The Colts didn't play anybody either. I was calling back in week 5 that most of the Colts defensive "improvements" was because they were playing teams with crappy offenses (except the Rams and the Bengals, neither of whom they'd played yet). They played the Colts AFTER Dungy's son died and the streak ended, completely meaningless game for both teams, and by the time they got to the Panthers the name of their entire offense was Smith (Goings was their 3rd string RB, the real 4th stringer got hurt earlier in the season, so when Goings went down the Panthers were on their FIFTH string RB... wonder who the ball is going to).
Right, that's why I consider 10 minutes to be the line, if you hold the ball for 1/6 of the game more than the other team that's a real and serious advantage. 33 minutes to 27 just ain't that big a deal, you expect a team to get 30ish minutes of possession, 33 minute ain't that big a deal, call me when it's 35.
Nobody I saw underrated Hassleback, the mantra I saw was the chance Seattle had to win was because of him.
Wonder why the media didn't pick up on that. I know theyt wrote about how the Seahawks hadn't played any tough teams...and at the time there was like .03% difference in difficulty of schedule between the Hawks and the Colts (it grew a little more different by the end).
They played the Colts AFTER Dungy's son died and the streak ended, completely meaningless game for both teams
Neither team played their number ones the whole game...while the number ones were in the Hawks were beating the Colts.
and by the time they got to the Panthers the name of their entire offense was Smith (Goings was their 3rd string RB, the real 4th stringer got hurt earlier in the season, so when Goings went down the Panthers were on their FIFTH string RB... wonder who the ball is going to).
True, however that's pretty much the way the Panthers offense played all year anyway...not just after Goings went down.
Nobody I saw underrated Hassleback, the mantra I saw was the chance Seattle had to win was because of him.
Perhaps I should clarify. I didn't mean that people were taking Hasselbeck down, I meant that he was generally underrated most of the year...meaning, he's much better than he's given credit for. He wasn't talked down all that much, but not given credit for being a top tier QB...which I believe it's clear he is. The receiving core is acceptable, but not studly...put a real recieving star and watch out. I'm guessing they will address defense and WR in the draft...and quite likely another RB, although I'd be surprised if they did that in the first round.