Seattle to go to the SB IMO.They are a wagon right now.

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Based on that bogus win vs. GB! They would only have nine wins and the Bears would be in the playoffs. Thank you replacement awful refs.

eleven minus one equals ten, not nine.

 

[Double TE]

eleven minus one equals ten, not nine.

Then it would be 10, whatever but according to the tie breakers as I understand it they'd be out. Double check if you wish.

 

[borg]

What a silly post.

The Patriots have been the best team in the NFL over the course of the Belichick era. This is a Patriots board. Naturally, people here will take a Patriots-centric approach to what's going on.

And, yes, the Patriots did soften up the 49ers, just as they softened up the Texans, the Texans softened up the Patriots, the 49ers softened up the Patriots and the 49ers softened up the Seahawks. Welcome to the NFL, where top teams beat the hell out of each other and give other teams a chance to play them tougher the next week.

Ahhhh.... the "Softening Up Theory".

So let's put the SUP to a test. You and I both agree that the Patriots have been one of the best teams for what seems like forever. And your supposition is that better teams "soften up" their opposition, therefore creating an adverse affect on that opponent's performance the following week. Unfortunately, opponents recorded a 7-6 record after playing the Patriots the prior week.

Your "Welcome to the NFL, where top teams beat the hell out of each other and give other teams a chance to play them tougher the next week" seems to fail its first test. But keep 'em coming.....something might stick

 

[Lansdowne]

Bad pick. They don't match up favorably at all with Seattle.

Who from the NFC do you think they would match up favorably with, if not Seattle?

(I'm not disagreeing, I'm just curious. I think dispite their record, I would take Atlanta.)

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Then it would be 10, whatever but according to the tie breakers as I understand it they'd be out. Double check if you wish.

I did double check and you are wrong.

Seattle finished 11-5, a game ahead of the Vikings for the No. 5 seed in the NFC. Turning that Week Three win into a loss would have dropped the ‘Hawks to 10-6. But they still would have secured the No. 5 seed from the Vikings, since the Seahawks beat the Vikings during the regular season.

For the Packers, the loss cost Green Bay a first-round bye, forcing them to play Minnesota again on Saturday and, if the Packers win, to travel to San Francisco in the divisional round.

Thus, in the end, the Packers were the only team negatively affected by the game.

The final impact of the Fail Mary | ProFootballTalk

A three way tie of Chicago, Minnesota, and Seattle would have left Chicago home, based on the Bears losing to Seattle and having a worse division record than Minnesota.

 

[BradyFTW!]

And you're like every clown from ANY forum I've been on since internet forums existed who thinks their post count gives them the power to talk down to people, when they really have nothing intelligent to say.

Tell me again how Shanahan made a "STUPID" decision to keep RG3 in the game?

Being a Seahawks fan, I assume that you actually watched the game. If that's the case, and you're claiming that leaving RG3 in the game wasn't a stupid decision, then I really don't know what to tell you. It was pretty much self-evident.

 

[Kontradiction]

Sorry for not answering earlier. This thread is moving fast.

My answer is: I don't know. All I can base my opinion on is the fact that they've been making good adjustments on both sides of the ball, all year long. I am not going to pretend I have the knowledge to go into detail about their defensive adjustments to stop a running game. I can only tell you from the perspective of a fan and a spectator.

With that said, someone else (maybe it was you) made a point about removing the threat of the read option and that allowing the Seahawks defense to simplify their strategy and focus purely on Morris as the sole running threat. I don't know. But, I do know that Morris was gashing our defense in the 1st quarter even on conventional rushing plays, and that slowed down a lot after being down 14-0.

I'm also not completely sold on the notion that Morris's NFC rushing title was the result of RG3. The dude's a beast regardless.

So in one question and answer session, I made you blow your own argument out of the water while simultaneously demonstrate a lack of knowledge and credibility. You probably should have thought a little more about that response before you made it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Ahhhh.... the "Softening Up Theory".

So let's put the SUP to a test. You and I both agree that the Patriots have been one of the best teams for what seems like forever. And your supposition is that better teams "soften up" their opposition, therefore creating an adverse affect on that opponent's performance the following week. Unfortunately, opponents recorded a 7-6 record after playing the Patriots the prior week.

Your "Welcome to the NFL, where top teams beat the hell out of each other and give other teams a chance to play them tougher the next week" seems to fail its first test. But keep 'em coming.....something might stick

Which doesn't discredit what Deus posted in any way. Try again.

 

[Kontradiction]

Who from the NFC do you think they would match up favorably with, if not Seattle?

(I'm not disagreeing, I'm just curious. I think dispite their record, I would take Atlanta.)

