Randy Moss -Sore Hammy

[cdyhybrid]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

Yeah, rabid homerism is pretty much always funny. Look at this hilarious post I found:

You make great points. Thanks for showing me the light and contributing to this thread.

[Burkex]

Originally Posted by Sunder

Don't ever post in another NFL thread again.

lol

[Everlast]

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

This is hilarious, had the Seahawks had their MVP running back for more than half the season and not lost their Pro Bowl QB for 4 games (and at full health for more than half the season) they would have had home field advantage throughout the playoffs. The Bears would have gotten smoked in Seattle, they barely won in 2OTs in Chicago, and there's no way the Saints do anything outdoors in Seattle. Easy road to the Superbowl.



Like I said, injuries were the only reason Seattle lost so many games/didn't get to the Superbowl. Alexander still had good games when he came back from his injury, and more importantly, he isn't on the cover of Madden this year.



On defense sure, but the 49er's offense isn't gonna be Colts West. Smith is still a deer in the headlights and Gore is injured. Seattle made huge upgrades to their defense through the draft and free agency (Kerney, Grant, Russell, etc.) and the receivers have a year in the offense under their belt. Jackson and Engram were the only guys who saw significant action last year that were familiar with the offense, Burleson and Branch will be better this year. Hasselbeck will be fine, Robbie Tobeck (our center) was out for half the season so the O-line never really got their shit together. Alexander doesn't have to score 30 touchdowns this season for the Seahawks to succeed, their talented receivers can pick up some of the slack if he lost a step.

Just noticed that you "location" is Seattle...I am going to go ahead and politely disagree. If you started talking shit on the Bengals I would know for sure your wrong...being an NFL fan is fun that way

[cdyhybrid]

It's true I'm a Seahawks fan, but I don't think anything I said is so blatantly wrong that only a blind homer could say it. Do you honestly think that if the Seahawks were healthy the whole year they wouldn't have won 11+ games and beat the Bears in the playoffs?

[Everlast]

Oct 1 @ Chicago Lost 6-37

It is 2 AM right now, but tomorrow I will post an actual non troll reply explaining why I think the Seahawks were not super bowl contenders last year.

[cdyhybrid]

ESPN.com - NFL - Recap

Originally Posted by Elias

The second-longest overtime field goal in NFL postseason history gave the Bears a 27-24 win over the Seahawks

Originally Posted by ESPN.com

Late in the fourth quarter, the Bears stacked up Alexander on third-and-1 for no gain at the Chicago 44, and the Seahawks decided to go for it. But Matt Hasselbeck bobbled the snap and Lance Briggs threw Alexander for a 2-yard loss, turning the ball over to the Bears with just under two minutes to go.

"If the snap was smooth, I could have run for a TD," Alexander said. "It was definitely the best I felt all season running the ball."

I think we should probably judge by the playoff game where both teams were near full-strength instead of the Week 4 game where one team is missing its MVP RB and starting center.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

You make great points. Thanks for showing me the light and contributing to this thread.

What do you want me to say? Don't be a dumbass. Yeah, Seattle had injury problems at key positions, but that doesn't mean, by any stretch, that if they were healthy then they would have waltzed over everybody on route to a glorious 260-0 victory over the colts in the superbowl. You write off the Saints because they'd have to play Seattle outdoors despite having one of the best passing attacks against a secondary with more holes than a Bangkok prostitute---which in my book probably matters a lot more than the temperature they play the game. Key injuries pose difficult problems in game planning for both teams. You could have made a reasonable claim like, "Seattle was pretty banged up last year, so who knows how far they could have gone with everyone healthy." That's pretty reasonable. It's also true for about half the league, but hey, who's counting. No, where blatant homerism sets in is when you decide that this or that game came down to one deciding factor, like injuries, and blind zealousness leads you to the impenetrable recluse of "if only..." Yeah, Seattle may have won homefield advantage with a healthy team, and they may have beaten the Bears, and they may have beaten the Saints but at that point you're looking at a string of if-thens that, if stacked end to end, would be as long as pluto's orbit around the sun. True story. On the other hand, maybe the divine brilliance of a newly confident Matt Hasselbeck may have inspired Tony Romo not to gift you a wild card win.

So to answer your question, if Seattle stayed healthy would they have won 11 games and beaten the bears (and the Saints!).

