What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

why is everyone so smitten with the seahags? (1 Viewer)

thebird

Footballguy
hawks won't win. seahawks had the easiest schedule in the NFL. skins had the 2nd toughest behind only san diego. skins beat tough opponents hawks beat rams, cards, and 49ers (what a tough division 3 teams that completely self destructed 6 of 13 wins against complete scrubs). hawks haven't played a meaningful game against an even average team for weeks since 11/27 against an average giants team they barely beat. hawks are soft and will be exposed by great skins defense. also hawks crappy defense will allow portis to beat them in a close game.also when you have a cream puff schedule like they do you're going to have a good home record from playing so many terrible teams. they lost to jacksonville a very average AFC team, played houston, tennessee almost lost, and a resting indy team and played all the worst NFC teams.SEATTLE'S SCHEDULE THIS YEAR MUST BE ONE OF THE EASIEST IN THE LAST 20 YEARS.cowboys and giants were the only teams over .500 they beat throwing out indy rest game. lost to the other 2 over .500 skins and jags. so they were 2-2 against teams over .500 in a 16 game schedule. color me unimpressed.

 
And to learn to use the shift key, and a grasp of the english language would help too.
you start a sentence with the word "and" and think i should grasp the english language. what a #######. also your sentence is a run-on sentence. go back to elementary school sally.bullitt don't be mad because my logic overwhelms your idiocy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And to learn to use the shift key, and a grasp of the english language would help too.
you start a sentence with the word "and" and think i should grasp the english language. what a #######. also your sentence is a run-on sentence. go back to elementary school sally.bullitt don't be mad because my logic overwhelms your idiocy.
:bow: :crazy:

 
Wow, and I thought this kind of crap only applied to Patriots discussions... Nice to see an equal opportunity fishing trip. :lmao:

 
I think people said this about the 1999 Rams. We'll see.
The 72 Dolphins, of course, had an atrocious schedule also. In addition to the previously-mentioned 99 Rams, I count 4 other Super Bowl champions since 1980 with worse stengths of schedule than the 05 Seahawks.I am not high on Seattle either, but an easy sched certainly does not disqualify you from being a championship team.

 
Reasons I like the Seahawks:

They were #1 in the NFL in points scored and #7 in points allowed.

They have HFA in what appears to be a very loud and hostile stadium.
The QB doesn't make many mistakes, as evidenced by 9 INTs on the season. Hasselback ended the year throwing 10 TDs to 1 INT.
Mike Holmgren has shown that, when he fields a team as strong as this one, he can go to the super bowl and win it. I believe there are some coaches who can make the playoffs a lot but also don't have the ability to get his team to win it all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
as long as no one has anything useful to add to the debate. why do you guys even post? i offer analysis and you say sig info blah blah,intelligence blah blah. you refute nothing. what's the point of posting?

 
While it is true Seattle had the lowest opponent winning percentage [.430] in the league, clearly their offense is potent and the home field has historically meant something.

 
as long as no one has anything useful to add to the debate. why do you guys even post? i offer analysis and you say sig info blah blah,intelligence blah blah. you refute nothing. what's the point of posting?
If your post was even remotely objective, you might have gotten better responses, noob.
 
While it is true Seattle had the lowest opponent winning percentage [.430] in the league, clearly their offense is potent and the home field has historically meant something.
wouldn't you agree that having a weak schedule leads to a good home record? i'll add up the wins and losses of the teams that played in seattle if you want and i'm sure it'll be ridiculously bad.
 
as long as no one has anything useful to add to the debate. why do you guys even post? i offer analysis and you say sig info blah blah,intelligence blah blah. you refute nothing. what's the point of posting?
If your post was even remotely objective, you might have gotten better responses, noob.
yes, again thanks for nothing. i'm glad you have these strong opionions that make debating really worthwhile.
 
Reasons I like the Seahawks:

They were #1 in the NFL in points scored and #7 in points allowed.

