 |
| Author |
Message |
|
nsport
|
Post subject: Schefter has us at #4  Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:35 am |
|
| * NET Sports Handicapper * |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am
Posts: 1261
|
|
Was just watching ESPN - Adam Schefter gave his ranking and we are #4. His comment: This is the team nobody wants to play against right now.
#1 - Denver
#2 - NE
#3 - Atlanta
#4 - Seattle
_________________ 
|
|
  |
|
|
|
Aros
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:40 am |
|
| [[ .NET Godfather ]] |
 |
|
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
Posts: 6497
Location: Maple Valley, WA
|
|
Personally I think we should be #2.
_________________  "We have a lot of guys with a lot of dog in them, and when we play together, it makes us hard to beat." -- Richard Sherman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GoldenIsThyTate
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:43 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:01 pm
Posts: 1833
|
|
power ranking are so freaking stupid,
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drdiags
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:43 am |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
Posts: 7748
Location: Covington, Washington
|
|
I think #4 is fair. Not sure NE should be at #2 after their last two games. I would move Atlanta up to 2 and put 9ers at 3, but as a division rival maybe I would not because it is what is expected.
_________________  "The Seahawks are now known league wide as the team sooooooo badass and smashmouth and hard hitting that they couldn't even go thru their own practices without laying smack down on fools." - JSeahawks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hasselbeck
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:48 am |
|
| * NET Sage * |
 |
|
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 3199
|
|
Second best in the NFC. I will take it.
_________________
Seahawks vs. TBD - Super Bowl 48 - February 2, 2014
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nsport
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:49 am |
|
| * NET Sports Handicapper * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am
Posts: 1261
|
|
I'd put us at 3 - since DEN and ATL deserve #1 and #2. I don't think anyone in either league deserves #3 more than we would at this point.
_________________
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HommyHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:56 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:41 pm
Posts: 147
|
Aros wrote: Personally I think we should be #2. but we already are the *ish* Don Aros 
_________________
Pinch me, I'm dreamin right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Happypuppy
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:00 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm
Posts: 1673
|
|
The AFC is weaker than the NFC. That alone should move up the 'Hawks. We have played a tough schedule as well
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Axx
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:02 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:37 pm
Posts: 1765
|
|
the top 3 spots should be NFC teams, the AFC simply can not compete against the Best of the NFC this year.
my rankings,
1. Seattle
2. San Fran
3. Green Bay
4. New England
5. Denver
6. Atlanta
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:06 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 4368
|
|
My rankings.
1. Atlanta
2. Denver
3. Green Bay
4. Seattle
5. San Francisco
6. New England
7. Houston
How can anyone rank Atlanta low? Just because of a "feeling"? That team has been solid all year long winning close games.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
theENGLISHseahawk
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:09 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am
Posts: 7191
|
|
Did he watch the Pats defense vs San Fran and Jacksonville?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrCarey
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:10 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:16 pm
Posts: 1618
|
GoldenIsThyTate wrote: power ranking are so freaking stupid, So is QBR, but we all still eat it up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tech Worlds
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:14 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8648
Location: Granite Falls, WA
|
|
Okay so what bowl game does this ranking get us?
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SouthSoundHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:19 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:06 am
Posts: 1423
|
|
The Irrelevant Rankings Bowl.
_________________ Go Hawks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bigpumpkin
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:23 pm |
|
| *GOLD SUPPORTER* |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4055
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
|
MrCarey wrote: GoldenIsThyTate wrote: power ranking are so freaking stupid, So is QBR, but we all still eat it up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rideaducati
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:01 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm
Posts: 1149
|
drdiags wrote: I think #4 is fair. Not sure NE should be at #2 after their last two games. I would move Atlanta up to 2 and put 9ers at 3, but as a division rival maybe I would not because it is what is expected. You think just like the mediots doing the power rankings at ESPN. They still have the niners ahead of the Seahawks too. I don't know why though, Seattle has 5 quality wins compared to the niners 3 and has won just as many games as the niners.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rideaducati
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:03 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm
Posts: 1149
|
Bigpumpkin wrote: MrCarey wrote: GoldenIsThyTate wrote: power ranking are so freaking stupid, So is QBR, but we all still eat it up. Now that we have a QB that ranks highly in QBR, it's a GREAT stat. But any stat that ranks Alex Smith as high as it does is still a questionable ranking system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlueTalon
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:11 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 6961
Location: Eastern Washington
|
drdiags wrote: I think #4 is fair. Not sure NE should be at #2 after their last two games. I would move Atlanta up to 2 and put 9ers at 3 Hey Doc, why would you have the Digits ranked ahead of us, after we just dismantled them?
_________________
Saints board -- "We are a much better all around team than them besides special teams."
Saints board -- "Shut down coverage on all the little piss-ant receivers in Russ Wilson's arsenal."
Saints board -- "Wilson will not know how to handle all [Rob Ryan's] schemes"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
theENGLISHseahawk
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:18 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am
Posts: 7191
|
|
#1 Denver
#2 Atlanta
#3 Green Bay
#4 Seattle
IMO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drdiags
|
Post subject: Re: Schefter has us at #4 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:23 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
Posts: 7748
Location: Covington, Washington
|
BlueTalon wrote: drdiags wrote: I think #4 is fair. Not sure NE should be at #2 after their last two games. I would move Atlanta up to 2 and put 9ers at 3 Hey Doc, why would you have the Digits ranked ahead of us, after we just dismantled them? Probably based on their entire season of work. They beat the Saints, Packers and Brady on the road. That carries weight in my mind. Upon further review it may not be a wise choice listening to the 9ers fans critique of their own team recent performances. Bottom line, until I see the Seahawks dominating good teams on the road, I will have a skeptic sitting in the dark regions of my mind. _________________ "The Seahawks are now known league wide as the team sooooooo badass and smashmouth and hard hitting that they couldn't even go thru their own practices without laying smack down on fools." - JSeahawks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: 253hawk, AgentDib, AKSeahawker, AlmightyAJ, Atradees, BAJAHAWK, Barthawk, Basis4day, BleedGreenNblue, Blitzer88, calihawk, chevelle03, Cinque52, coach78, DaveG, DHawk, DJ_CJ, dradee, E.C. Laloosh, Galen96, GawksAtHawks, GoldenTater81, Google [Bot], Hamhawk, HawksBo24, HighlandHawk, hungarian_hawk, jake_ireland, jdemps, JGreen79, JoeHawk80, jsmc, Jville, KillerB, ktd5440, lacenterhawk, liftingaddict, LunchBox, M2MG, Majestic-12 [Bot], McGruff, mirrikat45, myersusaf, Nateruw, NYCoug, olyfan63, penihawk, rainger, rickychen, rideaducati, rigelian, SacHawk2.0, SalishHawkFan, SanAntoHawk, scakfan, Seabean, SeaChase, Seafan, Seahawkfan80, Seahawkfaninvegas, Seahawksfan425, seeg, SilkMonkey, SoCalHawksFan, Spleenhawk2.0, SPRC, StoneCold, sutz, tdlabrie, Tempest_Crow, thecycle, TheRealDTM, VancitySeahawk, White Knight and 252 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.
|
