NFL Conference Championships

[Hawk 34 0]

Seattle > Pittsburgh

 

(I mean as a city. I'm not talking about the teams at all)

 

Pittsburgh has the hard working blue collar factory city reputation, while Seattle is noted for being the capital of the technological generation and shitty coffee franchises with whiny yuppies crying about god knows what.

 

That's another angle for the media to use to avoid the game itself.

[2GOLD 0]

Seattle > Pittsburgh

 

(I mean as a city. I'm not talking about the teams at all)

 

Pittsburgh has the hard working blue collar factory city reputation, while Seattle is noted for being the capital of the technological generation and shitty coffee franchises with whiny yuppies crying about god knows what.

 

That's another angle for the media to use to avoid the game itself.

 

Isn't Seattle still the suicide capital of the United States? I'd love to see that angle explored, like if Seattle loses to see if the suicides spike or decrease.

[Special K 0]

I city can't be whiny.

 

Seattle has a very high standard of living, it's a wondeful place to live. I've been to Pittsburgh, (one of my best friend's a native) and it's a great city, and it's pretty much the same type of people you meet in Seattle. Oh, but there were steel workers in Pittsburgh! It must be such a tough, macho city. Nevermind that the steel industry and Boeing were the only businesses in town until Microsoft rolled into town. Oh, but Starbucks came from Seattle, so everyone in the city must be an efeete yuppy. Fuck that noise.

 

If you want a shithole, 'tough' city, that's Filthadelphia.

 

We have led in suicide rate and serial killers (PNW in general). A lot better than living in the murder capitol of America. (Hey I did that, too!)

[Guest]

That's another reason that I'm glad both of these teams made it to the Super Bowl. No big name player for ESPN to blow the two weeks before the game.

 

Eh, not exactly. I expect to see a TON of Bettis over the next two weeks, as he's not only symbolic of the Steelers franchise in the 90's, but he's a hometown guy from Detroit and the media just eats up stuff like that (as we've already seen from the Conference Championship coverage).

 

Other than that, though, Pittsburgh/Seattle provides such a good matchup that ESPN might actually have to focus on the game, which could prove to be a terrifying experience.

I think the media will eat it up, but I can deal with the fact that they'll be talking about something worthwhile, seeing as it's going to be Bettis' final game, he's from Detroit, and he practically is the franchise. At least it's not, "T.O.'s coming back from a broken ankle in 6 weeks, he's such a man and team player."

[The Man in Blak 0]

Here's an excerpt from Dan Shanoff's Daily Quickie column at Page 2 of ESPN.com, the car crash that I just can't turn away from:

 

Only a week ago, the Super Bowl was all set to live up to its "XL" label. Now, it's the "Super Bore."

 

Across the sports-geography spectrum (unless you're a fan of either Seattle or Pittsburgh), there hasn't been a Super Bowl with less national fan interest in a long time.

 

Meaning? This XL-sized Super Bowl will truly test the idea that the game is that much bigger than the teams involved.

 

At first glance, the game's matchup might be even, but its buzz is a shutout.

 

(Look no further than the most recent poll results on ESPN.com's front page: Kobe scoring 81 is 50 percent more popular a story than the Steelers and Seahawks advancing to the Super Bowl.)

 

NFL fans have become spoiled by the Pats dynasty; even this season, our expectations were that we'd see the most improbable Pats title of all -- or at least the breakthrough of Peyton Manning and the Colts.

 

There's simply not the drama of years past. Can't Shaun Alexander go a little "T.O." on us, just to spice things up?

 

Even a Freddie Mitchell imitation from Matt Hasselbeck would make things more interesting at this point.

 

But, really, a "blah" reaction from fans is beyond the NFL -- it's a nasty little virus going around the pro sports world over the last year:

 

Look at last year's NBA Finals: Fans yawned at the prospects of the Pistons and Spurs (even though it turned out to be a dramatic series on the court). They had been spoiled by the dramatics of Kobe and Shaq.

 

Look at the World Series: Fans were underwhelmed by the White Sox and Astros (despite Chicago's epic title drought). They had been spoiled by the Rise of the Red Sox.

 

It doesn't matter that the Spurs or the White Sox were worthy champs. Excellence has taken a backseat to our jones for outsize drama.

 

Make no mistake: This is unfair to both the Seahawks, a Super Bowl first-timer, and the Steelers, who would claim the superlative novelty of becoming the lowest-seeded playoff team to win a championship.

 

I'm just extending last week's sense of ho-hum from fans for the conference championship matchups and expanding it to sports' biggest stage:

 

The Whoop-de-do-per Bowl.

 

Only ESPN could whine about the portrayal of sports being over-dramatized, after spending years and years of pushing the drama ahead of the games.

