather team more than the other.

Pats may be a cold weather team, but they've done well in domes and domes often favour teams that can throw the ball. I know Brady had some dome troubles in superbowls vs the Giants, but I think it would be a clear running vs throwing teams battle and that would favour New England a bit.

Also, Seattle is historically bad in domes. 8-15 in domes since 2009. Also they're 3-6 all time in University of Phoenix's stadium, and Wilson is 6-6 in domes in his career. Lynch loves tearing it up on grass fields.

Will it be a major storyline? No. But I think I'd give the Pats the edge there.

You do realize the Seahawks play home games on turf right?

There is no need to confuse him with the facts

Again, I didn't know they had turf, but makes sense.

And again, this year's SB is on grass. I still see the field/city/etc as slightly advantageous to the pats over the hawks.

Arizona has a pretty good fan base for the Seahawks. Every game they play in Arizona ( at least over the last few years) you can hear Seahawks chants during the game. The NFL broadcasters commented last year during the post game show that it was the biggest turn out they've ever had for an opposing team. Take from that what you will.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Troll is about the most predominate word used by Pats fans. Talk about insecurity. As a UK fan I understand why everyone hates you, but learn to live with it and ignore it, instead of getting on these boards and demanding we love you.

it's not even wednesday, bruh

 

[Deamon]

Seattle is not that great in domes.

That being said, they do know the Arizona stadium quite well.

Still think the venue really favours New England.

Don't get how a dome favors either a cold weather team or a wet weather team more than the other.

Pats may be a cold weather team, but they've done well in domes and domes often favour teams that can throw the ball. I know Brady had some dome troubles in superbowls vs the Giants, but I think it would be a clear running vs throwing teams battle and that would favour New England a bit.

Also, Seattle is historically bad in domes. 8-15 in domes since 2009. Also they're 3-6 all time in University of Phoenix's stadium, and Wilson is 6-6 in domes in his career. Lynch loves tearing it up on grass fields.

Will it be a major storyline? No. But I think I'd give the Pats the edge there.

You do realize the Seahawks play home games on turf right?

There is no need to confuse him with the facts

Again, I didn't know they had turf, but makes sense.

And again, this year's SB is on grass. I still see the field/city/etc as slightly advantageous to the pats over the hawks.

Arizona has a pretty good fan base for the Seahawks. Every game they play in Arizona ( at least over the last few years) you can hear Seahawks chants during the game. The NFL broadcasters commented last year during the post game show that it was the biggest turn out they've ever had for an opposing team. Take from that what you will.

Yes, those are Hawks fans TRAVELLING to Arizona, not living there. And again, during a super bowl, there are very few tickets available for Seahawk fans wanting to travel to Arizona. Seattle or New England won't be the favourite team of over 70% of the people at the game, so neutral fans will pick whichever team they like more.... or often the underdog.

Home field proximity has almost no effect in a super bowl... except where the superbowl host team is IN the game.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Seattle is not that great in domes.

That being said, they do know the Arizona stadium quite well.

Still think the venue really favours New England.

Don't get how a dome favors either a cold weather team or a wet weather team more than the other.

Pats may be a cold weather team, but they've done well in domes and domes often favour teams that can throw the ball. I know Brady had some dome troubles in superbowls vs the Giants, but I think it would be a clear running vs throwing teams battle and that would favour New England a bit.

Also, Seattle is historically bad in domes. 8-15 in domes since 2009. Also they're 3-6 all time in University of Phoenix's stadium, and Wilson is 6-6 in domes in his career. Lynch loves tearing it up on grass fields.

Will it be a major storyline? No. But I think I'd give the Pats the edge there.

You do realize the Seahawks play home games on turf right?

There is no need to confuse him with the facts

Again, I didn't know they had turf, but makes sense.

And again, this year's SB is on grass. I still see the field/city/etc as slightly advantageous to the pats over the hawks.

Arizona has a pretty good fan base for the Seahawks. Every game they play in Arizona ( at least over the last few years) you can hear Seahawks chants during the game. The NFL broadcasters commented last year during the post game show that it was the biggest turn out they've ever had for an opposing team. Take from that what you will.

Yes, those are Hawks fans TRAVELLING to Arizona, not living there. And again, during a super bowl, there are very few tickets available for Seahawk fans wanting to travel to Arizona. Seattle or New England won't be the favourite team of over 70% of the people at the game, so neutral fans will pick whichever team they like more.... or often the underdog.

Home field proximity has almost no effect in a super bowl... except where the superbowl host team is IN the game.

I was at Super Bowl XL, highly disagree with this statement.

 

[Alkahsu]

Seattle is not that great in domes.

That being said, they do know the Arizona stadium quite well.

Still think the venue really favours New England.

