2 Things About the Pats that make me feel confident

[50yrpatsfan]

Another Pats fan here, thanks for having us visitors.

I've followed the Hawks fairly closely the last few years and have attended 4 games at your maniac stadium the past few seasons. Seattle's obviously a very good team, well rounded and smart. But to be honest I think right now they're at their weakest point since 2012. They were ferocious at the end of 2013 and downright great all last season, but the injuries, defections and the motivation of other teams to knock them off make them look vulnerable right now.

I'm a little surprised at the lack of concern here after what the Packers just did on both sides of the ball. That was a beat-down, they moved the ball practically at will, gave Rodgers plenty of time, totally threw Seattle's offense for a loop, and even looked quicker and more physical for most for most of the game. Only a fake FG and onside kick prevented a well deserved 10 point loss. I give the Hawks credit for regaining their feet after those breaks and pulling it out, but 98 times out of 100 that rally would've been too late.

New England brings everything to the table that GB did, especially with Rodgers mobility limited the way it was. Their corners and safeties are better than the Packers, the front 7 about equal, the OL about equal, Blount = Lacy, receivers about equal, QB about equal. Coaching may be a little better, especially red zone offense. Better special teams. They will be aggressive the full 60 minute, not go into a shell like GB did late. And now they also have a blueprint after last Sunday. They're going to come in with a lot of confidence after seeing what the Packers were able to do.

I am a little concerned about setting the edge against Lynch & Wilson. Also, of all your receivers, Lockette concerns me, that dude is way underrated. Overall, the Patriots D never looks real dominant, but somehow it hasn't allowed a 2nd half TD in 2 months. They'll be tested for sure.

Should be a doozy.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Rock, you need to add a third thing to your list:

The locker room distraction of getting caught cheating less than two weeks before playing in the Super Bowl.

 

[jake206]

Trickery goes out the window when you get punched in the face. Play fast and hit them more than they hit you.

To Patriot fans:

I'm a little surprised at the lack of humility here after what the Packers just did on both sides of the ball. That was a beat-down, they moved the ball practically at will, gave Rodgers plenty of time, totally threw Seattle's offense for a loop, and even looked quicker and more physical for most for most of the game. Only a fake FG and onside kick prevented a well deserved 10 point loss. I give the Hawks credit for regaining their feet after those breaks and pulling it out, but 98 times out of 100 that rally would've been too late.

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Pats win against the Ravens on a rule-book technicality, and Deflate-gate. Come on who should be humble at this point? I'd be embarrassed if I were a Pats fan.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Trickery goes out the window when you get punched in the face.

I wish Jeff Fisher would get this memo.

 

[iigakusei]

Another Pats fan here, thanks for having us visitors.

I've followed the Hawks fairly closely the last few years and have attended 4 games at your maniac stadium the past few seasons. Seattle's obviously a very good team, well rounded and smart. But to be honest I think right now they're at their weakest point since 2012. They were ferocious at the end of 2013 and downright great all last season, but the injuries, defections and the motivation of other teams to knock them off make them look vulnerable right now.

I'm a little surprised at the lack of humility here after what the Packers just did on both sides of the ball. That was a beat-down, they moved the ball practically at will, gave Rodgers plenty of time, totally threw Seattle's offense for a loop, and even looked quicker and more physical for most for most of the game. Only a fake FG and onside kick prevented a well deserved 10 point loss. I give the Hawks credit for regaining their feet after those breaks and pulling it out, but 98 times out of 100 that rally would've been too late.

New England brings everything to the table that GB did, especially with Rodgers mobility limited the way it was. Their corners and safeties are better than the Packers, the front 7 about equal, the OL about equal, Blount = Lacy, receivers about equal, QB about equal. Coaching may be a little better, especially red zone offense. Better special teams. They will be aggressive the full 60 minute, not go into a shell like GB did late. And now they also have a blueprint after last Sunday. They're going to come in with a lot of confidence after seeing what the Packers were able to do.