Maybe, maybe, maybe not. Who fucking knows. Certainly not me and certainly not you. None of those things are near certainties or even close to near certainties.

The bottom line is that hilarity sets in whenever you start assuming wins against top tier NFL teams---regardless of the circumstances that came before or after it.

[cdyhybrid]

Holy shit, I never once claimed they would have routed the Colts in the Superbowl. I said they would have gotten there. That's it. Secondly, this whole line of discussions started because Everlast said this:

Originally Posted by Everlast

Even completely healthy, the Seahawks still did not stand a chance to get to the Superbowl imho.

and I was explaining why this is completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

You write off the Saints because they'd have to play Seattle outdoors despite having one of the best passing attacks against a secondary with more holes than a Bangkok prostitute---which in my book probably matters a lot more than the temperature they play the game.

Yea, they did *real* well in the snow in Chicago when the Bears were missing their best secondary player, Mike Brown.

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

. You could have made a reasonable claim like, "Seattle was pretty banged up last year, so who knows how far they could have gone with everyone healthy." That's pretty reasonable.

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

The Seahawks would have gone to the Superbowl again were it not for all their injuries last year.

Oh, look at that.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

Holy shit, I never once claimed they would have routed the Colts in the Superbowl. I said they would have gotten there. That's it. Secondly, this whole line of discussions started because Everlast said this:

It's called being facetious. It's often used to help accentuate points.

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

Yea, they did *real* well in the snow in Chicago when the Bears were missing their best secondary player, Mike Brown.

1. Yes, I forgot about the horrendous Seattle winters. My bad.
2. Chicago has a defense.
3. Seattle does not.

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

Oh, look at that.

Oh hey, yeah that's exactly what I was talking about. Saying they would have gone to the super bowl =/= they may have gone to the superbowl.

[cdyhybrid]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

1. Yes, I forgot about the horrendous Seattle winters. My bad.
2. Chicago has a defense.
3. Seattle does not.

1. Yea, not like it rains in Seattle or anything. Hell, it's like Hawaii here in December. Dome teams typically do real well in cold, wet weather, as the Saints proved in Chicago.

2. Chicago's defense is not that much better than Seattle's, especially with Mike Brown out. Urlacher is mildly overrated and their stats were padded by playing the Lions/Packers/Vikings twice that year.

3. Meanwhile, Seattle had to face Frank Gore, the Arizona passing attack, and the Rams passing attack twice.

Matt Leinart, Edgerrin James, Anquan Boldin, and Larry Fitzgerald vs. over-the-hill Brett Favre and...Greg Jennings?

Alex Smith, Vernon Davis, and Frank Gore vs. ...Gus Frerotte and Chester Taylor?

Marc Bulger, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and Stephen Jackson vs. Jon Kitna, Roy Williams, and a bunch of former first-rounders on the verge of being cut?

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

Oh hey, yeah that's exactly what I was talking about. Saying they would have gone to the super bowl =/= they may have gone to the superbowl.

You're just gonna argue semantics then? You say it's impossible to say they would go even without the injuries. But, by that logic, isn't it impossible to say for certain that they *wouldn't* go to the Superbowl without those injuries? I think their odds to get there would be better than their odds to not get there had those injuries not occured, based on how the season played out.

[Grimmlokk]

Well if we're going with a mythical injury free season then the Shawks would have just lost to the Steelers in the super bowl again. 100% guaranteed true fact for sure!!!!!

[Neferata]

Yeah, I like how people blame injuries for their teams failures like they're some rare thing in the NFL. Newsflash: injuries dictate the outcome of every single NFL season. The entire league revolves around them, and it is the single most important factor in determining which teams do well and which teams don't. Every year atleast half a dozen teams can claim they would have gone to the Superbowl if such and such player(s) hadn't been injured. Blah Blah Blah.

I love football(Steelers fan) but my one major complaint when comparing it to the other sports is how much injuries dominate the game. It almost turns each year into a lottery as otherwise great teams have their seasons basically end because "oops our QB is out for 8 weeks lol" or some other shit.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

2. Chicago's defense is not that much better than Seattle's, especially with Mike Brown out.

Lols. Seriously? Are you really sure you want to try and make this argument. What exactly screams almost as good about Seattle's defense as the bears? The 19th ranked total defense vs the 5th? 19th ranked scoring defense vs the 3rd? Oh, right I forgot they had a padded schedule...

