Hooks Rams OFFICIAL thread
Comments
-
12th in passer rating, 17th in passing yards, 24th in completion percentage, 28th in yards per attempt.Bob_C said:
His TD:Int ratio is the only thing he has done well. Otherwise he's mostly sucked. Completing 60.8% of your passes is shit in the modern NFL. -
The point is the Aaron Rodgers that the Seahawks would hypothetically face in the playoffs isn't the Aaron Rodgers who is a good QB. We can argue the reasons all day long (I think it's more the loss of Nelson with the OL obviously not helping) but it doesn't matter. Facing this Rodgers should scare no one this year.HuskyInAZ said: -
One of the Seahawk players tokay said that they took way too long to adjust to the Rams game plan. Which bolsters my theory that losing Dan Quinn and replacing him with Kris Richard has hurt this defense.
-
4 years ago, both rams and cardinals decided that to win the NFC West you had to be as tough/physical as the Hawks and 49ers (back then) were.
Mission accomplished. If we only played the three teams in our division for 18 games (6 times each for schedule parity) we would finish third in this division and if Harbaugh was still with the 49ers and didn't have York meddling it might be 4th.
Arizona has been able to carry this over to other teams and their record reflects it. The Rams under Fisher for whatever reason in a typical season will beat us, Arizona, New England, and this years version of Carolina, but then lose 8-10 games vs. the Miami's/Chargers/Jacksonville type teams.
Anyway, we got our shit shoved in on OL and DL today and that was the diff. along with the three turnovers. -
Did we win?
-
It was a shit game all around, but a lot of it was kind of fluky. Seahawks had a fumble returned for 6, the Rams recovered two fumbles on a TD drive. We don't deal in hypotheticals, but that's probably never happening again, at least to that extent.
The Seahawks really need Lynch. Healthy or not, he will be better than all the RB's now. -
If both the Vikings and Seahawks lose next week, it's Seahawks at Packers and Vikings at Redskins.RavennaDawg said:We are not playing at GB.
The scenarios where Minnesota moves past Seattle, but does not move past GB, are very few.
The Seahawks should know their seed prior to kicking off against ARizona.
GB wins, Seahawks win, it's Vikings at Packers and Seahawks at Skins.
Vikings win, Seahawks win/lose, Seahawks at Vikings, Packers at Skins.
With Packers/Vikings being Sunday night you're(?) not going to know your seed when you play. The Cardinals will know though whether they have a chance at the 1 seed. -
Good point, all 4 fumbles recovered by the Rams, and all 3 reviews went the Rams way. Just one of those 7 things changes and it might be a different game.RoadDawg55 said:It was a shit game all around, but a lot of it was kind of fluky. Seahawks had a fumble returned for 6, the Rams recovered two fumbles on a TD drive. We don't deal in hypotheticals, but that's probably never happening again, at least to that extent.
The Seahawks really need Lynch. Healthy or not, he will be better than all the RB's now. -
I think the Hawk players are way less concerned about who and where they play than the fans. They know they have to go on the road. They know only 2 teams in the NFC are playing decent now - Phoenix and Carolina. They knew weeks ago they had blown any shot at home field.
Never underestimate the heart of a champion. Any dynasty or run requires road wins in the post season. Either they will or they won't. Either way it could be interesting. Or not.
I think the players fully expect to go on the road and break a bunch of hearts on the way to the Super Bowl. They think they have a switch they can flip.
We'll find out -
I give them a 1 in 10 shot of making the super bowl. If you assume that the first playoff game is a 55/45 game and the next 2 would be 40/60 games, the true odds would be more like 9%.
-
That sounds about right. Considering there are 12 teams in the tourney that's really good odds for a team that has to play three games on the road to get there.Bob_C said:I give them a 1 in 10 shot of making the super bowl. If you assume that the first playoff game is a 55/45 game and the next 2 would be 40/60 games, the true odds would be more like 9%.
-
Right now with their health the chances are 0. That's why they need to sit guys next week
-
That's 9% of getting to the Super Bowl against a bracket of six teams not twelve.
It's probably even slimmerin reality, maybe more like 6% considering a 4 point spread would equate to about a 66% win percentage. I'm assuming here that Seattle is on average a 55% favorite (or 2 points) in round 1, Seattle is around a 4 point underdog to either Carolina or Arizona in both round 2 and 3. For context, Carolina and Arizona has roughly a 33% chance each, assuming they are 66% favorites in the round 2 games and 50/50 against each other.
