Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:34 am
  • I predict that when we go 16-0 in the regular season next year and someone makes a thread about it between week 17 and wild card weekend, Dom will chime in and say it doesn't matter whatsoever.
    Rams bet status: honored. Bradford still sucks.
    RedAlice is right.
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 24615
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:37 am
  • You guys forget, we were 3-6 before the bye

    The redskins stats don't tell the whole story. Then we went on an amazing 7 game winning streak, an started playing a lot better
    Pikachu
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 125
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:17 pm


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:39 am
  • That "lowly" Rams team would've gone to the playoffs at least in your division, if not won it.

    The Rams scare me, more than San Fran does. They have a crap load of draft picks from you guys, and one of the best coaches in the NFL. They probably already have the most physically talented DL in the NFL right now, and 2 good CBs. All they lack is weapons on the outside and a replacement for Stephen Jackson.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3415
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:06 am
  • HawkAroundTheClock wrote:
    rdskns4eva wrote:Thats why the lowly Rams, and they are lowly, took you to the wire.


    Washington lost to the lowly Rams. They scored 31 on WAS. In two games against Seattle, they scored 32.

    rdskns4eva wrote:Redskins have won 5 of last 6 at home and 5 in a row at home. Last home lost was Nov 11th.


    The "5 of last 6" would be redundant if they in fact won their last 5. They actually won their last 4 in a row at home.


    Yup, my bad, 4 in a row.
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:14 am
  • Hawks46 wrote:That "lowly" Rams team would've gone to the playoffs at least in your division, if not won it.

    The Rams scare me, more than San Fran does. They have a crap load of draft picks from you guys, and one of the best coaches in the NFL. They probably already have the most physically talented DL in the NFL right now, and 2 good CBs. All they lack is weapons on the outside and a replacement for Stephen Jackson.


    Get that crap out of here...With Sam Bradford? PLEASE!!

    Again, Just because a team is good IN DIVISION, does not mean they are viable outsite of it

    Rams have a 6-5-1 conf record. 4 of those wins were agaisnt divisional opponents. and they had a tie in division, so they were 2-5 in conf in non divisional games. They were 1-3 outside the conf, so that means they are 3-8 in non divisinal games. The Rams are not a good team.
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:30 am
  • rdskns4eva wrote:The Rams are not a good team.


    They ended up having one of the hardest schedules in the league, and they beat two inter-divisional playoff teams once each, with a tie on a 3rd and loss on the 4th. With a mediocre QB. I don't see how you can laugh the Rams off, you should actually watch some of their games from this year; that team's rapidly on the rise, and Fisher has them playing very well, considering their skill sets. I wouldn't call them a "good" team as of right now, but there's a good chance the Skins don't win their division had you replaced a team in your division with the Rams this year. I know you don't want to admit it, but there it is.

    That strength of schedule chart is for this year, by the way; meaning it's not showing how hard their schedule looked to be entering the season, but how hard it turned out to have been based on the records of all the teams this year, which makes it actually accurate to this season.
    Rams bet status: honored. Bradford still sucks.
    RedAlice is right.
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 24615
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:56 am
  • RolandDeschain wrote:I predict that when we go 16-0 in the regular season next year and someone makes a thread about it between week 17 and wild card weekend, Dom will chime in and say it doesn't matter whatsoever.

    And that... is why most of us ignore Dom. His 'tude" is depressing.
    EastCoastHawksFan posted... "Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made." (March 18, 2014)

    your World Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3051
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:11 pm
  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    rdskns4eva wrote:The Rams are not a good team.


    They ended up having one of the hardest schedules in the league, and they beat two inter-divisional playoff teams once each, with a tie on a 3rd and loss on the 4th. With a mediocre QB. I don't see how you can laugh the Rams off, you should actually watch some of their games from this year; that team's rapidly on the rise, and Fisher has them playing very well, considering their skill sets. I wouldn't call them a "good" team as of right now, but there's a good chance the Skins don't win their division had you replaced a team in your division with the Rams this year. I know you don't want to admit it, but there it is.

    That strength of schedule chart is for this year, by the way; meaning it's not showing how hard their schedule looked to be entering the season, but how hard it turned out to have been based on the records of all the teams this year, which makes it actually accurate to this season.


    In 1990, the 10-6 Washington Redskins lost to the 1-15 Dallas Cowboys

    The 14-2 1991 skins team lost to the Cowboys at home the year the Skins won the super bowl. Again, Divisional games are not a good indicator because teams in division know each other extremely well.

