I think this team has the potential to do something great, Foles is proving to be a very special asset to our franchise, that being said, I wouldn't be surprised is Dallas took the division this season, and in a way I kind of hope they do so the expectation isn't so high for next season when I think this offence will really start to have it's way with opposing teams.

The one thing that is going to slow us down for the remainder of this season is the play calling in the second half. Back to back weeks now, vs Redskins and Cardinals, we've had a commanding lead and then decided to take our foot off the gas in the 2nd half allowing our opponents back into the game, which you can't do in this league. 24-7 up against the Cardinals on Sunday, then gave up 2 scores without reply and made it a rather nervy ending, almost a carbon copy of the Redskins game a couple weeks previous.

We need to keep our foot down and pound these teams until it's not possible for them to get back into the game and possibly pinch a win. Too many times on sunday we ran it on 3rd down or had a designed QB run which picked up next to nothing and forced us to punt. It wouldn't be so bad if Chip Kelly was good at winding the clock down but his clock management leaves a lot to be desired at the moment.

Seattle haven't lost at home since 2011.
Whilst the 12th man is great for the Seahawks it is makes playing there a bit of a joke. Last night being the primest of examples. Brees under 200yds for the first time in 44 games.
That's 44 games!
And it was his inablility to communicate that was the deciding factor. Period.
Seattle are a very good team, I'm not taking anything away from them, but the crowd noise is so debilitating there's no team, no matter how good, that can deal with it.

I think the 12th man thing in Seattle is pretty cool.

I think he'll learn to be a smarter NFL coach.

The goods new is that effectively the QB job is sorted for next season, Barkley's performance can probably be glossed over as it wasn't an ideal position to be in so he can backup. He still has a good pedigree, so is worth working on. Then they can possibly take a late round punt on a mobile QB in the later rounds of the draft to suit the spread offense. Someone like Jordan Lynch is going to still be around.

Can load up a bit on defence in the first three rounds.

I hope we do load up on D, think we need another linebacker and some serious work in the secondary especially at safety, not necessarily a starter but we're drastically lacking depth.

I disagree. If you make a huge fuss of it, it will cause trouble.

The Patriots lost with under a minute to go last year. Why? Because they had a rugby player who had played 3 snaps of college football playing Safety due to injuries, who did not know that with 70 yards and no timeouts, you should play deep.

Manning in Seattle would be fine if it wasn't cold. Brady in Seattle would work with the offense he has now, and the defense they have now. They racked up 475 yards last year against them in Seattle, when they didn't let another team over 300.

Last night reminded me of the Saints first game back in the Superdome. Pumped fans.

The reason that team dismantled the Saints last night was because the Saints changed up with boards on the sideline. They should have been running no huddle, hand signals with the QB running the play. Payton was too involved in it last night. Leave it to Brees to do it. Brady, Manning, Rodgers, they would have been running their own plays. The Patriots would've been in that one word no huddle like last season vs the Broncos.

Like before, if you're trotting Chung out there as a starter, you're in trouble.

Ditto Washington with Meriweather.

Belichick is so bad at drafting Safeties, he converted his Cornerback to make a Pro Bowler instead!

I agree, problem is, Manning & Brady won't be playing there in January.

In fact, you look at the QB's that might, and most of them (Bar Bree's who just got his butt kicked there) have a serious lack of post season experience.

And I'm going on the basis that the Packers don't make a late charge once Rodgers gets healthy.

Well that's one way to look at it, but non of those QB's (all of which haven't beaten Seattle in Seattle in the last 2 years) will play Seattle between now and the Superbowl with maybe the exception of Brees and if last night was anything to go on the Saints would seriously have to up their game to get anywhere close.
I stand by my original post. Current Seahawks with homefield advantage = nailed on NFC Champs.

The Broncos were nailed on AFC Champs only a year ago..... Franchise Moddell found a way to win.... Favourites yes... nailed on... no

The original point I was trying to make is that the home field advantage (the ridiculous noise level) is the key. The Bronco's didn't have this advantage.

He's been ok for us, nothing special though and easily replaced. He didn't half whiff on that tackle for Fitzgeralds TD though....criminal.

