It's pretty common for human beings to put too much weight upon the most recent events. We tend to think that what we JUST SAW is indicative of larger trends, and has enormous predictive power. The most recent event in the world of Seahawks football was an embarrassing, demoralizing defeat in St. Louis, and based in large part upon that performance, you'd probably be hard pressed to fill Qwest with Seahawks fans who HONESTLY believe Seattle will win this Sunday at Chicago.
Concurrently, we've all seen the entire NFC West get off to a brutal start. No NFCW team has a road win against a non-divisional foe so far this season, so the chorus has already started signing: "Oh, this shall be the year a team with a losing record wins the divisoooooonnnnnnn!" (Cue the bitching about how a 6-10 division winner might make the playoffs instead of a deserving NFC East runner-up... Horror!)
I'm here to tell you that conventional wisdom is fucking dead-ass wrong on two counts:
1. The Seahawks will win at Soldier Field this Sunday.
2. As usual, the NFC West Champion will finish the season with nine or more wins.
These notions are intertwined, obviously. In the entire history of the NFL, only two division winners finished with non-winning records: The 1985 Browns and the 2008 Chargers. Both teams finished 8-8 (Cleveland dropped a heartbreaker at Miami, and the Chargers BEAT the mighty Colts in the Wild Card game), and here's the crazy part: NEITHER TEAM WAS IN THE NFC WEST.
Yup. Go look up the entire history of the division, going back to its creation in 1970. Somehow, someway, at least one team has managed to win more than half its games for 40 seasons in a row. 2010 won't be any different; Some team, at some point, will figure it out. The cosmic tumblers, as the man once said, will click into place. Some team will win a couple games on the road, maybe even against a team or two they aren't supposed to beat.
It could be ANY of the four teams in our division (just kidding about the Niners: They are FUCKED)... Why not the Seahawks?
Why can't they rise up this week and smite an overhyped team with an overbearing fan base stuck in a glorious but long-gone past? The Seahawks can stuff the Chicago running game. They can harass whichever QB the Bears roll out there into mistakes and turnovers. They can feed the ball to Beast Mode and physically punish that Chicago defense. Softened up, that Bears defense can be carved to pieces by a well-protected Matt Hasselbeck. Golden Tate could make a big play, as could Leon Washington, John Carlson, Mike Williams or Deon Butler. Pete Carroll, Gus Bradley and Jeremy Bates can outsmart the Chicago coaches.
WE CAN WIN. WE WILL WIN.
We can be the team that breaks out of the NFC West scrum of suck, and it starts Sunday, Twelves.
5 comments:
... Are you sure you aren't Carroll in disguise? You always do a great job of making me think the Hawks have the next game in the bag :P
Only 'cuz they do, brutha. Only 'cuz they do.
Knapp's moronic offensive scheme with exactly 1 1/2 playmakers, Carlson and Burly, was in the red zone 7 times against that mighty Bears defense last year. And their offense sucks syphilitic donkey cock this year, so ALL the 3 phases of matchups are heavily tilted in our favor.
In addition, The Bearded One Himself has bestowed the single most awesome title ever conceived in all of sports or any other culture upon the Chicago fan base:
"Ditka-fluffing morons".
The win is a lock. Look for Beast Mode to re-enact the "John L. eats Chicago on the screen pass" below.
Hey! I think we can win in Chicago.
Have you ever heard/seen/read this book? Is worth it?
http://www.amazon.ca/Things-Seahawks-Fans-Should-Before/dp/1600783996/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I16OPJDN8EPKEX&colid=3FVZFV32YSD7U
Robert
I always develop a twitch when we play the Bears. It stems from waiting months for opening day and then getting stuffed 17 - 0 at Soldier Field way back in the murky past...
Here's to hoping the Bears O-line that conceded 9 sacks in a half against the Giants plays the same way against us!
Hasselbeck is in a weird situation here. It's obvious that his arm strength is diminishing and Bates and Carroll need to realize that and plan the offense around it. The question is whether our receivers are well-suited for that kind of offense. Obviously Stokley is the kind of guy that Hass feels comfortable to throw to. He seems very Engram/Steve Largent-esque, good hands and the ability to get open on short routes but not overbearing speed. Tate and Butler, however, seem better suited for an offense led by Whitehurst, so I guess we're at that crossroads, do we keep Hass at the helm because he has the ability to read defenses but lacks the arm strength to keep defense on their toes? Or do we go to Whitehurst who doesn't have the game management ability but can soften up defenses with deep bombs to Tate and Butler? I guess we'll find out.
Post a Comment