Dispute my underlying assumptions all you want, but that's what the math suggests. -
-
I always laugh when thinking back on that Super Bowl 40 season at how crappy the league was that year. The NFC playoff qb's that year were Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Grossman, Chris Simms, Brunell and 2nd year Eli Manning. Pittsburgh as a #6 seed beat Kitna (after Palmer injured in 1st quarter) Peyton Manning and Jake Plummer to get to the Super Bowl and we're basically a unanimous favorite against Seattle as the #1 seed.
-
Hawks season will end on the same field it did last season.
-
I mostly watched the Hawks (in Suckattle at the moment, not AZ). The whole NFC East is terrible and it's less likely to be 4 degrees in DC so weather shouldn't be a big factor. I think they can blow them out similar to 2012.HuskyInAZ said:
Did you watch the AZ/GB game today? GB's OL is decimated. Seattle's defense would eat them for lunch.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreedhdawg said:
We?DerekJohnson said:
Not if we're fighting for the 5th seeddhdawg said:The Seahawks need to rest their starters next week either way. Right now health is a much bigger issue than seeding
And what difference does it make. gb and Washington are both the same, neither is terrible nor great
I'll take the Deadskins 10 out of 10 times -
A lot of it is who's hot at the right time. Both years the Giants won the SB with Manning, they weren't best team on the field in at least two of those playoff games, but they were clicking at the right time. Same thing with Pittsburgh in 2005. The NFL still has the best post-season of the BIG 4 sports despite that flaw. Heck, I don't even think it's a flaw. I think all sports should adopt the one and done method in the post-season, or at least shorten their series.Bob_C said:I always laugh when thinking back on that Super Bowl 40 season at how crappy the league was that year. The NFC playoff qb's that year were Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Grossman, Chris Simms, Brunell and 2nd year Eli Manning. Pittsburgh as a #6 seed beat Kitna (after Palmer injured in 1st quarter) Peyton Manning and Jake Plummer to get to the Super Bowl and we're basically a unanimous favorite against Seattle as the #1 seed.
-
Upvoted until the last sentence. One and done is definitely most entertaining, but doesn't give the best champion. In a sport like football where there are so few regular season games it makes sense. It wouldn't make sense in other sports.greenblood said:
A lot of it is who's hot at the right time. Both years the Giants won the SB with Manning, they weren't best team on the field in at least two of those playoff games, but they were clicking at the right time. Same thing with Pittsburgh in 2005. The NFL still has the best post-season of the BIG 4 sports despite that flaw. Heck, I don't even think it's a flaw. I think all sports should adopt the one and done method in the post-season, or at least shorten their series.Bob_C said:I always laugh when thinking back on that Super Bowl 40 season at how crappy the league was that year. The NFC playoff qb's that year were Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Grossman, Chris Simms, Brunell and 2nd year Eli Manning. Pittsburgh as a #6 seed beat Kitna (after Palmer injured in 1st quarter) Peyton Manning and Jake Plummer to get to the Super Bowl and we're basically a unanimous favorite against Seattle as the #1 seed.
-
A 5 game series in baseball is the equivalent of a one and done in footballgreenblood said:
A lot of it is who's hot at the right time. Both years the Giants won the SB with Manning, they weren't best team on the field in at least two of those playoff games, but they were clicking at the right time. Same thing with Pittsburgh in 2005. The NFL still has the best post-season of the BIG 4 sports despite that flaw. Heck, I don't even think it's a flaw. I think all sports should adopt the one and done method in the post-season, or at least shorten their series.Bob_C said:I always laugh when thinking back on that Super Bowl 40 season at how crappy the league was that year. The NFC playoff qb's that year were Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Grossman, Chris Simms, Brunell and 2nd year Eli Manning. Pittsburgh as a #6 seed beat Kitna (after Palmer injured in 1st quarter) Peyton Manning and Jake Plummer to get to the Super Bowl and we're basically a unanimous favorite against Seattle as the #1 seed.
-
Do you trust Marshawn to come back and be the player he's been when essentially he hasn't played (or been massively ineffective) the whole year?RoadDawg55 said:It was a shit game all around, but a lot of it was kind of fluky. Seahawks had a fumble returned for 6, the Rams recovered two fumbles on a TD drive. We don't deal in hypotheticals, but that's probably never happening again, at least to that extent.
