Let me translate your bravado: "If the Packers play well in Seattle they likely will win."Originally Posted by hoosier
No, the Packers have looked generic on the road all year. Seattle looks even better than last year at home. Packers will have to play well just to have a puncher's chance.
Agree 100% with that... it will be a very tough row to hoe in Seattle.
Like I said, our best chance for advancing to the SB was lost in Buffalo. If we lost in Buffalo when we knew how important a game it was - that doesn't bode well for our chances in Seattle.
wist
Disagree about Seattle, they're clearly worse than last year. Their offense is kind of shitty, their defense is still elite but clearly worse along the DL. They're very beatable and IMO it wouldn't take perfection to win decisively, it comes down to the Packers vs the Packers as usual. Unfortunately theres no reason to think they'll go on the road and play anywhere near their potential. It hasn't happened all year, especially on offense.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
I think you just make stuff up. They don't look much different to me. Couple of breaks don't go their way in the Rams game and they could be looking at a loss (fortuitous pick six, fumble by Rams at the one foot line, through end zone and touchback). Seattle doesn't have great playmakers on offense. Tate and Harvin are gone. Wilson is amazing, but he can be contained with discipline. Seattle is beatable at home. Moreso than last year I think.
2013 (7-1)
12-7 CAR
29-3 SF
45-17 JAK
20-13 TN
27-24 TB
41-20 MN
34-7 NO
10-17 AZ
27-9 SL
245-127
2014 (7-1)
36-16 GB
26-20 DEN
23-30 DAL
30-24 OAK
38-17 NYG
19-3 AZ
17-7 SF
20-6 STL
219-123
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
It doesn't matter a bit what you think, you don't watch the Seattle games. It is not my opinion, I'm repeating what multiple analysts have said on TV. Seattle defense is playing at higher level now than they were going into playoffs last year.
yeah, actually I do. Keep making stuff up blowhard
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
They're playing weaker opponents.
Football Outsiders has them falling back to the pack in terms of DVOA:
Which puts some more numbers to what others are saying: Seattle is still a very good team, likely the strongest overall still, but they've regressed and are nowhere near as good as last year. They've gone over their peak and are now trending back down. Ripe for an upset.OK, enough digression on this issue. Let's get back to talking about 2014. One of the general running themes of the DVOA commentaries this year has been that this was a year with very few extremes, very few examples of teams that were historically efficient or inefficient on either side of the ball. The final numbers for the year continue with this theme. This was only the third season since 1990 where no team was better than 12-4. (The others: 1993 and 2002.) The Seahawks were No. 1 in DVOA, but this year's rating (31.3%) is nowhere near their ratings for 2012 (38.7%, seventh all-time) and 2013 (40.0%, fifth all-time).
The lack of extremes is particularly strong when it comes to overall defense. The Seahawks' final defensive DVOA of -16.3% may lead the league for this season but is only 46th in DVOA history. Only twice has the No. 1 defense been closer to average than this year's Seahawks: the 2001 Eagles (-15.5%) and the 2007 Titans (-14.4%). In a fun bit of symmetry, the last-place Atlanta Falcons rank 46th among the worst defenses in DVOA history (+15.2%).
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
even you should rely on your own opinion above most 'analysts'
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
No question going to Seattle would be tough. I just think Seattle's defense is a little overrated right now. They've dominated a series of backup quarterbacks lately. When they've played quality quarterbacks this year they've been beatable. I know they beat up the Packers in Week 1. But the Packers were not a good offense the 1st 3 weeks. They're much better now. In week 1 the Seahawks had 207 yards rushing to the Packers' 80. I don't think that would happen now.
This
Seattle's recent home games have been vs Shaun Hill, Kap and the imploding 49er's, Drew Stanton, Eli, and Derek Carr. Not exactly a murderer's row there.
They are most likely the best team in the NFC but they are not the juggernaut they are made out to be.
Go PACK
Yup, so the Seahawks beat during their win streak:
ARI twice: ARI averages 12.4 points a game in their last 7 games scoring no more than 18 points in a game.
SF twice: SF finished the season 1-4 and only a 3 point win against ARI saved them from finishing 0-5.
Eagles: PHI finished the season 1-3 and only beat the NYG by 8 to not finish 0-4.
STL: Rams finished 0-3 and including blow out wins against OAK and WASH finished 2-4.
If GB beat those teams, members on this board would be screaming how lucky we were to play those teams when we did during the season and that none of the wins count except possible SF at SF.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Ok but they won all those games. Seattle doesn't have to be elite to beat the 2014 Packers in Seattle. Pretty much any NFC playoff team scares me if we have to go on the road but it could only happen with Seattle.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
SEA did win those games. GB went 11-2 to finish the season and there a bunch of people here who say that being confident in this team just shows you are a kool-aid drinker.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
If the Packers make it as far as Seattle the big test will be the offensive line. If they play close to the level we have seen in the last month in that environment, the Seattle defense--whether it's as good as last year's version or not--will not be an insurmountable obstacle and the Packers have a very good chance of pulling off the slight upset. If the OL is dysfunctional in a noisy, hostile environment the Packers will get spanked.
You fools. Green Bay has to win a game before they play Seattle or whomever.
Let's focus on the next game so this looking-ahead mojo doesn't affect the Pack!
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
We are taking a page out of Guiness' book this year and puncturing superstitions:
http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...ayoffs-Edition
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Damn straight. The old superstitions weren't working so it was time to think outside the box.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
SO There !
SMARTEN UP !!
** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau
Looking ahead to Seattle is just fine this week. Once we know who GBs next opponent will be, that is when we have to be careful lest the karma chickens come home to roost.
Hopefully, within a few years, they won't even have to play the games anymore. Will cut down on concussions.
Future computer banks for NFL season simulations:
[IMG][/IMG]
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
