It wasn’t a “weak” schedule for the ‘hawks

Posted: January 18, 2008 in Uncategorized
Far too many sports writers used 20/20 vision at the end of the season to say that the Seahawks had a weak schedule, and THAT’S why they won their division and made the playoffs. A schedule is something to happen in the future, and none of these critics considered what they had originally said about the schedule when it first came out. So let’s start calling out those hypocrites with the NFC West division…
San Francisco: They had a great off-season with drafts and trades, retained their existing good talent, and many pundits claimed the 49ers were the most improved team in the entire NFL. In addition, they beat the Seahawks BOTH TIMES the previous year.
Arizona: Matt Leinart was to bloom as the starter, have a former Super Bowl MVP as his back-up, and a receiving corps of gifted athletes. It was the fourth or fifth year in a row some pundits picked the Cardinals as the post-season "dark horse", and they did beat the Seahawks in Week 2 this season. They still had an outside shot at the play-offs toward the end of the year.
St. Louis: Always the Seahawks’ nemesis in the past, the Rams signed Bulger to a huge contract extension, and their team was considered play-off bound. Who knew that the loss of three starters in Week 1 was only the premonition of a season to be completely decimated by injury?
That’s not a weak division. It’s a division that BECAME weak as the season progressed. Pundits said Seattle was supposed to have their hands full. Now let’s move on to the rest of the schedule…
Tampa Bay: The Bucs were supposed to be a mess this year with Chucky collecting geriatric quarterbacks, and trading for Jake Plummer (who retired instead). But the Bucs were good enough to make the play-offs.
Cincinnati: Palmer was healthy, and Ocho Cinco led a receiving corps that was supposed to shred defenses this year. Critics said this was the Bengals year to shine.
Pittsburgh: Just one year removed from the Super Bowl. You can guess what the critics said about the Steelers, and they shut out Seattle in Week 5.
New Orleans: Fantastic season the previous year, core positions were still filled, play-off favorites. They also beat the Seahawks.
Cleveland: Nobody gave them a shot, but the Browns almost made the play-offs. And they beat Seattle.
Chicago: Defending NFC Champions. Nuff said.
Philadelphia: Always a post-season favorite, no more T.O. drama, well-balanced team, and McNabb was healthy at the beginning of the year.
Carolina: They made the NFC Championship game in 2005, only to lose to Seattle. They weren’t as bad as their 8-8 record indicated in 2006, either.
Baltimore: Coming off a spectacular 13-3 season, and the Ravens defense was supposed to be as strong as ever.
Atlanta: New coach Petrino was supposed to work magic with Michael Vick. They were so confident, they even traded away an excellent back-up quarterback.
So when you look at the Seahawks schedule from last summer’s standpoint, they had a tough season ahead of them. Critics said then they maybe could pull out a wild-card position if they were lucky. It’s not fair to play the season, then say that the Seahawks had a weak schedule.
That’s what a hypocrite sez.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s