Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NE may not need 35 pts to win, Seattle only scored an average of 25 pts per game
at least tell the whole picture....Seahawks D allows under 16 points per game why would Wilson and his offense need to average more than 25 points? running up the score when they have the game under control or won is not Seattle's style.....Packers got to 22 points because of the 5 turnovers and the bad field position the Hawks had to defend because of the turnover and the Packers offense in 2014 is better than Patriots in the run and pass.
Patriots averages 29 points per game. Packers 30 points per game......Packers got to 22 points because of the 5 turnovers, you take away that and the Packers don't get to 22...........you think the Patriots can win with less than 21 points in the S.B with a lesser offense than the Packers? ....LOL
here is what it comes down to: Wilson averages 25 points per game and has to go against the #13 rank defense of the Pats.
Brady averages 29 points per game and has to face the #1 defense of the Hawks........I like Wilson's chances better than Brady's........Brady has never beat the #1 defense in the playoffs.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 01-22-2015 at 04:42 PM..
at least tell the whole picture....Seahawks D allows under 16 points per game why would Wilson and his offense need to average more than 25 points? running up the score when they have the game under control or won is not Seattle's style.....Packers got to 22 points because of the 5 turnovers and the bad field position the Hawks had to defend because of the turnover and the Packers offense in 2014 is better than Patriots in the run and pass.
Patriots averages 29 points per game. Packers 30 points per game......Packers got to 22 points because of the 5 turnovers, you take away that and the Packers don't get to 22...........you think the Patriots can win with less than 21 points in the S.B with a lesser offense than the Packers? ....LOL
here is what it comes down to: Wilson averages 25 points per game and has to go against the #13 rank defense of the Pats.
Brady averages 29 points per game and has to face the #1 defense of the Hawks........I like Wilson's chances better than Brady's........Brady has never beat the #1 defense in the playoffs.
hell, you may be right,,
but the 'hawks I saw last week didn't show up to play til the last 5 minutes..
green bay should have won that game,,,,very poor time management
the hawks should be a different team/better team in the sb.
but also with all the deflation shyt in the wind,,,this is going to fuel a huge fire under the patriots,,
and they are underdogs,,,they do better as underdogs..
brady needs to pass quick the 7-12 yard passes,,,he can fire them off in 2 seconds,,
if brady comes out complacent we are screwed,,,, but he seems to be on a mission this year,,,he may realize this may be his last good chance for his fourth ring
im glad the wonder boys of rogers and luck aren't there,,,they just cant wait to call brady and Wilson has beens.. Wilson doesn't get the credit he deserves, Wilson is a team leader,,,as brady is,,, his players WANT to play for him....
but the 'hawks I saw last week didn't show up to play til the last 5 minutes..
green bay should have won that game,,,,very poor time management
the hawks should be a different team/better team in the sb.
but also with all the deflation shyt in the wind,,,this is going to fuel a huge fire under the patriots,,
and they are underdogs,,,they do better as underdogs..
brady needs to pass quick the 7-12 yard passes,,,he can fire them off in 2 seconds,,
if brady comes out complacent we are screwed,,,, but he seems to be on a mission this year,,,he may realize this may be his last good chance for his fourth ring
im glad the wonder boys of rogers and luck aren't there,,,they just cant wait to call brady and Wilson has beens.. Wilson doesn't get the credit he deserves, Wilson is a team leader,,,as brady is,,, his players WANT to play for him....
shows you how good are the Seahawks that they can play that bad for 4 quarters until the last 5 minutes and beat the best offense of team in the NFL and the best QB.....that has to be scary for the Patriots.
You say Green Bay should have won that game??? You can say the same thing that the Ravens should have won the game. Nothing is given and you play for 4 full quarters and give credit to the Seahawks for not giving up on both sides of the ball......Seahawks defense held the highest scoring offense in the NFL to ZERO TD's in the second half and just 2 field goals.....that's how they came back and won the game.
Brady will move the ball, not better than Rodgers and the Packers but they will. the questions are if the Patriots can run the ball effectively (150 yards) and if they can score TD's in the Red Zone instead of kicking FG like the Packers.....If Rodgers who has a stronger arm than Brady and is more accurate than Brady couldn't find the end zone all but 1 time (due to the bad field position by the Hawks turnovers) then Brady will have a tough time scoring on this Hawks defense.
