What's Up With Trent Dilfer?

[oldhawkfan]

Watching the post game last night when they had RW on set was hilarious to watch Dilfer. Both he and Steve young were staring at him with interesting expressions. Young had a look of awe whereas Dilfer had this look that seemed to be a look of animosity combined with jealousy. They both looked like they were in the company of greatness.

 

[joeseahawks]

I think Steve Young became a RW convert yesterday.

 

[bryantology79]

a radio caller called him uncle fester today.

and someone mentioned jamie dukes...he's probably the most anti seahawk guy on tv besides those steeler jackoffs (hines cower bettys)

 

[Zorn76]

I like Dilfer overall, but, yea, he's been weird when it comes to Seattle lately. All the network pundits who took the Saints last night can sit on it.

 

[NINEster]

Stick + Ass + Terrible "Advanced" Stat.

I often wonder if ESPN made "QBR" with it's terrible (and propriety and thus secret) "fudge factor" just to make Wilson look worse than he really is and Kaepernick to look better than he really is.

The same QBR when Kaep was a rookie backup and Wilson was still in school?

 

[Polaris]

Stick + Ass + Terrible "Advanced" Stat.

I often wonder if ESPN made "QBR" with it's terrible (and propriety and thus secret) "fudge factor" just to make Wilson look worse than he really is and Kaepernick to look better than he really is.

The same QBR when Kaep was a rookie backup and Wilson was still in school?

The first time QBR was trotted out publically was last season, and the QBR formula has been changed each season (although ESPN refuses to say precisely how).

DPYAR and QB Rating are at least reliable measures.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Man, that guy is soooooo negative about the Hawks! Not because he picked the Saints last night, lots of people did, but because he always talks down about us in a mean, negative, hostile way. It's so bad and so unprofessional, it's a wonder ESPN doesn't boot him.

So did we screw him over when he was here or what?

Yes we booted him for Hasselbeck and he never got over it.

 

[MORGULON]

I missed his post game comments. Did he say anything good about the Seahawks and Wilson?

Yes. He had to. There was nothing left in front of him where he could say anything other than the Seahawks are man.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Man, that guy is soooooo negative about the Hawks! Not because he picked the Saints last night, lots of people did, but because he always talks down about us in a mean, negative, hostile way. It's so bad and so unprofessional, it's a wonder ESPN doesn't boot him.

So did we screw him over when he was here or what?

Yes we booted him for Hasselbeck and he never got over it.

 

[PlinytheCenter]

Who gives a rat's ass what these clowns think? They aren't playing the games and they sure as hell don't figure in the outcome. I could care less what Dilfer or anyone else thinks about our team. The Hawks will let their play do the talking for them. I am VERY content to sit back and watch our boys dismantle the rest of the NFL. I have (like so many others) been waiting 37 years for this team. Enjoy the ride my brothers...

 

[BGHawk]

this might explain ......Born: March 13, 1972 (age 41), Santa Cruz, CA = niner homer

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Screw both of those guys, pompus punks.

 

[stack600]

Before I write this I just want to say I am not for or against Dilfer. He says stuff that makes no sence at times. And I could care less what he says about us and the team.
Fact: Setting: Husky Stadium 2000 or 2001 can't remember exactly= Hasselbeck at QB, running for his life fumbling throwing INTs and taking sacks and the 12th nation chanting Dilfer-Dilfer-Dilfer.

Fact: Setting 2000-2001 Husky Stadium: Dilfer at QB drops back to throw plants and you could hear the pop(atleast where my seats were) Achillies Tendon rupture. Hasselbeck takes over and the rest is history.

With that written: Fact I really don't care what Dilfer say's (but when he was with the media in 2005 and Feb 2006 at Detroit (He sounded like a homer)

 

[plyka]

The most hilarious part about Dilfer is his sactamony. "If it says...on the tape...um....not an OPINION mind you, BUT FACT, not something that's my opinion, but ACTUAL FACT...when it says...um, that...the Seahawks CANNOT COVER Graham and CANNOT COVER Sproles, am I supposed to just say the Seahawks are the best in teh world with no problems?"

I'm just hoping someone can explain to him to difference between a FACT and an OPINION. A FACT is something destined by logic: 2 + 2 = 4 is a simple example. Or it is something which we agree has already happened, ie history, something we know and understand, something which cannot change. An opinion is about something which is unsure, perhaps a future event which has not taken place yet ---here you can use your own reasoning faculties, ie the probabilities, history, what you think will take place, etc, and come up with something which MAY happen or which has a CHANCE of happening.

