So who do we root for Pack vs Seahawks?

Bella*chick said:

I just can't root for anyone. It feels too much like Be careful what you wish for. I know I don't play the game but I can't help it. It's like the last Giants Superbowl. It seemed karmic that they were the ones who advanced. But it was the SOS. So we play who we play. I'm resigned to it. Truthfully, I'd rather play neither. I know, lame.

Click to expand...

Exactly that. Either matchup would be so tough for the Pats that I wouldn't be comfortable rooting for either. I rooted for the Giants to make the SB twice, and look what happened there

I dont want any part of Seattle. their D is unreal

I really can't root for anyone either, there's no easy choice this year.

You're either playing the second best quarterback in the league or the best defense (+ a mobile QB and great RB) in the league.

We had 0 pass rush on Rodgers and if our D-Line performs like that again (or how it did just 2 days ago against the Ravens) he will eat us apart again and we'll be watching a shoot out.

Whatever the case, this would be the Pats toughest SB opponent since the 2001 Rams.

If we are fortunate enough to make the Super Bowl we would be underdogs against either team I would think. I'm not going to sweat this game too much, but I suppose I would be rooting for the Packers.

Boston Boxer said:

I dont want any part of Seattle. their D is unreal

Click to expand...

Do u think Pats can get a few first downs on that defense?

The Brandon Five said:

Fourth option needed: Meteor

Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of Norovirus. One that hits in two weeks.

Rooting for Seattle. GB is so likeable. Seattle is universally hated. It'd be nice to have the majority of neutral fans behind us for once.

I can't take another 35-31 game again- so hopefully Seattle wins. Pats have no pass rush to stop Rodgers. Plus I thought GB did a pretty good job of containing Gronk.

I'd prefer a 17-13 game. If the Pats get out ahead say 10-0 on Sea, Seattle's O can't rely on their main option Lynch as much. I'd be more comfortable with a 14 pt lead on SEA than a 20 point lead on GB.

I'd rather face a top offense than a top defense. Belichick is a defensive mastermind, remember?

It's a tougher choice, imho, than others seem to believe (with Seattle being the clear choice to not play of most).

Why I would want GB: A)Seattle's got a significantly better D. B) Seattle has a lot of SB veterans. C) Wilson can change the game with his legs where Rodgers "only" adds potency. D) Seattle maintained a higher level of football on the road while GB's playing level has dropped noticeably more E) More 'playmakers'.

Why I would want Seattle: A)GB has the better O. B) Through the first 3 quarters of just about every game for many many weeks, Seattle hasn't blown anyone out (nearly every game is within one score to start the 4th). C) Seattle relies most heavily on their RBs gaining yards while GB has a more consistent track record of scoring big through the air (IMHO it is easier to adjust to a run game to slow it down/contain it than potent passing).

I have liked Seattle more up to this point as the favored opponent because of that 'haven't really blown anyone out' factor. Unless the Patriots lay an absolute egg or Seattle spontaneously goes nuclear, it appears that even if Seattle is out there proving they simply are the better team, chances still seem to be good the ball will be in Brady's/the Offense's hand at some point in the early fourth quarter with the chance to be within a few points, tie or go take the lead (again according to the track record). With GB having a track record of potentially burying you quickly, I like the idea of having a chance in the 4th quarter no matter if the Patriots have been outplayed (though GB;s step down in play away from lambeau should potentially be given more weight).

bostonia3333 said:

I can't take another 35-31 game again- so hopefully Seattle wins. Pats have no pass rush to stop Rodgers. Plus I thought GB did a pretty good job of containing Gronk.

I'd prefer a 17-13 game. If the Pats get out ahead say 10-0 on Sea, Seattle's O can't rely on their main option Lynch as much. I'd be more comfortable with a 14 pt lead on SEA than a 20 point lead on GB.

Click to expand...

Since the start of November, it's well known Seattle's victory track record has largely been against bad offenses. Arguably the two best offenses they have faced sine October is the NY Giants and Mark Sanchez led Eagles. The Giants put up 17 on them through the first 3 quarters (tie game starting the 4th) , Philly put up 14 through the first 3 quarters (Philly down by 10 to start the 4th).
The remainder of Seattle's victories were 2 against SF, 2 against Arizona, 1 against STL, a against Oak, as well as the playoff game against the 19th ranked Panthers, where the Panthers scored 10 in the first 3 quarters (Seattle up by 4 to start the 4th quarter).

