Who will be the team of the 2010 decade? - Part 2

[dkmightyhammer]

I think they are good. They are not as good as the Patriots. Not even close. That's just silly.

I dunno, they've lost 4 heartbreakers this year (3 of which came to 3 of the remaining undefeated teams, 2 in OT). They're 4-4, so they are what they are, but they haven't been THAT bad.

I still think Seattle is making a case for the all decade team. They are something like 45-16 (including playoffs) since RW became the QB. That is pretty darned solid.

 

[kramer1]

Since 2010...

Patriots - 70 wins, 1 super bowl

Seahawks - 54 wins, 1 super bowl

Stop the insanity. These are facts and they cannot be argued.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Since 2010...

Patriots - 70 wins, 1 super bowl

Seahawks - 54 wins, 1 super bowl

Stop the insanity. These are facts and they cannot be argued.

Seattle was pretty bad at the beginning of the decade. Tavaris Jackson was our QB for pete's sake. Regardless of what Brady thinks he won't be playing for ten more years. The last 2 or 3 years of this decade could be Brady-less. No telling how the Pats finish the decade if that happens. The records could even up considerably.

 

[kramer1]

Seattle was pretty bad at the beginning of the decade. Tavaris Jackson was our QB for pete's sake. Regardless of what Brady thinks he won't be playing for ten more years. The last 2 or 3 years of this decade could be Brady-less. No telling how the Pats finish the decade if that happens. The records could even up considerably.

The thread states "2010 decade." It's not close. There is no argument.

Start a thread that says of the last 3 years. I'll still vote Patriots.

 

[cdumler7]

Seattle is still in it. That OL needs to gel quickly but 5 of their last 8 games are at home and all the tough games on the road (spare AZ) are over with. Last 3 road games are Arizona, Minny, and Balt. Balt looks terrible this year and no pass rush with Suggs gone and Minny while tough... I don't think AP will have the success against Seattle that he has some other teams. I wouldn't call those games HARD. Not like GB, Cincy, or St. Louis and they're later, allowing more time for the team to gel.

If Seattle can take both games against AZ, good chance they win the division. I don't trust Carolina in the playoffs so if they take HFA, decent chance road through SBOWL could be against through Seattle.

Seattle has a ton of talent on the roster and they could get hot quickly. If it wasn't for Chancellor's holdout and blown ass coverage due to that and a new DC and the fact the secondary couldn't play together the entire camp/preseason, good chance Seattle takes care of Cincy/Carolina and are 6-2.

Seattle's losses were all 4th quarter defensive collapses. I see that getting cleaned up fast. Again, too much talent.

couldn't a lot of teams with losses say a very similar thing though? I mean when most wins are decided by just 7 points or less then just a couple plays different and the outcome is different. So I can't sit here and say that Kam's hold out is the result in 2 of those losses. I mean we could be saying the Seahawks shouldn't have beat the Cowboys or the Lions. We could go the other way with this. I think Seattle has been fortunate to escape with a couple of wins and unfortunate in a couple of others.

As for the Road games I wouldn't count that Minnesota game as a win. I honestly would pick Minnesota in that game to win. They have a great defense where the Seahawks have a terrible offense. I think Minnesota at home can get enough points to get the win in that one.

As for beating Arizona twice I honestly think there is more of a chance that AZ wins both games than that of Seattle winning both.

Also with the early losses in the season I just don't think Seattle this year will be able to catch back up to Green Bay and Carolina. So that means good chance Seattle if they even make the playoffs will have to go on the road.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

The thread states "2010 decade." It's not close. There is no argument.

Start a thread that says of the last 3 years. I'll still vote Patriots.

Ya, it's not close NOW. For all we know the Pats could finish this decade with 3 losing seasons. I'm just saying the main reason they win is Brady and he's no spring chicken. They have uncertainty at that position due to his age, I don't care how long he claims he's gonna play for.

 

[kramer1]

Ya, it's not close NOW. For all we know the Pats could finish this decade with 3 losing seasons. I'm just saying the main reason they win is Brady and he's no spring chicken. They have uncertainty at that position due to his age, I don't care how long he claims he's gonna play for.

You're grasping. Stop.

Seattle won't even make the playoffs this year.

 

[Balljim55]

right now it seems to be split between the Seahawks and the Pats. Let's wait until the decade is actually over to make the final determination

 

[iowajerms]

right now it seems to be split between the Seahawks and the Pats. Let's wait until the decade is actually over to make the final determination

What's the fun in that?

 

[kramer1]

Since 2010...

Packers 62 wins, 1 super bowl

 

[iowajerms]

I say the Packers and Broncos still have a shot. Packers are still young and the Broncos are proving they don't need Manning to play good to win. Steelers and 49ers wouldn't have won their decades 5 years in.

 

[PatsFan2003]

A lot of top choices stumbling.

The Pats will be in it as long as Brady and Belichick are in the game. Both may last for most of the last 5 years
Denver will have the D but it's hard to believe this won't be Mannings last year.
Green Bay still has Rodgers and a good supporting cast and D.
Pittsburgh have Rothlesberger, WRs, running game and an improving D
Seattle is still possible but they've come down to earth a bit this year.
Cincinnati and the Panthers are possible but neither has won anything yet.

I don't see any dark horse candidate that's going to take over the league for the next 5 years.

 

[kramer1]

The Patriots have a 16 game lead on the Seahawks (which will only be wider by season's end). Seattle is out of this conversation. The difference is too big already. They can't make up 20 games in 5 seasons. The Patriots aren't going 0-16. Make it stop.

The Packers are 8 games behind. They may have a shot.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

The Patriots have a 16 game lead on the Seahawks (which will only be wider by season's end). Seattle is out of this conversation. The difference is too big already. They can't make up 20 games in 5 seasons. The Patriots aren't going 0-16. Make it stop.

The Packers are 8 games behind. They may have a shot.

Wait, it's possible for one team to get a 20 game lead in 5 seasons but not possible for another team to make up 20 games in 5 seasons? How does that work? All it takes is for the Pats to lose a couple key guys and/or their division toughening up and things can turn on a dime. Of course that also means that Seattle would need to keep winning at +.650 or better average too, but it's not impossible. Of all the teams that have a chance to do it Seattle would be among the top contenders at this point today.

 

[kramer1]

Wait, it's possible for one team to get a 20 game lead in 5 seasons but not possible for another team to make up 20 games in 5 seasons? How does that work? All it takes is for the Pats to lose a couple key guys and/or their division toughening up and things can turn on a dime. Of course that also means that Seattle would need to keep winning at +.650 or better average too, but it's not impossible. Of all the teams that have a chance to do it Seattle would be among the top contenders at this point today.

Puff, puff, pass. Your homerism is astounding, though.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Puff, puff, pass. Your homerism is astounding, though.

OK, I'll put you down as "doesn't have a rebuttal".

 

[kramer1]

OK, I'll put you down as "doesn't have a rebuttal".

There is no rebuttal because none is required.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

There is no rebuttal because none is required.

I know you don't have a rebuttal, repeating that you don't isn't required.

 

[kramer1]

I know you don't have a rebuttal, repeating that you don't isn't required.

Now you're just mad. Your anger is clouding your reason. It's a natural reaction. No shame.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Now you're just mad. Your anger is clouding your reason. It's a natural reaction. No shame.

lol. Still nothing eh?