The SEATTLE SEAHAWKS are an ABOMINATION (1 Viewer)

[Portis 26]

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the SEAHAWKS run absolutely horrible, give-up plays -- lame draws on makeable 3rd down plays - 3rd and 8, 9 and 10.

What's the point of giving it to MACK STRONG on 3rd and 10 as they often do?

It's not that I blame Holmgren for playing ultra-conservative. He after all has a QB who is misfiring badly.

It's that it's an outrage that this team is actually in the playoffs. Nay, that they actually won a playoff game.

If there were any justice the footballing gods would have struck them down.

Not only that. They are playing with two DTs at CB.

Well, I just made that up. But they are playing a S at one CB slot and a rookie at another.

There's no way this team should still be in contention.

That's not even to mention that their HB has a broken foot. Oh, I know, it's "healed". But c'mon. He's running like he's got a broken foot. Don't tell me it's OK.

Appallingly, having wrongly just beaten a superior team, they now are facing one of the worst teams in the league this weekend. I know they're the #1 seed and all that, but I don't think the Bears could beat the Lions straight up the way they're playing.

That means the abomination that is the Seahawks could actually be in the NFC Championship Game.

Who will stop this madness?

Please footballing gods let the NFC be represented by NEW ORLEANS or PHILLY in the SUPER BOWL!

 

[trader jake]

The Raiders are an ABOMINATION...the Seahawks are just an above average football team with a lot of injuries. Luckily for them they played in the NFC this season and benefited because of it (and a Romo fumble).

Carry on.

 

[kevjones22]

Cry more!

 

[Ozymandias]

Bwahahaha...

 

[David Yudkin]

The original poster almost makes it sound like the Giants should have been the 1 seed and the Bears the 6 seed.

 

[Portis 26]

The original poster almost makes it sound like the Giants should have been the 1 seed and the Bears the 6 seed.

I'm not so sure that if the Giants hadn't beaten Philly they wouldn't have had quite a good shot of beating the Bears this week. Chicago has been playing horribly recently with a D ravaged by injury and a noodle-armed flake of QB. Weakest #1 seed in the NFC in living memory.

 

[Slingblade]

What are you going to say when they beat the Bears?

 

[Godsbrother]

What are you going to say when they beat the Bears?

The NFC stinks?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What are you going to say when they beat the Bears?

The NFC stinks?

You seem to forget the Super Bowl last year where the better team lost. Well, maybe you didn't.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

As to the original poster who should be in the playoffs in the NFC instead of Seattle? Green Bay? The Rams? The Vikings? Seriously. This was the best team in the NFL last year and a team that has faced about as many injuries as you can in one season. Hasselbeck, Alexander, DJAX, and Stevens have all missed significant time and they have never been able to get in rhythm on offense. Their defense is small and is designed to attack by playing from ahead. They haven't been ahead because of their offense!

Are they good? Not to this point they aren't and they haven't played well since week 2 but they are better than the Dallas Cowboys, and they certainly have taken a long and hard road to get this far. I think they actually should be given a lot of credit, not disdain for even making it this far given what happened to them in the Super Bowl and all the injuries they've had this year. Those are pretty tough things to overcome.

 

[Islander]

but I don't think the Bears could beat the Lions straight up the way they're playing.

Same for the Cowgirls maybe? And that's why the Hawks beat the Girls last weekend.

The NFC is an abomination, but that's not the Seahawks' fault.

 

[Smoo]

Bwahahaha...

 

[Godsbrother]

What are you going to say when they beat the Bears?

The NFC stinks?

You seem to forget the Super Bowl last year where the better team lost. Well, maybe you didn't.

Nope, I am not taking the bait. You almost had me though!

 

[Sinrman]

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the SEAHAWKS run absolutely horrible, give-up plays -- lame draws on makeable 3rd down plays - 3rd and 8, 9 and 10.

What's the point of giving it to MACK STRONG on 3rd and 10 as they often do?

Hmmm, let's look at the stats:http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1161/splits/2006

Scroll down a bit and you'll see that he ran on 3rd down 18 times total in the 2006 regular season. And what's this? 8 of them turned into 1st downs?

 

[kellumsboys]

the sad part is that if Alexander, Hasselback and DJax all play up to their ability, then the Seahawks have as good a chance as any team at being in the Super Bowl.

