"Stephen Trapani" nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:tkUjh.27$rm4.7@newsfe02.lga...

We agree on this one. Their record is not indicative of the high level at
which they can play when ready, willing, and able. Obviously, the future
isn't here yet, and so we don't know. Then we have what's possible and
what's probably, as has been pointed out. Well, it's the dilemna of an
intelligent fan when one sees one's team having trouble. The fan would like
to be correct in their assessment and might emphasize the most likely
outcome so they can be "right" later. I don't care about that, because I
know I'm right when I say that we can hang with ALL of the teams out there
on any given day, and it will still be true even if we DO happen to lose
somewhere along the line!

These Seahawks can hang with the best team in the league; would have
beat them except for a fluke play.

This team is contending for the Superbowl this season. Anyone who writes
them off is a moron. Time to get back on board!!

Stephen

(what, I had to change "pussies" to "pansies" to get past some kind of
filter??????????)

Stephen Trapani wrote:

I'm not sure I know what "on board" means. But what I learned from this
game was that the Seahawks are still making the kind of mistakes that
lose games.

Anything's possible, including a playoff run back to the SB. But anyone
who can't see that this team has problems, or who thinks that talking
about those problems is "writing them off", is the real moron.

Stephen Trapani wrote:

Here is where you are flawed. It wasn't a "fluke" play. Those type
of blown coverages and pass plays are rendered routine and high
percentage when done against our secondary. Between the blown coverages
and apparent inability to have practice methods to simply swat a ball
down... those plays are not and can not be called flukes.

"Stephen Trapani" nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:tkUjh.27$rm4.7@newsfe02.lga...

Always on board but Great teams win those type of games.

Stephen Trapani wrote:

Didn't leave the bandwagon in 1992, and I'm certainly not going
anywhere now. Play to our capabilities, and we'll win it all.

BillB

A fluke play is one where the ball bounces off of three receivers, is
fumbled by the intercepting team and bounces into the hands of the original
receiver and he scores a touchdown. This was not a fluke play--it was a
designed play that was executed perfectly, from the QB to the receiver. The
defense was beaten. The better team won.

This team backed into the playoffs, which is really just fine. But you have
to realize that fact.

You might ask yourself: How the hell do you allow a receiver to get behind
you with 30 or so seconds left? This team is not functioning on all
cylinders and the bright spot is the FG kicker JB and SA. The rest of the
team is not that dependable. Holgrem is really not being realistic and
appears to be living in Oz.

Erik Kusta wrote:

I have to disagree here, Erik. This is where Holmgren is
flashing his coaching ability. He realizes he could go a couple
of different ways (ballistic, supportive, etc) and has
chosen to accentuate the positive. Players were weeping
after losing this one, the care so much.

Upset as we are over the outcome, it was the right move
to go "glass half full" on this one.

I'd like to also take this opportunity to welcome
Lofa Tatupu back to the land of the living.

BillB

Ed wrote:

Scott B. Husted wrote:

It wasn't entirely a fluke, but it was flukey, the sort of thing you'd
like to have to fix in order to win a Superbowl.

Stephen