namelesstavern.net

Xaiveir wrote:They followed that up with their first Conferance championship and first Super Bowl birth in the 30 year franchise history, by completley destroying the Carolina Panthers team that put up 29 points, and rolled over the Bears in Soldier field, arguably the best defensive team in football.

A team that so called "experts" picked Carolina to steam roll them, and that Steve Smith would put up 200 yards and 2 more touchdowns to his postseason resume. By the second quarter the game got so out of hand, that Joe Buck and Troy Aikman were probably playing tic tac toe on the telestrator to kill time.

To be fair, Carolina was reduced to using it's 4th string running back, which meant that seattle could afford to triple cover Smith on every single play


Both Seattle and Pittsburgh are coming into the game with momentum

I just think that the Steelers playoff experience will show in this game

I think that a lot of the Seahawks will just be satisfied to have made it to the game, and that the Steelers will just want the game more, and win



But, it also wouldn't be a shock at all if Seattle won. they're a good team, with decent depth, good coaching and a really competitive QB

i actually barely care... though I do think it is a pretty perfectly matched game... i look forward to it...

Carolina played like a one trick pony team that was out of gas. I was disappointed, since I think they are a better team than Seattle, but didn't get the benefit of playing in the NFC West, which is on par with Division II college football, and have the ease of Seattle's schedule.

Seattle beat a tired Redskins team, and a more tired Carolina team. Their road to the Super Bowl might have been the easiest in the history of the NFL.

It's not like Seattle travelled to Cincy, Indy, and Denver to win, all of who are much better teams in hostile environments.

I expect Detroit to be loaded with Pitt fans and for the Steelers to win a good game.

I'm curious about predictions. Mine is:

Pitt 34
Seattle 21

I'm still sticking with 27-13 steelers

lyion wrote:
Seattle beat a tired Redskins team, and a more tired Carolina team. Their road to the Super Bowl might have been the easiest in the history of the NFL.

Have to make excuses for a team you obviously dont like. The same can be said about pittsburg......

They beat Cinci after losing their first string QB, and the Bengals looked more like the Bungles in the last part of the year.

They beat a rusty Colts team that was still reeling from the loss of Tony Dungy's Son, he just didnt seem to be interested after his sons death.

Then they beat a Denver team, a perenial playoff choker the last couple of years. Their Defense dissapears, they running game dissapears, and Jake Plummer reverts back to his old self.

I can make it sound like the Steelers had an easy time getting to the super bowl also. Of course i know its not true though.

Just like what you said about the Seahawks is not true. You are faulting them for getting the top seed, you are faulting them for Scheming Carolina well even though nobody else has all year. You fault them for playing a "tired" Redskins team? They were tired? Did you ask them? Do they know this?

All in all there were 6 of the best teams left in the NFL. Seattle had just a hard of a road to get there as the Steelers.

Actually ill rephrase my last statement. The Seahawks have had an easier road, because they played well all year........they were the top seed.....thats your reward for playing well all year.

Steelers did have a tougher road, they had injuries and were playing do or die football just to get in. Thats what happens when you get in as a 6th seed...you play the toughest schedule.

Since the Stealers since week 13 have been playing do or die football like the Redskins were, and now they have played 2 more games than the Redskins does this mean if they lose to the Seahawks that the Seahawks beat a "tired team" in the Steelers?

Xaiveir wrote:Have to make excuses for a team you obviously dont like. The same can be said about pittsburg......

I'm completely ambivalent about Seattle. They aren't that different from the team that lost to a mediocre Green Bay team last year. They upgraded their D and were the beneficiaries of being in the weakest division in the NFL.

I also vastly dislike Pitt. I would rather they lose, but I don't see it happening.

They beat Cinci after losing their first string QB, and the Bengals looked more like the Bungles in the last part of the year.

Cinci was on autopilot, and meaningless games are just that. Feel free to take note of Cinci beating all their NFC opponents like a drum, too.

They beat a rusty Colts team that was still reeling from the loss of Tony Dungy's Son, he just didnt seem to be interested after his sons death.

Possibly, but most people considered Indy the best team in the league.

Then they beat a Denver team, a perenial playoff choker the last couple of years. Their Defense dissapears, they running game dissapears, and Jake Plummer reverts back to his old self.

Denver has two super bowl championships over the last 10 years. How often has Seattle made the big dance? Oh yeah. Never.

I can make it sound like the Steelers had an easy time getting to the super bowl also. Of course i know its not true though.