Personally, I hope they make it.

but, as a Cowboy fan, I am not sure if that will make me feel better or worse.

 

[fred_1_15301]

What are you going to say when they beat the Bears?

The NFC stinks?

You seem to forget the Super Bowl last year where the better team lost. Well, maybe you didn't.

I'm pretty sure over the next 7 or 8 years, the ONLY time this statement will be true is when the NFC wins the superbowl.

 

[fred_1_15301]

the sad part is that if Alexander, Hasselback and DJax all play up to their ability, then the Seahawks have as good a chance as any team at being in the Super Bowl.Personally, I hope they make it.but, as a Cowboy fan, I am not sure if that will make me feel better or worse.

The fact of the matter is, ANY of the 4 teams in the NFC has a great shot at making the superbowl. It's absolutely mindboggling how bad that conference is. Of the 4 NFC teams left (the so-called elite of the NFC), they are 6-10 against the AFC this year. Of the 4 AFC teams left (the elite of the AFC), they are 14-2 against the NFC. The OP made a case that it's an embarrassment that Seattle made the playoffs. I buy that but I'm not sure why he left out the other 5 NFC teams?

 

[Chase Stuart]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

 

[fred_1_15301]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

 

[Godsbrother]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I know, I know. I decided to let it slide.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Agreed. Indy was the class of the league last year in the regular season, and Pittsburgh was the class of the league in the post-season. I think San Diego might have been better than Seattle too; SD played the hardest schedule in the league last year, while Seattle played the second easiest. And we've all seen what SD did this year.But regardless, Sea05>>>>>>>>Sea06. As I've said several times, the Seahawks had the easiest schedule in the league this year, and was outscored. I don't even think they're an average team.

 

[stevegamer]

Yes but Sea06 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oak06.

The Raider fan really needs to look in the mirror, he shouldn't even have the right to

I was expecting a whiny Cowboy fan, not a whiny Raider fan. Heck, maybe we should demote the Raiders to the NCAA, and add a franchise in Boise.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Agreed. Indy was the class of the league last year in the regular season, and Pittsburgh was the class of the league in the post-season. I think San Diego might have been better than Seattle too; SD played the hardest schedule in the league last year, while Seattle played the second easiest. And we've all seen what SD did this year.But regardless, Sea05>>>>>>>>Sea06. As I've said several times, the Seahawks had the easiest schedule in the league this year, and was outscored. I don't even think they're an average team.

 

[seahawk 17]

That means the abomination that is the Seahawks could actually be in the NFC Championship Game.

Now people are starting to see the light. Good teams find ways to win. Seattle does that.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

 

[Chase Stuart]

That means the abomination that is the Seahawks could actually be in the NFC Championship Game.

Now people are starting to see the light. Good teams find ways to win. Seattle does that.

Good teams don't get swept by the 49ers.

 

[seahawk 17]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Seattle beat Indy last year, and if I remember right Seattle was up 17-3 when all the starters were in.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

 

[seahawk 17]

That means the abomination that is the Seahawks could actually be in the NFC Championship Game.

Now people are starting to see the light. Good teams find ways to win. Seattle does that.

Good teams don't get swept by the 49ers.

49'ers played great ball at the end of the year. They beat Denver. Why is it Seattle's fault that the 49er's couldn't win the division?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

As I've said several times, the Seahawks had the easiest schedule in the league this year, and was outscored. I don't even think they're an average team.

X"You've said?" These sites say YOU are wrong. Who am I to believe here?

Link

Link 2

Link 3

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

:X

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

 

[fred_1_15301]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

:X

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Just like you constantly claiming Seattle was the best overall team last year when they LOST the superbowl. Now enjoy the last few days of playoff excitement cause the Hawks season ends this weekend.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

:X

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Just like you constantly claiming Seattle was the best overall team last year when they LOST the superbowl. Now enjoy the last few days of playoff excitement cause the Hawks season ends this weekend.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

:X

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Should have won the Super Bowl? Coulda, shoulda, woulda...guess what, they didn't win it! Do you remember that the Broncos were 13-3 also last year? Do you remember that the Broncos were 7-3 against winning teams, including starting the season at 5-2 by playing 7 teams that all finished above .500? Seattle was a mere 3-2 against winning teams, one of which was a meaningless week 16 win over a Colts team that had nothing to play for. I suppose the Broncos could have made the Super Bowl, too, if they had been lucky like Seattle, and had been able to play in a weak conference, and had been lucky enough to face a team in the conference title game that was missing its top two RB's. Also, last year, the second place team in the NFC West was 6-10. Meanwhile, the AFC West had three teams that finished above .500. Is that enough for you?

