So who do we root for Pack vs Seahawks?

robertweathers said:

Oops! Meant < 115. SEA is something like.

In digging into is further, I think it's better to say that in 2013 & 2014, SEA is 4-4 when rushing for less than 108 yards. I'm throwing out 2012 as that was Wilson's rookie year.

Click to expand...

This is one area where I actually agree with Felger: That's a fairly meaningless stat. It indicates more to me that when Seattle is winning, they run more at the end of the game, and when they're losing, they run less at the end of the game. That's not a surprise. Perhaps some form of yards per carry stat would be more indicative of how important the run game is to Seattle's prospects.

I wonder what matchup the NFL really wants! I don't think they want Indy in the big game just yet. NE vs GB was one of the highest rated regular season games in years! A Patriots vs Packers SB would be quite a spectacle! Then there's NE vs the defending champion Seahawks! I think this maybe the best all around possible SB matchup! Of course I want the Pats to win the whole shebang! I just don't want a repeat of last year's SB

Haterproof said:

I wonder what matchup the NFL really wants! I don't think they want Indy in the big game just yet. NE vs GB was one of the highest rated regular season games in years! A Patriots vs Packers SB would be quite a spectacle! Then there's NE vs the defending champion Seahawks! I think this maybe the best all around possible SB matchup! Of course I want the Pats to win the whole shebang! I just don't want a repeat of last year's SB

Click to expand...

After watching Denver fail to show up on Sunday, I would say that the SB had as much to with them as it did with Seattle's awesomeness. There is no way that the Patriots lay down like that.

Sicilian said:

This is one area where I actually agree with Felger:

Click to expand...

He said the same thing? LOL. I thought I was being original...

Sicilian said:

That's a fairly meaningless stat. It indicates more to me that when Seattle is winning, they run more at the end of the game, and when they're losing, they run less at the end of the game. That's not a surprise. Perhaps some form of yards per carry stat would be more indicative of how important the run game is to Seattle's prospects.

Click to expand...

Its not just the run game. SEA is big on balance in all areas- passing, running and defense. It's if the defense does its job, they win and that helps the running game and play action. If the D does it's job and they can't run the ball, they will struggle offensively. That's another reason in the last two years, if SEA allows more than 17 points, they are 7-7.

Wilson is not the kind of QB that will win you shootouts. He doesn't have the weapons and thats not SEAs game.

If SEA was a "pass first" team I would agree with you. However they are not. They win by running the ball, play action and letting their defense control the game. Lets look at the 8 games.

2014

W vs CAR last week- Ran more than passed. Newton throws 2 picks. If CAR was a good team they would have won.
L vs DAL this year- The only ran it 18 times for 80 yards. DAL controlled the clock. SEA led 23-20 in 4th qtr. Wilson was awful. DAL wins 30-23
L vs SD this year- Chargers score 20 in the 1st 1/2 and pretty much putting SEA in a pass-first mode and they do not have the play makers to execute in a shootout.

Last year they were 2-2 and the two losses were due to ToP AZ (10-17) and SF (17-19). In one win vs STL he was terrible. In the win vs CAR, he was great.

Root root root for old Green Bay.

And maybe Rodgers to end up in a walking boot by the end of the game?

Pretty amazing stat: Since Russell Wilson has been QB (54 games) , Seattle has not lost a game by more than 7 points.

letekro said:

Pretty amazing stat: Since Russell Wilson has been QB (54 games) , Seattle has not lost a game by more than 7 points.

Click to expand...

Just wow.

I want Seattle. We have the secondary to totally control their receivers. I'm confident we can come up with a plan to control their read option series (I have some ideas but that's for another thread) The only really issue for me is their run game, and that would be be a problem regardless of who we play.

As far as their defense goes, I felt the offensively challenged Panthers move the ball enough to feel strongly that we could do a better job, even against a D THAT good. I've been mentioning for a couple of weeks now that the Great defensive streak the Seahawks have been on has been made against injury back ups, rookies, and the floundering Colin Kapernick. SF is the only offense that could even be called mediocre....and that's stretching it.

