Can we beat seattle?

http://www.last.fm/user/DPF55 · Post #1 » by **Buck You** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:29 am

Is it even possible? What do you think we need to do in order to achieve that? Until the seahawks' rookie contracts are up they are obviously the class of the nfc. Feel free to merge this anywhere you want.

http://www.last.fm/user/DPF55 · Post #2 » by **Buck You** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:29 am

Not saying we have no chance, but we have our work cut out for us defensively at least.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #3 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:32 am

Yes. We just need to be healthy and add a couple of defensive play makers. Seattle's offense is pretty pedestrian.

RiotPunch · Post #4 » by **RiotPunch** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:34 am

Rodgers would never turn the ball over at that rate. Get healthy on D and we would have a decent shot at the Seahawks, imo.

WiscoKing13 · Post #5 » by **WiscoKing13** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:35 am

RiotPunch wrote:Rodgers would never turn the ball over at that rate. Get healthy on D and we would have a decent shot at the Seahawks, imo.

Are we really underrating the seattle D this much? I mean come on.

Answer is no, on all 3 phases

chuckleslove · Post #6 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:38 am

The last time we played them we beat them.

neiLz · Post #7 » by **neiLz** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:41 am

Rodgers wouldn't throw it up like manning did under pressure. he wouldnt have had those first two INT's. But i think our offense would give some points up to seattle. Neutral field i still give the edge toe seatle, but not by more than a fg.

chuckleslove · Post #8 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:41 am

WiscoKing13 wrote:
RiotPunch wrote:Rodgers would never turn the ball over at that rate. Get healthy on D and we would have a decent shot at the Seahawks, imo.

Are we really underrating the seattle D this much? I mean come on.

Answer is no, on all 3 phases

I agree the Seahawks defense is top notch and the best in the league right now. But if you think their offense is better than ours that is just madness talking. We have the better QB, better offensive line and I think better running back going forward as Marshawn Lynch has the wrong side of age working against him.

Defense and special teams they definitely have an edge but you are underselling the Packers a bit here depending what we do in the offseason of course.

WiscoKing13 · Post #9 » by **WiscoKing13** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:43 am

chuckleslove wrote:
WiscoKing13 wrote:
RiotPunch wrote:Rodgers would never turn the ball over at that rate. Get healthy on D and we would have a decent shot at the Seahawks, imo.

Are we really underrating the seattle D this much? I mean come on.

Answer is no, on all 3 phases

I agree the Seahawks defense is top notch and the best in the league right now. But if you think their offense is better than ours that is just madness talking. We have the better QB, better offensive line and I think better running back going forward as Marshawn Lynch has the wrong side of age working against him.

Defense and special teams they definitely have an edge but you are underselling the Packers a bit here depending what we do in the offseason of course.

I'm saying SEA offense VS GB Defense and so on. We are strictly out classed and out gunned.

xTitan · Post #10 » by **xTitan** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:44 am

So what playmaker on defense isn't healthy? The only guy with any potential is Casey Heyward, they still lack at so many positions. The other sad truth is that it is becoming apparent that Clay Matthews is about a 12game per year player, and that shouldn't be acceptable either. I am certain GB will not be able to improve their defense enough next year through the draft, and have no faith the Ted will do what John Schneider did.

Kerb Hohl · Post #11 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:47 am

Yes. Especially since Seattle is due to erode the next few years.

Milwaukee'sBEST · Post #12 » by **Milwaukee'sBEST** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:47 am

Work on beating S.F. first.

Kerb Hohl · Post #13 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:47 am

xTitan wrote:So what playmaker on defense isn't healthy? The only guy with any potential is Casey Heyward, they still lack at so many positions. The other sad truth is that it is becoming apparent that Clay Matthews is about a 12game per year player, and that shouldn't be acceptable either. I am certain GB will not be able to improve their defense enough next year through the draft, and have no faith the Ted will do what John Schneider did.

Win a Super Bowl?

Seriously go look at Seattle's payroll. They won a Super Bowl so if I was a fan I wouldn't care but they are paying Zach Miller and Sidney Rice a combined 25 million/year the next 2 or 3 years. Things can be restructured and will be but the roster is going to erode...and have to be all done via the draft from now on.

Kerb Hohl · Post #14 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:53 am

And of course if I had to bet on a game tomorrow with both current rosters I'd put all my money on Seattle.

That said, things happen. Remember how everyone in the NFL thought we'd thoroughly dominate the league after 2010? Seattle was inches away from not being in New York. People think way too much in absolutes about the NFL. If they played another game I wouldn't be shocked if Denver won.

Ayt · Post #15 » by **Ayt** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:56 am

Can the Cardinals beat Seattle?

wichmae · Post #16 » by **wichmae** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 3:59 am

That team just like SF will have a huge cap issue soon. Michael Bennett and Golden Tate are FA's this year. Sherman is a FA next year and Percy's salary spikes from 4 mil to 14 mil. They wont have enough coin to keep all these players.

GB_Packers · Post #17 » by **GB_Packers** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 4:01 am

wichmae wrote:That team just like SF will have a huge cap issue soon. Michael Bennett and Golden Tate are FA's this year. Sherman is a FA next year and Percy's salary spikes from 4 mil to 14 mil. They wont have enough coin to keep all these players.

Yup. I'm watching these celebrations and the media talk and it's all well deserved. But it will not last. Enjoy it while it lasts because the fall once these issues begin will be very fast.

eagle13 · Post #18 » by **eagle13** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 4:02 am

as GM

TT = B
Schneider = A
Dorsey = B+
McKenzie = C

xTitan · Post #19 » by **xTitan** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 4:06 am

Kerb Hohl wrote:
xTitan wrote:So what playmaker on defense isn't healthy? The only guy with any potential is Casey Heyward, they still lack at so many positions. The other sad truth is that it is becoming apparent that Clay Matthews is about a 12game per year player, and that shouldn't be acceptable either. I am certain GB will not be able to improve their defense enough next year through the draft, and have no faith the Ted will do what John Schneider did.

Win a Super Bowl?

Seriously go look at Seattle's payroll. They won a Super Bowl so if I was a fan I wouldn't care but they are paying Zach Miller and Sidney Rice a combined 25 million/year the next 2 or 3 years. Things can be restructured and will be but the roster is going to erode...and have to be all done via the draft from now on.

Make very smart, short term free agent signings

Kerb Hohl · Post #20 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Feb 3, 2014 4:07 am

xTitan wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:
xTitan wrote:So what playmaker on defense isn't healthy? The only guy with any potential is Casey Heyward, they still lack at so many positions. The other sad truth is that it is becoming apparent that Clay Matthews is about a 12game per year player, and that shouldn't be acceptable either. I am certain GB will not be able to improve their defense enough next year through the draft, and have no faith the Ted will do what John Schneider did.

Win a Super Bowl?

Seriously go look at Seattle's payroll. They won a Super Bowl so if I was a fan I wouldn't care but they are paying Zach Miller and Sidney Rice a combined 25 million/year the next 2 or 3 years. Things can be restructured and will be but the roster is going to erode...and have to be all done via the draft from now on.

Make very smart, short term free agent signings

Not disagreeing with you. That said, they have a really **** payroll situation coming up.