Would it be too cocky when looking at Seahawks schedule

[FlyingGreg]

One thing is for sure, it is going to be exciting watching the games.

Makes me want to buy a better TV.

Truth. I was drooling over an 80" TV the other day. Wife gave me the evil eye on that fleeting idea, lol.

I'll settle for my 62".

 

[Tical21]

This is the NFL. ANYTHING can happen. Unfortunately, luck plays a HUGE part in it. Do our guys recover the fumbles, or do theirs? Do we stay away from the few key injuries that could completely derail our season?

We have one of, if not the best roster in the NFL. If you were to turn injuries off and every team got 50% of the breaks in any said game, we would win 13-14.

I don't get too high or low anymore. I will watch every Sunday and root my butt off and be thrilled when we win and disappointed when we lose, but I wouldn't be shocked if we win 16, and I wouldn't be shocked if we win 7. That is just the way this league goes sometimes. You can win a couple games early and really get on a roll, or you can lose a couple early, start questioning your confidence, and find that you have a hard time digging yourself out of the hole.

I believe in the players and coaches, but having great players and coaches isn't enough very often.

 

[loafoftatupu]

I am confident that the whole road game at 10AM thing will be an afterthought. Previous regimes would have lost the game at Chicago and the playoff game in DC. In fact, with the 3 game win streak that the Hawks had on the road last season, I sort of tossed it out the window then.

It isn't a coincidence that the Hawks won 3 straight road games after PC took the cuffs off Wilson. Then they added Harvin? Yeah, I am pretty confident the Hawks will win a couple games they arent supposed to this season.

 

[themunn]

By the way, I have come around to the belief we are going to pisspound the panthers as a way of announcing to the league that the hype is only a whisper of what's in store.

Absolutely, as will the 49ers run all over Green Bay once again, and people will be expecting us to have a hardfought battle and the 49ers to possibly bring us back down to earth.

And we'll mudstomp them too and really tell the league "we're coming for you"

 

[TJH]

Maybe if this team learns not to play like a bunch of soft princesses on the road.

 

[Sarlacc83]

A) You said you'd be shocked if they won more than 12 games. Big difference between at least 12-4 and that statement.

B) I was defending you. Sort of.

C) Your reputation for the negative is not based one post. :thirishdrinkers:

A. You are making something out of nothing (again) . . . it simply means I think they will win 12 games. "Shocked if they win more than 12" = 12. Period. But I think you knew that and are just being confrontational. Look back in our history and let me know how many times this franchise has won more than 12 games. It is NOT easy to win 13 in a season. Saying I think we will win 12 is not negative. Not even close. You are reaching...

B. No, you weren't. Defending would have been comments directed at the content of what I posted about the possibility we might lose a few games (all legitimate points, BTW) instead of labeling.

C. Hey, I told my high school guidance counselor it was life goal to one day have a reputation. I guess I've achieved it!

*** I also said they would get to the Super Bowl, which you conveniently glossed over. That's what happens when you go after the poster and not the content. Tsk tsk. ***

And stop backpedaling, lol ... you made your point labeling me a "negative Nancy". I'll keep being honest with myself, regardless of labeling and "reputation" (whatever that means in an Internet forum). :th2thumbs:

What I don't get with .Net is why any of this has to be so black and white. I guess it's a reflection of society now, at least in the digital domain - people are hard core on one side or the other and there is no middle ground. To me, it's ok to be a Pollyanna and think the team will go 16-0 and everything is awesome. It should also be ok to be more grounded and critical, and want to see the concerns we have fleshed out. Negative, to me, is someone that just says "this team sucks" and doesn't provide anything substantive to back it up. Neither opinion, feast or famine, defines the quality of the fan or the blue and green that we all bleed. We are all wired differently, and I understand and respect both ends of the spectrum as long as their is something other than raw fan boy wanderlust or just complete unmitigated disdain without ANY positivity.

I get that people don't like the 'negative', but there's far too much pissing and moaning about it on this board. Some of us have been with this team since the beginning and cast a weary eye after so many years of struggle. It's ok to be excited and expecting huge things (which I am) - and also harboring some concerns. I just can't dismiss some things that absolutely need to get fixed from last season (primarily 3rd down defense, pass rush, the offense getting going sooner in games, and late game defense). TONS of people on this board share those concerns, because they are valid. That's not negative, it's reality - unbridled and honest.

