Seahawks vs Green Bay [Playoffs!!?]

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

who wins?


  • Total voters
    35
Feb 14, 2004
16,667
4,746
113
41
#81
well all i know is chicken taste good, so seachickens really isnt a bad name. i havent tasted hawk though. but as far as i know we lost. it really wasnt a good game for us. we got out played. i kinda figured we would, but i still talked shit like we would win. but of course i would. seahawks played pretty shitty. the dude with the dreds really fucked with us. our defense couldnt really do nothing against favres short pass' or thier run game. matt couldn't do nothing on offense really. we had a few good plays here and there. but packers came out witha W. they deserved to win that game the way seahawks played. this playoff season is kinda interesting though. im anxious to see who's going to the super bowl. im hoping it's going to be Giants and Jags at the super bowl
 
Nov 7, 2006
7,383
36
0
38
#85
and like i said they will make the SB, fuckin 40 burger in some serous winter WOW. seahawks only thing that would help them win was d and they didnt show up after those 2 fumbles lol.
 
Feb 14, 2004
16,667
4,746
113
41
#89
the snow sucks. packers have more experience in the snow more then us. look at the schedules. please believe seahawks would have won if it were at Qwest. but it wasnt. so we lost. so we'll have more to prove next season.
 
Feb 14, 2004
16,667
4,746
113
41
#91
before the game started, the poll was for the Sehawks. now that the game is over it's for the Packers. damn poor sports.
 

Rossibreath

triple og from the sbp
Sep 1, 2005
12,968
15,464
113
49
Menasha
#92
the snow sucks. packers have more experience in the snow more then us. look at the schedules. please believe seahawks would have won if it were at Qwest. but it wasnt. so we lost. so we'll have more to prove next season.
this is a bad theory, the packers are much better on both sides of the ball & mike holmgren failed in seattle.
 
Feb 14, 2004
16,667
4,746
113
41
#93
well if that was a bad theory, then how about this one. maybe mike let the packers win, since green bay is a special place for him and has a street named after him that runs probably over 4 miles, and seattle doesnt have a street named after him there. hmm....

also deion got put out early, so that coulda been another reason!!!
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#94
seattle just sucks on the road. Plain and simple. Would have been a different game in seattle, but that's why they play the regular season. Green Bay earned their right to have a home game, so that's that. All credit goes to green bay.

On a side note Seattle better fuckin draft a RB first round. And some o-lineman as well. And I hope Holmgren comes back for one more year, he's the best thing that ever happened to the Seahawks.
 
Feb 14, 2004
16,667
4,746
113
41
#95
i also hope that Kerney, Trufant, Hackett, and Brown stay too. i think we'd be even more shittier without them dudes. we can't make another big mistake like the Hutchinson deal. and yes we need to get a better RB. although Mo-Mo is quite good. but if not, then hopefully Shaun heals up real good for next season. him and Branch
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#96
Mo-mo is good, but he's not a feature back. He's really more of a third down back. He definitely isn't the type of guy you want to give the ball to 20-30 times a game. We've already seen what he can and cannot do.

And I hate to say it but Shaun is done. It was stupid for the team to give him such a big, 5 year contract at age 30.
 
Feb 14, 2004
16,667
4,746
113
41
#97
i think if i was his head coach and sawn him have a terrific season like the 05 one, i'd probably give him a good ass deal too. maybe not that long of a deal though. probably around 2-3 years, since he was in his late 20's. but i don't think Shaun is done. he's been improving real well. this eight months off should do him good. i hope so anyway. he's one of my favorite running backs. top 3 for me easily.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#98
I hope you're right, but even in '05 I thought he was a product of that o-line and remember lots of games thinking, "how the fuck did Alexander get over 100 yards? Seemed like he had 50." That o-line was so good at pushing the d-line back right off the snap that all alexander had to do was run forward and fall, and he'd get like 5-6 yards. And of course every now and then he'd break free of a 10+ yarder.

I don't think people realized at the time just how important Hutchinson was on that o-line (and now you can see what he's doing over in Minnesota and for Adrian Peterson).

Without a dominant o-line, alexander is just an average back. So unless they dramatically improve over the off season in that area, alexander will never have another '05 season.

Just my opinion of course.
 
Feb 14, 2004
16,667
4,746
113
41
#99
yeah i agree with you on the o-line. if we can't make some holes for Shaun, then i don't think we can do anything on the run game. we really need Hutchinson back. or someone better? or maybe just get a back that can create plays by him self.