 

[fred_1_15301]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Just like you constantly claiming Seattle was the best overall team last year when they LOST the superbowl. Now enjoy the last few days of playoff excitement cause the Hawks season ends this weekend.

 

[Jack Burton]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Agreed. Indy was the class of the league last year in the regular season, and Pittsburgh was the class of the league in the post-season. I think San Diego might have been better than Seattle too; SD played the hardest schedule in the league last year, while Seattle played the second easiest. And we've all seen what SD did this year.But regardless, Sea05>>>>>>>>Sea06. As I've said several times, the Seahawks had the easiest schedule in the league this year, and was outscored. I don't even think they're an average team.

where do you come up with this crap?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Should have won the Super Bowl? Coulda, shoulda, woulda...guess what, they didn't win it! Do you remember that the Broncos were 13-3 also last year? Do you remember that the Broncos were 7-3 against winning teams, including starting the season at 5-2 by playing 7 teams that all finished above .500? Seattle was a mere 3-2 against winning teams, one of which was a meaningless week 16 win over a Colts team that had nothing to play for. I suppose the Broncos could have made the Super Bowl, too, if they had been lucky like Seattle, and had been able to play in a weak conference, and had been lucky enough to face a team in the conference title game that was missing its top two RB's. Also, last year, the second place team in the NFC West was 6-10. Meanwhile, the AFC West had three teams that finished above .500. Is that enough for you?

Sure. If you look you'll find that Seattle was 2nd in offense and Denver was 5th. Seattle 17th in defense and Denver 15th. Denver played in a tougher division but they also were a team that really should have lost to New England at home, then did lose to Pittsburgh at home in the playoffs. Denver was a good team last year and I thought they would win the AFC after Indy went down. If you think Seattle got to the Super Bowl because they played in an easy conference or were not in a position to win that game if not for some freak occurrences, then that’s fine by me. Doesn’t really matter and we might save our arguments which we both obviously enjoy, for something more current or historic. Neither Denver or Seattle won the championship last year so I guess the difference between the 2nd and 5th best team in moot. Although it was most certainly, Seattle.

 

[Kleck]

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the SEAHAWKS run absolutely horrible, give-up plays -- lame draws on makeable 3rd down plays - 3rd and 8, 9 and 10.

What's the point of giving it to MACK STRONG on 3rd and 10 as they often do?

Hmmm, let's look at the stats:http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1161/splits/2006

Scroll down a bit and you'll see that he ran on 3rd down 18 times total in the 2006 regular season. And what's this? 8 of them turned into 1st downs?

Many of those were third and short. Several more were third and long situations deep in their own territory. Holmgren has called the play twice in third and long situations as a surprise. The first time it worked wonderfully and Strong ripped off a long gainer. The second time was this past weekend. It didn't work as well.Twice. We're complaining about a play call that happened twice. First time was a wild success. Second time not so much. Is this really worth #####ing about?

 

[SteelerMurf]

What are you going to say when they beat the Bears?

The NFC stinks?

You seem to forget the Super Bowl last year where the better team lost. Well, maybe you didn't.

Scoreboard

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What are you going to say when they beat the Bears?

The NFC stinks?

You seem to forget the Super Bowl last year where the better team lost. Well, maybe you didn't.

Scoreboard

I was just messin with my man God's bro. Man you guys are touchy.

 

[Godsbrother]

What are you going to say when they beat the Bears?

The NFC stinks?

You seem to forget the Super Bowl last year where the better team lost. Well, maybe you didn't.

Scoreboard

I was just messin with my man God's bro. Man you guys are touchy.

I knew you were, that's why I stayed out of this mess!

 

[Chase Stuart]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

:X

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

As I've said several times, the Seahawks had the easiest schedule in the league this year, and was outscored. I don't even think they're an average team.

X"You've said?" These sites say YOU are wrong. Who am I to believe here?