I think everyone left in the NFC matches up favorably with the Falcons. The Niners and Seahawks because they can contain Jones and White, and the Packers because they match up well with the Falcons on offense.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Seattle is strong in all facets of the game, and has a very mentally tough QB who's no rookie anymore. They're easy to argue against until the game starts and you actually have to find ways to stop them and move the ball against them.

I do think Pete Carroll blew an opportunity to show his confidence in the team by not planning on staying on the East Coast this week, and avoiding 2 cross-country trips in a 5-6 day span.

I think the winner of Sea-Atl goes to the SB, though all 4 NFC teams are terrific.

 

[Lansdowne]

Also to anyone preferring Lynch to Peterson, you're insane. I would take 2012 Peterson over any RB ever other than maybe Jim Brown in his prime. Lynch is a great RB but not in the same stratosphere as AD.

 

[Lansdowne]

I think everyone left in the NFC matches up favorably with the Falcons. The Niners and Seahawks because they can contain Jones and White, and the Packers because they match up well with the Falcons on offense.

I meant who from the NFC matches up favorably for the Patriots in a potential SB matchup (i.e. who would be most beneficial for the Pats to play as an opponent). Sorry for not being clear with my previous reply.

 

[mgcolby]

Based on that bogus win vs. GB! They would only have nine wins and the Bears would be in the playoffs. Thank you replacement awful refs.

They would have won 10 games and they beat Chicago and Minnesota! So call or no call they would be in the playoffs. :bricks:

 

[Kontradiction]

I meant who from the NFC matches up favorably for the Patriots in a potential SB matchup (i.e. who would be most beneficial for the Pats to play as an opponent). Sorry for not being clear with my previous reply.

I would say the 49ers and the Packers. The Packers are capable of going score for score with us and have the deepest rotation of WR's in the NFL. However, Brady would have just as much (if not more) success against their defense. The 49ers because they showed they were extremely capable of slowing us down in the first game.

 

[New England Seahawks]

Being a Seahawks fan, I assume that you actually watched the game. If that's the case, and you're claiming that leaving RG3 in the game wasn't a stupid decision, then I really don't know what to tell you. It was pretty much self-evident.

After the drive that ended in their 2nd TD, RG3 went to get his knee examined by the Dr. The Dr. cleared him to continue to play. Had the Dr. not cleared him, the coach cannot override that decision. Fact.

The Dr. cleared him to play. RG3 wanted to play. Shanahan decided that he gave them the best chance to win. They prepared RG3 for this game, not Cousins.

Had Shanahan followed the advice of columnists and so-called experts like yourself, and took RG3 out of the game, and then they end up losing the game; imagine the criticism he would have taken for not keeping him in the game with a 14 point lead.

Headlines: "RG3 pulled. Cousins ineffective in Seahawks road comeback win".

So, after it played out like it did, Cousins did come in the game with about 5.5 minutes left, down 10. He had two drives. He finished 3 of 10 for 31 yards.

So I guess fans and sports journalists have better knowledge of the game and their players to make better in-game decisions than the coaches, trainers, and doctors who are actually on the sidelines. Gotcha.

 

[borg]

Which doesn't discredit what Deus posted in any way. Try again.

I guess the Pats only soften up certain teams....about 6 out of 13? Poor SF, they just happened to be part of the 46% when Seattle ***** slapped them the following week...part of a string of three 50 pt dominations that they get no credit for on this board. Theory here is that SF lost only because SF played NE the week prior. I guess when it is convenient, use it...and the Pats Good World Bad contingent will buy it every time.

 

[Zeus]

Tell me again how Shanahan made a "STUPID" decision to keep RG3 in the game?

I don't think it was a mistake to start RG III, but I believe it was a mistake to keep playing him after he tweaked his knee in the first quarter. Anyone watching could readliy see that his mobility, cutting ability and acceleration were significantly impaired. He also could not put weight on his back leg so was unable to step into his throws. The longer term effects, jeopardizing the health of a potential franchise player, may yet prove to be even more dire.

 

[New England Seahawks]

So in one question and answer session, I made you blow your own argument out of the water while simultaneously demonstrate a lack of knowledge and credibility. You probably should have thought a little more about that response before you made it.

O rly? What argument was that, which I blew out of the water?

 

[Kontradiction]

O rly? What argument was that, which I blew out of the water?

You stated that the Seahawks' adjustments stopped Washington more than the injury of their franchise quarterback. Then you couldn't name one adjustment they made (admitting that you didn't know - lack of knowledge/credibility), then admitted that the threat of the read option no longer being there made things easier for your defense (blowing your own argument out of the water). I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Go back and read your posts in this thread all the way up to the last one you sent me.

 

[Double TE]

They would have won 10 games and they beat Chicago and Minnesota! So call or no call they would be in the playoffs. :bricks:

DAMN WEEI for saying otherwise.