I probably spent more than my two cents there . . . :3:

Honestly, I was trying to tease you a bit, but re-reading it, it didn't work. I had thought you were content with not always being gung-ho, so I misread it there, and I didn't really choose my words carefully to indicate that I was actually trying to tell the new poster to back off. My apologies.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

Should the Hawks look good "out of the shoot" with a 4-0 start...the Dolphins will get nervous!

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Let's get win #1, on the road, at 10am first. That game may be tougher than ppl think.

 

[loafoftatupu]

It is tougher than most people think. I would bet that week one has a higher history of upset than the later weeks because teams are still coming around to the speed.

I would like to think that the Hawks will be more prepared, but week 1 road games at 10AM are not their strong point. However, with TJack in SF, they were in the game until the last couple minutes and they easily could have won the game in AZ. With Wilson I like their chances.

 

[NinerBuff]

By the way, I have come around to the belief we are going to pisspound the panthers as a way of announcing to the league that the hype is only a whisper of what's in store.

Absolutely, as will the 49ers run all over Green Bay once again, and people will be expecting us to have a hardfought battle and the 49ers to possibly bring us back down to earth.

And we'll mudstomp them too and really tell the league "we're coming for you"

I agree that the Seahawks should win the first 2 games, but I wouldn't underestimate the Panthers. Yes, they lost a lot last year, but they're only getting better and last year, they lost a lot of close games:

@ Bucs - lost by 6
@ Falcons - lost by 2
Seahawks - lost by 4
Cowboys - lost by 5
@ Bears - lost by 1
@ Chiefs - lost by 6

 

[FlyingGreg]

A) You said you'd be shocked if they won more than 12 games. Big difference between at least 12-4 and that statement.

B) I was defending you. Sort of.

C) Your reputation for the negative is not based one post. :thirishdrinkers:

A. You are making something out of nothing (again) . . . it simply means I think they will win 12 games. "Shocked if they win more than 12" = 12. Period. But I think you knew that and are just being confrontational. Look back in our history and let me know how many times this franchise has won more than 12 games. It is NOT easy to win 13 in a season. Saying I think we will win 12 is not negative. Not even close. You are reaching...

B. No, you weren't. Defending would have been comments directed at the content of what I posted about the possibility we might lose a few games (all legitimate points, BTW) instead of labeling.

C. Hey, I told my high school guidance counselor it was life goal to one day have a reputation. I guess I've achieved it!

*** I also said they would get to the Super Bowl, which you conveniently glossed over. That's what happens when you go after the poster and not the content. Tsk tsk. ***

And stop backpedaling, lol ... you made your point labeling me a "negative Nancy". I'll keep being honest with myself, regardless of labeling and "reputation" (whatever that means in an Internet forum). :th2thumbs:

What I don't get with .Net is why any of this has to be so black and white. I guess it's a reflection of society now, at least in the digital domain - people are hard core on one side or the other and there is no middle ground. To me, it's ok to be a Pollyanna and think the team will go 16-0 and everything is awesome. It should also be ok to be more grounded and critical, and want to see the concerns we have fleshed out. Negative, to me, is someone that just says "this team sucks" and doesn't provide anything substantive to back it up. Neither opinion, feast or famine, defines the quality of the fan or the blue and green that we all bleed. We are all wired differently, and I understand and respect both ends of the spectrum as long as their is something other than raw fan boy wanderlust or just complete unmitigated disdain without ANY positivity.

I get that people don't like the 'negative', but there's far too much pissing and moaning about it on this board. Some of us have been with this team since the beginning and cast a weary eye after so many years of struggle. It's ok to be excited and expecting huge things (which I am) - and also harboring some concerns. I just can't dismiss some things that absolutely need to get fixed from last season (primarily 3rd down defense, pass rush, the offense getting going sooner in games, and late game defense). TONS of people on this board share those concerns, because they are valid. That's not negative, it's reality - unbridled and honest.

I probably spent more than my two cents there . . . :3:

Honestly, I was trying to tease you a bit, but re-reading it, it didn't work. I had thought you were content with not always being gung-ho, so I misread it there, and I didn't really choose my words carefully to indicate that I was actually trying to tell the new poster to back off. My apologies.

All good. Sometimes it's hard to convey thoughts in this medium. I know that my "prove it to me" approach comes across as negative to some, and I'm fine with that. It is what it is.

No matter what, GO HAWKS!

 

[Hawknight]

Unfortunately, there are always a couple games we lose that we have no business losing. That's when the gameday forum becomes the most fun/ridiculous/hideous/unfun/melted down (all at once).

