WindCityHawk":mhicenh6 said:
All the other games just told us what we already knew: that we could make it to the dance. We made it to the dance last year, we expected to do it this year. But when "the Stanley Cup was in the building" so to speak, when the boxes of Division Champ shirts were waiting to be opened and the champagne was on ice, they responded with their worst game of the season. From where I'm sitting, that's a troubling twist.
This was the FIRST game in which Seattle had the opportunity to clinch the division, and it was the absolute toughest of our remaining schedule. It's not suddenly some harbinger of doom if the team doesn't automatically clinch in its first chance against a very good team in their own house. And even when they played their "worst game of the season," they still took a playoff-bound team to the final minute on their own turf. This sloppy, "off" game of Seattle's was just about all San Francisco could handle. Now, you've made it clear that you don't put much stock into the margin of victory, but the fact is that a margin that close demonstrates how this game could have turned on a handful of plays. If Gore doesn't break that 51-yard run, how likely is it that Seattle walks out of Candlestick with a 1-point win and Division Champ hats? I think it's pretty damn likely. And as such, I don't see any reason to treat this outcome as anything more than a tough, close game where the Seahawks could have played better.
The reason that Russell and Co. repeat that "1-0" mantra is because each game is unique. Individual games turn on matchups, execution, adjustments, environment, etc., and using the outcome in one game as a portent of future failure ignores that fact. For that same reason, I don't think Seattle is destined to beat any playoff opponent who comes to the Clink by more than 3 TDs just because they did that to New Orleans a week ago.