RichNhansom":16mn6f5w said:
brimsalabim":16mn6f5w said:
Ramfan128":16mn6f5w said:
It's my opinion that better players around you make you look better, regardless of position, but especially at QB.
Take away the QBs and Seattle's roster is so superior to the Colts it's sickening - yes that's my opinion, but I don't think it's one Hawks fans would disagree with.
.
Really? Ok I'll give you Lynch but what other offensive players come to mind?
It has to be some kind of joke. It is just simple trolling. Poor guy must really need some attention. Bring something to the table that actually makes some kind of sense or stop posting on the subject.
I really do hope you are just trolling though because if you believe that Wilson's receiving corp and TE have made him look better than he is while Lucks has not then that bus is even shorter than we suspected.
I really think banning you would be an act of mercy at this point.
It's not trolling. I never said the WRs/TEs were the same - the Colts are better.
How much better? I would say significantly. In fact our receiving corp is mostly only good because of Wilson.
But the entirety of Seattle's running game, which includes blocking from said WRs/TEs, and the Offensive Line, as well as Marshawn Lynch, is better than the Colts.
Of course our run blocking is better. We are schemed for it just like the Colts scheme for a passing attack. Arguing that are running game is better so are O-line is better is just trolling. How can you even say that with a straight face?
You can't just "take away" Wilson's carries and yards - if he didn't run the ball, it's likely someone else would have. Seattle's rushing offense still would have been better than 10th without Wilson. You can look up advanced stats if you want to....most will tell you that Seattle's offensive line is an elite run blocking unit.
How is that likely? It's just as if not more likely that Lynch would have had less yardage with defenses being able to commit the spy to stopping him instead of having to track Wilson. Again you are trolling.
The Colts offensive line is not elite is any category. Thus I can reasonably say that the Seahawks offensive line, overall, is better than the Colts. And you're still ignoring having one of the best defenses in NFL history - it DOES make a difference. The Colts haven't had anything close to that luxury the last three years.
Yes and any 6' tall man is stronger than any 5'11" man. Troll logic doesn't add up. But I am pretty sure logic is not one of your strong suits.
Wilson has had bad games. Luck has had bad games. The Colts as a team have overachieved because Luck is a very good QB. That roster is not good. If the Seahawks and Colts played on a neutral field with their QBs, I'd give the Colts a 25% chance to win. If they played on a neutral field without their QBs, I'd give the Colts 0% chance to win. That's obviously my opinion, but it makes a lot of sense to me.