I am a little concerned about setting the edge against Lynch & Wilson. Also, of all your receivers, Lockette concerns me, that dude is way underrated. Overall, the Patriots D never looks real dominant, but somehow it hasn't allowed a 2nd half TD in 2 months. They'll be tested for sure.

Should be a doozy.

Respect your post, but Blount=Lacy? Cmon. Blount is Turbin but with no hands.

 

[AF_Hawk]

Hard to downplay the Jets since they are their division rival and we all know how those games can go. Buffalo is a tough defense in their own right but they don't have a punishing back like Beast Mode to unleash punishment on the offense as well.

 

[Hawkscanner]

Another Pats fan here, thanks for having us visitors.

I've followed the Hawks fairly closely the last few years and have attended 4 games at your maniac stadium the past few seasons. Seattle's obviously a very good team, well rounded and smart. But to be honest I think right now they're at their weakest point since 2012. They were ferocious at the end of 2013 and downright great all last season, but the injuries, defections and the motivation of other teams to knock them off make them look vulnerable right now.

I'm a little surprised at the lack of humility here after what the Packers just did on both sides of the ball. That was a beat-down, they moved the ball practically at will, gave Rodgers plenty of time, totally threw Seattle's offense for a loop, and even looked quicker and more physical for most for most of the game. Only a fake FG and onside kick prevented a well deserved 10 point loss. I give the Hawks credit for regaining their feet after those breaks and pulling it out, but 98 times out of 100 that rally would've been too late.

New England brings everything to the table that GB did, especially with Rodgers mobility limited the way it was. Their corners and safeties are better than the Packers, the front 7 about equal, the OL about equal, Blount = Lacy, receivers about equal, QB about equal. Coaching may be a little better, especially red zone offense. Better special teams. They will be aggressive the full 60 minute, not go into a shell like GB did late. And now they also have a blueprint after last Sunday. They're going to come in with a lot of confidence after seeing what the Packers were able to do.

I am a little concerned about setting the edge against Lynch & Wilson. Also, of all your receivers, Lockette concerns me, that dude is way underrated. Overall, the Patriots D never looks real dominant, but somehow it hasn't allowed a 2nd half TD in 2 months. They'll be tested for sure.

Should be a doozy.

Great post! Thanks for coming to the party.

I understand your take regarding the general level of arrogance of Hawks nation right now. People may get mad at me, but I'd say that's a legitimate criticism of a segment of the fanbase for sure. Like you, I've followed my team for a long time -- basically from the time I was about 7 years old (but you'll have to forgive me, I've only got 37 years worth of NFL viewing experience behind me) -- so I've seen a whole lot of disappointment in connection with this Seahawks football team over the years. Moreso than a lot of the younger fans on this board. That said, I would say that I feel very confident in this Hawks team right now. There aren't many teams that I've seen that have faced the kind of adversity they have this season and come out the other side. Everyone in the world doubts them and they know it. These guys honestly have internalized that "no one believes in us or respects us" mentality ... and it has been like throwing gasoline on a fire.

After this past Sunday's game, I actually have the opposite take. I'd say that pretty much every Seahawks fan agrees that the impossible happened. Green Bay SHOULD have won that game. Granted. That just goes to show everyone what this team is really made of and how much they have internalized Pete Carroll’s philosophy of NEVER EVER STOP FIGHTING. I'd disagree on that necessarily being a negative though. No doubt, this team spent every last ounce of emotional strength and fortitude to pull that one out. And a comeback win like that CAN become an emotional letdown for some teams. For this team though, I believe it's actually going to be a HUGE emotional boost. To play that bad, go through that kind of adversity, and to come out on the other side can really galvanize a team and make them even more mentally tough than they already were as well.

