Seahawks will repeat AND probably go undefeated.this is why.

[LA RAM FAN]

I'll have slice of that 14-2.

Log it...take it to the bank.

Split with the Niners and Cards
Lose to Philly on the road in Dec
One other road loss

11-5 if they are lucky

Wrong. Sweep Santa Clara and Cards. Philly?...Weeiiillly?

Nope - a - dope.

Don't let this Charger game thing - a - muh - jiggy go to your head.

Strictly an anomoly. A 115 degree splash in the face wake up call. How refreshing...

But you can't lead a fool to water ... No Worries.

You will figure it out after the Hawks reel off half a dozen wins in a row now.

I've made MY peace with what happened yesterday. It won't happen again..at least not for the same reasons.

The Niners will hopefully have both Aldon Smith and NaVarro Bowman back for at least one of the games with Seattle, if not both. I'm not sure how long other injured players are expected to be out, but those two are huge for the D. Having them playing will give the Niners a much better chance of winning at least one of the Seattle games.

Arizona beat the same San Diego team that beat Seattle. They also won with Drew Stanton playing QB this week and are currently on top of the NFC West. Don't sleep on the Cards.

Hard to figure the 9ers. They played like crap early last season also. Seattle isn't quite as deep as last year...not a huge drop off...but the rotations we depended on last season aren't as simple. It showed Sunday in the SD heat.

Apparently the "home " field of the "big girl britches" wasn't an advantage for Kaepernick and co. Not exactly how THEY had it penciled in I'm sure.

I/we don't have much to go on yet with Santa Clara. One thing fo sho is that they had better step it up or the path to glory for them in 2014 will be a lot harder than even THEY had imagined.

it would be a major shocker to me if the seahawks lost that game to them on the road though.they have an intense rivalry so they for sure will go all out.and if harvin is healthy for that game and the offense still has all their starting linemen as well with no major key injurys,I dont see the niners having a prayer in that game. andrew unlucky is inconsistant but he was on his game that day so they had problems with them that day.

the niners are much worse this year with key losses on defense and it showed in that game against the bears. the cowgirls have about the worse defense in the NFL so they did not have to worry about that team.you could have put a journeyman QB and played him that day such as rex grossman or colt mccoy and they would have had no problems in the pocket.

last year they were able to turn things around because they still had these key players which gave them a very good defense.

CB eric wright.
CB carlos rogers.
CB Donte whitner

LB aldon smith
LB navaooro bowman
nose tackle glenn dorsey.

had they had all those players the other night no way do they lose that game to the bears.

not having them showed big time with rookie receivers of the bears getting wide open in the second half against that inexperienced secondary and because of so many being gone due to season ending injurys to dorsey and bowman and smith suspended for 8 games,they were nt able to generate any pass rush in that game whatsoever leaving cutler with all the time i the world to scan the filed back there.

if a pitiful inconsistant interception prone cutler who always does throw interceptions at the most critical times was able to pick that defense apart,just imagine what wilson will do to them.

if they were going to lose a game this year early on,hey at least it was to my chargers who have one of the best QB's in the game that has been to the pro bowl a few times so nothing to be ashamed about there.

when they go on the road to washington,they wont face one of the better QB's then and it will be cold up there.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

View attachment 32004

a typical juvenile post from you.

 

[HUGGY]

14-2, with NO 'probablys'..........got it!

Okay so there are no-you said so and so's or whatever,lets put it on record I'm GUESSING about 14-2.time will tell how accurate my guess is.lol

That's quite a backpedal there bub....

.....very entertaining!

no backpeddling at all,not my fault you cant comprehend the word PROBABLY doesnt mean a guarantee like WILL.
whats entertaining is the lack of knowledge many football fans here display picking the donkeys to win the superbowl even though it was a quarterback who has always choked in big games against top notch competetion.

whats entertaining is watching people like you who were afraid to come back to this thread of mine to eat crow after i spelled it out for you all here why the donkeys did not have a chance to win the superbowl.

amazing how people picking the broncos to win forget these facts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Call me a "nutjob" !!!!!! I don't care. I actually did have high hopes for an undefeated season.

It is now Tuesday and not a single suicide attributed to the loss on Sunday. How boring ! It would have made an interesting story line..

Apparently the talk was just that all talk. Ya would think there would have been at least a couple of teensy weensie self inflicted deaths after all the bragging on how good the Hawks would be this year.

