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.
Seattle has the #1 defense (in case you did not already know), how can New England honestly expect to score points on them?
Because being #1 means no one can score against you and you'll always win, right? Brady and the Patriots have lost to and beaten all defenses. #1 - just a number - the game isn't played on a statistical chart.
Plus, let's say Seattle holds the Patriots to 10. The Pats could hold Seattle to 7.
Because being #1 means no one can score against you and you'll always win, right? Brady and the Patriots have lost to and beaten all defenses. #1 - just a number - the game isn't played on a statistical chart.
Plus, let's say Seattle holds the Patriots to 10. The Pats could hold Seattle to 7.
"could"??? the only team the Pats defense held to 7 points was the 7-9 Minnesota who ranks #27 in offense.
if the Packers forcing 5 turnovers couldn't hold the Hawks to 7 points, what makes you think the Pats "could" without forcing 5 turnovers.?
"could"??? the only team the Pats defense held to 7 points was the 7-9 Minnesota who ranks #27 in offense.
if the Packers forcing 5 turnovers couldn't hold the Hawks to 7 points, what makes you think the Pats "could" without forcing 5 turnovers.?
Woulda shoulda coulda.
You are obviously 100% set on no way the Hawks can be beat. That's fine - sounds like a homer fan.
I'm saying the Pats have as much of a chance beating the Hawks as the Hawks have beating the Pats. I never said this was in the bag unlike you. I just like our chances against this vaunted #1 defense, no matter what happened in the Green Bay game with 5 turnovers, or what happened with us losing to Green Bay.
In the championship game, I notice the front 4 of the Seahawks were not able to touch Rogers at all. Yet, the Hawks kept the Packers from scoring 50 points. The Hawks' secondary must have done a great job of pass coverage despite the Hawks' offense had a terrible game. When you had 5 turnovers and still won the game, you must have something other than a lucky bounce.
Your only chance of beating the Patriots is to have superior pass coverage; not pass rush. I've never seen any team that can put pass rush pressure on Brady before; let alone the Seahawks' pass rushers who could not even touch Rogers last week. The Hawks will have to rely ENTIRELY on their secondary to will this game. With Earl Thomas and Sherman banged up, I don't see any chance of the Hawks beating the Patriots.....this is why I'm rooting for the underdog Hawks to win this game
The odds according to Vegas is 'you pick'em'. Even odds.
And don't forget Seattle strong punishing linebacker play and rush defense which happens to be number one in all of football.
It is true that Seattle only had one sack against Green Bay but that is not unusual for Seattle because Seattle rarely keeps a blocking back in the backfield whereas Rodgers sometimes kept two.
But with that said, the Seahawks do manage to put pressure on opposing quarterbacks forcing picks and a lot of hurried throws. Remember Rodgers only passed for 171 yards (9 yards a catch, one TD and two picks by what some will tell you arguable the best quarterback in the NFL and candidate for MVP) and only six points in the second half.
You are obviously 100% set on no way the Hawks can be beat. That's fine - sounds like a homer fan.
I can't image any one who is a fan of either the Patriots or the Seahawks not being a 'homer'.
Quote:
I'm saying the Pats have as much of a chance beating the Hawks as the Hawks have beating the Pats. I never said this was in the bag unlike you. I just like our chances against this vaunted #1 defense, no matter what happened in the Green Bay game with 5 turnovers, or what happened with us losing to Green Bay.
When the odd makers can't pick an outright winner, then I guess it isn't in the bag. But when most of the talking heads are on the East Coast and like the NFL channel where two of their talking heads you hear the most are ex-Patriots you have to take it with a grain of salt.
I can't image any one who is a fan of either the Patriots or the Seahawks not being a 'homer'.
When the odd makers can't pick an outright winner, then I guess it isn't in the bag. But when most of the talking heads are on the East Coast and like the NFL channel where two of their talking heads you hear the most are ex-Patriots you have to take it with a grain of salt.
I do not consider myself a homer fan. I do not the the Pats go into every game and win. I love my team, but try to be objective. I think I am saying either team has a chance. and I suppose I am backed by Vegas.
I actually would prefer neutral announcers myself. I get plenty of home town sports, so I don't mind hearing the opinions of those not vested in the team in any way.
I knew who was gonna win w/ the last Superbowl, lol
And I shocked a lot of people here when I told them who was going to win.
Although I'm not even a football fan, I'm always on the money w/ my predictions.
I already know who's gonna do it this year......
Quote:
Originally Posted by believe007
I'd love to tell ya'
But I never tip my hand, lol
You sound so credible. Of course, after the game you'll come on here & claim you picked the winner & the score.
If you're "always on the money," then have some guts & tell us who is going to win & what the score will be. Until then, well . . .
Brady & co ...with a little help from their special footballs
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.