Disagree with you about Belichick being a better coach than Pete Carroll. Actually, I would argue that the two of them are basically equal as far as chess masters go. Right on par with one another. In fact, I'd go further in saying that in many ways, they are mirror images of one another. Very, very similar in their ability to figure out what a team likes to do ... and take it away. Very similar in their ability to figure out a team’s weaknesses and exploit them. Like Belichick, Pete Carroll has that same uncanny ability to draw up a game plan to do just that. The two of them are also very similar IMO in their ability to make effective in game adjustments (Carroll’s ability is downright uncanny). And as you saw last week – always expect the unexpected from Carroll (flea flickers, halfback passes, reverses, whatever).

Regarding Blount, I will say the same thing that I’m sure every well versed Seahawks fan will tell you. Blount is not the type of back that generally gives Seattle problems. They generally do very well against power backs. The ones that HAVE given them fits over the years … are those smaller, quicker, faster , shiftier scatbacks. The C.J. Spillers of the world – those are the type that could be problematic. Power backs – the Hawks generally shut those guys down.

Lockette HAS had some big catches in the past. He has speed to burn. VERY fast. The problem with him though … is that he’s basically got straight-line speed, so he’s more of a situational type WR. For sure if he's in there though, I’d watch for him on a potential go route.

Re: Wilson and Lynch – I’m intrigued to see how Belichick is going to defend against them – particularly against the Zone Read. Do you commit more to containing Wilson (keeping him in the pocket) … or do you more bring pressure and try to disrupt his timing?

I agree with your overall take on the game itself though. It most certainly WILL be a doozy.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

I'm a little surprised at the lack of humility here after what the Packers just did on both sides of the ball. That was a beat-down, they moved the ball practically at will, gave Rodgers plenty of time, totally threw Seattle's offense for a loop, and even looked quicker and more physical for most for most of the game. Only a fake FG and onside kick prevented a well deserved 10 point loss. I give the Hawks credit for regaining their feet after those breaks and pulling it out, but 98 times out of 100 that rally would've been too late.

I've watched and re-watched the game several times now. Live it most certainly did feel like a beat down. No two ways about it. Trust me, as a Seahawks fan, any game we're not leading by 21 points feels much closer than it should.

But upon re-watching it a few times, that beat down is not nearly the beat down it seemed at first blush. They got a lot of lucky, funky bounces for a huge chunk of the game. We weren't playing horribly, just couldn't seem to shake ol' Mr. Murphy sneaking out onto the field for most of the game. Yeah, there were some bad plays, some were definitely affected by weather, and some just dumb luck. But the Packers weren't doing all that well either. Sure, the score looked bad, but it really wasn't a whole lot, especially when you consider the #1 offense in the league was handed multiple chances gift-wrapped in the red zone, and couldn't come away with a whole lot of points.

And when it was all said and done, the Seahawks had more total yards, more passing yards, more rushing yards, more first downs, better percentages on third down, better percentages on fourth down, and a whole bunch more stats I can't remember off the top of my head. About the only advantage stat-wise that Green Bay had was a +3 in turnovers, a few fewer penalties, and about a minute longer in time of possession. Yes, it was a far closer game, with both teams equally bad in the wind and rain, than it looked when it broadcast live on TV.

I wouldn't bank on having the wind and rain affect the Seahawks in Glendale like it did in Seattle last Sunday.

 

[Scottemojo]

Another Pats fan here, thanks for having us visitors.

I've followed the Hawks fairly closely the last few years and have attended 4 games at your maniac stadium the past few seasons. Seattle's obviously a very good team, well rounded and smart. But to be honest I think right now they're at their weakest point since 2012. They were ferocious at the end of 2013 and downright great all last season, but the injuries, defections and the motivation of other teams to knock them off make them look vulnerable right now.