It all just goes to show that the Muslims are better fans of Allah than Seattleites are fans of their precious football team.

True believers.. ???? PFFFTTT !!!

Yeah I did as well.as i said before,the chargers look to be a better team this year than last year and mike mccoy looks to be a much better coach than I gave him credit for.If they still had norv turner out there,they would for sure have laid an egg.the team totally lost confidance in him.It seems to be renewed now though with mccoy.

For serious !!! Peeps are acting like SD is like a Cleveland.

Hey dickwads !!!!

SD made the playoffs last season. Rivers can have a great game once in a blue moon and low and behold Sunday he straight tore it up. Heat was a factor but nothing compared to Rivers knocking out those third downs and keeping the ball away from Seattle's offense.

 

[Zander]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

 

[HUGGY]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

POPPYCOCK !!!!!!!

Seattle lost because SD converted on a freaky high number of third downs. It WASN'T because they were extra good at setting up with higher than average 1st and 2nd downs.

Seattle wasn't that good at racking up 3rd down conversions because dor the most part they didn't need them. They scooted own the field around 400 yards and like only had to convert like 3 3rd downs.

It may sound crazy but I think the Hawks offense was the Seahawks defense's worst enemy because they scored in about two minutes on each Seahawk drive and put their defense right back on the field with little time to rest and cool down from the previous SD drives. The Hawks punted rarely in the game...they had few 3 and outs. If they had taken MORE time to go down the field they probably would have won easily.

 

[Montrovant]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

POPPYCOCK !!!!!!!

Seattle lost because SD converted on a freaky high number of third downs. It WASN'T because they were extra good at setting up with higher than average 1st and 2nd downs.

Seattle wasn't that good at racking up 3rd down conversions because dor the most part they didn't need them. They scooted own the field around 400 yards and like only had to convert like 3 3rd downs.

It may sound crazy but I think the Hawks offense was the Seahawks defense's worst enemy because they scored in about two minutes on each Seahawk drive and put their defense right back on the field with little time to rest and cool down from the previous SD drives. The Hawks punted rarely in the game...they had few 3 and outs. If they had taken MORE time to go down the field they probably would have won easily.

Seattle was 3/8 on third down. San Diego was 10/17. Seattle had 288 total net yards, San Diego 377. Seattle had an average of 6.7 yards per passing play, San Diego had 7.3. Seattle had a far, far better rushing average, 8.3 yards per compared to 2.7. However, Seattle only ran the ball 13 times compared to 37 for San Diego. And Seattle punted 4 times to 3 for San Diego.

I didn't watch a lot of the game (I had to watch the little one Sunday) but those stats paint a picture in which Seattle did a poor job playcalling and should have run the ball more frequently, both to keep their defense off of the field and because they were doing such a good job getting through San Diego's defense on the ground.

Of course, it's very hard to know what the game was like just from the stats.

 

[Papageorgio]

View attachment 32004

a typical juvenile post from you.

Look who is talking, the guy that has to use 100 emjoi in his responses. Give me a freakin break.

 

[Papageorgio]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

POPPYCOCK !!!!!!!

Seattle lost because SD converted on a freaky high number of third downs. It WASN'T because they were extra good at setting up with higher than average 1st and 2nd downs.

Seattle wasn't that good at racking up 3rd down conversions because dor the most part they didn't need them. They scooted own the field around 400 yards and like only had to convert like 3 3rd downs.

It may sound crazy but I think the Hawks offense was the Seahawks defense's worst enemy because they scored in about two minutes on each Seahawk drive and put their defense right back on the field with little time to rest and cool down from the previous SD drives. The Hawks punted rarely in the game...they had few 3 and outs. If they had taken MORE time to go down the field they probably would have won easily.

Seattle was 3/8 on third down. San Diego was 10/17. Seattle had 288 total net yards, San Diego 377. Seattle had an average of 6.7 yards per passing play, San Diego had 7.3. Seattle had a far, far better rushing average, 8.3 yards per compared to 2.7. However, Seattle only ran the ball 13 times compared to 37 for San Diego. And Seattle punted 4 times to 3 for San Diego.

I didn't watch a lot of the game (I had to watch the little one Sunday) but those stats paint a picture in which Seattle did a poor job playcalling and should have run the ball more frequently, both to keep their defense off of the field and because they were doing such a good job getting through San Diego's defense on the ground.

Of course, it's very hard to know what the game was like just from the stats.