The Patriots' offense is MARKEDLY better than any team on that list of opponents. Obviously take this recent history for it's worth but that history does say the Patriots would start the 4th quarter in a game that is still very much winnable. That's a nice thing to have considering it's possible the opponent is outplaying you and has been showing they are the better team. Bottom line, if given a difficult choice I'd go with that safe play if having at least one chance in the 4th quarter.

Both teams are dangerous but I will go with the riskier option of Seattle.

No matter what we have done, we are still disrespected. People bring up spygate even though it was literally years ago and we still win. The Giants just have a little luck and all of our sb were close. But beating a dominant Seattle team will go a long way in rebuilding our rightful credibility and in a backhanded way rub it in Peyton Manning's face.

Also, I don't think their defense would shut us down the way people think. We struggle against pure power defenses like the Jets and Ravens, but Seattle is more speed based.

GB EASILY!!!!! I don't want any part of that roided out Seattle defense. We've seen GB already, we know what they're bringing to the party. I like our chances on a neutral field.

New England Pride said:

I'm in the minority here but I voted hawks. I really think we could do a number on their offense, and though there d is tougher, I still can't see them stopping Gronk. Aaron Rogers is a bad man and he shredded us in Lambeau (don't say he didn't, they punted twice.) Give me a shot at the hawks and Bradys Facebook will read "U MAD BRO?"

Edit: I also don't think there big long corners can cover Edelman.

Click to expand...

And CB Byron Maxwell is having some issues as well.

I am in agreement with you--understanding that we're in the minority.

I think our D has improved greatly, but I don't like the chances with Green Bay and all of those weapons. I'd much rather face another tough defense again. I think we should be battle tested from doing that already so many times this year.

saspack said:

GB. No question. Even with a healthy Rodgers, I like our chance to win. On the other hand I don't think we can beat Seattle. Their d is too good.

Click to expand...

I don't know....CAR was in that game on Saturday night in the 4th quarter, and I don't exactly consider their offense prolific.

Take a look at some of the point totals that SEA's defense has given up this year, and you'll see what I mean. They've been hot lately, but they've also played a lot of weak sister teams.

I'd rather the pats play the packers. Seahawks defense is amazing and Wilson scrambling would cause the pats all sorts of problems.

Seahawks are a buzzsaw and I don't see any team beating them this year.

I definitely would rather play the Packers. I thought we could have won the game in Green Bay when Rodgers was healthy. I also don't like Sherman and their defense is really really good and Wilson I'm sure would be a real pain in our back side.

I think GB-NE would be a good game, but also the one the Pats have the greater chance of winning. They can beat either team, I just don't have much faith in a Seattle matchup, that team is playing incredible defense, Wilson and Lynch would give the Pats D fits and they're so, so confident right now.

Give me GB, I'll gladly take the 'easy' route if it means another Lombardi.

supafly said:

And CB Byron Maxwell is having some issues as well.

I am in agreement with you--understanding that we're in the minority.

I think our D has improved greatly, but I don't like the chances with Green Bay and all of those weapons. I'd much rather face another tough defense again. I think we should be battle tested from doing that already so many times this year.

Click to expand...

The 2014 SEA defense is not as good as last year's team. I understand that the numbers are similar but....

-They have faced more substandard QBs this year than last
-They have had a number of defections that have hurt their play making abilities (Clemons, etc.)
-They have some injuries that bear watching (Maxwell, etc.)

With that said, a somewhat immobile Rodgers makes it a little easier to defend GB.

I think SEA still has a better defense than GB and with Rodgers slightly limited, I think GB would be a slightly easier match up for NE.

As long as the DL is actually allowed to try to move Rodgers off his spot instead of sitting there with their thumbs up their asses to try to limit the back-breaking 8 yard run, I root for Green Bay in the event of a re-match in the Super Bowl. The Patriots match up with them better than Seattle, especially if Rodgers is limited.