You can try, but nobody would take you seriously. Why is the AFC #6 seed a favorite against the NFC #1 seed? Because the AFC is vastly superior to the NFC.

Just like what you said about the Seahawks is not true. You are faulting them for getting the top seed, you are faulting them for Scheming Carolina well even though nobody else has all year. You fault them for playing a "tired" Redskins team? They were tired? Did you ask them? Do they know this?

No fault for being lucky and having a cakewalk schedule in a creampuff division. Seattle should be sending T.O. a card, as his meltdown is probably the main reason they are there, versus Philly in the overtly mediocre and weak NFC.

Maybe it all comes down to Seattles WRs getting a case of stick em, and not chain dropping passes, and hearing footsteps and short arming throws like they did so often last year.

The Redskins were in a playoff situation a month before the regular season and finally played like it. Seattle was on cruise control and well rested. Portis was tired. Brunells arm was dead. Their D was ragged. That's my opinion, and it doesn't take anything away from Seattle, but most people can see why someone would think Washington was tired.. because they were.

All in all there were 6 of the best teams left in the NFL. Seattle had just a hard of a road to get there as the Steelers.

Two home games against anemic teams, versus playing three teams head and shoulders above anything in the NFC?

How many Championships have the NFC won in the last 6 years? Oh yeah, one.

While I firmly believe in any given Sunday, I'll be surprised if Seattle beats Pittsburgh. It wouldn't be the first time, though, since I thought Carolina would beat them, before Jake Delhomme decided to play like Jon Kitna.

Seattle has played one decent 3-4 defense, Dallas, and the only way they won that game was with Bledsoe gift wrapping it. Their offense was crushed.

Against Dallas, Seattle had 289 total yards. Alexander had 61 yards on 21 carries. Seattle was 3 for 13 on 3rd down plays.

Note, that Dallas is not nearly as good a defensive team as Pitt. For Seattle to win, their D will have to step up.

Pittsburg is only getting better by playing tougher opponents in tougher conditions (on the road). The Seahawks only played two games versus average teams at home.

Good article on Seahawks O vs Steeler D:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs0 ... id=2310938

-Arlos

The more I watch ESPN coverage, the more I like Clayton and really dislike Salisbury. They need to can that moron and get a real broadcaster in.

/tangent off

I think this point is one a lot of people missed, and could be more of a factor

The Seahawks' offensive line has been together for a long time. The starting five have 518 career starts. They have 417 starts together for the Seahawks. That gives them a lot of experience against complicated schemes.

The other problem I foresee for Hasselback is his limited protection by not using the Shotgun

Holmgren gives Hasselbeck the freedom to use the shotgun, but he didn't have one shotgun pass this season. At the most, Hasselbeck will use the shotgun once or twice per year.

I think Lebeau will use this to his advantage, just as he used the reverse to his against Indy.

I think more of this game will come down to how Seattle's D plays again Big Ben and Pitt. Especially if the Steelers come out shooting like they did in the last two games.

I love the way people are willing to discount the Tommy Maddox games from the Steelers' record, but ignore the personnel disasters that befell the Seahawks.

Probably for a myriad of reasons.

1) Maddox single handedly cost them one victory.
2) Maddox was replaced with Batch, who then lost to GB
3) Seattle's major loss was Sharper, but Tatupu in his first year being an All-Pro seemed to help
4) Engram, Jurevicius, and Stevens have all been competitive in the absence of Jackson
5) Seattle's NFL-lowest strength of schedule. They've played 10 games against an opponent that finished 6-10 or worse. One of those they lost vs GB the last game of the year which can be discounted. Out of the remaining 6 games, they lost to Washington and Jacksonville, should have lost to the Giants, and squeaked away with a 13-10 win vs Dallas.


It's difficult to gauge Seattle because of mainly the lack of competition faced. If anything though, that enables them to enter the SB a much more rested and healthier team.

The schedule is also interesting when looking at Alexander's performance. 22 of Alexander's 28 TD's came against teams 6-10 or worse. Out of the remaining 6, 3 came in the Indy game against backups. Dallas, Washington, and Jacksonville held him to below average per carry and TD numbers.

Of course this can't be used to predict the outcome, but it's interesting. Steelers have definitely faced tougher competition on the way to Detroit, but Seattle's easier road leaves them in better overall shape, although untested.

numatu wrote:Probably for a myriad of reasons.

