ImageImage

Seahawks@Falcons

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation

whatthe_buck!?
Banned User
Posts: 5,142
And1: 163
Joined: Jul 20, 2006

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#81 » by whatthe_buck!? » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:13 pm

rilamann wrote:
whatthe_buck!? wrote:
rilamann wrote:Crazy game,woulda made the Packers loss last night more frustrating had Seattle pulled it off.

No idea what u are talking about. Falcons were the better matchup for us (see CK running all over our defense Russell Wilson style)...


Huh?


Falcons are a better team than Seattle and we would have played Seattle at Lambeau...didn't you just go on and on about how important home field advantage is?

If the Falcons can build a 27-7 lead on the Seahawks defense I don't even want to think about the lead they could build on the Packers defense...lol.

Wow, that's what u took away from the game that was just played, that the Falcons are a clearly better team than the Seahawks even though they won by two on a last second field goal at home??? You're welcome to your opinion, my takeaway from that game is essentially the opposite, that the Seahawks were the clearly better team and lost because they played on the road and because they conceded a large early lead that, even though they overcame the lead by the end once they made their defense adjustments to a well rested and prepared Falcons offense, they ended up letting the falcons steal the game on a cheap field goal drive with 30 seconds left. If that game goes another quarter the Seahawks win comfortably.
User avatar
rilamann
RealGM
Posts: 27,708
And1: 15,235
Joined: Jun 20, 2003
Location: Damn that rilamann!!
     

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#82 » by rilamann » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:19 pm

So the Seahawks who went 10-6 in the regular season to the Falcons 13-3 and just lost to the Falcons in a playoff game are clearly better than the Falcons?


Now I remember why I rarely post on Realgm anymore....lmao
Giannis Antetokounmpo wrote:You're out here reffing like Marc Davis and ****
whatthe_buck!?
Banned User
Posts: 5,142
And1: 163
Joined: Jul 20, 2006

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#83 » by whatthe_buck!? » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:24 pm

rilamann wrote:
whatthe_buck!? wrote:The Falcons are IMO very similar to the packers but not as good, the Falcons are quite likely to get absolutely smoked by the Niners.




The Falcons are similar to the Packers but the Falcons are as good as the Packers think they are.


If the Falcons are better than the Packers why didn't the Packers go 13-3 and why aren't they getting ready to play in the NFC Championship game Sunday?

Falcons might lose next week but they aren't going to get smoked like the Packers did.

The answer is pretty simple actually. I shouldn't have to explain it to u but I don't mind doing so. The reason the packers didn't go 13-3 and why they aren't prepping to play the niners in the NFC championship game is because they had a harder regular season schedule + they got screwed on the fail Mary and therefore had to play the Niners in the playoffs first. If the Falcons had to play the niners first they would've exited the playoffs earlier than the packers period. Trust me, if the Packers had the #1 seed, they would've (hopefully) handled the Seahawks at lambeau, and the Falcons would've just completed being annihilated by the Niners at candlestick. And as far as next week, I will be very surprised if the Falcons game is even as competitive as the Packers-Niners was (remember, we had the game tied in the 3rd quarter), and I say that even knowing full well that the Falcons have the built-in advantage of playing at home instead of at Candlestick like the packers did...
whatthe_buck!?
Banned User
Posts: 5,142
And1: 163
Joined: Jul 20, 2006

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#84 » by whatthe_buck!? » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:36 pm

rilamann wrote:So the Seahawks who went 10-6 in the regular season to the Falcons 13-3 and just lost to the Falcons in a playoff game are clearly better than the Falcons?


Now I remember why I rarely post on Realgm anymore....lmao

Yeah I mean if u dislike having to vigorously defend poorly thought out opinions then yes, I would recommend not posting on realgm. It's ok, we've all made some ill advised judgements that we then posted on here and then got flamed for...

