The 2015 team schedule

[HaroldSeattle]

We complain about stuff but you never really know how things are going to go. This could be a SB year for either of us or we could get knocked out of the wild card game.....

Hey now bite your tongue, that's not happening..to the Seahawks

 

[JMR]

We complain about stuff but you never really know how things are going to go. This could be a SB year for either of us or we could get knocked out of the wild card game.....

Certainly could happen that way. Things can change quickly in the NFL and often it happens with virtually no warning. Falcons were in the NFCC just a couple years ago and then fell off a cliff. Seems like the burden of proof is on the rest of the league right now though. When was the last time the Patriots didn't have a 10+ win season or win that division? Seahawks have averaged 12 wins per season for 3 years, 2 SB appearances, and probably have been the overall best team in the league for that 3 season span.

 

[Southieinnc]

Certainly could happen that way. Things can change quickly in the NFL and often it happens with virtually no warning. Falcons were in the NFCC just a couple years ago and then fell off a cliff. Seems like the burden of proof is on the rest of the league right now though. When was the last time the Patriots didn't have a 10+ win season or win that division? Seahawks have averaged 12 wins per season for 3 years, 2 SB appearances, and probably have been the overall best team in the league for that 3 season span.

You have a good organization. This is not about putting a good year together. It is about building a program - even a dynasty.
The thing is I have been hearing about the Patriots downfall every year. 49er fans have been talking about the Seahawks crash while their own team is headed for the basement. The other teams are going to have to get used to us. Maybe they would consider building an organization from the top down instead of the crash course that eventually crashes - just like they hope will happen to the Seahawks and Patriots.....

 

[NWPATSFAN]

The biggest difference I see between the Pats and Hawks is depth. Both organizations have shown you don't need a bunch of 1st round draft picks. You find quality starters and quality back ups in FA, trades, and the draft. The Hawks have more starters making top 10 $ and soon to be RW and likely Bobby Wagoner when they sign their deals. That makes it more difficult to retain/sign quality back ups.
Regardless both organiztions are showing the rest of the league the winning formula.

 

[JMR]

The biggest difference I see between the Pats and Hawks is depth. Both organizations have shown you don't need a bunch of 1st round draft picks. You find quality starters and quality back ups in FA, trades, and the draft. The Hawks have more starters making top 10 $ and soon to be RW and likely Bobby Wagoner when they sign their deals. That makes it more difficult to retain/sign quality back ups.
Regardless both organiztions are showing the rest of the league the winning formula.

So are you contending that the Pats are deeper than the Hawks? I mean either way it's probably not a big difference but I think the prevailing opinion going into the last 2 seasons was that the Hawks have had the best roster in the league. We do have some guys making good money now, but of course had we let them leave then the narrative would be that we lost a lot of talent. I view it as a good problem to have.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

So are you contending that the Pats are deeper than the Hawks? I mean either way it's probably not a big difference but I think the prevailing opinion going into the last 2 seasons was that the Hawks have had the best roster in the league. We do have some guys making good money now, but of course had we let them leave then the narrative would be that we lost a lot of talent. I view it as a good problem to have.

Yep I contend Pats are deeper. Depth has been an issue in Seattle and it still is. Lack of depth potentially hurt them in the SB? I'm sure plenty of fans coud argue that either way? Both teams had to deal with injuries all year and in tge playoffs. I would agree that the Hawks potentially had the best starting roster.

 

[packerzrule]

GB's Schedule is ranked 14th in strength so winning that game against them will be huge. They get the Bears and Vikings twice so that should be 4 wins right there for them. The Strongest teams they play on the road are Denver, San Fran ( LMAO ) and the Cards. They of course play Detroit on the road also.

I wouldn't necessarily pencil in the Vikings games as wins for the Packers. I think they are going to surprise some people this year.

 

[JMR]

Yep I contend Pats are deeper. Depth has been an issue in Seattle and it still is. Lack of depth potentially hurt them in the SB? I'm sure plenty of fans coud argue that either way? Both teams had to deal with injuries all year and in tge playoffs. I would agree that the Hawks potentially had the best starting roster.

Depth has been a problem with the Seahawks?? Wow, that's a new one.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Depth has been a problem with the Seahawks?? Wow, that's a new one.

No real way to resolve this. I base my opinion on second and tgird stringers that were actually able/healthy and capable of starting with minor loss to the team. I'm certainley not alone when stating the Hawk O line has been depleted for at least two years. 40 QB sacks on a mobile QB? I'm not saying they're terrible. My first post said both teams are the blue print. IMHO the Pats had/have less drop off when playing 2nd/3rd stringers

 

[JMR]

No real way to resolve this. I base my opinion on second and tgird stringers that were actually able/healthy and capable of starting with minor loss to the team. I'm certainley not alone when stating the Hawk O line has been depleted for at least two years. 40 QB sacks on a mobile QB? I'm not saying they're terrible. My first post said both teams are the blue print. IMHO the Pats had/have less drop off when playing 2nd/3rd stringers

I guess the statement that I take the most issue with is when you said "Depth *has been* an issue and *still* is. I just disagree with that, maybe it's just a fundamental difference on how we're defining depth. The OL has been peppered with injuries the last 2 seasons. The overall depth of the team helped it overcome a rash of injuries at that specific position group. They made up for it by being really good in many areas. No team in the cap era is going to be injury-proof. If you suffer enough injuries at one spot in a short amount of time, it's going to have an effect. When you have injuries to 3/4 starters in the secondary + Lane in the span of a few quarters, "depth" is not going to keep the team from feeling a short term effect. Maybe over pan of several weeks you can compensate if your team is deep enough, but it probably isn't happening in real time during the game.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I guess the statement that I take the most issue with is when you said "Depth *has been* an issue and *still* is. I just disagree with that, maybe it's just a fundamental difference on how we're defining depth. The OL has been peppered with injuries the last 2 seasons. The overall depth of the team helped it overcome a rash of injuries at that specific position group. They made up for it by being really good in many areas. No team in the cap era is going to be injury-proof. If you suffer enough injuries at one spot in a short amount of time, it's going to have an effect. When you have injuries to 3/4 starters in the secondary + Lane in the span of a few quarters, "depth" is not going to keep the team from feeling a short term effect. Maybe over pan of several weeks you can compensate if your team is deep enough, but it probably isn't happening in real time during the game.

Fair enough

 

[MKHawk]

Depth was absolutely an issue last season in the Super Bowl (and to a lesser extent the NFCC too).

I'm not sure if New England had markedly superior depth or was simply healthier in key spots.