Packers could only score 22 points and that was with 5 Seattle turnovers......Packers would never get to 22 points if Seattle didn't play bad for most of 4 quarters and cough up 5 turnovers.
I don't see Wilson throwing for 4 INT's and having back to back bad games.......so the question is, how many points does Brady has to score on the Hawks defense to win??? 28 points or more?
shows you how good are the Seahawks that they can play that bad for 4 quarters until the last 5 minutes and beat the best offense of team in the NFL and the best QB.....that has to be scary for the Patriots.
You say Green Bay should have won that game??? You can say the same thing that the Ravens should have won the game. Nothing is given and you play for 4 full quarters and give credit to the Seahawks for not giving up on both sides of the ball......Seahawks defense held the highest scoring offense in the NFL to ZERO TD's in the second half and just 2 field goals.....that's how they came back and won the game.
Brady will move the ball, not better than Rodgers and the Packers but they will. the questions are if the Patriots can run the ball effectively (150 yards) and if they can score TD's in the Red Zone instead of kicking FG like the Packers.....If Rodgers who has a stronger arm than Brady and is more accurate than Brady couldn't find the end zone all but 1 time (due to the bad field position by the Hawks turnovers) then Brady will have a tough time scoring on this Hawks defense.
Packers could only score 22 points and that was with 5 Seattle turnovers......Packers would never get to 22 points if Seattle didn't play bad for most of 4 quarters and cough up 5 turnovers.
I don't see Wilson throwing for 4 INT's and having back to back bad games.......so the question is, how many points does Brady has to score on the Hawks defense to win??? 28 points or more?
There is no denying the Seahawks are good. But I think the Patriots match up as a team overall better than the Packers.
Brady in recent years has had pedestrian games in the playoffs and his last two Superbowl appearances. But I think the offense this year especially with Gronk healthy is going to give the Seahawks match up fits with Gronk and Edelman and LaFelle. Running game is up in the air - I have no idea if Blount and Co will be able to put up 100 yards. I also think the Pats are going to score on the Seahawks enough that Wilson will have to guide the Hawks to more than their average PPG which could be a problem for them against the Patriots defense. Rodgers was hobbled and definitely affected the Packers ability to put up points. Their defense let them down in the end - or of course you could say the Hawks offense came to life. Regardless, I think the Packers would of had more points with a healthy Rodgers and wouldn't have even been in the late game situation they were. But of course that's just a guess.
The Patriots aren't scared of the Seahawks. The Seahawks are not scared of the Patriots.
For which you are giving little credit to the Patriots defense against Seattle's offense. In the past 10 years I would have agreed with you as a Patriots fan. Our defense has been suspect for a decade which is in part why we couldn't beat the Giants. This years Patriots defense can shut down Seattle's offense as well as their defense's ability to shut down Brady. I think it's a much more level playing field in that respect than some are giving credit.
For which you are giving little credit to the Patriots defense against Seattle's offense. In the past 10 years I would have agreed with you as a Patriots fan. Our defense has been suspect for a decade which is in part why we couldn't beat the Giants. This years Patriots defense can shut down Seattle's offense as well as their defense's ability to shut down Brady. I think it's a much more level playing field in that respect than some are giving credit.
Agreed -- this is the best Pats defense I've seen since 2007, which is why I think it'll be a tough game for Seattle. I think Seattle has a little more muscle than New England, which is why I like their chances if the Seahawks can stop New England inside the 20. But if New England can out-think Seattle and jump out to a two touchdown lead, then that might change the dynamics. Scoring TDs in the red zone will be the difference between winning and losing for the Pats.
For which you are giving little credit to the Patriots defense against Seattle's offense. In the past 10 years I would have agreed with you as a Patriots fan. Our defense has been suspect for a decade which is in part why we couldn't beat the Giants. This years Patriots defense can shut down Seattle's offense as well as their defense's ability to shut down Brady. I think it's a much more level playing field in that respect than some are giving credit.
Only slightly more level, but still favoring the Seahawks.
Last season the Seahawks faced the #1 offense in the Broncos "touchdown factory" and burnt the factory to the ground.
The Broncos had the NFL's #19 defense.