I'm a little surprised at the lack of humility here after what the Packers just did on both sides of the ball. That was a beat-down, they moved the ball practically at will, gave Rodgers plenty of time, totally threw Seattle's offense for a loop, and even looked quicker and more physical for most for most of the game. Only a fake FG and onside kick prevented a well deserved 10 point loss. I give the Hawks credit for regaining their feet after those breaks and pulling it out, but 98 times out of 100 that rally would've been too late.

New England brings everything to the table that GB did, especially with Rodgers mobility limited the way it was. Their corners and safeties are better than the Packers, the front 7 about equal, the OL about equal, Blount = Lacy, receivers about equal, QB about equal. Coaching may be a little better, especially red zone offense. Better special teams. They will be aggressive the full 60 minute, not go into a shell like GB did late. And now they also have a blueprint after last Sunday. They're going to come in with a lot of confidence after seeing what the Packers were able to do.

I am a little concerned about setting the edge against Lynch & Wilson. Also, of all your receivers, Lockette concerns me, that dude is way underrated. Overall, the Patriots D never looks real dominant, but somehow it hasn't allowed a 2nd half TD in 2 months. They'll be tested for sure.

Should be a doozy.

I actually agree with you that we are at our weakest point since at least the beginning of 2013, but I want to add to that. While our pass rush is weaker, it still gets pressure on 30 percent of pass rushes, and while our DL is giving up some run yards, it is a here and there thing, not an every other play thing. Our WRs are not high pointing game changers, but they are some shifty bastards, and every team this year that has been convinced they would stop our run has been wrong. Somehow, some way, we get the run game going. In fact, much as you may point out how GB should have won, and they did take a third of their snaps in the red zone, the reality is that they were outgained both on the ground and in the air. I know, hard to believe, but true. Seattle came through with 5 sudden change defensive stops.

Guess who else doesn't allow 2nd half touchdowns very often? I will give a little time to come up with the answer...

 

[RolandDeschain]

Somebody (not me, I'm feeling too lazy) should see if the Packers @ Seahawks game was the single worst offensive performance in the history of the NFL for an offense that was the beneficiary of five turnovers. If not, it has to be close; most of the time when one team gets five turnovers from the other, the momentum shift is huge and they SMOKE their opponent; and this was a healthy overall Packers offense.

Seriously, let this sink in for a minute. A healthy Packers offense gained 306 net yards with a +3 turnover margin.

 

[Scottemojo]

Somebody (not me, I'm feeling too lazy) should see if the Packers @ Seahawks game was the single worst offensive performance in the history of the NFL for an offense that was the beneficiary of five turnovers. If not, it has to be close; most of the time when one team gets five turnovers from the other, the momentum shift is huge and they SMOKE their opponent; and this was a healthy overall Packers offense.

Seriously, let this sink in for a minute. A healthy Packers offense gained 306 net yards with a +3 turnover margin.

I know the Cards scored 17 on us after 4 interceptions, I don't recall if they had any other turnovers. That was pretty bad and they still won.

 

[Hawkscanner]

Guess who else doesn't allow 2nd half touchdowns very often? I will give a little time to come up with the answer...

Word. Here are some of the numbers on Seattle's Defense from last game ...

Statistics from Seattle-Green Bay (1/18/15) ...
1st Half …
Aaron Rodgers …12 for 21 (57.1% Comp) … 115 Yards Passing … 1 TD … 2 INT … QB Rating of 48.8
Packer RB’s … 64 Yards Rushing on 16 Attempts (4.0 Yds/Rush)
16 Points Allowed

2nd Half …
Aaron Rodgers … 7 for 16 (43.8% Comp) … 63 Yards Passing … 0 TD … 0 INT … QB Rating of 54.9
Packer RB’s … 72 Yards Rushing on 14 Attempts (5.14 Yds/Rush).
6 Points Allowed

What makes it more impressive, is when you consider ...