[Hawk 34 0]

I city can't be whiny.

 

Seattle has a very high standard of living, it's a wondeful place to live. I've been to Pittsburgh, (one of my best friend's a native) and it's a great city, and it's pretty much the same type of people you meet in Seattle. Oh, but there were steel workers in Pittsburgh! It must be such a tough, macho city. Nevermind that the steel industry and Boeing were the only businesses in town until Microsoft rolled into town. Oh, but Starbucks came from Seattle, so everyone in the city must be an efeete yuppy. Fuck that noise.

 

If you want a shithole, 'tough' city, that's Filthadelphia.

 

We have led in suicide rate and serial killers (PNW in general). A lot better than living in the murder capitol of America. (Hey I did that, too!)

 

It's all about what the perception is, rather then the reality. This could be an opportunity for the media and the city of Seattle to change that image.

[Damaramu 0]

Dama, I don't think that he's telling you that you can't dislike them. I think he's just looking for reasons to back up your opinion.

 

You say that they're boring; what about them is boring to you. Is it their playcalling? The lack of a brash superstar? Their uniforms? How drab the city & stadium look on TV? What bores you, in effect.

 

Everything about the damn team. Everything you mentioned. Everytime they come on the TV my brain starts screaming "change the channel!"

They're just a team that I don't like watching play football.

 

Now get off my back about it. I don't even know why I'm defending myself. This board finds a reason to jump on me for anything. I say the Earth is round and one of you find a way to argue with me about it.

[Damaramu 0]

Double post for emphasis and all that.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Everything about the damn team. Everything you mentioned. Everytime they come on the TV my brain starts screaming "change the channel!"

They're just a team that I don't like watching play football.

 

Now get off my back about it. I don't even know why I'm defending myself. This board finds a reason to jump on me for anything. I say the Earth is round and one of you find a way to argue with me about it.

I'm not on your back, Dama. You WEREN'T put in a position where you had to defend yourself, at least I didn't interpret it as such. You said that you disliked the team and found them boring, with no reasoning behind it, and someone asked for some reasons why. It's not that complex of a request.

 

I will admit that I can understand why you'd be on edge (you have had people jump down your throat for petty shit) ... but don't get a complex about it, and get all 'whoa is me' everytime someone asks you to provide facts to back up a statement.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Now get off my back about it. I don't even know why I'm defending myself. This board finds a reason to jump on me for anything.

 

It's called conversation. You had a pretty brash statement there, saying that the Seahawks were boring, so it's only natural that somebody was going to ask you why you felt that way.

[Guest]

The Seahawks are anything but boring. NFL MVP in their backfield, a QB that has no problem making rash predicitions, great blitzing defense, they hit hard, great crowd, beautiful stadium, and terrible weather conditions when they play at home. I fail to see how anyone can find them boring and I fail to see how the media proclaims them as such. I'm sure I forgot some stuff about Holmgren, but the point here is that I hate the media.

[naiwf 0]

The Seahawks are anything but boring. NFL MVP in their backfield, a QB that has no problem making rash predicitions, great blitzing defense, they hit hard, great crowd, beautiful stadium, and terrible weather conditions when they play at home. I fail to see how anyone can find them boring and I fail to see how the media proclaims them as such.

 

They don't have a flashy player. Alexander isn't LT for example, Hasselbeck isn't Brady or Manning, and non diehards couldn't name a single guy on Seattle's 'D'. It's not their fault per se, it just is what it is.

[Guest]

They have great players, but because they play in the Pacific Northwest, they aren't going to get any respect. Marcus Trufant is a great CB, but no one will ever mention him as one unless they live in Seattle or are a diehard.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Agreed wholeheartedly with Kingofthe909. They're just a "bleh" team because they haven't had a real history or tradition, being known for the perennial 8-8 season and playoff mediocrity. Only recently during the Holmgren years have they gotten any sort of face on the organization. I mean, besides Steve Largent, what the hell have the Seahawks offered?

[Guest]

Dama even has a reason to like them, they did have Brian Bosworth, correct? For years, the only lasting image in the NFL that contained the Seahawks was that Bo Jackson run where he ran through the tunnel on Monday Night Football. Actually, that still is the only lasting image of them. The media's east coast bias is sickening.

[2GOLD 0]

Agreed wholeheartedly with Kingofthe909. They're just a "bleh" team because they haven't had a real history or tradition, being known for the perennial 8-8 season and playoff mediocrity. Only recently during the Holmgren years have they gotten any sort of face on the organization. I mean, besides Steve Largent, what the hell have the Seahawks offered?

 

Brian Bosworth jokes

King got it before me. Damn him.

[Slayer 0]

The original Curt Warner

[Special K 0]

So it's not true that I like them? Thanks for telling me what I think.