They have HFA in what appears to be a very loud and hostile stadium.
The QB doesn't make many mistakes, as evidenced by 9 INTs on the season. Hasselback ended the year throwing 10 TDs to 1 INT.
Mike Holmgren has shown that, when he fields a team as strong as this one, he can go to the super bowl and win it. I believe there are some coaches who can make the playoffs a lot but also don't have the ability to get his team to win it all.
so are you saying joe gibbs, who has won superbowls, doesn't have what it takes to get to the superbowl? seattle fans will turn on them as soon as they're behind just like the cinci fans did. seahawks haven't won a playoff game for 20 years so what's to feel good about. same thing as cinci not have a playoff game since 1990 they see the writing on the wall and are ready to turn on the home team. they were number 1 in points playing the worst defenses and number 7 in points playing the worst offenses. when you play bad teams all year you get good stats even if you're a mediocre team which they are.
 
Yes, this weekends game will determine who the mediocre team is. Vegas thinks its Washington by a pretty large margin. Washington pumpers have to like +9.

 
Reasons I like the Seahawks:

They were #1 in the NFL in points scored and #7 in points allowed.

They have HFA in what appears to be a very loud and hostile stadium.
The QB doesn't make many mistakes, as evidenced by 9 INTs on the season. Hasselback ended the year throwing 10 TDs to 1 INT.
Mike Holmgren has shown that, when he fields a team as strong as this one, he can go to the super bowl and win it. I believe there are some coaches who can make the playoffs a lot but also don't have the ability to get his team to win it all.
Ummm...when did Holmgren show that? BTW...those Packer teams were superior to this Seahawks team.

Look at the defense.

The year they wone the SB under Holmgren, the Packers had the #1 offense and defense (the next year not too bad either ranked 2nd and 5th...offense and defense...based on points scored/allowed)

 
Yes, this weekends game will determine who the mediocre team is. Vegas thinks its Washington by a pretty large margin. Washington pumpers have to like +9.
vegas makes lines to entice money. it does not actually reflect what vegas thinks will happen in the game. there were lots of peopl that liked giants at home so vegas installed them as 3 point fave even though vegas knew entire giants LB core was hurt and that delhomme goes off in playoff games. also manning down the stretch was terrible and a turnover machine and carolina played the run tough making tiki, their whole offense, a non-factor. vegas makes giants -3 to get more people to bet on them. people assume the line means something and that vegas is smart when in reality its a trick to get people to bet. also NY is a large city hence there will be plenty of homer money backing the giants. analytically one would have to admit that carolina had an edge in this game but vegas favored giants to make people think they were betting on the "favorite". i think skins win but even if they keep it close i'll take the +9 why not it still pays ATS.
 
Washington -- 359 points scored, 293 points allowed = +4.125 per game scoring margin

Seattle -- 452 points scored, 271 points allowed = +11.3125 per game scoring marginWhere is the mystery here? Seattle scored more points, allowed fewer points and is the home team. Washington could win the game obviously, but they certainly should be considered a long shot.

 
Washington -- 359 points scored, 293 points allowed = +4.125 per game scoring margin

Seattle -- 452 points scored, 271 points allowed = +11.3125 per game scoring marginWhere is the mystery here? Seattle scored more points, allowed fewer points and is the home team. Washington could win the game obviously, but they certainly should be considered a long shot.
for god's sake people. skins played 2nd toughest schedule in the NFL seattle played the easiest and padded their stats. games against terrible teams go like this:arizona 37-12

st. louis 37-31

houston 42-10

arizona 33-19

st. louis 31-16

SAN FRAN 27-25 almost went to OT missed by failed 2point

philly sans mcnabb 42-0

san fran 41-3

indy resting 28-13

all the other games they either lost or won by less than 5:

jax lost by 12, 14-26

atlanta won by 3, 21-18

was lost by 3, 17-20

dallas won by 3, 13-10

ny giants won by 3, 24-21

tennesse won by 4, 28-24

gb lost by 6, 17-23 resting doesn't count

so against even somewhat ok teams they haven't won by more than 4 points.