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

Urlacher is mildly overrated

True, but so what.

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

and their stats were padded by playing the Lions/Packers/Vikings twice that year.

Before we get into the numbers, let me just say that trying to claim that anyones numbers were padded in comparison to the Seahawks is god damn ridiculous. Seattle had one of the easiest schedules last year, so while Chicago may have had a marginally even easier schedule who cares. It's not like you had to play through a grueling season of the best ever. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black at best and a sissy slap fight at worst.

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

3. Meanwhile, Seattle had to face Frank Gore, the Arizona passing attack, and the Rams passing attack twice.

Gore's numbers were clearly padded by playing Seattle twice.

Arizona's passing attack 10th in the league. Detroit's passing attack 7th in the league. St. Louis's passing attack 4th in the league. Green Bay's passing 8th in the league. Wow, hey. If you average them together you get 7th vs 7.5th. Quite a discrepancy. How could I have overlooked something as glaring as that?

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

Matt Leinart, Edgerrin James, Anquan Boldin, and Larry Fitzgerald vs. over-the-hill Brett Favre and...Greg Jennings?

Alex Smith, Vernon Davis, and Frank Gore vs. ...Gus Frerotte and Chester Taylor?

Marc Bulger, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and Stephen Jackson vs. Jon Kitna, Roy Williams, and a bunch of former first-rounders on the verge of being cut?

And yet the results were so similar.

Originally Posted by cdyhybrid

You're just gonna argue semantics then? You say it's impossible to say they would go even without the injuries. But, by that logic, isn't it impossible to say for certain that they *wouldn't* go to the Superbowl without those injuries? I think their odds to get there would be better than their odds to not get there had those injuries not occured, based on how the season played out.

That's not semantics. It's saying two very different things. One one hand you are assuming wins against two very good teams and on the other you are accepting that through a whole mess of causality things might have gone differently with a healthy team. I never said that, if healthy, Seattle wouldn't have made it to the Superbowl. They may have. They may not have. The point is you can't look at "how the season played out" change a couple of things and decide that this or that would have changed the whole thing around because then that's not how the season would have played out. You're introducing about a million new factors each of which you have no idea how they would have transpired.

Why the fuck am I defending Chicago?

Originally Posted by Neferata

Yeah, I like how people blame injuries for their teams failures like they're some rare thing in the NFL. Newsflash: injuries dictate the outcome of every single NFL season. The entire league revolves around them, and it is the single most important factor in determining which teams do well and which teams don't. Every year atleast half a dozen teams can claim they would have gone to the Superbowl if such and such player(s) hadn't been injured. Blah Blah Blah.

I love football(Steelers fan) but my one major complaint when comparing it to the other sports is how much injuries dominate the game. It almost turns each year into a lottery as otherwise great teams have their seasons basically end because "oops our QB is out for 8 weeks lol" or some other shit.

Originally Posted by Grimmlokk

Well if we're going with a mythical injury free season then the Shawks would have just lost to the Steelers in the super bowl again. 100% guaranteed true fact for sure!!!!!

And now I'm agreeing with two Steelers fans. Fuck me!

[Phlean]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

People have been picking Arizona as their sleeper team for a decade...hasn't panned out too well for them yet, and even if they actually perform up to where they are capable of this year then hooray good for them, but when everybody picks you as a sleeper then it's kind of hard to argue for that surprise team.

Same can be said of the rams. God, ESPN commentators please stop picking the Rams as your sleeper pick.

Touche


I meant to edit and add Detriot as a suprise team but I didnt. I really like Jon Kitna, and I think Tatum Bell will help give them a good running game to open up things even more for Roy Williams. I dont really expect much from CJ because its kind of rare for 1st RD recievers to ammount to anything their first year, but he'll provide a good distraction and will take alot of double teams away from Williams. If their D can improve some and be middle of the road they can do good, not win a SB but atleast make the playoffs and win a game maybe. I guess a Detriot pick is kind of chic too but oh well.

[cdyhybrid]

I AM NOT BLAMING INJURIES FOR THE WAY THE SEASON TURNED OUT. Read the fucking thread, Jesus Christ. I am saying that Everlast's assertion that the Seahawks had "no chance of reaching the Superbowl" last year is completely wrong because without the massive injuries they had a very good chance of getting there.