ringless":3liai5er said:
Looking at the combined record of opponents tells you almost nothing about how "tough" a schedule is. What I look at is, how many quality opponents have they faced? Arizona has played NONE. They have played exactly one team with a winning record, but that was a Steelers team led by an injured Mike Vick and Landry Jones -- a game they lost decidedly by 12 points.
The Seahawks have four close loses to teams that are .500 or better, including two 8-0 teams, in addition to at Lambeau Field for the second consecutive road game to open the season, two sets of back to back road games in total, and at undefeated Cincinnati on a short week. That is as "tough" as it gets.You don't think how you win matters? AZ blowing out the games in common in comparison doesnt account for anything?
And what does it say about Seattle than if Seattle can't beat the good teams? Then struggle against the bad (Detroit, Dallas without Romo) If A+B= C
It's really not clear cut yet for either team. I think we are still lacking the other half of the equation (last 8 games)
No its nice that AZ blew those teams out. Shows that Arians values that kind of thing.
It just doesn't mean that Seattle is less of a team because they don't. The hawks didn't really blow out teams, good or bad last year either, or all that often the year before for that matter. Pete is too conservative, and quite frankly, with our defense, we don't usually have to. Back to back SuperBowls despite all of our close games validate this.
So in other words, looking at common scores and deducing that AZ is the better team because they "won by more" is fools gold.