1st Quarter …
80 Passing Yards Allowed (Aaron Rodgers 8 for 14 – 1 TD and 1 INT) ... QB Rating of 67.6
58 Rushing Yards Allowed (12 Rushing Attempts … 4.83 Yds/Rush)
13 Points (1 TD, 2 FG) Allowed

From 2nd Quarter-End of the Game ...
98 Passing Yards Allowed (Aaron Rodgers 11 for 20 -- 0 TD and 1 INT) ... QB Rating of 47.5
78 Yards Rushing on 18 Attempts (4.33 Yds/Rush).*
9 Points (3 FG's) Allowed

*32 of those Rushing Yards came on the very first play of the 4th Quarter on a run by Starks. Take away that 1 rush by Starks though, and the Seahawks gave up just 3.07 Yds/Rush from the start of the 2nd Quarter through the end of the game.

 

[Seafan]

Another Pats fan here, thanks for having us visitors.

.

I'm a little surprised at the lack of humility here after what the Packers just did on both sides of the ball. That was a beat-down, they moved the ball practically at will, gave Rodgers plenty of time, totally threw Seattle's offense for a loop, and even looked quicker and more physical for most for most of the game. Only a fake FG and onside kick prevented a well deserved 10 point loss. I give the Hawks credit for regaining their feet after those breaks and pulling it out, but 98 times out of 100 that rally would've been too late.

Should be a doozy.

Define beat down. They couldn't score TDs, we gave them the ball five times and plenty of short fields. Their 3rd down percentage was unimpressive. They played the best they could but their game was just like their previous two losses against us. We dominated them with the exception that we couldn't get out of our own way for 55 minutes. If they had dominated the Hawks they would have had a chance. We gave them multiple chances and they were unable to do what they wanted. You can't win the game in the first three and half quarters. The Packers couldn't stop Lynch and they couldn't score in the 2nd half. The domination was typical of how Seattle has always controlled the Packers. The Hawks simply kept giving the Packers extra chances and they were unable to do anything with them. The Hawks won 28-22. Hardly a beatdown. Sherman was feeling the sting of this game but it came from Kam not the cheese Packers. The Hawks own stupid presnap penalties led to the curds only TD. Nothing impressive from Green Bay at all. The Hawks are the most dominate team in the NFC and it isn't close.

 

[50yrpatsfan]

Beat down may have been too strong a phrase if you consider the whole 60 minutes, as Seattle dominated the last 5 minutes with hundreds of yards of offense. Also you have the Hawks D a lot of credit for holding them to FG's in the 1st half.

But as a viewer with no dog in the fight, I was very surprised at how the Packers were able to move the ball, and also how well they frustrated the Hawks offense. Except for one, those were not flukey picks, they were the result of either confusing Wilson or outplaying the receiver. Cobb, Nelson, and the RB's all had good games, and Rodgers was not pressured much. It was not a case of Seattle making a few boneheaded plays that got them in trouble, they were being decisively outplayed. It made them look a lot more human than the team that rolled through last year's playoffs.

 

[AF_Hawk]

Beat down may have been too strong a phrase if you consider the whole 60 minutes, as Seattle dominated the last 5 minutes with hundreds of yards of offense. Also you have the Hawks D a lot of credit for holding them to FG's in the 1st half.

But as a viewer with no dog in the fight, I was very surprised at how the Packers were able to move the ball, and also how well they frustrated the Hawks offense. Except for one, those were not flukey picks, they were the result of either confusing Wilson or outplaying the receiver. Cobb, Nelson, and the RB's all had good games, and Rodgers was not pressured much. It was not a case of Seattle making a few boneheaded plays that got them in trouble, they were being decisively outplayed. It made them look a lot more human than the team that rolled through last year's playoffs.

Why are dominations only defined by turnover margins? I say that because that is the only dominating factor in that game. There were three legit TOs caused by the Packers, the other two were gifts. That is compared to two legit TOs caused by the Seahawks. Outside of that I would say Seattle's defense dominated the Packers offense and Packers defense did a decent job of controlling Seattle's offense (outside the run game of course). Special teams was the difference that gave Seattle the edge.

