Wow a lousy 2 spots? Not sure why he is so allergic to putting them where they deserve to be which right now is between 8 and 10.
Aros":2gcu4es7 said:Wow a lousy 2 spots? Not sure why he is so allergic to putting them where they deserve to be which right now is between 8 and 10.
Sgt. Largent":5wz6f66g said:Aros":5wz6f66g said:Wow a lousy 2 spots? Not sure why he is so allergic to putting them where they deserve to be which right now is between 8 and 10.
Beat the Chargers and you'll get your wish, Hawks will jump into the top 10.
Ad Hawk":27b5fb3m said:Sgt. Largent":27b5fb3m said:Aros":27b5fb3m said:Wow a lousy 2 spots? Not sure why he is so allergic to putting them where they deserve to be which right now is between 8 and 10.
Beat the Chargers and you'll get your wish, Hawks will jump into the top 10.
I'd like to think so, but I have my doubts the needle would move that much. Excuses about how the inconsistencies of the Chargers and their weak strength-of-schedule will come up, and we'll be at #12, probably.
Now, if we can beast the Packers, Rams, and Vikes, too? :179417:
Sgt. Largent":1ui37iom said:Aros":1ui37iom said:Wow a lousy 2 spots? Not sure why he is so allergic to putting them where they deserve to be which right now is between 8 and 10.
Beat the Chargers and you'll get your wish, Hawks will jump into the top 10.
Sgt. Largent":3hd2dxew said:Ad Hawk":3hd2dxew said:Sgt. Largent":3hd2dxew said:Aros":3hd2dxew said:Wow a lousy 2 spots? Not sure why he is so allergic to putting them where they deserve to be which right now is between 8 and 10.
Beat the Chargers and you'll get your wish, Hawks will jump into the top 10.
I'd like to think so, but I have my doubts the needle would move that much. Excuses about how the inconsistencies of the Chargers and their weak strength-of-schedule will come up, and we'll be at #12, probably.
Now, if we can beast the Packers, Rams, and Vikes, too? :179417:
Ha, oh man that'd be a run.
Power rankings are fun, but I just can't get all worked up over where we're at. 8? 10? 12? Who cares.
Ever get the feeling Russell Wilson could win league MVP every year? Where would the Seahawks be without him? Seattle dropped a game to the Chargers on Sunday, and Wilson was far from perfect. Yet there he was, pesky as ever, placing the football between two lunging defenders -- while on the run, mind you -- and straight into David Moore's grill. Drop. Ballgame. (In Moore's defense, the pass was slightly tipped, making it an 8.0 on the difficult-catch scale.) Wilson took off on Sunday more than he has all season, using his legs to advance drives and keep the Seahawks in the game. In the end, Seattle's run defense -- the perceived strength of this group -- owns much of the blame for faltering against a verifiable contender. Those 160 rushing yards on a mere 22 attempts were the backbone of multiple scoring marches by the Chargers.
Aros":24wcsqd6 said:Yeah the rankings are muddled and meh. Those probability percentages posted above don't look far off.
I still like our chances for the 5th or 6th wild card spot when all the dust settles.
The Seahawks gave the Rams all they could handle and came up short again. Reminiscent of the days when Seattle was dominant, and Jeff Fisher's St. Louis Rams would give Pete Carroll's group all they could handle, right? On Sunday, the running game went nuts, be it via the legs of Rashaad Penny, Russell Wilson or Mike Davis -- the Seahawks revved up the ground attack 34 times for 273 yards. Wilson had attempted only 13 passes by the midway point of the fourth quarter. The QB got another opportunity at the end, with 1:35 left and no timeouts, much like in the previous week against the other guys from L.A. It wasn't to be, but Seattle remains one tough out. Put another way: The 'Hawks will be playoff spoilers for somebody.
Seymour":2idp9qcp said:Put another way: The 'Hawks will be playoff spoilers for somebody.