NaVorro Bowman on Seahawks: You have to earn hype

[MizzouHawkGal]

First him and then Roddy White, I can smell the fear even in Kansas City and it is sweet.

 

[gargantual]

First him and then Roddy White, I can smell the fear even in Kansas City and it is sweet.

Amen sister!

 

[Sports Hernia]

HawksSoc, thank you for a sane response to HansGruber smack. HansGruber-style smack is why the majority of other fans around the country, not just Niner fans, think we're a bunch of idiots.

Please get a hold of yourselves. For one thing, that Niner linebacker acknowledged that the Hawks are a tough team and acknowledged that the Hawks kicked their asses. But HawksSoc and Navarro Bowman are right - the Niners won the NFC West. The Niners won the NFC Conference. Our Hawks didn't. So, if you're going to rush to your keyboard and say the Niners suck, what does that say about the team that came in second to the Niners? I don't care if it brings a smile to anyone's face. It makes me shake my head and wonder what kind of fan looks at a franchise with a history like the Niners and says they suck as a franchise. What the hell are you talking about? I wish the Hawks had at least a couple championships. I'm hoping they get them in the next five years. But, if you go into the next couple of years thinking the Niners are finished or that the Seahawks have their number and the Niners are pushovers, you're living in a dream world.

You put too much stock in what other fanbases think. I was like you until XL* happened.

 

[Rude144]

42-13

Tired of seahawk fans using that 42-13 regular season ,didnt the 9ers win the last 4?, ths is what i think of that game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lhOUyy4wbs

 

[Steve2222]

If Seattle needs to earn their hype, San Francisco needs to earn their hype as well.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

Getting blown out is just another day... What are you? A closet Bills fan?

 

[HawKnPeppa]

42-13

Tired of seahawk fans using that 42-13 regular season ,didnt the 9ers win the last 4?, ths is what i think of that game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lhOUyy4wbs

Sure, I mean if you can BASK in it! :th2thumbs:

 

[RichNhansom]

42-13

Tired of seahawk fans using that 42-13 regular season ,didnt the 9ers win the last 4?, ths is what i think of that game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lhOUyy4wbs

Do you think some around here might be a little tired of hearing the "5 rings"?

Well what's more relevant, a game you can pull off your DVR or games you have to go to the History channel to see?

You make sure you get your "last 4" quote in there which is also in no way relevant. Did the 9ers turn over their entire roster during that stretch? Is it more relevant to beat Tavarus Jackson or Russell Wilson? Because again in the current era, 1-1 against Wilson and your current QB is 0-1.

If you don't like hearing about the last time we played then I recommend you don't reference things that have zero bearing on the current teams.

 

[jlwaters1]

42-13

Tired of seahawk fans using that 42-13 regular season ,didnt the 9ers win the last 4?, ths is what i think of that game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lhOUyy4wbs

Do you think some around here might be a little tired of hearing the "5 rings"?

Well what's more relevant, a game you can pull off your DVR or games you have to go to the History channel to see?

You make sure you get your "last 4" quote in there which is also in no way relevant. Did the 9ers turn over their entire roster during that stretch? Is it more relevant to beat Tavarus Jackson or Russell Wilson? Because again in the current era, 1-1 against Wilson and your current QB is 0-1.

If you don't like hearing about the last time we played then I recommend you don't reference things that have zero bearing on the current teams.

good point. The only reason the last outing is pointed out is because it's the last reference point between the 2 teams. It is the MOST RELAVANT, because it was most recent. It probably wouldn't be cited if say it was a 21-17 game. Instead it was complete domination from the Seahawks perspective. You can't just shove aside that evidence.

Also for as much as the national media wants to say SF is a great team. The fact is in 3 of your 4 losses last year. SF was beat handily. Minn- lost by 11, NYG- lost by 23, SEA- Lost by 29. That to me doesn't indicate a dominant team. Meanwhile Seattle's worse lost was by 7 points to the 49ers.

The point is using only last year as a point of reference the Seahawks were the more consistent team last year.

 

[hawker84]

seattle beat the team the played in the superbowl by 29.... don't want to hear the injury excuses, we had some too...don't want to hear the jet lag excuses, we went to your house on a short week and lost by 7 in a game we could have/should have won had our guys been able to catch a cold...

that game in Seattle is the true measuring stick when comparting our teams and i think that's what stings you guys so much.. our current roster, spanked your current roster and golden boy QB.... and now your DB core is weaker than it was last season, while our recieving core is much more dangerous.. our defensive backfield is much stronger than last , while your team improved slightly in the recieving core......not looking good for the niners.

 

[NinerLifer]

42-13

Tired of seahawk fans using that 42-13 regular season ,didnt the 9ers win the last 4?, ths is what i think of that game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lhOUyy4wbs

Exactly

Especially since we won quite a few games and an NFC Championship trophy AFTER that game by beating the same team in the same place that Seattle couldn't beat the week before.

I would say that is pretty relevant.

 

[Giedi]

seattle beat the team the played in the superbowl by 29.... don't want to hear the injury excuses, we had some too...don't want to hear the jet lag excuses, we went to your house on a short week and lost by 7 in a game we could have/should have won had our guys been able to catch a cold...

that game in Seattle is the true measuring stick when comparting our teams and i think that's what stings you guys so much.. our current roster, spanked your current roster and golden boy QB.... and now your DB core is weaker than it was last season, while our recieving core is much more dangerous.. our defensive backfield is much stronger than last , while your team improved slightly in the recieving core......not looking good for the niners.

