I juggled some numbers and came up with 117 pts . It actually came out to 116 pts. so I rounded it off .How many points do you have to score to “win” in the first quarter?
I juggled some numbers and came up with 117 pts . It actually came out to 116 pts. so I rounded it off .How many points do you have to score to “win” in the first quarter?
It was over, we just didn't know it yet.I guess it depends on the defence. I just looked back at the boxscore of Super Bowl 48 and the Seahawks only outscored the Broncos 8-0 in the 1st quarter of that game. And yet somehow it seemed like the game was basically over after the first 5 minutes. But maybe that's just my memory playing tricks on me.
But Y = (A + B + C). So really (X-(A + B + C) + 1 = Z. A, B and C are no less important than Z. In fact Z can be negative and the equation still valid. No need to get snippy or indicate I can't understand simple equations. It is just that, in my opinion, the equation you posted (when referring to how many points are necessary to win in the fourth quarter as stated in Pete's war chant) is a bit over simplified. Especially when you apply what I said about Pete's team in another post in this thread. The point is, you win a football game over the course of the entire game and Pete's saying only applies when you actually win the game but played poorly through a portion (and quite often a large portion) of it. There were also games where Pete's team did essentially win it in the first quarter despite playing like crap the rest of the game.(X - Y) + 1 = Z
Z = the number of points you must score in the 4th quarter to win.
If you can't figure out what X & Y are in this equation...you should probably stop voicing your opinions online because...
View attachment 65181
I watched some of the 2013 games again, and several of them the Seahawks had essentially wrapped up in the first half. There were 7 blowouts, which I will define blowouts as games the Hawks won by 3+ scores. Then there was 43-8, for a total of 8 blowouts out of 19 games. So this proves the Seahawks, at least in 2013, could often times put the other team in a world of hurt in the first half.- I am always amused at how the anti PC crowd suggest that mantra is about not being aggressive in the first half, or whatever moronic way you want to frame it. It is a reference to not panicking if you get down early, because when you say "you" can't win the game in the first quarter, it also means "they" can't win the game in the first quarter. The mantra also means that if you do get up big early, you have to fight to avoid a letdown. So you can score 30 in the first quarter, but if you give up 31 in the the rest of the game without scoring yourself, you lose. YOU LOSE.
- This seems like a simple concept, but some of you really tie yourselves in knots trying to prove that PC sucks.
Mase
No. TD and 2-pt conversion to protect against the 4 point FG.Is that a safety in the 4th? Is that how we close out the game? Niiice.
- I am always amused at how the anti PC crowd suggest that mantra is about not being aggressive in the first half, or whatever moronic way you want to frame it. It is a reference to not panicking if you get down early, because when you say "you" can't win the game in the first quarter, it also means "they" can't win the game in the first quarter. The mantra also means that if you do get up big early, you have to fight to avoid a letdown. So you can score 30 in the first quarter, but if you give up 31 in the the rest of the game without scoring yourself, you lose. YOU LOSE.
- This seems like a simple concept, but some of you really tie yourselves in knots trying to prove that PC sucks.
Mase
I figured the "8" in the 4th qtr was from a TD and a 2-point conversion. However, it doesn't add up because that means the score would be 30-26 after the last Hawks TD. There's no real advantage to 32-26 vs 31-26. A FG doesn't beat you in either one and a TD by the Raiders wins in either scenario, as long as the Raiders kick the extra point successfully.Is that a safety in the 4th? Is that how we close out the game? Niiice.
I don't know how well MacDonald will do. Rookie HC , OC and DC. I am glad they hired him .The fact that some of you criticize Pete specifically because apparently he made every roster decision that kept the seahawks winning for a decade is wild.
I'm happy we moved on considering we landed Macdonald, but you're out of your god damn minds if you think Dan Quinn or the giants OC or whoever was going to be an improvement over Pete.