    The Redskins just last year beat the Giants twice and the Giants won the Superbowl.
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:30 pm
  • Also, the Rams lost to

    Lions lol
    A Rookie led Dolphins team lol
    The Sorry Jets...at home lol
    The Vikings who have no quarterback
    Bears, fine
    Packers, fine
    Pats, fine
    Seahawks, fine


    SOS is nice...if you are good as you say they are, they would beat good teams. Outside of the Redskins the Hawks (again, in Division), they havent beat anyone of consequence and they've lost to some very bad teams. The Rams have no quarterback and until then, they are going to suck.

    So again, no, the Rams could not all of a sudden come into the NFC east, wear three of 4 teams play in cold weather, snow and rain and all of a sudden be able to beat the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins and New York Giants on a consistent basis or take the Division. They MIGHT be able to be the Eagles consistently.
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:33 pm
  • rdskns4eva wrote:
    Hawks46 wrote:That "lowly" Rams team would've gone to the playoffs at least in your division, if not won it.

    The Rams scare me, more than San Fran does. They have a crap load of draft picks from you guys, and one of the best coaches in the NFL. They probably already have the most physically talented DL in the NFL right now, and 2 good CBs. All they lack is weapons on the outside and a replacement for Stephen Jackson.


    Get that crap out of here...With Sam Bradford? PLEASE!!

    Again, Just because a team is good IN DIVISION, does not mean they are viable outsite of it

    Rams have a 6-5-1 conf record. 4 of those wins were agaisnt divisional opponents. and they had a tie in division, so they were 2-5 in conf in non divisional games. They were 1-3 outside the conf, so that means they are 3-8 in non divisinal games. The Rams are not a good team.


    Did you seriously have to go through all that work to figure out what their record is in non-divisional games only to STILL get it wrong?

    Here, let me help:

    7-8-1 MINUS 4-1-1 = 3 - 7.

    Wow. Just. Wow.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 14631
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:33 pm
  • rdskns4eva wrote:Also, the Rams lost to

    Lions lol
    A Rookie led Dolphins team lol
    The Sorry Jets...at home lol
    The Vikings who have no quarterback
    Bears, fine
    Packers, fine
    Pats, fine
    Seahawks, fine


    SOS is nice...if you are good as you say they are, they would beat good teams. Outside of the Redskins the Hawks (again, in Division), they havent beat anyone of consequence and they've lost to some very bad teams. The Rams have no quarterback and until then, they are going to suck.

    So again, no, the Rams could not all of a sudden come into the NFC east, wear three of 4 teams play in cold weather, snow and rain and all of a sudden be able to beat the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins and New York Giants on a consistent basis or take the Division. They MIGHT be able to be the Eagles consistently.


    You do realize the Redskins actually lost to the Rams right? Or did you just start paying attention during the 7 game win streak?
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=320916014

    I forgot to add that Stephen Jackson wasn't even in this game. You can't call a team garbage when your own team can't even beat them.
    Image Image
    User avatar
    AF_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2072
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
    Location: Marysville, WA


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:51 pm
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:Did you seriously have to go through all that work to figure out what their record is in non-divisional games only to STILL get it wrong?

    Here, let me help:

    7-8-1 MINUS 4-1-1 = 3 - 7.

    Wow. Just. Wow.


    AF_Hawk wrote:You do realize the Redskins actually lost to the Rams right? Or did you just start paying attention during the 7 game win streak?
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=320916014

    I forgot to add that Stephen Jackson wasn't even in this game. You can't call a team garbage when your own team can't even beat them.

    LOL! I can't wait to see Rdskns4eva try to talk his way out of these posts. Have at it, Rdskns. :snack:
    Rams bet status: honored. Bradford still sucks.
    RedAlice is right.
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 24615
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:58 pm
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:
    rdskns4eva wrote:
    Hawks46 wrote:That "lowly" Rams team would've gone to the playoffs at least in your division, if not won it.

    The Rams scare me, more than San Fran does. They have a crap load of draft picks from you guys, and one of the best coaches in the NFL. They probably already have the most physically talented DL in the NFL right now, and 2 good CBs. All they lack is weapons on the outside and a replacement for Stephen Jackson.


    Get that crap out of here...With Sam Bradford? PLEASE!!