 
I honestly believe the Seahawks are no better this year than they have been the last couple years. They may actually be less talented. But they have homefield advantage and the other NFC teams have plenty of question marks too. So it would not suprise me if they made it to the Superbowl.

 
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents. Quite the double standard if you ask me.DallasPhillySan FranArizonaSt. LouisNY Giants8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating. So hilarious.So what is it? The Hawks had an easy schedule...which means the Redskins didn't beat any opponents of worth either. Your ignorant first post is about as :potkettle: as they come

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.

The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.

How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents. Quite the double standard if you ask me.

Dallas

Philly

San Fran

Arizona

St. Louis

NY Giants

8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating. So hilarious.

So what is it? The Hawks had an easy schedule...which means the Redskins didn't beat any opponents of worth either.

Your ignorant first post is about as :potkettle: as they come
:goodposting:
 
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.

The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.

How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents.  Quite the double standard if you ask me.

Dallas

Philly

San Fran

Arizona

St. Louis

NY Giants

8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating.  So hilarious.
come on man you're killing me barely squeaking by against teams is different than dominating like the skins have done lately.beat dallas by 28 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat giants by 15 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat rams by 15 as opposed to hawks only winning by 6 once and matching winning by 15

beat san fran by 35 as opposed to hawks by 2!!! and then by 38

beat cards by 4 only one that favors hawks --> arizona hawks by 25 and then 14

beat philly with mcnabb by 7 as opposed to hawks by 42 against a completely different shell of a team thrown out

so against your common opponents its skins 4 hawks 1 with philly being thrown out. your point has no validity.

also you're from canada and don't matter. thanks for stopping by canuck :bye: , get back to your snow and ugly women.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also have a hard time understanding how Washington is +9 in this game. They already beat Seattle in Week 4 in overtime in an evenly fought battle.And discounting the Week 8 meltdown at the Giants, the Redskins never lost a regular season game by more than 7 points. Meanwhile in Seattle's regular season games against quality opponents (teams with a winning record that didn't rest Peyton Manning), the average margin of victory was around 3 points. Washington +9 seems like a solid bet to me. The spread should be somewhere around 6-7 points. It's like getting a 3 point cushion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also have a hard time understanding how Washington is +9 in this game. They already beat Seattle in Week 4 in overtime in an evenly fought battle.

And discounting the Week 8 meltdown at the Giants, the Redskins never lost a regular season game by more than 7 points.

Meanwhile in Seattle's regular season games against quality opponents (teams with a winning record), the average margin of victory was around 3 points.

Washington +9 seems like a solid bet to me. The spread should be somewhere around 6-7 points. It's like getting a 3 point cushion.
I have no idea how often the concept of Vegas points spreads needs to be explained. It isn't about how good or bad the teams are, it's about how to get the bets as close to 50% on each side of the spread.
 
Redskins barely squeaked by the Bucs last week by a lucky drop from some nobody WR. Hawks won't turn it over as much.

 
I also have a hard time understanding how Washington is +9 in this game. They already beat Seattle in Week 4 in overtime in an evenly fought battle.

And discounting the Week 8 meltdown at the Giants, the Redskins never lost a regular season game by more than 7 points. 

Meanwhile in Seattle's regular season games against quality opponents (teams with a winning record), the average margin of victory was around 3 points.

Washington +9 seems like a solid bet to me. The spread should be somewhere around 6-7 points. It's like getting a 3 point cushion.
I have no idea how often the concept of Vegas points spreads needs to be explained. It isn't about how good or bad the teams are, it's about how to get the bets as close to 50% on each side of the spread.
I completely understand the concept. I learned it when I was about 5 years old running numbers and selling squares in kindergarten. Those were the good days.What I'm saying is that I don't understand how more money is not going to Washington at +9. The line seems out of whack. Sort of like the Texas line vs. USC.

From a statistical analysis perspective, WAS +9 seems like a solid play. As we get closer to gametime, it would not suprise me to see this line bet down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also have a hard time understanding how Washington is +9 in this game. They already beat Seattle in Week 4 in overtime in an evenly fought battle.