Yea, just ask Tom Brady (You mad Bro?)

 

[loafoftatupu]

By the way, I have come around to the belief we are going to pisspound the panthers as a way of announcing to the league that the hype is only a whisper of what's in store.

Absolutely, as will the 49ers run all over Green Bay once again, and people will be expecting us to have a hardfought battle and the 49ers to possibly bring us back down to earth.

And we'll mudstomp them too and really tell the league "we're coming for you"

I agree that the Seahawks should win the first 2 games, but I wouldn't underestimate the Panthers. Yes, they lost a lot last year, but they're only getting better and last year, they lost a lot of close games:

@ Bucs - lost by 6
@ Falcons - lost by 2
Seahawks - lost by 4
Cowboys - lost by 5
@ Bears - lost by 1
@ Chiefs - lost by 6

I don't think anyone is going to underestimate them, they gave the Hawks a little trouble last year, but there were some really unlikely things that happened to put them where they were against the Hawks anyways. Pretty sure a pick-6, possibly Wilson's only one for the season, then at least one other funny tip or bounce created a turnover when the Hawks were in scoring position too. Weird stuff.

Defense actually played really well in that game for being a 10AM road game, but the offense was in TJack mode as it was for all of the first half of the season.

 

[Disp]

Last year the Niners were protected from playing any playoff caliber teams (playoff caliber expectations based on the time of scheduling) and still went 1-2 in early starts and that was against the Vikings, Rams and Jets of which the only team they could beat was the Jets. How do you look at the NFL protecting them again and not at least understand that it is no coincidence that the Niners have the easiest road schedule in the whole division?

The NFL cannot dictate who each team plays or where they play them. The only thing they can do to influence the difficulty of the schedule is to move the starting time to one with a better win percentage and in the Niners case they have done it two years in a row now.

You have to be a little dense to look at the Niners schedule this year and last and not understand they are purposely trying to push their brand.

Why do I bring this up? Because we will have to overcome a major obstacle to win this division and if we do, it should be recognized as such. If we don't, no one will be saying it was because of our schedule. That will get forgotten real quick. I for one will be ripping my eye's out if we end up a half game back again because I believe we are the better team. The only question is how much better. Are we good enough to over come the NFL's obstacle course?

One thing is for sure. The NFL has done absolutely everything in it's power to tilt the field in the Niners favor.

Handsome Richard, I think you should take a deep breath and remove your tinfoil hat for 30 seconds. I could tell you who the Seahawks are going to play at home and on the road in 2017, because the schedules are set for the next decade. The only thing that will change is the order and time the games are played. There is no conspiracy involved in it whatsoever.

The 49ers went 5-0 in 10 AM starts in 2011. I guess the league just wanted the Seahawks to win the division that year, right Rich?

 

[loafoftatupu]

Last year the Niners were protected from playing any playoff caliber teams (playoff caliber expectations based on the time of scheduling) and still went 1-2 in early starts and that was against the Vikings, Rams and Jets of which the only team they could beat was the Jets. How do you look at the NFL protecting them again and not at least understand that it is no coincidence that the Niners have the easiest road schedule in the whole division?

The NFL cannot dictate who each team plays or where they play them. The only thing they can do to influence the difficulty of the schedule is to move the starting time to one with a better win percentage and in the Niners case they have done it two years in a row now.

You have to be a little dense to look at the Niners schedule this year and last and not understand they are purposely trying to push their brand.

Why do I bring this up? Because we will have to overcome a major obstacle to win this division and if we do, it should be recognized as such. If we don't, no one will be saying it was because of our schedule. That will get forgotten real quick. I for one will be ripping my eye's out if we end up a half game back again because I believe we are the better team. The only question is how much better. Are we good enough to over come the NFL's obstacle course?

One thing is for sure. The NFL has done absolutely everything in it's power to tilt the field in the Niners favor.

Handsome Richard, I think you should take a deep breath a remove your tinfoil hat for 30 seconds. I could tell you who the Seahawks are going to play at home and on the road in 2017, because the schedules are set for the next decade. The only thing that will change is the order and time the games are played. There is no conspiracy involved in it whatsoever.

The 49ers went 5-0 in 10 AM starts in 2011. I guess the league just wanted the Seahawks to win the division that year, right Rich?

All you know is the rotation of division matchups, both AFC and NFC, along with the NFCW games. There are more games than that.

you cant tell if those games are at home or away, nor can you tell us who the two (unscheduled) teams are based on ranking in the division. The outcomes of the previous season play a role in the home/away/2 non-scheduled matchups are.

