Back 2 Back or 3 in 5?

[glenwo2]

After this recent development with the Rams, I'm choosing back to back because they (Rams) need to be stopped from winning a chip at Sofi.

And the Hawks are going to do just that.

 

[loafoftatupu]

I have been a Seahawks fan from ground zero and I have a great memory. I am good with winning a SB every 15-20 years if the team is constantly competitive and making the moves to improve. Watching the Seahawks go 7-9, 8-8 and 9-7 for many years, hoping for certain outcomes to "back-in" eventually wears you down. I am the kind of guy that didn't get pissed about the 2014 INT because I was still celebrating the 2013 Super Bowl. Damn... fans of teams like the Vikings, Cards, Bengals, Chargers and Lions that have been around forever without a SB win would take one SB win in 100 years. Jets fans can tell you all about it. I would rather 3 in 5 over back to back though, just because it means that the team has been a winner. The 70s, 80s and chunk of the 90s made it a lot easier to keep a team together so today it is far more impressive to even be in a SB for consecutive years. Team has to be young and talented at the core with vets in premium spots and depth to do it these days, Seattle actually fits the bill.

 

[loafoftatupu]

And the Rams just made it even more difficult to win back to back with that trade.

I just don't see it. Games are not won on paper.

 

[Hawksnest12]

I voted back-2-back because we have some older players like Leo, Dlaw, Cheena, Reed, Kupp that probably wont be here in 2027' and honestly we do not have their replacements, so 3 in the next 5 is a stretch...

 

[DeSeahawk]

After this recent development with the Rams, I'm choosing back to back because they (Rams) need to be stopped from winning a chip at Sofi.

And the Hawks are going to do just that.

That didnt occur to me. They go all in and kinda mortgage their future a bit for a SB this season, and Seattle ends that plan. Man that would be SO effin cool !