Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
Posts like this are why everyone thinks you're a clown. You say point differential doesn't mean anything, a loss on the road means we're a bad road team. But then a few sentences later you essentially argue that close wins on the road mean we're still a bad road team.
You want facts? Seattle has won five of their last six on the road. I guess a .830 record sucks in your assbackwards world of hate-fueled bias.
I said people don't care about it. A loss is a loss. I don't care how or by how many. It's a L either way. Winning close games against average competition when you're supposedly the best team in the league is not impressive. Winning like Denver is impressive. Why, then, don't the Seahawks win at margins that Denver puts up? Are they not good or not as good on the road, i.e. a bad road team. Face it, if you don't have home field advantage, there is no Super Bowl coming for you. Whether that theory gets tested is another matter entirely....
"Hate-fueled bias"eh? The only thing I hate about Seattle is Sherman, your stupid 12th Man nickname you STOLE from A&M and arrogant pricks like you who make it easy to enjoy any misfortune that could happen to them.
Once again, you're blatantly and willfully missing the point in order to argue something that isn't true. By the same logic that a loss is a loss, doesn't matter by how much, a win is a win, doesn't matter by how much. Seattle is 5-1 in their last 6 road games. By definition, we're a great road team. And if you want to go back further, using your "anything under .500 is not impressive," we're 6-6 on the road since the start of 2012 including playoffs.
rkwittem wrote:
Winning less than 50% of your road games is not impressive. Getting a "C" when everyone except a few are getting D's and F's is still bad.
No...it's tough for most teams to win on the road in the NFL. D's and F's would be bad. C would be average. I would grade your skills at debate a D+
I see you accidentally hit the D key instead of F.
clenz wrote:Luck also walked into a team that was 2-14...
Wilson took over a team that was expected to be pretty damn good.
Not on offense. According to our resident football genius rk, RW has no WRs worth a piss to throw to.
Luck and the Colts also faced one of the easiest schedules last year and played in a very weak division defensively.
Obviously, both are very talented and expected to take their teams far, for a long time to come. It will be fun to watch.
Uh, did you look at Seattle's schedule last year? Rams and Cardinals twice each, Carolina, Detroit, Minnesota, Jets, Buffalo, Miami...their out-of-division schedule was actually pretty similar to the Colts'.
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
Not on offense. According to our resident football genius rk, RW has no WRs worth a piss to throw to.
Luck and the Colts also faced one of the easiest schedules last year and played in a very weak division defensively.
Obviously, both are very talented and expected to take their teams far, for a long time to come. It will be fun to watch.
Uh, did you look at Seattle's schedule last year? Rams and Cardinals twice each, Carolina, Detroit, Minnesota, Jets, Buffalo, Miami...their out-of-division schedule was actually pretty similar to the Colts'.
Jets, Lions, Panthers, Cards, Rams, Vikings and Dolphins were all in the top half of the league for total defense. So were Niners, Bears, and Packers. So 13 of the 16 games Seattle played in the regular season last year were against the better defenses in the NFL.
As for the Indy game, I don't have a good feeling about it. Indy has surprised me this year (especially the SF game) and I think they take this one. It should be close though, so a good game nonetheless.
As for the Indy game, I don't have a good feeling about it. Indy has surprised me this year (especially the SF game) and I think they take this one. It should be close though, so a good game nonetheless.
If it were in Seattle I would pick the Hawks for sure, but I think Indy wins by a TD or less at home.
I don't care about any athlete's off-the-field garbage. (Provided they're not a Rae Carruth/Aaron Hernandez imitator.)
He's an annoying, trash-talking thug of a player and I like the NFL better when he doesn't play. Best part of that video was watching Trent Williams slug him in his ugly mug. There are dozens of guys in pro sports from the inner city who are as well-educated, well-spoken and behave much better on the playing field. And I regard those guys as much more worthy of my respect than this wannabe clown.
I wonder how Deion Sanders managed to pull off his act and still not irritate the rest of his peers? I bet it was because he wasn't a disrespectful dipshit to his opponents.
Best part of that video was watching Trent Williams slug him in his ugly mug.
That right there is your problem.
Best part wasn't his mother and father working their asses off to give their children a chance to get an education and move up in the world. It wasn't Sherman and his brother fighting poverty and the thug life. No, it was another football player hitting Sherman in the face in a meaningless moment.
Best part of that video was watching Trent Williams slug him in his ugly mug.
That right there is your problem.
Best part wasn't his mother and father working their asses off to give their children a chance to get an education and move up in the world. It wasn't Sherman and his brother fighting poverty and the thug life. No, it was another football player hitting Sherman in the face in a meaningless moment.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
A lot, clearly. Sherman is a better human being than rk, and it isn't even close.
Best part of that video was watching Trent Williams slug him in his ugly mug.
That right there is your problem.
Best part wasn't his mother and father working their asses off to give their children a chance to get an education and move up in the world. It wasn't Sherman and his brother fighting poverty and the thug life. No, it was another football player hitting Sherman in the face in a meaningless moment.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I don't give 2 shits about his parents. We have to compliment people for doing what they're supposed to in the first place? Uh-uh. Not me. Plenty of guys followed his path the NFL and did so with way more class and respect for the game than this douchebag. Even his own peers don't like. What does THAT tell you? If that means they hate Seattle, then congrats, any real chance Seattle has at league- wide respect is toast because this guy is incredibly stupid.
Seahawks08 wrote:
That right there is your problem.
Best part wasn't his mother and father working their asses off to give their children a chance to get an education and move up in the world. It wasn't Sherman and his brother fighting poverty and the thug life. No, it was another football player hitting Sherman in the face in a meaningless moment.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
A lot, clearly. Sherman is a better human being than rk, and it isn't even close.
Have we met before? Or are you that insulted that someone hates one of "your guys" because Seattle fans have a complex which means they have to scream for undeserved respect?
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
A lot, clearly. Sherman is a better human being than rk, and it isn't even close.
Have we met before? Or are you that insulted that someone hates one of "your guys" because Seattle fans have a complex which means they have to scream for undeserved respect?
SE doesn't condone violence like you apparently do.
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
A lot, clearly. Sherman is a better human being than rk, and it isn't even close.
Have we met before? Or are you that insulted that someone hates one of "your guys" because Seattle fans have a complex which means they have to scream for undeserved respect?
I don't give a shit that you hate one of "my guys," the reason I know you're a douchebag piece of shit is that you wish for a guy who employs the same tactics as you, to be injured by dirty play. You're a hypocrite. You talk about hating Sherman because he (according to you) lacks class and respect, yet you repeatedly demonstrate a lack of class and respect by rooting for someone to get injured or hurt by dirty play simply because you don't like him. Yeah, he talks shit, but he backs it up (which is the real reason why you can't stand him... let me guess, he dominated against your "favorite" team?). You talk shit too, but you don't back it up. If I were as worthless and classless as you, I suppose I would wish for you to get hurt or injured by cheap play or action. I just dislike you because you're a hypocrite, and a classless douchebag.
Hypocrite? You had no issue with the Ian Williams play. I see no difference other than I don't like Sherman and you don't care about Williams. I just don't mind if the play is legal or not. Also, Sherman hasn't "dominated" my favorite team because he hasn't played against them. Still griping about my favorite team...move on, you don't need to know.
