Forgotten storyline:Kevin Williams chose Seahawks over Patriots

[Froob]

Must hurt him worst than anybody except for Russ and Pete. Anyone know if he had a good year?

 

[PatsfanCP]

Must hurt him worst than anybody except for Russ and Pete. Anyone know if he had a good year?

Funniest thing when the Pats won Kevin Williams popped into my my mind When Gronk had the Trophy .

I was thinking Ha ha ha the Pats took the Super Bowl from him

 

[Ross12]

Lolololololololol

 

[BobDigital]

I don't blame him. The Seahawks had a great chance to win too.

I said before and will say again if both teams were 100% healthy I think Seattle would have had the edge over the Pats.

 

[patfanken]

The Pats would have been thrilled to have him. I think he would have been better than Branch. But I could see him going to Seattle. Both looked like they were going to be good teams, and Seattle's D seems like a slightly better fit for his skills.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I don't blame him. The Seahawks had a great chance to win too.

I said before and will say again if both teams were 100% healthy I think Seattle would have had the edge over the Pats.

I disagree. The pats made apparent several weaknesses that the Seahwks have.

1. They have no superstars at receiver or TE. The Pats have two, in Gronk and Edelmen.

2. The big Seahawk secondary has problems handling smaller, quicker, more agile receivers, if those receivers are employed properly.

3 The Seahawk Offense is overrated, and not deep. Lynch is an older, complete back, but there is not much in reserve.

4. Wilson is not (yet) a great Passer. He is a very good scrambler and can throw deep accurately, while buying time for his nondescript receivers to un-cover. I doubt he could do "a Brady" and throw 50 passes, carry the entire team on his passing arm, and win.

Wilson reminds me of Fran Tarkenton, the original Scrambler, who won a lot; but never won the big one.

5. On Defense, the Defensive line is not Great, merely good.

6. Observation: Teams built on Great Defenses alone, do not seem to endure long, at the top. The 1985 Bears, the 2002 Bucs, and the 2013 Seahawks join the 1963 Bears as the only such clubs I remember; and all were relatively "One Year Wonders".

 

[MNF]

I don't blame him. The Seahawks had a great chance to win too.

I said before and will say again if both teams were 100% healthy I think Seattle would have had the edge over the Pats.

I disagree. But in any event Mr. Hypothetical meet Mr. Reality........That's football, you need to deal with injuries.

 

[Sciz]

The Pats would have gotten more of an impact from Tommy Kelly than Kevin Williams. In the end, it turns out they didn't need either of them, and it looks like both guys missed out on being part of a Super Bowl team that wanted them.

 

[BlueThunder]

Some players never learn

 

[BradyFTW!]

I did think of that during the game, and I also found myself wishing he'd chosen to come here. Can't blame him for signing where he did, both were quality teams where he stood to play a significant role.

 

[NormZauchin]

i disagree. The pats amde apparent severla wewaknesses thta the Seahwks ahve.

1. They have no superstars at receiver or TE. The Pats have two, in Gronk and Edelmen.

2. The big Seahawk secondary has problems handling smaller, quicker, more agile receivers, if those receivers are employed properly.

3 The Seahawk Offense is overated, and not deep. Lynch is an older, complete back, but there is not much in reserve.

4. Wilson is not (yet) a great Passer. He is a very good scrambler and can throw deep accurately, while buying time for his nondescript receivers to un-cover. I doubt he could do "a Brady" and throw 50 passes, carry the entire team on his passing arm, and win.

Wilson reminds me of Fran Tarkenton, the original Scrambler, who won a lot; but never won the big one.

5. On Defense, the Defensive line is not Great, merely good.

6. Observation: Teams built on Great Defenses alone, do not seem to endure long, at the top. The 1985 Bears, the 2000 Bucs, and the 2013 Seahawks join the 1963 Bears as the only such clubs I remember; and all were relatively "One Year Wonders".

I think that you either meant the 2002 Bucs or the 2000 Ravens, though both faded after winning the Lombardi.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I think that you either meant the 2002 Bucs or the 2000 Ravens, though both faded after winning the Lombardi.

Yup ! So Sorry.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

I don't blame him. The Seahawks had a great chance to win too.

I said before and will say again if both teams were 100% healthy I think Seattle would have had the edge over the Pats.

IF IF IF! Not trying to bust chops. Someone posted this on an ESPN thread:

"If the NFC is wide open?" The Packers blew the NFC Championship game as badly as the Seahawks blew the Super Bowl. They also beat the Patriots is a solid regular season performance. Had the Cardinals and the Eagles not seen their starting QB's go down (and in the Cardinals case, their back-up QB as well), who knows what the playoffs would have looked like this year.

We have yet to see who is staying and who is moving on with the various NFL franchises, Of course the NFC is wide open. What a pointless discussion

 

[smg93]

The Pats would have gotten more of an impact from Tommy Kelly than Kevin Williams. In the end, it turns out they didn't need either of them, and it looks like both guys missed out on being part of a Super Bowl team that wanted them.

http://nesn.com/2014/09/ex-patriot-tommy-kelly-does-new-england-want-to-win-or-save-money/

I guess we have the answer to his question

 

[chasa]

I don't blame him. The Seahawks had a great chance to win too.

I said before and will say again if both teams were 100% healthy I think Seattle would have had the edge over the Pats.

that game shouldn't have been as close as it was.

Brady made a boneheaded int that would have put the pats up 21-7

The patriots were marching up and down the field on the seahawks vaunted d, Throw in Mayo in the middle of our d, with collins on one side, and Hightower on the other, and the seahawks dont break 100 yards rushing.

If both teams are 100% healthy the patriots win by a couple of scores.

 

[meatface]

**** him

 

[Archeryaddict12]

that game shouldn't have been as close as it was.

Brady made a boneheaded int that would have put the pats up 21-7

The patriots were marching up and down the field on the seahawks vaunted d, Throw in Mayo in the middle of our d, with collins on one side, and Hightower on the other, and the seahawks dont break 100 yards rushing.

If both teams are 100% healthy the patriots win by a couple of scores.

The second int wasn't toms fault, was a perfect play by Wagner. The first one was bad, but I believe he didn't see lane and didn't throw it away fearing an intentional grounding play. Don't blame him, since the heat was coming from both ways.

 

[patsderoer]

Without him the Seahags don't make the SB. He made a good play when he stopped Kuhn at the 1yard line, and GB kicked a FG on that drive.

That said, F him.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don't blame him. The Seahawks had a great chance to win too.

I said before and will say again if both teams were 100% healthy I think Seattle would have had the edge over the Pats.

Full roster? IE- Pats have Mayo.

In this game Mayo would have been invaluable.

 

[BobDigital]

Full roster? IE- Pats have Mayo.

In this game Mayo would have been invaluable.

Yep, that is what i meant. No players on IR for either team and all players 100% healthy. Mayo would have helped a lot. I am not saying Seattle would have won for sure or would have been better by a large margin but they IMO would have been a 1 point favorite going in.