SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
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).
I went with Potato Salad. Which ever team limps in as the bigger M.A.S.H.ed unit.
One overlooked factor is how much brandon browner and alan branch know about seattle and if this information can help us.
browner might be able to offer up some tendencies on wilson, but I don't see branch as being such an astute individual.
I think Wilson needs to be approached the same way as flacco......he's going to throw it up there, so you need to make sure your corners stay with the WR, which ours do.
The rest of it is shadowing lynch. at that point, Seattle is not going to beat you with the short passing game.......the TE's will not win the game for them.
The Pats offense has just the tools to force the Seahawks defense into overpursuit and missed coverages
I'm sure browner knows the tendencies of seattle's secondary too. He and richard sherman are tight.
If we beat the Colts, we are facing a stud at QB no matter what. Neither Rodgers or Wilson will choke in the big game.
It's tricky. The Seattle D is better, but the GB D is underrated in their own right.
I've watched a good amount of Seahawks games since they drafted Wilson. Their OL isn't their strong suit and their weapons are weak. Teams that have had success vs. Wilson have overpowered the OL with blitzes, as he holds onto the ball too long at times. You figure with Revis taking away Baldwin, we could afford to rush 5-6 often. Playing contain will be a disaster vs. Wilson.
Give me Seattle. Brady cementing his legacy by beating the team Peyton got blown out against. Also, Davante Adams is emerging and I'm just not sure our CBs can contain that trio with no pass rush.
Fourth option needed: Meteor
In addition, over the last 3 seasons SEA is a .500 team when they rush for > 115 yards.
>115 or <115?