 

[hawkfan68]

Great post Gronkzilla. Other than the read option. As a Pats fan, what about the Seahawks concerns you the most? Where do you feel the Patriots are weak and don't match up well to the Seahawks strength?

To be honest I have a lot of faith in the Pats defense being able to contain the Hawks offense. Belichick loves to take away the strength of a team so I would imagine that would be the running game.

That being said, my concerns as with any other sane person lies with the defensive safeties and how they will impact the operation between the hashes. The Pats are solid all around but the weak spot is the offensive line. So protecting Brady against the 4-5 man rush and navigating the safeties is my answer.

Thank you Gronzilla. I appreciate the insight. I'm concerned about the Seahawk run defense up the middle and as most on here have voiced, the pass rush. The Seahawks haven't been stopping the run like they were at the end of regular season so far in the playoffs. They gave up 135 yds rushing to the Packers and 132 yards to the Panthers. They need to keep the Pats rushing attack under 100.

 

[formido]

Beat down may have been too strong a phrase if you consider the whole 60 minutes, as Seattle dominated the last 5 minutes with hundreds of yards of offense. Also you have the Hawks D a lot of credit for holding them to FG's in the 1st half.

But as a viewer with no dog in the fight, I was very surprised at how the Packers were able to move the ball, and also how well they frustrated the Hawks offense. Except for one, those were not flukey picks, they were the result of either confusing Wilson or outplaying the receiver. Cobb, Nelson, and the RB's all had good games, and Rodgers was not pressured much. It was not a case of Seattle making a few boneheaded plays that got them in trouble, they were being decisively outplayed. It made them look a lot more human than the team that rolled through last year's playoffs.

We've heard it all before. Same stuff was said after Seattle appeared to muddle its way through the last few regular season games a year ago, losing to Arizona at home.

Seattle's offense was #5 in the NFL in offensive DVOA this year. Variance happens and the season numbers don't lie: Seattle's offense is closer to the last 5 minutes of that GB game than the first 56 minutes. I would take care not to overreact to the last game you watched, in the rain, when two balls bounced off receivers' hands and another INT Russell Wilson where Wilson misjudged the wind. Seattle's passing game relies on quick receivers, a quick QB, and few drops (or terrific catches, if you prefer to be ungenerous to Russell Wilson regarding the last game), so it suffers in wind and rain. The SB is played in a dome, as I recall. I'd also take care to wait for the whole game to play out before crowing. Like New England's and Seattle's *defenses*, Seattle's *offense* is a second half phenomenon.

I'm more surprised about how many people, including Seattle fans, are overreacting to a single game in bad weather, when Seattle has led the NFL in DVOA 3 straight seasons. Earlier this season people were writing off the Pats, too, and I was quick to loudly defend them, for good reason: As a predictive Bayesian matter, past success is far more relevant than one recent bad game. Seattle has an extremely good track record of beating the best teams:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/week ... s-edition/

That history wasn't vanquished last weekend. It was hardly smudged. In fact, since Seattle won, perhaps it was added to.

 

[camdawg]

Beat down may have been too strong a phrase if you consider the whole 60 minutes, as Seattle dominated the last 5 minutes with hundreds of yards of offense. Also you have the Hawks D a lot of credit for holding them to FG's in the 1st half.

But as a viewer with no dog in the fight, I was very surprised at how the Packers were able to move the ball, and also how well they frustrated the Hawks offense. Except for one, those were not flukey picks, they were the result of either confusing Wilson or outplaying the receiver. Cobb, Nelson, and the RB's all had good games, and Rodgers was not pressured much. It was not a case of Seattle making a few boneheaded plays that got them in trouble, they were being decisively outplayed. It made them look a lot more human than the team that rolled through last year's playoffs.