    Again, Just because a team is good IN DIVISION, does not mean they are viable outsite of it

    Rams have a 6-5-1 conf record. 4 of those wins were agaisnt divisional opponents. and they had a tie in division, so they were 2-5 in conf in non divisional games. They were 1-3 outside the conf, so that means they are 3-8 in non divisinal games. The Rams are not a good team.


    Did you seriously have to go through all that work to figure out what their record is in non-divisional games only to STILL get it wrong?

    Here, let me help:

    7-8-1 MINUS 4-1-1 = 3 - 7.

    Wow. Just. Wow.


    You know what I mean, man...damn.
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:00 pm
  • AF_Hawk wrote:
    rdskns4eva wrote:Also, the Rams lost to

    Lions lol
    A Rookie led Dolphins team lol
    The Sorry Jets...at home lol
    The Vikings who have no quarterback
    Bears, fine
    Packers, fine
    Pats, fine
    Seahawks, fine


    SOS is nice...if you are good as you say they are, they would beat good teams. Outside of the Redskins the Hawks (again, in Division), they havent beat anyone of consequence and they've lost to some very bad teams. The Rams have no quarterback and until then, they are going to suck.

    So again, no, the Rams could not all of a sudden come into the NFC east, wear three of 4 teams play in cold weather, snow and rain and all of a sudden be able to beat the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins and New York Giants on a consistent basis or take the Division. They MIGHT be able to be the Eagles consistently.


    You do realize the Redskins actually lost to the Rams right? Or did you just start paying attention during the 7 game win streak?
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=320916014

    I forgot to add that Stephen Jackson wasn't even in this game. You can't call a team garbage when your own team can't even beat them.



    The Patriots lost to the Cards...I guess that means the Cardinals arent a garbage team, right? Get real.
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:12 pm
  • rdskns4eva wrote:
    Seahawk Sailor wrote:
    burggold75 wrote:and the skins road record was 5-3....hmmm


    True, but we didn't get to play the Cowboys and Eagles on the road.


    You get to play the Rams and the Cardinals lol.

    C'mon, everyone knows Divisional games are tough. Thats why the lowly Rams, and they are lowly, took you to the wire.


    Didn't the "lowly" Rams give you all you could handle in STL earlier this year in a 31-28 loss?

    Our most impressive wins were beating the Bears in CHI and party stomping the Niners at home 2 weeks ago. Your most impressive wins were beating Baltimore at home and beating the Giants.. 17-16..

    Your team has yet to beat a team with a top 10 defense and are 2-2 vs teams in the playoffs while our team is 5-1 vs playoff teams has the highest SOV (strength of victory) of any team in the playoffs and is the only team above .500 in that category.

    All that sounds great, but thankfully the game is played on the field and with that.. any given Sunday.. just like Carolina coming to DC and beating you all for your last loss and us crapping on ourselves in the 4th Qs against MIA and DET...

    Gonna be a good one like most playoff games are and I hope to see my Hawks the victor, but if not, life goes on...
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2527
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:16 pm
  • rdskns4eva wrote:
    AF_Hawk wrote:
    rdskns4eva wrote:Also, the Rams lost to

    Lions lol
    A Rookie led Dolphins team lol
    The Sorry Jets...at home lol
    The Vikings who have no quarterback
    Bears, fine
    Packers, fine
    Pats, fine
    Seahawks, fine


    SOS is nice...if you are good as you say they are, they would beat good teams. Outside of the Redskins the Hawks (again, in Division), they havent beat anyone of consequence and they've lost to some very bad teams. The Rams have no quarterback and until then, they are going to suck.

    So again, no, the Rams could not all of a sudden come into the NFC east, wear three of 4 teams play in cold weather, snow and rain and all of a sudden be able to beat the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins and New York Giants on a consistent basis or take the Division. They MIGHT be able to be the Eagles consistently.


    You do realize the Redskins actually lost to the Rams right? Or did you just start paying attention during the 7 game win streak?
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=320916014

    I forgot to add that Stephen Jackson wasn't even in this game. You can't call a team garbage when your own team can't even beat them.



    The Patriots lost to the Cards...I guess that means the Cardinals arent a garbage team, right? Get real.


    Dude- don't be a douche... the Cards vs the Pats have no relevancy in this argument whatsoever.. you have so busing running your mouth about how awful that Rams are that you forgot your team lost to them 31-28. Now, week 2 of the NFL season really means nothing now because both teams are playing much better now, but don't rationalize much more than that..