I swear the Seahawks will win the Super Bowl and people will dwell more on what Dilder or any other analyst has to say about it. Stop being so damn insecure and sensitive and try to enjoy what we have and stop caring so much what others think.

No one CARES what Dilfer thinks. This is how we ENJOY what we have. This is just a game of football. It's not life or death, it's not even family or friends. It's not even your career. It is almost meaningless. The one sliver of meaning it does have, is that it's enjoyable and entertaining. Why is it enjoyable? Because we can find dummies like Dilfer and laugh at him afterwards for being so stupid. It's fun because we can come on this board and hash it out. It's fun for a million other reasons. If all you could do was watch the game then sit on your couch and "enjoy it" by yourself for ten minutes then it wouldn't be very enjoyable or entertaining at all.

 

[plyka]

Dildo came in here thinking that because he had a super bowl ring, that they won in spite of him, he would be "the man." He was not good enough to be the starter, then later on not even good enough to be the backup. It is pretty obvious he was, and still is mad at Seattle for not recognizing that he is one of the greatest to ever play the game, in his own mind.

I'm not lying to you when i tell you that I could have won a ring with that defense and that running game. They had the best RB in the league, a massive athletic bruiser, Jamal Lewis (i think was his name). But most importantly, they had in my opinion, the best defense to ever play this game. I never saw the 1985 bears, but I just can't imagine any defense being as good as this defense was. What you saw with the Hawks against the Saints on Monday night? The defense the Hawks played? It felt like a bad Raven's 2000's game. They were suffocating in all respects. You could not run, you could not pass, you could not do anything against that defense. It was out of this world.

Some stats about that 2000 Ravens team:

Points given up in the regular season 165, 188 including the 4 games in the playoffs (this means in the 4 games of the playoffs including the Superbowl, they gave up a TOTAL of 23 points). Did you read the last sentence? Against the best teams in the playoffs, 4 total games, they gave up a TOTAL OF 23 POINTS! The Ravens also only had the first game at home --this means games 2, 3 and 4 of the playoffs were on the road and the superbowl location. During the regular season, the 2000 Ravens gave up an AVERAGE of 9.5 points per game ON THE ROAD! 9.5 points per game ON THE ROAD in the regular season. But this is probably the most starting statistic of the Ravens 2000 defense --they gave up 7 points in the superbowl. Those 7 points were scored on special teams, a kickoff return I believe. Which means the 2000 Ravens defense gave up 0 points in the superbowl --0 points. They also had 4 shutouts in the regular season --SHUTOUTS, 2 on the road. The 2000 Ravens also played the 2nd (Denver) and the 3rd (Oakland) ranked offenses in the league in the playoffs. In the superbowl, the Ravens gave up a NET of 152 TOTAL YARDS, had 4 INTs and 1 Fumble --and as stated earlier, the only points scored against them was on a kickoff return for a TD.

The players on that defense to make it to a pro-bowl?
1) Lewis
2) Woodson
3) Adams
4) Mcallister
5) Sharper
6) Boulware
7) Thomas
8)Mccrary
9)Burnett

Saragusa was also on that team, but he didn't make it to a pro-bowl, although he should have.

(The information above is thanks to an article by Richard Barnstein)

 

[Scottemojo]

Dilfer the fan of whoever? Who cares?

Dilfer the analyst? A true dummie. He trotted out 3 games to support his claim that the Seahawks Run D was fraudulent. The Rams, Bucs, and Vikings. The first two I get, but the Vikings was just proof that he reads a stat sheet, not watches games. A garbage time run by the Vikes does not equal bad run D.

I can list on one hand the analysts I respect, and they don't kiss Hawk butt. They don't talk out their ass either.

 

[NorCalSeahawk]

No worries, Dilfer is entitled to his opinion. His facts are flawed or picked and chosen to suit his argument (like most people do). The truth is the truth, the Seahawks have a top 3 defense in yards, points, passing yards, interceptions and takeaways (among other things) and last I checked they did that against grown men who prepare for every game just the like the Seahawks do (well, maybe not just like Seattle). Plus, Seattle has a very good rushing offense and when needed and very good passing offense, but this team is built on defense and running the ball, that's no secret.

Dilfer can say what he wants, it's just sad when people carry some type of hate or anger from some bad points in their life and can't be a bit more subjective and objective when it comes to a job where opinions, facts and just good natured banter is the name of the game. I think Dilfer is a good guy, I just think he has had some bad things happen in his life (like losing his son and his drinking issues he had after, while in Seattle, so that might weigh into his issues with the area). Who knows.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

He's entitled to his WRONG opinion.