I think to be a legit playoff and superbowl team, you have to win on the road. Unfortunately the 'Hawks - as much as I think the are a pretty good and tough team - are 3-5 last year (and the year before too) away from C-link field. The superbowl is an away game, in the sense that it's not going to be played at Clink field. It's going to be played outside of it. Hawks, until they win more on the road than at home, will always fall to the team that can win on the road. Just my opinion, of course. I respect the quality of both teams - most likely both will make the playoffs if both teams do well in the upcomming draft.

 

[jlwaters1]

seattle beat the team the played in the superbowl by 29.... don't want to hear the injury excuses, we had some too...don't want to hear the jet lag excuses, we went to your house on a short week and lost by 7 in a game we could have/should have won had our guys been able to catch a cold...

that game in Seattle is the true measuring stick when comparting our teams and i think that's what stings you guys so much.. our current roster, spanked your current roster and golden boy QB.... and now your DB core is weaker than it was last season, while our recieving core is much more dangerous.. our defensive backfield is much stronger than last , while your team improved slightly in the recieving core......not looking good for the niners.

I think to be a legit playoff and superbowl team, you have to win on the road. Unfortunately the 'Hawks - as much as I think the are a pretty good and tough team - are 3-5 last year (and the year before too) away from C-link field. The superbowl is an away game, in the sense that it's not going to be played at Clink field. It's going to be played outside of it. Hawks, until they win more on the road than at home, will always fall to the team that can win on the road. Just my opinion, of course. I respect the quality of both teams - most likely both will make the playoffs if both teams do well in the upcomming draft.

I think the whole "Seahawks can't win on the road" argument is overblown. It isn't like Seahawks played horribly on the road. In those 5 road losses, Seattle lost by a combined 24 points-- or 4.8 points per game. That's less than a TD a game and 4 of those losses came in the 1st half of the season when Russell Wilson and CO. were still getting their feet under them. Also consider this- of the first 8 games last year 5 of them were on the road. That's not an easy task for any team.

1st half- 2012 1-4 road
2nd half- 2012 2-1 road

Did Seattle had a hard time closing out games on the road? Sure did. Only 1 of those games did they hold off their opponent. Against Carolina they stopped Cam Newton on downs, then Irvin got the strip sack to end the game. Whereas in the Detroit and Atlanta game (playoffs) the defense laid an egg on what should have been impressive game winning drives for Wilson and co. The Bears game was all the offense as the defense once again surrendered a last second lead, only for Wilson to drive the distance for the game winning TD.

I predict the Seahawks WILL have a winning road record in 2013 and all this "can't will on the road" nonsense will be put to rest.

 

[RichNhansom]

Put the Atlanta game in perspective also. We took the lead with 31 seconds remaining and our kicker (replacing our starter injured on Fedex field) kicked the ball way short giving Atlanta great field position and then we struggled to hold off the last drive but in part due to the loss of our best DE in Clemons who tore his ACL on Fedex field. Also consider Lynch sprained his ankle on that field the week before.

I think the odds go way up if we don't lose 2.5 key players the week before. Consider if we didn't play at Fedex the week before and were as healthy going into Atlanta as we were going into DC. It looks pretty obvious that they probably wouldn't have even been close.

What if you guys had that same scenario? Do you still think you win? You lost Justin Smith for a half in NE and the game against us and in 6 quarters were outscored by around 70 points.

You barley beat them as you were. You probably don't even come close in similar circumstances.

Not really as good of an example as playing head to head. Like someone else said, we beat Baltimore by 29 but you don't hear us using that as an example. Well until now.

You guys can thank Dan Schneider and Fedex field for not having to play us for the right to go to the super bowl.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

Injuries are a part of the game.

 

[SE174]

42-13

Tired of seahawk fans using that 42-13 regular season ,didnt the 9ers win the last 4?, ths is what i think of that game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lhOUyy4wbs

Exactly

Especially since we won quite a few games and an NFC Championship trophy AFTER that game by beating the same team in the same place that Seattle couldn't beat the week before.

I would say that is pretty relevant.

Once again, you beat ATL by one play, Seattle lost to ATL by one play. Not much difference in the effort required between a W and L. Certainly no more difference than having our leading pass rusher out of the game.

 

[themunn]

Hawks, until they win more on the road than at home, will always fall to the team that can win on the road. Just my opinion, of course. I respect the quality of both teams - most likely both will make the playoffs if both teams do well in the upcomming draft.

So basically... until the Seahawks have a perfect season they're never going to win the superbowl?

But how can you win more than 100% of the time?

 

[RichNhansom]

Injuries are a part of the game.

Of course injuries are part of the game. For example how many times have you heard that Justin Smith was injured in the Seattle game? It doesn't mean it has no bearing, especially if you are comparing common games that either team won or lost.

How many times have you heard a Niner fan point out that they beat the team (Atlanta) that we couldn't? If both teams are healthy and in similar situations, IE same venue, similar health, similar scheduling on and on, then it is a valid point but if you want to dismiss a head to head game and use another game as an example it has to be some what equal circumstance and the Atlanta game has many more variables than the head to head.

Maybe if they were to have blown them out vs our loss, you could make an argument but that is not what happened. In fact the most similar component of both games was how slowly each team started out and then overcame that poor start.

Would you rather have a week off to get healthy, play a home game and then a late east coast game or play back to back east coast games with the second one starting at 10am?

Had they demoralized Atlanta then this conversation would be different but they didn't and the difference in that game wasn't them being better than us it was the difference of schedule, health and Matt Ryan getting injured. That is not a sound argument for we are the better team and the head to head battles mean nothing.