And discounting the Week 8 meltdown at the Giants, the Redskins never lost a regular season game by more than 7 points. 

Meanwhile in Seattle's regular season games against quality opponents (teams with a winning record), the average margin of victory was around 3 points.

Washington +9 seems like a solid bet to me. The spread should be somewhere around 6-7 points. It's like getting a 3 point cushion.
I have no idea how often the concept of Vegas points spreads needs to be explained. It isn't about how good or bad the teams are, it's about how to get the bets as close to 50% on each side of the spread.
From a statistical analysis perspective, WAS +9 seems like a solid play.
Right now 53% of the bets at Wagerline are on Washington.Just a few other tidbits.

WAS is 7-3 ATS in the last 10 meetings.

• Redskins are 5-0-1 ATS in their last six overall.

• Under is 14-5 in WAS last 19 road games.

• SEA is 6-2 ATS in their last eight home games.

• Under is 4-1 in SEA last five home games.

• Over is 6-2 in the last eight meetings.

 
why not? skins had their worst offensive game against a good TB defense now go against a not that good seattle defense that keeps everyone in games. add another probowl caliber player in sean springs coming back to washington secondary and the fact that the skins have become turnover creating machines why wouldn't seattle turn it over?

 
why not? skins had their worst offensive game against a good TB defense now go against a not that good seattle defense that keeps everyone in games. add another probowl caliber player in sean springs coming back to washington secondary and the fact that the skins have become turnover creating machines why wouldn't seattle turn it over?
Hasselbeck's a lot better than Simms, and I don't know the stats for this, but I'm gonna guess SA's had a lot less fumbles than Williams.
 
as long as no one has anything useful to add to the debate. why do you guys even post? i offer analysis and you say sig info blah blah,intelligence blah blah. you refute nothing. what's the point of posting?
Your analysis also happens to be a 3-time honda.Schedule be damned, Skins are getting too banged up to continue winning games on the road (and this one is rested and now healthy). Portis won't be able to be effective because of his injuries and SEA's sound run defense, putting the game on Brunell's shoulders who hasn't been the same since his leg injury happened. Seattle controls time of possession and eventually wears down the Skins D and finishes them off in the 4th quarter, winning by 10 to cover the spread (likely finishing with a Brunell INT run back for a score).

SEA 23-WAS 13

 
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.

The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.

How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents. Quite the double standard if you ask me.

Dallas

Philly

San Fran

Arizona

St. Louis

NY Giants

8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating. So hilarious.
come on man you're killing me barely squeaking by against teams is different than dominating like the skins have done lately.beat dallas by 28 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat giants by 15 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat rams by 15 as opposed to hawks only winning by 6 once and matching winning by 15

beat san fran by 35 as opposed to hawks by 2!!! and then by 38

beat cards by 4 only one that favors hawks --> arizona hawks by 25 and then 14

beat philly with mcnabb by 7 as opposed to hawks by 42 against a completely different shell of a team thrown out

so against your common opponents its skins 4 hawks 1 with philly being thrown out. your point has no validity.
Cards/SF/Rams all with backup starting QBs (Bears w/ Orton's first NFL reg season AND preseason start). vs. Philly was first week w/o TO.
 
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.

The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.

How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents. Quite the double standard if you ask me.

Dallas

Philly

San Fran

Arizona

St. Louis

NY Giants

8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating. So hilarious.
Hey come on now, he can't compute valid arguments.come on man you're killing me barely squeaking by against teams is different than dominating like the skins have done lately.

beat dallas by 28 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat giants by 15 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat rams by 15 as opposed to hawks only winning by 6 once and matching winning by 15

beat san fran by 35 as opposed to hawks by 2!!! and then by 38

beat cards by 4 only one that favors hawks --> arizona hawks by 25 and then 14

beat philly with mcnabb by 7 as opposed to hawks by 42 against a completely different shell of a team thrown out

so against your common opponents its skins 4 hawks 1 with philly being thrown out. your point has no validity.
Cards/SF/Rams all with backup starting QBs (Bears w/ Orton's first NFL reg season AND preseason start). vs. Philly was first week w/o TO.
Hey come on now, he can't compute valid arguments. thebird is about as big of a troll as they come.....No common sense and refutes all arguments in a grade 2 style.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.