The Seahawks really need Lynch. Healthy or not, he will be better than all the RB's now.
Hawks haven't beat a team all year that is equal or better than them from a physicality stand point (although they have been in all the games with them as well). Do you think they can beat Arizona and Carolina on the road in the playoffs in back to back weeks?
I just don't see it unless Wilson plays like he did the last 4 weeks and that isn't happening if Arizona and Carolina can get even 70% of the pressure they got on him during the regular season. -
dnc said:
Upvoted until the last sentence. One and done is definitely most entertaining, but doesn't give the best champion. In a sport like football where there are so few regular season games it makes sense. It wouldn't make sense in other sports.greenblood said:
A lot of it is who's hot at the right time. Both years the Giants won the SB with Manning, they weren't best team on the field in at least two of those playoff games, but they were clicking at the right time. Same thing with Pittsburgh in 2005. The NFL still has the best post-season of the BIG 4 sports despite that flaw. Heck, I don't even think it's a flaw. I think all sports should adopt the one and done method in the post-season, or at least shorten their series.Bob_C said:I always laugh when thinking back on that Super Bowl 40 season at how crappy the league was that year. The NFC playoff qb's that year were Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Grossman, Chris Simms, Brunell and 2nd year Eli Manning. Pittsburgh as a #6 seed beat Kitna (after Palmer injured in 1st quarter) Peyton Manning and Jake Plummer to get to the Super Bowl and we're basically a unanimous favorite against Seattle as the #1 seed.
I agree which is why baseball needs to be shortened by about 40 games, and basketball about 20. -
Fuck off. I'm not going to get into some condescending tequilla length lecture on why baseball is great but 40 games? Seriously?greenblood said:dnc said:
Upvoted until the last sentence. One and done is definitely most entertaining, but doesn't give the best champion. In a sport like football where there are so few regular season games it makes sense. It wouldn't make sense in other sports.greenblood said:
A lot of it is who's hot at the right time. Both years the Giants won the SB with Manning, they weren't best team on the field in at least two of those playoff games, but they were clicking at the right time. Same thing with Pittsburgh in 2005. The NFL still has the best post-season of the BIG 4 sports despite that flaw. Heck, I don't even think it's a flaw. I think all sports should adopt the one and done method in the post-season, or at least shorten their series.Bob_C said:I always laugh when thinking back on that Super Bowl 40 season at how crappy the league was that year. The NFC playoff qb's that year were Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Grossman, Chris Simms, Brunell and 2nd year Eli Manning. Pittsburgh as a #6 seed beat Kitna (after Palmer injured in 1st quarter) Peyton Manning and Jake Plummer to get to the Super Bowl and we're basically a unanimous favorite against Seattle as the #1 seed.
I agree which is why baseball needs to be shortened by about 40 games, and basketball about 20. -
You're right. Baseball should be shortened by 80 games. The season is too fucking long and the sport is beyond boring.dhdawg said:
Fuck off. I'm not going to get into some condescending tequilla length lecture on why baseball is great but 40 games? Seriously?greenblood said:dnc said:
Upvoted until the last sentence. One and done is definitely most entertaining, but doesn't give the best champion. In a sport like football where there are so few regular season games it makes sense. It wouldn't make sense in other sports.greenblood said:
A lot of it is who's hot at the right time. Both years the Giants won the SB with Manning, they weren't best team on the field in at least two of those playoff games, but they were clicking at the right time. Same thing with Pittsburgh in 2005. The NFL still has the best post-season of the BIG 4 sports despite that flaw. Heck, I don't even think it's a flaw. I think all sports should adopt the one and done method in the post-season, or at least shorten their series.Bob_C said:I always laugh when thinking back on that Super Bowl 40 season at how crappy the league was that year. The NFC playoff qb's that year were Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Grossman, Chris Simms, Brunell and 2nd year Eli Manning. Pittsburgh as a #6 seed beat Kitna (after Palmer injured in 1st quarter) Peyton Manning and Jake Plummer to get to the Super Bowl and we're basically a unanimous favorite against Seattle as the #1 seed.
I agree which is why baseball needs to be shortened by about 40 games, and basketball about 20. -
Baseball lovers are feeling butthurt. Good... Good...
<----------
