Page 5 of 5

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:29 am
by scubagear
I think this games comes down to two things: turnovers and success in the red zone. I think Washington will win because they have excelled in these two areas over the last month.

With turnovers, the defense is taking them away by the bunch and I don't see that changing against Seattle. Though Seattle has a lot of sacks and could create some of their own turnovers, I think Washington's offense will play ball control and move the ball with a short passing game with lots of throws to Robert Royal, Mike Sellers, and Chris Cooley. The question mark here is Brunell. His play has been down since he hurt his knee even though everyone says his knee didn't impede his performance.

In the red zone, Washington's offense has been putting up 7's since the Dallas game. Washington's defense showed Tampa Bay how tough it is to score on them in the fourth quarter of that game. And keep in mind that Washington's defense had lost two starters in the fourth quarter and that the defense had been on the field for a long, long time. For them to keep the Bucs from scoring a second time was very impressive considering that the Bucs had the ball four or five times in or near Redskins territory in the fourth quarter. Shaun Alexander is a touchdown machine, but I don't see him having a multiple touchdown day which I think he needs for Seattle to win.

Yes, it is an advantage playing at home, but Washington has played well on the road this year and has now won four straight road games. But consider the games they played at Dallas, Denver, KC, and the two at the Bucs (all of which are difficult places to play). The offense put up around 400 yards of offense in three of those five games. Washington also played the second toughest schedule by winning percentage of opponents and without question they are battle tested and are comfortable in must-win games since this will be their seventh in a row.

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:27 am
by BossHog
Don't talk football, the Seahawks fans here are DEFINITELY not worth our effort.

Other than nanny nanny poo poos and a bunch of 'oh yeah's, I haven't seen a drop of football insight, intellect or valid conjecture. I just see a bunch of fans talking smack... and talking smack where they shouldn't be.

Read the rules guys, because all you Seahawk fans are breaking the 'flaming rule'. That's the rule where you just try to say something to insense the board. You know... like saying Timmy Smith's a coke head when it has no bearing on a conversation.... that's just flaming. You take something like that to smack. I understand that you're having trouble bringing anything substantive to the discussions, but if you continue to do so, you may find your account suspended.

Talk smack in smack. Talk football in the general forums. And if you can't think of anything meaningful to say, then don't.

But the name-calling and the flaming stop with THIS POST.

I'd address the FOOTBALL counterpoints brought up by Hawks fans as well, but I just don't see any.

I'm going to start a smack thread for you too because apparently you haven't figured out how to yet, and I don't see any posts that DON'T belong there. So take it there... but you're fair game in smack. My 2 cents

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:12 pm
by Skins4ever
That's what happen when you drink too many lattes. You get overhyped nonsense.

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:09 am
by sirjin
Skins4ever wrote:That's what happen when you drink too many lattes. You get overhyped nonsense.


Yeah, could I get another double tall vanilla mocha please!

:wink:

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:40 pm
by Vandal
Skins4ever wrote:That's what happen when you drink too many lattes. You get overhyped nonsense.


Really funny how this kind of post isn't considered smack or flaming, but whenever a Seattle fan makes a post, it's a "flame". Guess you'll have a long offseason to think about what is and is not a real flame. Take your time, boys.