    We are very open to informed discussions around here so if you can contribute, go for it, otherwise pack sand.
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2527
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:20 pm
  • Here's another fun fact:

    The Seahawks are undefeated this year in east coast games played in the later time slot.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:24 pm
  • Barthawk wrote:Dude- don't be a douche... the Cards vs the Pats have no relevancy in this argument whatsoever.. you have so busing running your mouth about how awful that Rams are that you forgot your team lost to them 31-28. Now, week 2 of the NFL season really means nothing now because both teams are playing much better now, but don't rationalize much more than that..

    We are very open to informed discussions around here so if you can contribute, go for it, otherwise pack sand.



    It DOES have relevancy. What did the poster say..."You can't call a team garbage when your own team can't even beat them."

    Sure you can. The Cardinals beat the Patriots and the cardinals are a garage team. That was my point.
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:27 pm
  • rdskns4eva wrote:
    Barthawk wrote:Dude- don't be a douche... the Cards vs the Pats have no relevancy in this argument whatsoever.. you have so busing running your mouth about how awful that Rams are that you forgot your team lost to them 31-28. Now, week 2 of the NFL season really means nothing now because both teams are playing much better now, but don't rationalize much more than that..

    We are very open to informed discussions around here so if you can contribute, go for it, otherwise pack sand.



    It DOES have relevancy. What did the poster say..."You can't call a team garbage when your own team can't even beat them."

    Sure you can. The Cardinals beat the Patriots and the cardinals are a garage team. That was my point.


    If you recall, at that point in the year, they were undefeated and one of the hottest teams in the league. Their defense had yet to wear down from the offense using it like a rented mule. Once that happened, the team crumbled, even if the defense was still rather good all year long.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18340
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:33 pm
  • Seahawk Sailor wrote:
    rdskns4eva wrote:
    Barthawk wrote:Dude- don't be a douche... the Cards vs the Pats have no relevancy in this argument whatsoever.. you have so busing running your mouth about how awful that Rams are that you forgot your team lost to them 31-28. Now, week 2 of the NFL season really means nothing now because both teams are playing much better now, but don't rationalize much more than that..

    We are very open to informed discussions around here so if you can contribute, go for it, otherwise pack sand.



    It DOES have relevancy. What did the poster say..."You can't call a team garbage when your own team can't even beat them."

    Sure you can. The Cardinals beat the Patriots and the cardinals are a garage team. That was my point.


    If you recall, at that point in the year, they were undefeated and one of the hottest teams in the league. Their defense had yet to wear down from the offense using it like a rented mule. Once that happened, the team crumbled, even if the defense was still rather good all year long.



    lol Oy Vey

    The Cardinals lost 11 of their last 12 games. They are the definition of garbage. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

    Edit: I thought they lost 12 in a row, it was actually 11 of 12. My bad.
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:45 pm
  • You lost to Carolina too (@ home!!), I guess your team is garbage by your own definition.
    Image Image
    User avatar
    AF_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2072
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
    Location: Marysville, WA


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:26 pm
  • AF_Hawk wrote:You lost to Carolina too (@ home!!), I guess your team is garbage by your own definition.



    WOW, you didnt read any of my post...holy crap...really guy? lol
    rdskns4eva
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:25 am


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:06 pm
  • How many Cardinals games did you watch? Seriously. I want a number. If you are in charge here of defining teams, how many Cardinals games did you watch, all the way through, and which ones?
    Image
    User avatar
    HawkAroundTheClock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1444
    Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
    Location: Olympia


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:44 pm
  • Tech Worlds wrote:Our home record has nothing to do with this game.



    nope it sure don't but the Skins home record does, it means a home game isn't a lock for the skinnies as much as it is for the Hawks who have won 10 straight at home..

    just a side note, the Skins did beat the Hawks last season week 12 in a 23-17 close game but thats with 2 totally different teams and seasons, all that means is this game isn't a lock either way they played close in their last meeting and both teams are much improved..

    I'm looking for seahawks D putting the Skins O in lockdown Sunday in the nations capitol..

    both teams can be proud being such underdogs to even make the playoffs, I remember the Hawks were 60-1 to win the SB, Skins 75-1... both teams really shook it up and are highly respected now with the Skins being 20-1 and the Hawks 9-1, they sure turned some heads in a hurry!!!

    I am hoping for a clean respectable game of skill and prowess, drag the officials out on carts if they begin to taint the outcome!!!