Link

Link 2

Link 3

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl06.htm

 

[Ghost Rider]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Should have won the Super Bowl? Coulda, shoulda, woulda...guess what, they didn't win it! Do you remember that the Broncos were 13-3 also last year? Do you remember that the Broncos were 7-3 against winning teams, including starting the season at 5-2 by playing 7 teams that all finished above .500? Seattle was a mere 3-2 against winning teams, one of which was a meaningless week 16 win over a Colts team that had nothing to play for. I suppose the Broncos could have made the Super Bowl, too, if they had been lucky like Seattle, and had been able to play in a weak conference, and had been lucky enough to face a team in the conference title game that was missing its top two RB's. Also, last year, the second place team in the NFC West was 6-10. Meanwhile, the AFC West had three teams that finished above .500. Is that enough for you?

Sure. If you look you'll find that Seattle was 2nd in offense and Denver was 5th. Seattle 17th in defense and Denver 15th. Denver played in a tougher division but they also were a team that really should have lost to New England at home, then did lose to Pittsburgh at home in the playoffs. Denver was a good team last year and I thought they would win the AFC after Indy went down. If you think Seattle got to the Super Bowl because they played in an easy conference or were not in a position to win that game if not for some freak occurrences, then that’s fine by me. Doesn’t really matter and we might save our arguments which we both obviously enjoy, for something more current or historic. Neither Denver or Seattle won the championship last year so I guess the difference between the 2nd and 5th best team in moot. Although it was most certainly, Seattle.

Hmmm, you seem to be really fond of should have's. "Seattle should have won the Super Bowl.""New England should have beaten Denver." Me, I prefer to talk about things that did take place, rather than things that should have or might have taken place. Losing at home to Pittsburgh was no shame last January, considering what a roll the Steelers were on. Heck, the Colts, considered by most to be the best team in the regular season last year, lost at home to them the previous week! You are right, though, that who the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best teams were is pretty insignificant. What matters is who won the Super Bowl. The Steelers won the Super Bowl last year. Do I think the Seahawks were hurt by certain officiating calls? Absolutely. But that doesn't really matter now, does it? Oh, and I do not necesssarily like arguing. I just like talking sports and am very emphatic about my thoughts sometimes. I know you think I am an #######, but I am just a passionate sports fan, just like you.

 

[MarcO]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Should have won the Super Bowl? Coulda, shoulda, woulda...guess what, they didn't win it! Do you remember that the Broncos were 13-3 also last year? Do you remember that the Broncos were 7-3 against winning teams, including starting the season at 5-2 by playing 7 teams that all finished above .500? Seattle was a mere 3-2 against winning teams, one of which was a meaningless week 16 win over a Colts team that had nothing to play for. I suppose the Broncos could have made the Super Bowl, too, if they had been lucky like Seattle, and had been able to play in a weak conference, and had been lucky enough to face a team in the conference title game that was missing its top two RB's. Also, last year, the second place team in the NFC West was 6-10. Meanwhile, the AFC West had three teams that finished above .500. Is that enough for you?

Sure. If you look you'll find that Seattle was 2nd in offense and Denver was 5th. Seattle 17th in defense and Denver 15th. Denver played in a tougher division but they also were a team that really should have lost to New England at home, then did lose to Pittsburgh at home in the playoffs. Denver was a good team last year and I thought they would win the AFC after Indy went down. If you think Seattle got to the Super Bowl because they played in an easy conference or were not in a position to win that game if not for some freak occurrences, then that’s fine by me. Doesn’t really matter and we might save our arguments which we both obviously enjoy, for something more current or historic. Neither Denver or Seattle won the championship last year so I guess the difference between the 2nd and 5th best team in moot. Although it was most certainly, Seattle.

Hmmm, you seem to be really fond of should have's. "Seattle should have won the Super Bowl.""New England should have beaten Denver." Me, I prefer to talk about things that did take place, rather than things that should have or might have taken place. Losing at home to Pittsburgh was no shame last January, considering what a roll the Steelers were on. Heck, the Colts, considered by most to be the best team in the regular season last year, lost at home to them the previous week! You are right, though, that who the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best teams were is pretty insignificant. What matters is who won the Super Bowl. The Steelers won the Super Bowl last year. Do I think the Seahawks were hurt by certain officiating calls? Absolutely. But that doesn't really matter now, does it? Oh, and I do not necesssarily like arguing. I just like talking sports and am very emphatic about my thoughts sometimes. I know you think I am an #######, but I am just a passionate sports fan, just like you.

the problem with your arguement about the Steelers being #1 is that it contradicts your arguements about 4 other teams being better than the Seahawks. Using your logic, the Seahawks were the second best team last year - period. The Hawks were playing Pittsburgh for #1 - they lost- that makes them #2 no matter how you many coulda, woulda, shoulda's you want to throw in for DEN, INDY, SD, and NE.

