Opening Day

[darin]

No, you ain't even close. It ain't that Seattle's that good. It's that GB has kicked its own ass.

oh.my.god. Dude. No you didnt. Did you watch? (Sigh)

[Gunny]

oh.my.god. Dude. No you didnt. Did you watch? (Sigh)

Uh yeah? How far do you think the TV is from me in an efficiency motel room? I watched Aaron Rogers Make some BAD decisions. They would have lost to Miami the way he played tonight.

[darin]

Thats the thing with good teams...they make it seem the other team cant get out of its own way. Seahawks WERE that good. they are that good. I saw it. You saw it. And the american people saw it. Trying to excuse it away is dishonest.




38-12 is biased? Naw. Seahawks are that much better

[Gunny]

Thats the thing with good teams...they make it seem the other team cant get out of its own way. Seahawks WERE that good. they are that good. I saw it. You saw it. And the american people saw it. Trying to excuse it away is dishonest.




38-12 is biased? Naw. Seahawks are that much better

You're ARE biased. The Packers didn't NEED Seattle to make them look bad, and wasn't because Seattle is "just that good." Seattle didn't make the mistakes and Green Bay did. Rodgers making bad decisions didn't have anything to do with someone else making him do it.

And no, I WOULDN'T let you officiate a Seahawks game, NOR do the play by play.

[darin]

You're ARE biased. The Packers didn't NEED Seattle to make them look bad, and wasn't because Seattle is "just that good." Seattle didn't make the mistakes and Green Bay did. Rodgers making bad decisions didn't have anything to do with someone else making him do it.

And no, I WOULDN'T let you officiate a Seahawks game, NOR do the play by play.

So me and vast majority of the national media and analysts are wrong. I have seen 10 stories covering the event and none of the authors said the packers beat themselves. Nobody is saying "Yeah, the Hawks weren't that good - the packers were that bad" among the respected media.

Either Seattle Beat-down the Packers - and it got worse as the game went on...OR your 'biased' view the packers would have lost if they were the only team on the field.

So I have to ask - in what way were the seahawks NOT good. And if you bring up 'Punt Returns' - that was obvious.

[Gunny]

So me and vast majority of the national media and analysts are wrong. I have seen 10 stories covering the event and none of the authors said the packers beat themselves. Nobody is saying "Yeah, the Hawks weren't that good - the packers were that bad" among the respected media because those kinds.

Either Seattle Beat-down the Packers - and it got worse as the game went on...OR your 'biased' view the packers would have lost if they were the only team on the field.

So I have to ask - in what way were the seahawks NOT good. And if you bring up 'Punt Returns' - that was obvious.

YOU are using the national media as your backup? Tsk tsk ....

I didn't say the Seahawks weren't good. I said the Packers beat themselves. I have no biased view. I could care less who wins between those two teams.

But it IS fun at you about it.

[darin]

Fair enough. I'll just leave these here - Examples of the Seahawks Not Being That Good.

[Gunny]

D ....

I didn't say they weren't good. You're totally missing the point here. You're always so calm, cool, and collected about everything else. Start talking Seahawks and you turn into a 10 years old little boy. If they lose, the other team cheated, bad call by the refs, so-n-so was hurt. It's your achilles heel.

I'm just teasing you, dude. Nothing more to it than that.

[darin]

D ....

I didn't say they weren't good. You're totally missing the point here. You're always so calm, cool, and collected about everything else. Start talking Seahawks and you turn into a 10 years old little boy. If they lose, the other team cheated, bad call by the refs, so-n-so was hurt. It's your achilles heel.

I'm just teasing you, dude. Nothing more to it than that.

You believe the game turned out the way it did because the Packers beat themselves - NOT because the Hawks were that good. I'm saying that's not an accurate portrayal of what happened. I didn't pick up teasing; I thought we were talking about what we actually saw during the game.

And that part about when they lose? I NEVER do that. The closest thing MAYBE was the justifiable outrage and sadness of Superbowl XL. That was nine years ago, bro.

Go Hawks.

[Baba Booey]

lol @ this thread.

When you beat a SB caliber team by 20 points, you're doing something right.

[jimnyc]

Seattle: 38
Packers: 12

Great pick!! 'Hawks looked good last night, Harvin and The Beast looked fantastic, especially in the first half. I do think the Pack hurt themselves a tad in this game, but Seattle was beating them nonetheless. They look seasoned already, not a team playing their first game. I think they'll get better as they gel. That could be scary!

[Gunny]

You believe the game turned out the way it did because the Packers beat themselves - NOT because the Hawks were that good. I'm saying that's not an accurate portrayal of what happened. I didn't pick up teasing; I thought we were talking about what we actually saw during the game.

And that part about when they lose? I NEVER do that. The closest thing MAYBE was the justifiable outrage and sadness of Superbowl XL. That was nine years ago, bro.

Go Hawks.

It WAS 9 years ago. And I haven't forgotten. What's THAT tell you?

You sound like my little brother when it comes to football. Matter of fact, y'all have a common enemy. He knows EVERY reason the Steelers cheated to whim both SB's against the Cowboys in the 70s. COuldn't have been because they just that good ... could it?

They're going to beat Seattle this year too.

[darin]

Jim - chances are it will not last. I want to believe. Percy will (godforbid) get hurt. Hawks will lose depth. And seattle's 3rd and 4th corners do not impress me.


But. For last night? Was a perfect way to start the season.

[darin]

It WAS 9 years ago. And I haven't forgotten. What's THAT tell you?

You sound like my little brother when it comes to football. Matter of fact, y'all have a common enemy. He knows EVERY reason the Steelers cheated to whim both SB's against the Cowboys in the 70s. COuldn't have been because they just that good ... could it?

They're going to beat Seattle this year too.

Okay - now that doesn't even make sense anymore.

I am not beating ANY drum about SBXL. In fact - and Jim will attest; because he and I had a Lot of convo about and after the game - Since forever? When He and I mention the game it's always in good-natured jabs about his filthy SteAlers.

So - the convo went from my prediction of the game (and subsequent wussing out to a lower score) to me somehow a whiner ANY time the Seahawks lose? C'mon man.

[Gunny]

Okay - now that doesn't even make sense anymore.

I am not beating ANY drum about SBXL. In fact - and Jim will attest; because he and I had a Lot of convo about and after the game - Since forever? When He and I mention the game it's always in good-natured jabs about his filthy SteAlers.

So - the convo went from my prediction of the game (and subsequent wussing out to a lower score) to me somehow a whiner ANY time the Seahawks lose? C'mon man.

I didn't call you a whiner. I called you a 10 years old little boy when it comes to the Seahawks.

And I'm taking only good-natured jabs at you. Nothing more than that.