MizzouHawkGal":2sqtqcp6 said:
Hawks46":2sqtqcp6 said:
New England annually beats up on a poor division. They're always still dangerous come playoff time.
Carolina has only beaten 3 teams with winning records. I guess they suck too.
It's just not a valid argument when there are only 11 teams with winning records in the league this year.
Carolina doesn't suck but they are the worst 13-0 team in the modern era. They have played a ridiculous schedule and have benefited from it. Pretty simple.
Disagree. You see, this is the same crap that people have been saying about the Hawks throughout the years, and it's kind of bunk.
The Panthers can't help who they play or what division they're in. They're the No. 1 scoring offense in the league, despite the fact that Cam Newton really has no real weapons to speak of. Jonathan Stewart? He's a solid back. Ted Ginn? He's a journeyman receiver. Jerricho Cotchery? He's 33, and is another journeyman receiver. Greg Olson is a top three TE this season, but that's the most potent weapon he has. Devin Funchess? He's no where near the talent that Tyler Lockett is.
Their defense is giving up 307.8 yards per game, which is the exact same as the Seahawks.
So, it's really not pretty simple, Mizzou. When we played them earlier in the season, I said that they were the worst 4-0 team I've ever seen. And then, at a game that I was at, they came into our house, which is supposed to be an impenetrable fortress, and they beat us. And not only did they beat us, but they stabbed our hearts in the process because that game was ours. That's what
good teams do. They had no business winning that game, but they did, and sent us reeling at 2-4. At that point, I decided that I wouldn't take another team for granted - especially the Cam-led Carolina Panthers.
I still think we're better, and we would win if we get them in the playoffs. But to say they're the "worst 13-0 team in the modern era" is nothing more than Seahawks bias. And here's a question - how many teams can you name in the modern era that have started 13-0?
I'll answer it for you:
The 1998 Broncos ended the season 14-2 but still went on to win the Super Bowl.
The 2005 Colts ended the season 14-2 and lost in the divisional round of the playoffs.
The 2007 Patriots ended the season 16-0 but lost the Super Bowl.
I don't think you can say the 2015 Panthers are better than any of the above mentioned teams, but what a small sample size you choose to pick from. 13-0 has happened
four times in the past 81 years. No, read that again - 81 years. And again, they're the No. 1 scoring offense and tied for No. 2 in team defense. So yeah, not sure I'm agreeing with you here. If we get them in the playoffs, it's going to be one hell of a game and it won't be easy.
The reason there is only 11 teams with winning records in the league is because, like I said, the salary cap is doing its job. That absolutely does not mean that there's 21 teams that are not good. Talent is rampant across the league, as the Seahawks' 8-5 record attests to, despite having the most talented roster in the league.
I'm not trying to be rude in the least, but I'd reevaluate your thoughts on the Carolina Panthers. Despite the fact that we typically hold Cam in check, beating them has never been easy, and at 13-0, you somehow think it is? I don't know how else to read your "worst 13-0 team in the modern era" comment.