The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.

How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents.  Quite the double standard if you ask me.

Dallas

Philly

San Fran

Arizona

St. Louis

NY Giants

8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating.  So hilarious.
come on man you're killing me barely squeaking by against teams is different than dominating like the skins have done lately.beat dallas by 28 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat giants by 15 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat rams by 15 as opposed to hawks only winning by 6 once and matching winning by 15

beat san fran by 35 as opposed to hawks by 2!!! and then by 38

beat cards by 4 only one that favors hawks --> arizona hawks by 25 and then 14

beat philly with mcnabb by 7 as opposed to hawks by 42 against a completely different shell of a team thrown out

so against your common opponents its skins 4 hawks 1 with philly being thrown out. your point has no validity.

also you're from canada and don't matter. thanks for stopping by canuck :bye: , get back to your snow and ugly women.
Lets see....Seahawks lost 3 games all year and two of those were close losses to playoff teams in first four weeks of season. The third loss was last game of season to GB where Seattle rested its players.Washington lost a total of 6 games this season and three of those were to non playoff teams. They even lost to a 4-12 oakland mid season. You can point out the win against the giants but what about the 36-0 loss to the giants in mid season. I love how people only point out the facts that help their side and don't show the negative ones.

This should be a very good game this week and I am 50/50 as to who will win but I have to think that the bye week for Seattle as well as home field advantage as well as the physical game Washington had against TB gives Seattle the advantage.

 
And to learn to use the shift key, and a grasp of the english language would help too.
you start a sentence with the word "and" and think i should grasp the english language. what a #######. also your sentence is a run-on sentence. go back to elementary school sally.bullitt don't be mad because my logic overwhelms your idiocy.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
hey buddy seattle hasn't beat any even slightly ok team by more than 4 points. i'm betting the farm on the skins and i hope you bet easy on seattle -9 or you will be a very poor man. skins +9 is easy money. you think that santana moss can't break a few against the 25th ranked pass defense in the league? don't forget about cooley too. gibbs wins playoff games period. he finds a way.

 
Reasons I like the Seahawks:

They were #1 in the NFL in points scored and #7 in points allowed.

They have HFA in what appears to be a very loud and hostile stadium.
The QB doesn't make many mistakes, as evidenced by 9 INTs on the season. Hasselback ended the year throwing 10 TDs to 1 INT.
Mike Holmgren has shown that, when he fields a team as strong as this one, he can go to the super bowl and win it. I believe there are some coaches who can make the playoffs a lot but also don't have the ability to get his team to win it all.
Please don't lump me in with the topic starter, but as was pointed out in the Skins thread, the Seahawks really fattened up against weaker competition.....Seattle's high-powered offense only scored above those opponents(their opponent's over .500) season averages once:

Jax avg pts allowed: 16.8 (14 by Seattle)

Atl avg pts allowed: 21.3 (21 by Seattle)

Was avg pts allowed: 18.3 (17 by Seattle)

Dal avg pts allowed: 19.3 (13 by Seattle)

Nyg avg pts allowed: 19.6 (24 by Seattle)

 
hey buddy seattle hasn't beat any even slightly ok team by more than 4 points. i'm betting the farm on the skins and i hope you bet easy on seattle -9 or you will be a very poor man. skins +9 is easy money. you think that santana moss can't break a few against the 25th ranked pass defense in the league? don't forget about cooley too. gibbs wins playoff games period. he finds a way.
I think your cave is beckoning.
 
as long as no one has anything useful to add to the debate. why do you guys even post? i offer analysis and you say sig info blah blah,intelligence blah blah. you refute nothing. what's the point of posting?
Maybe if you posted in a little less attacking manner, people would respond.
 