 

[Ghost Rider]

the problem with your arguement about the Steelers being #1 is that it contradicts your arguements about 4 other teams being better than the Seahawks. Using your logic, the Seahawks were the second best team last year - period. The Hawks were playing Pittsburgh for #1 - they lost- that makes them #2 no matter how you many coulda, woulda, shoulda's you want to throw in for DEN, INDY, SD, and NE.

Not really. Okay, let's say that in a few weeks, the NFC representative gets blown out in the Super Bowl. Would you say they were the second best team in the league this year, despite it being fairly obvious that the top 4 teams in the AFC are the top 4 teams in the entire NFL?

 

[MarcO]

the problem with your arguement about the Steelers being #1 is that it contradicts your arguements about 4 other teams being better than the Seahawks. Using your logic, the Seahawks were the second best team last year - period. The Hawks were playing Pittsburgh for #1 - they lost- that makes them #2 no matter how you many coulda, woulda, shoulda's you want to throw in for DEN, INDY, SD, and NE.

Not really. Okay, let's say that in a few weeks, the NFC representative gets blown out in the Super Bowl. Would you say they were the second best team in the league this year, despite it being fairly obvious that the top 4 teams in the AFC are the top 4 teams in the entire NFL?

to me it was fairly obvious that Seattle was the betterteam in last years Superbowl BUT as you put it Pittsburgh WAs the best team because they won - period. So that makes Seattle the second best team - period. your logic - not mine. edit: if you admit that it is not so absolute as that, then you have to be open to the argument that Seattle was a better team that Pittsburgh - as was maybe Indy, Denver and NE.

 

[fred_1_15301]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Should have won the Super Bowl? Coulda, shoulda, woulda...guess what, they didn't win it!

Do you remember that the Broncos were 13-3 also last year?

Do you remember that the Broncos were 7-3 against winning teams, including starting the season at 5-2 by playing 7 teams that all finished above .500? Seattle was a mere 3-2 against winning teams, one of which was a meaningless week 16 win over a Colts team that had nothing to play for.

I suppose the Broncos could have made the Super Bowl, too, if they had been lucky like Seattle, and had been able to play in a weak conference, and had been lucky enough to face a team in the conference title game that was missing its top two RB's.

Also, last year, the second place team in the NFC West was 6-10. Meanwhile, the AFC West had three teams that finished above .500.

Is that enough for you?

Sure. If you look you'll find that Seattle was 2nd in offense and Denver was 5th. Seattle 17th in defense and Denver 15th. Denver played in a tougher division but they also were a team that really should have lost to New England at home, then did lose to Pittsburgh at home in the playoffs. Denver was a good team last year and I thought they would win the AFC after Indy went down. If you think Seattle got to the Super Bowl because they played in an easy conference or were not in a position to win that game if not for some freak occurrences, then that’s fine by me.

Doesn’t really matter and we might save our arguments which we both obviously enjoy, for something more current or historic. Neither Denver or Seattle won the championship last year so I guess the difference between the 2nd and 5th best team in moot. Although it was most certainly, Seattle.

Hmmm, you seem to be really fond of should have's.

"Seattle should have won the Super Bowl."

"New England should have beaten Denver."

Me, I prefer to talk about things that did take place, rather than things that should have or might have taken place.

Losing at home to Pittsburgh was no shame last January, considering what a roll the Steelers were on. Heck, the Colts, considered by most to be the best team in the regular season last year, lost at home to them the previous week!

You are right, though, that who the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best teams were is pretty insignificant. What matters is who won the Super Bowl. The Steelers won the Super Bowl last year. Do I think the Seahawks were hurt by certain officiating calls? Absolutely. But that doesn't really matter now, does it?

Oh, and I do not necesssarily like arguing. I just like talking sports and am very emphatic about my thoughts sometimes. I know you think I am an #######, but I am just a passionate sports fan, just like you.

the problem with your arguement about the Steelers being #1 is that it contradicts your arguements about 4 other teams being better than the Seahawks. Using your logic, the Seahawks were the second best team last year - period. The Hawks were playing Pittsburgh for #1 - they lost- that makes them #2 no matter how you many coulda, woulda, shoulda's you want to throw in for DEN, INDY, SD, and NE.