I don't like them. I find them boring. I hate watching them. It's that simple. When they come on the TV I find myself wanting to change the channel. That's as good of a reason as any to not like a team.

 

Just because you root for a team in a paticular game doesn't mean you're a fan of the team. You guys need to understand that.

 

And so b/c they're your favorite team I'm not allowed to dislike them? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

No, but since they're my favorite team, I'd like you to make a logical explanation as to why you hate them so badly. That's all I'm doing is asking. Every thread that mentions the Seahawks you have to make some short, bitter statement about how much you hate them.

 

Try to understand: This doesn't make you an asshole, and I'm not angry that you don't like my team, I am just curious as to why?

 

Someone brought up the excellent point that simply because Seattle is a small market nationally (the local fans are rabid and devoted, as evidenced by the ridiculous number of false starts at Qwest) that most people don't get to see them during the regular season. They haven't seen Shaun breaking tackles like a madman, or Jurevicius or Engram making some wonderful catches. I became a Tiki Barber fan because I got to watch him so often.

 

I can explain reasons, real reasons, as to why I like or dislike the teams I do. Teams that I just generally don't have that great a knowledge of, the Bucs would be a good example, I just tend to regard with ambivalence.

 

Either way, it's fine if you just hate them because you hate them. Don't freak when someone asks you a question. Just saying, that if your argument is 'they're boring because they're boring', it's a little weak. Sort of sounds to me like you just need to give them a chance.

 

 

I'll tell you one thing, when I walked out of my friend's house after the game, and saw the spotlights and fireworks, and heard the sound of a whole city losing its mind, it was anything but boring.

[Guest Vitamin X]

That sounds really cool. I think I'm going to move to Seattle.

[Special K 0]

Well, we'd saved up a lot of fireworks since the Sonics won the Championship in the 70's.

[SpikeFayeJettEdBebop 0]

I personally find the Seahawks to be boring as well. First I was thinking maybe it was just because I was a Skins fan, but I've kinda always felt like that. I don't see why it's odd at all for Dama to find them boring. They don't have any flashy players, and their Defense is good(underrated) and Alexander, I would say, is probably one of the most overrated players in the NFL. I don't like Tiki Barber but I'd say he was more worthy of MVP than Alexander. Then again, whatever.

 

Lastly, I'm not saying Seattle is boring. I'm saying the team certainly is(in my oppinion). If they were my team, I'd liek them, but they aren't so I really don't find it enjoyable to watch any of their games.

[Special K 0]

Alexander, I would say, is probably one of the most overrated players in the NFL.

 

Come on. Rushing leader, TD record. You can't overrate that, it's quite possibly the best season ever by a running back.

 

EDIT: (I'd say that Faulk's 1999 season was more impressive)

[CanadianChris 0]

Any team that has a QB with the grapefruits to say, "We want the ball, and we're gonna score!!!" into a live mic before overtime of a playoff game at Lambeau Field can't be boring.

[Slayer 0]

Speaking of which, why doesn't that get more run as one of the biggest gaffes in recent NFL history?

[Special K 0]

Hadn't he had an excellent game up that point? Not that makes it anything less than mortifying. I just can't find the stats to past playoff games.

[naiwf 0]

Hadn't he had an excellent game up that point? Not that makes it anything less than mortifying. I just can't find the stats to past playoff games.

 

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT YDS TD INT | RSH YD TD

2003 gnb L,27-33 | 25 45 305 0 1 | 1 0 0

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

 

You can only really find stats for offensive players, but they've got whatever else you need for the most part.

[Guest Brian]

Well, we'd saved up a lot of fireworks since the Sonics won the Championship in the 70's.

 

Especially since those fuckers banned 'em.

[SpikeFayeJettEdBebop 0]

Come on. Rushing leader, TD record. You can't overrate that, it's quite possibly the best season ever by a running back

 

He had a good season, however, he was barely the rushing leader, and the Seahawks had a great line that as far as I'm concerned, a lot of people could run with. Also, they had the easiest schedule in the league. To me personally, all those factors make his TD record a little less impressive. I don't really think he should have been MVP either, as I said, he had a great line and other backs could have had the same type of season with that line. I wouldn't say he was the "Most Valuble" player in the league. ALTHOUGH, he did have a good season. Congrats to him.

[MrRant 0]

Well, before the season the Seahawks had one of the toughest.

[Red Baron 0]

Agreed. Eagles, Falcons, Packers, Colts, Jags, Skins, Rams, Giants, Cowboys.

 

At the beginning of the season they should have been a 6-10 team. Don't forget, key injuries to their WR's and the Defensive core hurt them as well. If it wasn't for Alexander, Hasselbeck, Strong, Jurevicious, Trufant, Topatu, Stevens and the whole O-line this team could have tanked very easily.