You damn Eddie Lacy with faint praise. He averaged 3.5 yards per carry and was stuffed on 3rd and goal at the 1. Not that he didn't have any nice runs, he certainly had some, but I think any Packer fan would tell you they wanted more from Lacy than they got.

One of Russell's picks was a very dumb decision, cost us a FG near the end of the first half. One of the other ones was a bit risky, but it might be a throw Tom makes, depending upon circumstances. Two of the four, Tom trusts his receivers to make the catch when the ball is thrown to a pretty good spot, and he'd be pissed if Julian or Brandon bobbled them into the air the way Jermaine Kearse did.

True, Rodgers was not pressured much. If there are concerns on our side for the Super Bowl, this is definitely one of them.

Here's the deal with Green Bay, though. They scored just six points in the final 40 minutes of regulation. The Seahawks offense were very much outplayed for most of the game. The Seahawks defense was clearly getting the better of play, they don't hold GB to just six points for that long if they aren't

 

[Pats fan1]

I feel much better that the Pats are playing this year's Seahawks instead of last years and playing the Seahawks instead of the Giants of 2007 to 2011.

A couple of reasons...

The Seahawks don't have the elite superstar defensive line the Giants had of Michael Strahan, Justin Tuck, Osi Umenyiora. Or the tall 6'4" to 6'5" WR's receivers the Giants had (Plaxico Burress). The Seahawks D-line is good, but not great. They can be run on and can be blocked.

The Seahawks' pass rush in the two playoff games against Carolina and Green Bay was not that good.

The Seahawks use a 4-3 speed rush. Smaller D-linemen. They consistently rush 4 guys. Those defenses the Pats smoked all season. Is there any D-Lineman on the Seahawks as good as Suggs, Dumervil or Suh who were shut down against the Pats? Yes, I do expect Brady to be sacked a couple times and take some hits like he did against the Ravens and Colts but it's to be expected but those were two of his and the offenses best post season performances of the Belichick/Brady era.

The Seahawks do not have the defensive front 7 of the Jets, Bills and Dolphins nor do they use the schemes of those teams. Rex Ryan uses a hybrid 4-3/3-4 with multiple exotic blitzing packages sending LB's and safety's at Brady never knowing where the blitz is coming from. The Seahawks rush the same 4 D-lineman every play which can be exploited by spreading them out with the hurry up no huddle offense and quick release as the Pats did against the Lions and Ravens.

The Seahawks are having some problems stopping the run as they did against the Panthers and Packers. The Pats have a deep power running game now.

The Pats have Gronk. He's a mismatch nightmare. I don't see them consistently stopping Gronk.

When the Seahawks can't get pressure they rely on their great secondary, well it's possible Sherman and Thomas won't be 100% in this game. That can be exploited. I hope they're 100%. I want both teams at 100%.

The Seahawks WR's are good play makers. I think the Pats have the depth in the secondary to cover them and also stop the run with good LB's. Remember, Andrew Luck is a scrambler and a great pocket passer....the Pats held the Colts to 7 points and kept Luck contained for the most part.

The Seahawks offensive game plan is actually pretty simple = run, run, run, run, pass, run, run, pass. Sometimes Lynch runs, sometimes Wilson scrambles. Sometimes an occasional pass down field. They trick you and bait you. They get you to stay committed to stopping the run and loading up the box which can leave WR's open down field for the big play. The key to playing the Seahawks is to just stay patient and keep two safety's deep. They get teams to panic in the 4th quarter, the teams get suckered and move the safety's down towards the line and have 7 to 8 guys in the box to try to stop Lynch or Wilson not respecting Wilson's arm. Then Wilson throws a bomb down field where their WR beats single coverage.

I think Pats win by 3 to 4 points. Something like 28 to 24.....or 31 to 28.

 

[Scottemojo]

Those scores posted above are eerily similar to what Donko fans thought the final score would be.

Find the last team to score 31 or more on this squad. I'll wait while you look it up.