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.

The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.

How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents.  Quite the double standard if you ask me.

Dallas

Philly

San Fran

Arizona

St. Louis

NY Giants

8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating.  So hilarious.
Hey come on now, he can't compute valid arguments.come on man you're killing me barely squeaking by against teams is different than dominating like the skins have done lately.

beat dallas by 28 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat giants by 15 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat rams by 15 as opposed to hawks only winning by 6 once and matching winning by 15

beat san fran by 35 as opposed to hawks by 2!!! and then by 38

beat cards by 4 only one that favors hawks --> arizona hawks by 25 and then 14

beat philly with mcnabb by 7 as opposed to hawks by 42 against a completely different shell of a team thrown out

so against your common opponents its skins 4 hawks 1 with philly being thrown out. your point has no validity.
Cards/SF/Rams all with backup starting QBs (Bears w/ Orton's first NFL reg season AND preseason start). vs. Philly was first week w/o TO.
Hey come on now, he can't compute valid arguments. thebird is about as big of a troll as they come.....No common sense and refutes all arguments in a grade 2 style.
no one likes you canadian. go back home and talk aboot ice fishing or other nonsense you know about. way to use all the words i used in my posts against me, very creative, did you pass grade 2? or in canada do they just have 1 year of school and then just send you out to trap in the wilderness?
 
Washington -- 359 points scored, 293 points allowed = +4.125 per game scoring margin

Seattle -- 452 points scored, 271 points allowed = +11.3125 per game scoring marginWhere is the mystery here? Seattle scored more points, allowed fewer points and is the home team. Washington could win the game obviously, but they certainly should be considered a long shot.
the mystery is that you're ignoring SOS. Compare how the two teams did against strong opponents or even better against each other.
 
I honestly believe the Seahawks are no better this year than they have been the last couple years. They may actually be less talented.

But they have homefield advantage and the other NFC teams have plenty of question marks too. So it would not suprise me if they made it to the Superbowl.
very very :goodposting: I agree completely with everything said here.

 
as long as no one has anything useful to add to the debate. why do you guys even post? i offer analysis and you say sig info blah blah,intelligence blah blah. you refute nothing. what's the point of posting?
Maybe if you posted in a little less attacking manner, people would respond.
why you bringing up old stuff? we're passed that now. live in the now.
 
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.

The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.

How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents. Quite the double standard if you ask me.

Dallas

Philly

San Fran

Arizona

St. Louis

NY Giants

8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating. So hilarious.

So what is it? The Hawks had an easy schedule...which means the Redskins didn't beat any opponents of worth either.

Your ignorant first post is about as :potkettle: as they come
So the point is that they are very similar teams...I agree! They would beat similar opponents- except you did leave out Chicago. But Seattle is viewed as a superior team by many here.
 
I love your dumb argument about scheduling when the Redskins never beat any of their good opponents.

The Redskins beat the same teams that the Hawks did.

How can you say the Hawks are overrated due to beating weak opponents, when the Redskins beat the EXACT same opponents.  Quite the double standard if you ask me.

Dallas

Philly

San Fran

Arizona

St. Louis

NY Giants

8 of the Redskins' wins came againts the exact same opponents you are knocking the Hawks for beating.  So hilarious.
come on man you're killing me barely squeaking by against teams is different than dominating like the skins have done lately.beat dallas by 28 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat giants by 15 as opposed to hawks winning by 3

beat rams by 15 as opposed to hawks only winning by 6 once and matching winning by 15

beat san fran by 35 as opposed to hawks by 2!!! and then by 38

beat cards by 4 only one that favors hawks --> arizona hawks by 25 and then 14

beat philly with mcnabb by 7 as opposed to hawks by 42 against a completely different shell of a team thrown out

so against your common opponents its skins 4 hawks 1 with philly being thrown out. your point has no validity.

also you're from canada and don't matter. thanks for stopping by canuck :bye: , get back to your snow and ugly women.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top