Season ticket purchased for International series next year! BOOM!

They required an incompetent part-time banker/vagabond to win vs the Packers.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...ck-620x348.jpg

Chiefs should have the AFC wrapped up then?

Arrowhead is louder and unlike Seattle, isn't built to increase noise

Not necessarily, the Chiefs are not the Seahawks and you know it Paul!
I still don't rate Alex Smith. Especially clutch.

Very enjoyable game from a Seattle perspective - still plenty to play for so I don't like the "nailed-on" tag at this moment.
Amazed to keep Brees under the 200 yard mark for the first time in 44 games, as previously mentioned. This preserves the record for Dan Fouts at 45 games in a row with 200 yards+ who played in an era when his receivers we're being manhandled much more and a slap on his head meant a bloody nose not a 15 yard penalty. Now that was one tough sonabitch QB who has become one of the best, most articulate and gracious members of the media you'll ever encounter.
I think there is beginning to be some level of "its not fair" regarding the home field advantage. This is of course the talk of sissies - what you need to do is get a better team and louder fans - simple! Every team tries to create a home field advantage; some are successful for different reasons (successful current team/history of winning/stadium design/geography) and some can only achieve it when the current team is doing well. For those that bleat about Century Link being built to increase the noise…sure it helps but, in case you don't know, its rains quite a bit here and it's nice to keep dry! There have been 6 NFL stadiums built since Century Link was built and a 7th on the way next year (49ers)…how come none have copied the architecture of CL and taken advantage of stadium roof design? I know thats a rhetorical statement because the answer is of course none.Architecture is subjective and generally a design will reflect the environment and the needs of a particular city -or in Jerry Jones' case something else entirely!! We keep hearing ( usual from Pat's mouthpiece Jim Nantz, how many stadium reviews Bob Kraft personally conducted on Gillette stadium to get it just right!
I think generally dome teams should have an advantage because they can develop a style of play suited to the turf and, if successful, the fans should always be noisier in a dome. Some dome teams have tried to manipulate conditions to their advantage (roof closed/open, air-conditioning on/off, loudspeaker amplification issues / end zone doors open/shut for wind assistance).
If every team was equal and the all 32 teams finished 8 and 8, here's a couple of examples, from my perspective, of these non-football influences:
NFC West - 2 teams play in dome / semi indoor, SF plays in comfortable climate. Advantage to Seattle as weather and fans can be a factor.
NFC-South - 2 dome teams and 2 outdoor/good weather teams - advantage NO and ATL.
AFC - East - All outdoor, 3 cold weather. I would say MIA at disadvantage due to cold weather trips and more travel.
AFC - North - All outdoor and geographically close but PIT with its playing surface that resembles Derby's baseball ground circa 1970's, probably has advantage. Also very difficult to kick 40 yard + field goals there.
NFC - North - All close together but when MIN gets going well their dome is a difficult place to play. GB has its plusses - the aura, the frozen field. Chicago gets very sloppy and that tends to neutralize advantages.
AFC - West - All outdoor but separated by great distances. big advantages to DEN and KC. DEN has a mile high advantage which is huge. Both KC and DEN have rabid fans - not much else going on in town, right! SD is probably the easiest place to play in the NFL - great weather, field and a town full of other peoples fans. SD has more travel east and north with game times routinely differing. There is virtually no home field advantage for SD without a sustained period of success.
Woah, that was a bit of a rant… so I'm thinking the championship games shake down to:
NFC - SEA / SF (Dark horse - PHI)
AFC - DEN / NE (Dark Horse - I am down on the other AFC teams right now).

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/...owns/post.html

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/198a.../ku-xlarge.png

You would also debate that Seattle isn't as intimidating in day time games than it is in evening games. Mike Glennon showed that the other week.

But under the lights, its volitile.

And if Rich Eisen has his facts right, because the AFC Championship game last year was the night game, the NFC Championship game this year will be the late game (they switch every year)...so its all set up for Seattle.

And the green 4th down section on the NFL graph is accounted for entirely by Riverboat Rivera