1) Maddox single handedly cost them one victory.
2) Maddox was replaced with Batch, who then lost to GB
3) Seattle's major loss was Sharper, but Tatupu in his first year being an All-Pro seemed to help
4) Engram, Jurevicius, and Stevens have all been competitive in the absence of Jackson
5) Seattle's NFL-lowest strength of schedule. They've played 10 games against an opponent that finished 6-10 or worse. One of those they lost vs GB the last game of the year which can be discounted. Out of the remaining 6 games, they lost to Washington and Jacksonville, should have lost to the Giants, and squeaked away with a 13-10 win vs Dallas.

Well, I guess that explains the phenomonon: people just have no idea how badly Seattle was hammered by injuries as this list demonstrates. I'd never put much stock in the whole "East Coast media bias" thing, but I'm at a loss to explain how purported football fans can be that woefully uninformed.

Like your fantasy QB analysis?


Seattle wasn't "hammered" by injuries. Out of the 5 on IR, only Sharper was a starter, and a star. They had major injuries, like every team has throughout the course of a year, some more than others.

Your attempt at proclaiming any amount of football knowledge just continues to provide me with thread after thread of amusement.

"Hammered" by injuries is now defined as losing Jackson, Sharper, and superstars such as D.D. Lewis and Floyd Womack. Or perhaps you're talking about Jones' hamstring injury that kept him out the first two and a half months? Please enlighten. I'm sure the teams with 10 people on IR and numerous other star players out that play a SoS above .500 would like to know your definition of their injury situation.

numatu wrote:Like your fantasy analysis?

You mean the one where I was, you know, right?

Seattle wasn't "hammered" by injuries. Out of the 5 on IR, only Sharper was a starter, and a star. They had major injuries, like every team has throughout the course of a year, some more than others.

An injury doesn't have to place someone on IR to be a major problem. Seattle had compound injuries to starters on both sides of the ball, a far worse scenario than if they'd had the injuries sequentially.

Your attempt at proclaiming any amount of football knowledge just continues to provide me with thread after thread of amusement.

"Hammered" by injuries is now defined as losing Jackson, Sharper, and superstars such as D.D. Lewis and Floyd Womack. Or perhaps you're talking about Jones' hamstring injury that kept him out the first two and a half months? Please enlighten. I'm sure the teams with 10 people on IR and numerous other star players out that play a SoS above .500 would like to know your definition of their injury situation.

Hammered by injuries would include the following:

Losing both your starting receivers, forcing you to play a guy named DJ Hackett as your second receiving option.

Losing half of your starting secondary, then taking a second LCB injury, leaving you with a third-stringer on the field for the end of the season, and a rookie opposite him.

That's not even considering the impact of the Sharper injury. Sure, Tatupu filled in admirably (though using a Pro Bowl selection as a measure of merit is laughable), but Seattle still felt Sharper's loss. It's not as if the defense couldn't have fielded both players.

You mean the one where I was, you know, right?

Brady finished 3rd in QB fantasy points this year in every major league. Who was right again?

An injury doesn't have to place someone on IR to be a major problem. Seattle had compound injuries to starters on both sides of the ball

Every team has major nagging injuries. Seattle is not out of the ordinary. Certainly not so different to be classified as "hammered."

Losing both your starting receivers

You make it sound like they've played an entire season without Engram. Engram has played in 13 games this year. Knicked up occasionally, but playing and leading the team in receptions. That's not "hammered" because you have to fill in Hackett for a game or two, who sees action every game anyway, into an offense that runs the ball so effectively.

Every team in the NFL gets injuries, "hammered" is relative. If Seattle was "hammered", what were the Jets? Patriots? Eagles? etc.

Losing half of your starting secondary, then taking a second LCB injury, leaving you with a third-stringer on the field for the end of the season, and a rookie opposite him.

Get back to me when 6 DB's are on IR, with others receiving injuries, and I'll show you the definition of "hammered." Babineaux has filled in quite nicely, and the only DB "lost" for the year was insignifiant Howell. Dyson is at least available.

Sure, Tatupu filled in admirably (though using a Pro Bowl selection as a measure of merit is laughable), but Seattle still felt Sharper's loss. It's not as if the defense couldn't have fielded both players.

Who said Tatupu's sole measure of performance was a Pro Bowl selection? Seems like you take into context whatever you feel like debating on any given day.

xaoshaen wrote:I love the way people are willing to discount the Tommy Maddox games from the Steelers' record, but ignore the personnel disasters that befell the Seahawks.

have you seen tommy maddox play?


remember the texans game 2 years ago?
the one where they had 47 yards of total offense, and still won because of maddox giving away 3 touchdowns


I have no idea how you can compare losing mediocre WR's to a QB with the top passer rating in the league

Num's points are much much more accurate than yours, Xao.