Don't get how a dome favors either a cold weather team or a wet weather team more than the other.

Pats may be a cold weather team, but they've done well in domes and domes often favour teams that can throw the ball. I know Brady had some dome troubles in superbowls vs the Giants, but I think it would be a clear running vs throwing teams battle and that would favour New England a bit.Also, Seattle is historically bad in domes. 8-15 in domes since 2009. Also they're 3-6 all time in University of Phoenix's stadium, and Wilson is 6-6 in domes in his career. Lynch loves tearing it up on grass fields.

Will it be a major storyline? No. But I think I'd give the Pats the edge there.

You do realize the Seahawks play home games on turf right?

There is no need to confuse him with the facts

Again, I didn't know they had turf, but makes sense.And again, this year's SB is on grass. I still see the field/city/etc as slightly advantageous to the pats over the hawks.

Arizona has a pretty good fan base for the Seahawks. Every game they play in Arizona ( at least over the last few years) you can hear Seahawks chants during the game. The NFL broadcasters commented last year during the post game show that it was the biggest turn out they've ever had for an opposing team. Take from that what you will.

Yes, those are Hawks fans TRAVELLING to Arizona, not living there. And again, during a super bowl, there are very few tickets available for Seahawk fans wanting to travel to Arizona. Seattle or New England won't be the favourite team of over 70% of the people at the game, so neutral fans will pick whichever team they like more.... or often the underdog.

Home field proximity has almost no effect in a super bowl... except where the superbowl host team is IN the game.

I was at Super Bowl XL, highly disagree with this statement.

But he used the head slapping emoticon, that means he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Deamon]

Seattle is not that great in domes.

That being said, they do know the Arizona stadium quite well.

Still think the venue really favours New England.

Don't get how a dome favors either a cold weather team or a wet weather team more than the other.

Pats may be a cold weather team, but they've done well in domes and domes often favour teams that can throw the ball. I know Brady had some dome troubles in superbowls vs the Giants, but I think it would be a clear running vs throwing teams battle and that would favour New England a bit.

Also, Seattle is historically bad in domes. 8-15 in domes since 2009. Also they're 3-6 all time in University of Phoenix's stadium, and Wilson is 6-6 in domes in his career. Lynch loves tearing it up on grass fields.

Will it be a major storyline? No. But I think I'd give the Pats the edge there.

You do realize the Seahawks play home games on turf right?

There is no need to confuse him with the facts

Again, I didn't know they had turf, but makes sense.

And again, this year's SB is on grass. I still see the field/city/etc as slightly advantageous to the pats over the hawks.

Arizona has a pretty good fan base for the Seahawks. Every game they play in Arizona ( at least over the last few years) you can hear Seahawks chants during the game. The NFL broadcasters commented last year during the post game show that it was the biggest turn out they've ever had for an opposing team. Take from that what you will.

Yes, those are Hawks fans TRAVELLING to Arizona, not living there. And again, during a super bowl, there are very few tickets available for Seahawk fans wanting to travel to Arizona. Seattle or New England won't be the favourite team of over 70% of the people at the game, so neutral fans will pick whichever team they like more.... or often the underdog.

Home field proximity has almost no effect in a super bowl... except where the superbowl host team is IN the game.

I was at Super Bowl XL, highly disagree with this statement.

Steelers fans are the best travelling fans in the league, that is far from the same comparison. If that game had been in Arizona, there would have been the same higher percentage of Steelers fans over Hawks fans. Also, it was in Detroit, you had lots of Bettis fans.

Please explain to me how based on ticket allocation, you think that a clear majority is going to be hawks fans based on the fact that they are closer to arizona then new england is.

When you're dropping 2 grand + on a ticket, it doesn't matter if you're spending an extra $100 flying from Boston to Arizona instead of Boston to Florida.

 

[Deamon]

Seattle is not that great in domes.

That being said, they do know the Arizona stadium quite well.

Still think the venue really favours New England.

Don't get how a dome favors either a cold weather team or a wet weather team more than the other.

Pats may be a cold weather team, but they've done well in domes and domes often favour teams that can throw the ball. I know Brady had some dome troubles in superbowls vs the Giants, but I think it would be a clear running vs throwing teams battle and that would favour New England a bit.Also, Seattle is historically bad in domes. 8-15 in domes since 2009. Also they're 3-6 all time in University of Phoenix's stadium, and Wilson is 6-6 in domes in his career. Lynch loves tearing it up on grass fields.

Will it be a major storyline? No. But I think I'd give the Pats the edge there.

You do realize the Seahawks play home games on turf right?

There is no need to confuse him with the facts

Again, I didn't know they had turf, but makes sense.And again, this year's SB is on grass. I still see the field/city/etc as slightly advantageous to the pats over the hawks.