Now they FINALLY get a chance to play against a first class offense and they draw another hobbled QB. The Seahawks have been watched by the gods this season. BTW- I wouldn't mind a hobbled Aaron Rodgers, who would be forced to stay in the pocket, but given the fact the Superbowl is 3 weeks from now, I doubt that advantage will be as telling by them.

Pick your poison. Face the Seahawks' vaunted defense, Beast Mode RB, mobile QB? Or Packers' [potential] MVP QB, stud RB, deeper receiving corps (including a #3 WR we couldn't cover last time in Davante Adams)?

It wouldn't surprise me if Vegas favored either NFC rep in the SB. As far as neutrals go, the best chance of seeing them root for the Pats was having the Cowboys face them and that possibility is out the window now.

All that being said, I think Patriots/Seahawks is the likely outcome anyway.

Packers? We almost beat them in Lambeau, which no one has done this year; I like BB and TB in a rematch. Rodgers has the kind of injury that will probably take the entire off-season to heal completely. Revenge for Tuna-gate.

Seahawks? The only reason I could imagine preferring them would be that they would be 2 1/2--3 point favorites and there'd be a lot of pressure on them. But otherwise, Wilson could give the D fits; their D is peaking at the right time.

Answer: Packers.

This shouldn't even be a question since we all know the answer!

If we play GB, we face a team we have already seen this season. We know that rodgers is going to throw to davonte adams and exploit that matchup against arrington. We can at least try and game plan around that.

If its seattle, they haven't faced an offense quite like ours and by that i mean gronk. If GB can keep the game close against seattle and lose let's say 30-23, then im confident we can hang with the seahawks. If seattle blows them out 30-10 then NE would be in trouble.

Why aren't the Patriots' an option?

Packers, give me a hobbled rodgers and that green bay defense over seattle any day of the week.

TheBostonStraggler said:

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.

Click to expand...

Honestly have you watched the Seattle d play ?.The speed and tackling of that team is unbelievable. When people get hit by Seattle players they go down and there is No yards after contact.They proved themselves last year against good offenses and they are no worse.Their players on D players are no flukes.

I do not understand how people continually underestimate Russell Wilson.Hearing people talk about Wilson is like hearing how people used to underestimate Tom in the early years.

Seattle is a dangerous and would be a tough match up so i would prefer Green Bay.

Seachickens got beat by the chiefs, rams, chargers, and cowboys. Not really high power O's. You would have to watch tape of those games to see what was done to win against them. SD and Dallas both put up 30 and the Rams put up 28. I would think we could match that output. I would assume our game plan would be to contain their ability to run and force wilson to win it with his arm.

KontradictioN said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think an argument could be made for Green Bay as the preference due to the fact that we already gameplanned for them this year.

I do not believe that Rodgers' calf injury is that big of a deal now, let alone in 3 weeks from now....many here seem to be greatly overreacting to that. Yes, he took it easier this past week, but they've already came right out and said yesterday that he's much better than he was a week or two ago. Another (almost) 3 weeks, and he's going to be pretty much healed entirely.

You may have more confidence in the defense than I do, however. Personally, I don't want to have to see Rodgers and those weapons again. They are very difficult to defend. I think I'd rather see Belichick gameplanning for 2 weeks as how to overcome the SEA defense. Just my opinion. It can obviously go both ways.

Greenbay is the obvious pick, but that being said...if GB were to go into Seattle, who has a significant homefield advantage, and defeat the legion of Boom, in spite of Rodgers' gimpy leg, then I might be more afraid of GB.

Either way, the NFC representative will be a stellar team.

moejr said:

Seachickens got beat by the chiefs, rams, chargers, and cowboys. Not really high power O's. You would have to watch tape of those games to see what was done to win against them. SD and Dallas both put up 30 and the Rams put up 28. I would think we could match that output. I would assume our game plan would be to contain their ability to run and force wilson to win it with his arm.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Covering the likes of Kearse and.....???? I don't even know--shouldn't be that difficult.

The question comes down to a preference for preparing to face SEA's defense vs. GB's offense. Most here would rather face GB's offense. I can't say that either match up would make me overly optimistic, as both would be a challenge.

Can we get a write in candidate? I pick the Bucs. Hey, they almost won the NFC South. That should be enough to get them into the Super Bowl.