Every NFL team has a lot of dings.

Seattle's WRs weren't known as the drop kings last year for nothing. Having them play less may be a big reason they made it to the Super Bowl.

The Pats were decimated by injuries. Seattle had a 'par' injury season.

lyion wrote:Seattle's WRs weren't known as the drop kings last year for nothing. Having them play less may be a big reason they made it to the Super Bowl.

haha no shit


getting Juravicius on the field more was the biggest improvement they could have made

Tikker wrote:

lyion wrote:Seattle's WRs weren't known as the drop kings last year for nothing. Having them play less may be a big reason they made it to the Super Bowl.

haha no shit


getting Juravicius on the field more was the biggest improvement they could have made

You two do realize that Jackson was one of the best receivers in the league on a per-play basis, right? That Engram's been known throughout his career for his steady hands? That Koren Robinson doesn't play for Seattle any more, right? Right?

numatu wrote:Brady finished 3rd in QB fantasy points this year in every major league. Who was right again?

Which is exactly what I said would happen if New England's defense and running game disappeared. I never said Brady wasn't an excellent quarterback, just that the Patriot's system wasn't going to have him ring up big numbers unless other aspects of the team collapsed.

Every team has major nagging injuries. Seattle is not out of the ordinary. Certainly not so different to be classified as "hammered."

How many other teams had to play multiple games with neither of their starting receivers?

You make it sound like they've played an entire season without Engram. Engram has played in 13 games this year. Knicked up occasionally, but playing and leading the team in receptions. That's not "hammered" because you have to fill in Hackett for a game or two, who sees action every game anyway, into an offense that runs the ball so effectively.

And yet, people love to point out one of the games where both starting receivers were absent as evidence of Seattle's struggles against a 3-4. The complete loss of a passing game isn't a big deal, because, you know, a team never uses the pass to set up the run.

Every team in the NFL gets injuries, "hammered" is relative. If Seattle was "hammered", what were the Jets? Patriots? Eagles? etc.

The Jets were destroyed. Like the Seahawks, they lost multiple players at the same position, which tends to do more damage to a team than having injuries spread out. A second-string player in the NFL can often function as a stopgap measure. When you're starting third and fourth string options, you're in a bad way.

Get back to me when 6 DB's are on IR, with others receiving injuries, and I'll show you the definition of "hammered." Babineaux has filled in quite nicely, and the only DB "lost" for the year was insignifiant Howell. Dyson is at least available.

Because it matters whether the player is on IR or just unable to play? Either way the team doesn't have his services.

Who said Tatupu's sole measure of performance was a Pro Bowl selection? Seems like you take into context whatever you feel like debating on any given day.

Nobody said it was his sole measure of performance, but it was the only measure of performance you alluded to, which makes you sound like a member of the ESPN Sunday Night Football crew.

this is the part where you STFU and admit seattle sucks cock Xao

/AGREE

Seattle looked weak kids....

Tikker wrote:this is the part where you STFU and admit seattle sucks cock Xao

Umm, because they gave up three plays in sixty minutes of football? That was the entirety of the offense Pittsburgh managed to muster, even against a depleted Seattle defense. Because they got incredibly jobbed by the refs? I thought the Colts-Steelers game would be the worst-officiated game of the playoffs. I was horribly, horribly wrong.

Seattle certaintly had problems. Stevens may have had the worst game by a tight end in Super Bowl history. Just atrocious. Rouen was terrible, but the punt coverage teams made him look even worse. Holmgren, as much as I've questioned his personnel decisions, is usually solid on the sidelines, but man, were the two-minute drills ever botched.

The funny thing is, if Pittsburgh doesn't spring three plays, and get some help from the officials, we're all talking about how Roethlisberger choked in the big game, or how ineffective Bettis was in his last game.

Xao, you're digging a hole and sound like a whining apologists. We keep repeating football is a game of big plays, but you don't get it. It's ALWAYS been about the big plays.

Seattle didn't deserve to win, if only for the 4th and a mile play they let Pitt convert on.

I saw a lot of good plays on both sides. Hasselback was sharp, except for the one time he tried to actually throw downfield into coverage.

Pitt barely showed up and easily won. If they had brought their A game, it'd have been worse.

Keep blaming the refs, the tight end, whatever. It has no bearing. Pitt is the better team, and even on an off day easily won. Seattle can feel fortunate Pitt didn't play their A game.