Actually using his logic, the Steelers could very well be # 1 and all of those aforementioned teams could still be better than the Hawks. The only thing that is certain is that the Steelers were the # 1 team because they beat all of the other teams in question. However, the Hawks didn't play the Broncos or Colts so you can't really say they're better or worse. The fact of the matter is the Seahawks had the easiest road to the superbowl of any of the 4 teams in question. We'll never know what they would have done if they played in the AFC.

 

[MarcO]

they beat the Colts.

 

[fred_1_15301]

This was the best team in the NFL last year

I'm guessing he meant to say NFC. I think they were maybe the 5th best team in the NFL last year.

I agree. Pittsburgh, Indy and Denver were all better than Seattle last year, and you could make the argument that New England was better, too.

Denver?

Denver of '05 was a lot different than Denver of '06. I suggest you look up the numbers, as well as all of the great teams they beat last year before looking the fool by laughing.

Good input. Why don't you look up the numbers and tell me how a team who lost a home game in the playoffs was better than a 13-3 team who should have won the Super Bowl. You won't though, you never do.

Should have won the Super Bowl? Coulda, shoulda, woulda...guess what, they didn't win it!

Do you remember that the Broncos were 13-3 also last year?

Do you remember that the Broncos were 7-3 against winning teams, including starting the season at 5-2 by playing 7 teams that all finished above .500? Seattle was a mere 3-2 against winning teams, one of which was a meaningless week 16 win over a Colts team that had nothing to play for.

I suppose the Broncos could have made the Super Bowl, too, if they had been lucky like Seattle, and had been able to play in a weak conference, and had been lucky enough to face a team in the conference title game that was missing its top two RB's.

Also, last year, the second place team in the NFC West was 6-10. Meanwhile, the AFC West had three teams that finished above .500.

Is that enough for you?

Sure. If you look you'll find that Seattle was 2nd in offense and Denver was 5th. Seattle 17th in defense and Denver 15th. Denver played in a tougher division but they also were a team that really should have lost to New England at home, then did lose to Pittsburgh at home in the playoffs. Denver was a good team last year and I thought they would win the AFC after Indy went down. If you think Seattle got to the Super Bowl because they played in an easy conference or were not in a position to win that game if not for some freak occurrences, then that’s fine by me.

Doesn’t really matter and we might save our arguments which we both obviously enjoy, for something more current or historic. Neither Denver or Seattle won the championship last year so I guess the difference between the 2nd and 5th best team in moot. Although it was most certainly, Seattle.

Hmmm, you seem to be really fond of should have's.

"Seattle should have won the Super Bowl."

"New England should have beaten Denver."

Me, I prefer to talk about things that did take place, rather than things that should have or might have taken place.

Losing at home to Pittsburgh was no shame last January, considering what a roll the Steelers were on. Heck, the Colts, considered by most to be the best team in the regular season last year, lost at home to them the previous week!

You are right, though, that who the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best teams were is pretty insignificant. What matters is who won the Super Bowl. The Steelers won the Super Bowl last year. Do I think the Seahawks were hurt by certain officiating calls? Absolutely. But that doesn't really matter now, does it?

Oh, and I do not necesssarily like arguing. I just like talking sports and am very emphatic about my thoughts sometimes. I know you think I am an #######, but I am just a passionate sports fan, just like you.

the problem with your arguement about the Steelers being #1 is that it contradicts your arguements about 4 other teams being better than the Seahawks. Using your logic, the Seahawks were the second best team last year - period. The Hawks were playing Pittsburgh for #1 - they lost- that makes them #2 no matter how you many coulda, woulda, shoulda's you want to throw in for DEN, INDY, SD, and NE.

Actually using his logic, the Steelers could very well be # 1 and all of those aforementioned teams could still be better than the Hawks. The only thing that is certain is that the Steelers were the # 1 team because they beat all of the other teams in question. However, the Hawks didn't play the Broncos or Colts so you can't really say they're better or worse. The fact of the matter is the Seahawks had the easiest road to the superbowl of any of the 4 teams in question. We'll never know what they would have done if they played in the AFC.

they beat the Colts.

Remind me again....How meaningful was that game to the Colts?