This year, they're facing the #11 offense (the Hawks have the #9 offense and statistically, both Seattle's offense and defense is better than last year) and the #13 defense.
The Broncos had a better rush defense last year (7th best) than New England does this year (9th best) and Seattle has a better running game (by some 600 yards, moving them from 4th best rushing attack last year to first this year) than they did last year.
The Patriots have a slightly better pass defense than the Broncos did last year, but like last year's Broncos, it's still below the league average. And it didn't matter, the Seahawks are ranked right about where they were in passing offense last year (last year 26th, this year 27th but this year they have a few more yards) and they're still going up against a below-average pass defense with the Patriots (last year the Broncos gave up 254 yards through the air, this year the Pats give up 239 through the air per game--and the Seahawks are in the Super Bowl averaging just over 200 yards/game).
The Pats don't even have the top offense, but if they did, they'd be facing the top defense and I'd bet on the top defense 100 times out of a 100 and come out a winner at least 90 of those times.
Only slightly more level, but still favoring the Seahawks.
Last season the Seahawks faced the #1 offense in the Broncos "touchdown factory" and burnt the factory to the ground.
The Broncos had the NFL's #19 defense.
This year, they're facing the #11 offense (the Hawks have the #9 offense and statistically, both Seattle's offense and defense is better than last year) and the #13 defense.
The Broncos had a better rush defense last year (7th best) than New England does this year (9th best) and Seattle has a better running game (by some 600 yards, moving them from 4th best rushing attack last year to first this year) than they did last year.
The Patriots have a slightly better pass defense than the Broncos did last year, but like last year's Broncos, it's still below the league average. And it didn't matter, the Seahawks are ranked right about where they were in passing offense last year (last year 26th, this year 27th but this year they have a few more yards) and they're still going up against a below-average pass defense with the Patriots (last year the Broncos gave up 254 yards through the air, this year the Pats give up 239 through the air per game--and the Seahawks are in the Super Bowl averaging just over 200 yards/game).
The Pats don't even have the top offense, but if they did, they'd be facing the top defense and I'd bet on the top defense 100 times out of a 100 and come out a winner at least 90 of those times.
This is where I think stats are misleading. If you judge the Patriots defense solely on stats then I can't disagree with you.
But in watching every Pats game, although I get frustrated with them there is a pattern to their play and winning formula. The defense is notorious for letting opponents go up and down the field between the 20's. I've seen QB's like Tannehill look like a Manning. But when push comes to shove, they lock down when needed, thus putting them 8th in scoring defense. Because we have one of the top scoring offenses who can score in a variety of fashions, I don't buy into just the stats.
The Pats play I think some of the best situational football in the league. They seem to play up or down to opponents at times, keeping lesser teams having a chance. Plus, I think their game planning is suspect because it always seems the Pats need to make halftime adjustments and blow out teams in the 2nd half after falling behind or being close in the 1st half.
Each game plays out differently, so when it gets down to this last game I find stats almost meaningless. It's match-ups and coaching and execution that counts, and the ability to play 60 minutes of football. Both of these teams do all of this extremely well. But I think in comparing the Pats to recent playoff doldrums, there are several things going our way into the game. One of the biggest is injuries. In the prior two season of playoff exits, both Gronk and Talib were out. Gronk (arguably playing his best football ever) and Revis (replacing Talib) are healthy going into this game. Plus, having Browner (yeah, I know, the penalty machine) on the other side makes our secondary look like world beaters compared to past secondary's of recent years.
Also, I know all players and coaches say they go into games with no external pressure. The Patriots have the pressure of Deflate Gate, but the Seahawks have the pressure of repeating. So in that regard I think it evens out.
I have followed Carroll over the years. I am not saying he isn't a good coach, but I don't think he is a great one. He had the luxury of walking into the Seattle job with a team with a perfect salary cap setup allowing them to load up these past few years. In college he had the always powerful USC team. With the Patriots when they had a mdeiocre team, he did nothing, unlike Belichick who has helped build a dynasty. I know I could be all wet because twice the great Belichcik got out coached by Coughlin in the Super Bowl. I just think the Patriots have an advantage here.
I think the game will be close. But if it turns into a debacle like last years Super Bowl, I truly believe it will be the Patriots doing the blowing out and not the Seahawks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