Explain how the Hawks had Chicago, in Chicago 3 years in a row.. Was that scheduled back in 2009?

 

[Disp]

you cant tell if those games are at home or away, nor can you tell us who the two (unscheduled) teams are based on ranking in the division. The outcomes of the previous season play a role in the home/away/2 non-scheduled matchups are.

Explain how the Hawks had Chicago, in Chicago 3 years in a row.. Was that scheduled back in 2009?

Here you go. There's the Hawks schedule for the next 5 years.

http://www.pslsource.com/seattle_seahaw ... _opponents

 

[loafoftatupu]

you cant tell if those games are at home or away, nor can you tell us who the two (unscheduled) teams are based on ranking in the division. The outcomes of the previous season play a role in the home/away/2 non-scheduled matchups are.

Explain how the Hawks had Chicago, in Chicago 3 years in a row.. Was that scheduled back in 2009?

Here you go. There's the Hawks schedule for the next 5 years.

http://www.pslsource.com/seattle_seahaw ... _opponents

That isn't cutting it Disp. I get what you are saying, but "unknown division winner" or the times aren't part of that. It could mean more 10am games or less.

I do not actually believe the conspiracy notion, but I wouldn't put it past the league to model their schedule to fit higher viewing numbers for certain games.

 

[NinerBuff]

Explain how the Hawks had Chicago, in Chicago 3 years in a row.. Was that scheduled back in 2009?

It does happen, not common but repeated home/away games vs. one opponent is possible... (for instance, we played 3 consecutive games in GB until the playoff game in the playoffs)

1) The divisions play each other every 3rd year, so the Hawks automatically play the Bears at least once every 3 years, alternating between home and away. (This year we play the NFC South)
2) Of the other two divisions (using this year as an example, the NFC East and NFC North), each team plays the same seed from the other two divisions. Niners play the Redskins and Packers, Seahawks play the Giants and Vikings. The home teams usually alternate, but the order can be changed to better accommodate larger TV markets and/or perceived rivalries or playoff runs.

So... one of those 3 games vs. the Bears was just the fact that we played the NFC North last season and it happened to be an away Bears game. Next game will be home in 3 seasons. In 2011, we played the NFC East, so you must have finished with the same seeding as the Bears the year before, as well as the year before that when we played the NFC South. In both of those contests, the NFL chose to award the home games based on several factors...

Chicago is a large TV market and large fan base. You can only have 1 home game and 1 away game amongst these games per season, so maybe it was advantageous to have a home game for the other NFC opponent.

 

[Disp]

you cant tell if those games are at home or away, nor can you tell us who the two (unscheduled) teams are based on ranking in the division. The outcomes of the previous season play a role in the home/away/2 non-scheduled matchups are.

Explain how the Hawks had Chicago, in Chicago 3 years in a row.. Was that scheduled back in 2009?

Here you go. There's the Hawks schedule for the next 5 years.

http://www.pslsource.com/seattle_seahaw ... _opponents

That isn't cutting it Disp. I get what you are saying, but "unknown division winner" or the times aren't part of that. It could mean more 10am games or less.

I do not actually believe the conspiracy notion, but I wouldn't put it past the league to model their schedule to fit higher viewing numbers for certain games.

I said in my first post that the only thing that's not set are the times and dates. Every home and away game is already set. Obviously the "NFC South Same Place Finisher" home game in 2015 isn't set yet, and won't be set until the 2014 season is over. That's just common sense since we don't know what order the teams will finish until the games are actually played.

The point is, if you believe the league schedules teams specifically to screw them over, you probably have no grasp of how the schedule is made, which is the case with Rich.

 

[loafoftatupu]

I said in my first post that the only thing that's not set are the times and dates. Every home and away game is already set. Obviously the "NFC South Same Place Finisher" home game in 2015 isn't set yet, and won't be set until the 2014 season is over. That's just common sense since we don't know what order the teams will finish until the games are actually played.

The point is, if you believe the league schedules teams specifically to screw them over, you probably have no grasp of how the schedule is made, which is the case with Rich.

My misunderstanding...

I personally don't mind the 10AM games myself. If the Hawks are on the road, I enjoy getting up, grabbing cold pizza and beer for breakfast and vegetation with football. It is however an advantage for the east coast teams. Not unlike the advantage the Hawks have with the Clink.

We'll see this season, I expect it to be much less of a factor this year.