    GO HAWKS!!!
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:50 pm
  • rdskns4eva wrote:
    AF_Hawk wrote:You lost to Carolina too (@ home!!), I guess your team is garbage by your own definition.



    WOW, you didnt read any of my post...holy crap...really guy? lol


    I'm sorry, I never saw you mention the Carolina loss but I was glad to help you with that just in case. That's an 0-2 record versus common opponents.
    Image Image
    User avatar
    AF_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2072
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
    Location: Marysville, WA


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:02 pm
  • rdskns4eva wrote:
    Seahawk Sailor wrote:
    burggold75 wrote:and the skins road record was 5-3....hmmm


    True, but we didn't get to play the Cowboys and Eagles on the road.


    You get to play the Rams and the Cardinals lol.

    C'mon, everyone knows Divisional games are tough. Thats why the lowly Rams, and they are lowly, took you to the wire.


    lol, those lowely rams would stomp the buzzard spit out of the skinnies, no joke, they are one of the most dangerous and underrated teams in the NFL, if you think otherwise you might want to take a look at who they already gifted L's to this season?

    hawks and niners for starters, they actually denied the 11-4-1 niners 2 wins and that says a lot, they also denied the hawks a W and beat the Cards so bad they went on a 12 game losing streak, fact is the cards haven't won since they met the rams week 5 sending the cards into a massive downward spiral they were unable to recover from, and remember the Cards were one of only 4 undefeated teams at that time and considered the best team in the league by many..

    they also beat the bucs in florida as well, sheesh the bucs could most likely beat almost every team the skins faced this year, did the bucs not beat the falcons and the vikings?

    and lest not forget the rams beat the skins in week two, 31-28

    said it before and I'll say it again, Rams could take the Skinnies, oh and I'm not just talking out my back side, I have proof this time... ;)
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:12 pm
  • rdskns4eva wrote:
    AF_Hawk wrote:
    rdskns4eva wrote:Also, the Rams lost to

    Lions lol
    A Rookie led Dolphins team lol
    The Sorry Jets...at home lol
    The Vikings who have no quarterback
    Bears, fine
    Packers, fine
    Pats, fine
    Seahawks, fine


    SOS is nice...if you are good as you say they are, they would beat good teams. Outside of the Redskins the Hawks (again, in Division), they havent beat anyone of consequence and they've lost to some very bad teams. The Rams have no quarterback and until then, they are going to suck.

    So again, no, the Rams could not all of a sudden come into the NFC east, wear three of 4 teams play in cold weather, snow and rain and all of a sudden be able to beat the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins and New York Giants on a consistent basis or take the Division. They MIGHT be able to be the Eagles consistently.


    You do realize the Redskins actually lost to the Rams right? Or did you just start paying attention during the 7 game win streak?
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=320916014

    I forgot to add that Stephen Jackson wasn't even in this game. You can't call a team garbage when your own team can't even beat them.



    The Patriots lost to the Cards...I guess that means the Cardinals arent a garbage team, right? Get real.



    It's obvious that you do very little reading other that stan lines. The Cards were at full strength at the beginning of the season...they are a M*A*S*H unit now. The Rams are inconsistent right now because of their youth, but once all of that young talent comes together (especially on D)and the mistakes are reduced, they will be a force for years to come. I don't know why you laugh at Bradford either. Give him some protection and he'll light it up..he's very accurate
    User avatar
    HawKnPeppa
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2569
    Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:01 pm


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:25 pm
  • cacksman wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:Our home record has nothing to do with this game.


    You sound like an awesome guy to party with.

    or a great guy to kick the crap out of. Sheeesh. Every single post is like douche city
    richard sherman is a robot
    russel wilson is a legend in the making
    russell wilson was born 5ft 10"

    new seahawks jersey. with the custom dunks!
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 179
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Tri cities


Re: Hmmm, Seahawks only team in the NFL
Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:43 pm
  • Who is hotter?

    Skins last 8 games they are 7-1, opponents combined records 55-73. During this streak they have scored 223 points (24.8) while giving up 161 points (17.9) and are 2-2 against playoff teams this year

    Hawks last 8 games they are 7-1 opponents combined records 62-66. During this streak they have scored 272 points (30.2) while giving up 111 points (12.3) and are 4-1 against playoff teams this year.
    slybry75
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 68
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:26 pm




It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:55 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online