Results 31 to 36 of 36
Thread: Anti-Seahawk
-
-12-26-2005 #31
Re: Anti-Seahawk
So you bring up Hamiln and Sharper as people you didn't have for the game, yet you keep bringing up the 13-2 statement, which they hardly helped you to get. Aside from that even in the games that they have played, none did anything special, in 6 games All Hamlin got was tackles and 2 PDs, in 8 Games all Sharper got was Tackles.
Originally Posted by DanS761

-
-12-26-2005 #32
Re: Anti-Seahawk
what the hell is the difference,the colts didnt need to win and really the hawks didnt either,i would like to see them meet in the big game and may the best team win when it counts.
-
-12-26-2005 #33
Re: Anti-Seahawk
While you bring up some valid points, I think history is an indication that your opinions may not be correct.
Originally Posted by akseahawkfan
It wasn't too long ago that the Rams were the crap team of the NFL. They had a 4-12 record, Tony Banks was the QB, and nobody took us seriously.
Sixteen games later, everyone took the Rams seriously.
So, as you see, things can change rather quickly.
While the squaks do look like the real deal this year, things can change quickly there, too. Next year, Seattle may tumble into the cellar. Hasslebeck may be hurt, Alexander might blow out his knee, free agency may take a toll.
So, saying the Rams may be looking up to the squaks in the standings for a few years isn't even close to a sure thing. If you compare the players, the talent level of the Rams is fairly even with that of Seattle on the offensive side. We may even have the advantage in some positions. Defensively, however, the advantage is clearly to the squaks.
Of course, with a new HC and assistants coming in to St. Louis in the next couple of weeks, everything will change. Whether or not it will take years, or only one season is still up in the air. Only time will tell.
As far as the win over the Colts, had tragedy not struck the Dungy family when and how it did, things would have been different. Most of the Indy players knew the coach's son, and it hit them hard. I don't know if you have personally lived through a tragedy like this, but it does take a huge toll on everyone who not only knows the deceased, but even if they only know the family. The Colts were obviously distracted, and not performing at their best.
Personally, I was looking foward to watching the game until I heard of the death of Dungy's son. It was going to be a really good, competitive game, but Indy obviously was not into it as much as they would have been.
Congratulations on winning the NFC West. The squaks have worked long and hard to get to this point. But, just a little advice: After next week, things will get a lot tougher. Just because you think you will prevail doesn't necessarily mean you will. All it takes is one missed tackle, one tipped pass, one false start, and the walrus will be watching the Super Bowl from his living room instead of from the sidelines.Super Bowl Champions 2013!
-
-12-26-2005 #34
Re: Anti-Seahawk
When did I ever bring up the offense?
Originally Posted by ramsbruce
When did I say our full strength was worse than their full strength? Again, you read too much into my statements.Your "available" full strength is much better than what the Colts "available" full strength was, theres no comparison. Let's compare
But I like how you are now acknowledging that the Seahawks were not at full strength as well. And that was one of my points in the first place. The fact is both teams were not.
We can go over and over the players, how valuable they are to each team, we could go on and on. But the fact is you can never judge it that way. How would you ever come up with a number? Say the Colts were at 80%, and the Hawks at 85%? It's a pointless discussion.Colts : June, Diem, Harrison, Freeney (for most of the game), Manning (for some of the game) Wayne (for some of the game) Bob Sanders, Reagor, Simon, Mathis all sat out due to the game not meaning much to the Colts.
Hawks (According to Dan) : Herndon, Dyson, Darby, and Trufant for 3 quarters. Hass and Alexander in the 4th and if the game were closer Hass and Alexander wouldn't have where as Manning, Wayne, Harrison etc would have sat no matter what.
But from my opening comment, the Hawks were up 14-3 when the Colts started pulling their starters. That's what I feel good about.
Spin the numbers any way you want, we really can't get to a resolution on this like I said before.So reality says the Colts were really undermanned, and the Hawks were injury free on offense, and had 3 out on D.
Same for the Hawks. And hopefully the Hawks will be at full strength(or as close as possible, minus Sharper and Hamlin) if we make it to the Super Bowl.Of course you will defend the Hawks, but just be realistic, that wasn't the full strength Colts that you would see in the Superbowl.
Why? That's completly your opinion, and your view point. People have been saying things like this all year. But the point is we're 13-2, and have the #1 rated offense in points and yardage. And the #4 rated defense in points allowed.If you play like you did yesterday you would have a hard time beating the full strength Colts with your full strength Hawks.
I think we could be competitive with any team in this league. But of course your entitled to your opinion and spin it any way you want."We were facing the No. 1 offense in the National Football League", Vitt said.
-
-12-26-2005 #35
Re: Anti-Seahawk
You didn't, I did. But it's clear that you only want to bring up the D because there were a few out, but not bring up the O because they were 100%. Keep spinning it, you know deep down that was the 2nd string Colts team. Beat them in the Superbowl and then boast about how you beat them with their "real" starters not just twisting the words around saying that Troy Walters is a starter because he started when we all know Harrsion and the others are the real starters. You just want to bring up things that suit the Hawk argument, like Milli is a starter when there is no way you would bench Stevans for Milli this season etc.
Originally Posted by Seahawk_For_Life
But better yet just win a playoff game.BRUUUUUUUUCE

-
-12-29-2005 #36
Re: Anti-Seahawk
Wow, this is a stupid thread started off with a stupid post.
Originally Posted by LA Rammer
I don't wish to get into the arguments. I just wanted to point something out to mr rammer. So you are so upset what Indy did, eh? What exactly did Philly do against the Rams last year??? If I remember correctly all sorts of different nfc fans were mad that the Rams got a freebee win that got them into the playoffs. That was much worse than Indy resting guys against seattle who already a spot sewn up themselves. Let's not be hypocritcal in our rabid fandom here.




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote



Bookmarks