*cough* such as saying that "the packers will never win a Super Bowl with McCarthy as head coach" the very SEASON the packers won the owl *cough*

But anyway, our differing judgements of the Seahawks-falcons game notwithstanding (I still can't believe that your takeaway is that the falcons are a better team than the Seahawks even though they barely won at home against a Seahawks team missing one of their top three defensive players but whatever), there is an easy way to settle this. If the Falcons come away with a better showing than the packers next week- even if it is true they are playing at home as opposed to the packers- I promise I will concede the point that the Packers are not as good of a team as the Falcons are this season... Deal?
whatthe_buck!?
Banned User
Posts: 5,142
And1: 163
Joined: Jul 20, 2006

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#85 » by whatthe_buck!? » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:59 pm

Enough of the personal attacks - respond to a post not the poster MD
whatthe_buck!?
Banned User
Posts: 5,142
And1: 163
Joined: Jul 20, 2006

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#86 » by whatthe_buck!? » Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:25 pm

Again, NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 20,545
And1: 1,328
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#87 » by El Duderino » Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:40 pm

Profound23 wrote:Imagine losing the way the Broncos and Seahawks lost.

WOW!

I know most were disgusted by our loss, but it was easier to take knowing it was over early.


I agree 100 percent.

I'd much rather see the Packers lose how they did because it's those last second playoff losses which linger with me for days.

As i watched Denver give up that 70 yard bomb with only 30 seconds left and then eventually losing, my immediate reaction was thank god that wasn't the Packers game because i wouldn't have been able to sleep after a massive brainfart like that. Then Seattle fans had to go through that huge high after a fabulous comeback to score a TD with 31 seconds left, only to have their hearts ripped up shortly later.
whatthe_buck!?
Banned User
Posts: 5,142
And1: 163
Joined: Jul 20, 2006

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#88 » by whatthe_buck!? » Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:52 pm

Sorry MD, I'm didn't think that what I posted was so bad but I'll defer to ur judgement. I will say that I feel like replacing what I posted with "no more personal attacks" in red makes it look like what I wrote was a ton worse than what I actually posted but I apologize if I crossed the line...
User avatar
Run-MKE 311
Senior
Posts: 553
And1: 9
Joined: Oct 22, 2012
Location: Left coast and the midwest

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#89 » by Run-MKE 311 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:00 pm

This was an epic game, not much more that can be said about Wilson.

The Falcons escaped with this win and are going to get absolutely trucked against SF next weekend.

Seahawks will be a fun team to watch for years to come.
Ball so hard.
User avatar
[RCG]
Head Coach
Posts: 7,047
And1: 135
Joined: May 24, 2010
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#90 » by [RCG] » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:22 am

Best part of the game was reading the game "Conversation" on ESPN.com. The trolling and trash-talking at half-time , Seahawks go-ahead score, and after Bryant's game-winning field goal was hilarious.

That being said I think the 49ers pummel the Falcons. The Falcons benefited from what has to be the easiest schedule in the league and don't really match up all that well with the 49ers. At least they'll have the game-tape of Kaepernick running all over Green Bay which gives them no excuse for not being prepared for the read-option. Another week to get Staley and Justin Smith healthy is never good

Falcons allowed more passing and rushing yards (and a worse average) than the Packers this year. The Packers and Falcons offenses are similar, great QBs, top-notch WRs (Falcons have more front-end talent, Packers more depth) and a running-game that leaves some to be desired.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 35,600
And1: 4,454
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: Seahawks@Falcons 

Post#91 » by Kerb Hohl » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:23 am

rilamann wrote:So the Seahawks who went 10-6 in the regular season to the Falcons 13-3 and just lost to the Falcons in a playoff game are clearly better than the Falcons?


Now I remember why I rarely post on Realgm anymore....lmao


The Falcons were a 10-6 team that caught every break and had the easiest schedule in the NFL.

The Seahawks were an "8-8 team" that caught one break in their first 5 games or so. Once Russell Wilson got going, they became a "13-3 team"

I was in Vegas, and Seattle, while much improved on the road, was still flying cross-country for the second week in a row. They were STILL only 2 point dogs up until the last minute when it went to 2.5.

Everyone knows the Falcons were not a superior team. Unfortunately, like their entire last few seasons in the regular season, they played close and got the win at the end. In the playoffs against good teams that normally doesn't work...in this case, they finally got one in the playoffs. It took Seattle making a ton of early mistakes to get it.

Return to Green Bay Packers