Arizona has a pretty good fan base for the Seahawks. Every game they play in Arizona ( at least over the last few years) you can hear Seahawks chants during the game. The NFL broadcasters commented last year during the post game show that it was the biggest turn out they've ever had for an opposing team. Take from that what you will.

Yes, those are Hawks fans TRAVELLING to Arizona, not living there. And again, during a super bowl, there are very few tickets available for Seahawk fans wanting to travel to Arizona. Seattle or New England won't be the favourite team of over 70% of the people at the game, so neutral fans will pick whichever team they like more.... or often the underdog.

Home field proximity has almost no effect in a super bowl... except where the superbowl host team is IN the game.

I was at Super Bowl XL, highly disagree with this statement.

But he used the head slapping emoticon, that means he knows what he's talking about.

No, it means its stupid to compare a game where 90% of the tickets are available to the public, to a game where 40% of tickets are available to the public.

Do you agree?

 

[Deamon]

If a guy in Seattle is spending $2000+ on a ticket, do you think he's that much more likely to do so if he gets a $100 flight to Phoenix rather then a $300 flight to New York?

I don't see what you're missing here. If Pitt fans travel well, they would go ANYWHERE for a superbowl. If a Pats fan wants to go to the superbowl, and has the money to, they'll go whether the game is in Florida or California. WIth so few tickets available to the public anyways, having the superbowl CLOSE to your hometown is fairly irrelevant.

If this was a regular game with cheaper tickets, then yes... Seahawks fans have an advantage because it's closer. If there were lots of tickets out there to buy, then yes advantage. Superbowls are usually fairly neutral fans, or against the rival team (adv. pats), or for the underdog (adv. pats), or for the team who has more fans with money willing to pay and travel (adv. can be debated here, but has nothing to do with where they will be travelling to to get to the game).

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Yes, those are Hawks fans TRAVELLING to Arizona, not living there. And again, during a super bowl, there are very few tickets available for Seahawk fans wanting to travel to Arizona. Seattle or New England won't be the favourite team of over 70% of the people at the game, so neutral fans will pick whichever team they like more.... or often the underdog.

Home field proximity has almost no effect in a super bowl... except where the superbowl host team is IN the game.

I was at Super Bowl XL, highly disagree with this statement.

Steelers fans are the best travelling fans in the league, that is far from the same comparison. If that game had been in Arizona, there would have been the same higher percentage of Steelers fans over Hawks fans. Also, it was in Detroit, you had lots of Bettis fans.

Please explain to me how based on ticket allocation, you think that a clear majority is going to be hawks fans based on the fact that they are closer to arizona then new england is.

When you're dropping 2 grand + on a ticket, it doesn't matter if you're spending an extra $100 flying from Boston to Arizona instead of Boston to Florida.

There might have been Bettis fans from Detroit outside the stadium, but that angle didn't sell tickets. It was 65% Steelers fans, 25% neutral, and 10% Seahawks fans. And if you count fans outside the stadium, like 80% Steelers fans. I sat with the Seahawks players wives and families, there just wasn't a lot of Seahawks fans there and Pittsburgh is a three hour drive. Being able to drive is huge.

 

[Deamon]

Yes, those are Hawks fans TRAVELLING to Arizona, not living there. And again, during a super bowl, there are very few tickets available for Seahawk fans wanting to travel to Arizona. Seattle or New England won't be the favourite team of over 70% of the people at the game, so neutral fans will pick whichever team they like more.... or often the underdog.

Home field proximity has almost no effect in a super bowl... except where the superbowl host team is IN the game.

I was at Super Bowl XL, highly disagree with this statement.

Steelers fans are the best travelling fans in the league, that is far from the same comparison. If that game had been in Arizona, there would have been the same higher percentage of Steelers fans over Hawks fans. Also, it was in Detroit, you had lots of Bettis fans.

Please explain to me how based on ticket allocation, you think that a clear majority is going to be hawks fans based on the fact that they are closer to arizona then new england is.

When you're dropping 2 grand + on a ticket, it doesn't matter if you're spending an extra $100 flying from Boston to Arizona instead of Boston to Florida.

There might have been Bettis fans from Detroit outside the stadium, but that angle didn't sell tickets. It was 65% Steelers fans, 25% neutral, and 10% Seahawks fans. And if you count fans outside the stadium, like 80% Steelers fans. I sat with the Seahawks players wives and families, there just wasn't a lot of Seahawks fans there and Pittsburgh is a three hour drive. Being able to drive is huge.

fair enough.... but seeing how less then 40% of tickets were up for grabs, means a lot of the 'neutral' fans were cheering for Pittsburgh.

Also, people won't be driving from Seattle to Phoenix. Like you said, driving is huge, but would be totally irrelevant in this matchup.