Seattle passed more than usual because they trailed most of the game and played catch up.

The heat was a factor for both sides however San Diego didn't avoid Sherman and it paid off.

 

[HUGGY]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

POPPYCOCK !!!!!!!

Seattle lost because SD converted on a freaky high number of third downs. It WASN'T because they were extra good at setting up with higher than average 1st and 2nd downs.

Seattle wasn't that good at racking up 3rd down conversions because dor the most part they didn't need them. They scooted own the field around 400 yards and like only had to convert like 3 3rd downs.

It may sound crazy but I think the Hawks offense was the Seahawks defense's worst enemy because they scored in about two minutes on each Seahawk drive and put their defense right back on the field with little time to rest and cool down from the previous SD drives. The Hawks punted rarely in the game...they had few 3 and outs. If they had taken MORE time to go down the field they probably would have won easily.

Seattle was 3/8 on third down. San Diego was 10/17. Seattle had 288 total net yards, San Diego 377. Seattle had an average of 6.7 yards per passing play, San Diego had 7.3. Seattle had a far, far better rushing average, 8.3 yards per compared to 2.7. However, Seattle only ran the ball 13 times compared to 37 for San Diego. And Seattle punted 4 times to 3 for San Diego.

I didn't watch a lot of the game (I had to watch the little one Sunday) but those stats paint a picture in which Seattle did a poor job playcalling and should have run the ball more frequently, both to keep their defense off of the field and because they were doing such a good job getting through San Diego's defense on the ground.

Of course, it's very hard to know what the game was like just from the stats.

There were a lot of penalties which drove down Seattle's net yards. I didn't review the exact numbers but like I said it was in the neighborhood of 400 yards gross yards on offense.

The Seahawks offense was a lot more effective than SD for the time they had the ball. I have seen a lot of posts assuming that the Seahawks got their asses kicked by a superior team on Sunday. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Hawks had taken the ball the length of the field several times during the 17 minutes they had to work with it averaging around 3 minutes per drive. At the end of the game Seattle had 89 yards to get a game winning TD and extra point with around 2.5 minutes left. There was a 2 minute warning and a TO left to work with. For the Seahawks that is realistically plenty of time left to still win the football game.

MANY times since Wilson was named the starting QB he has taken the same set of circumstances and made good. It wouldn't have surprised me at all if Wilson had taken the offense to a TD and a win. NOT succeeding was far more unbelievable to anyone following the team.

Yes it was a loss. Yes it was dissappointing but it was far from an ass kicking. An ass kicking is what Denver will experience this Sunday in Seattle.

The score ended with a 9 point difference because Seattle failed on a 4th down attempt within field goal range for SD. The FG was a gift from the Hawks. The actual difference was 6 points at the meaningful end of the game.

Anyone that watched the end of the game knew that the Hawks even with less than a third of the time SD enjoyed on offense were still in a reasonable place during a final drive to come out of SD with a "W".

Give credit to the Chargers for a great game plan and the win but please try and avoid hyperbol suggesting that they ran the Hawks out of Qualcom Stadium.

 

[Papageorgio]

Seattle 8 - 53 in the penalty area, way short of the 400 yards.

 

[HUGGY]

One has to keep in mind that the penalty stats don't reflect yards lost that were gained and then taken away due to the penalty. Some people that don't really understand football might be ignorant of that aspect of how penalties affect the ACTUAL outcome of any individual play ..a series ...or an outcome of a game.

I stand with around 400 yards minus the penalties and the yards lost gained that were taken away as a result of the penalties.

 

[Papageorgio]

One has to keep in mind that the penalty stats don't reflect yards lost that were gained and then taken away due to the penalty. Some people that don't really understand football might be ignorant of that aspect of how penalties affect the ACTUAL outcome of any individual play ..a series ...or an outcome of a game.

I stand with around 400 yards minus the penalties and the yards lost gained that were taken away as a result of the penalties.

I don't understand seahawk fans that don't see reality, because many times such as holding the yards would not have been made in the first place. I have seen many plays called back because of penalties, or had yards added on. Also if you want to get technical, Hardin stepped out of bounds, now the seahawks May scored any way, however it may not have been a TDs. That is where people that don't really understand football and are just fanatics of one team lose touch with what football really is.

Some people who don't understand really football would know that the final score is the final score and that weather and what ifs are nothing more than a deflection of reality. The seahawks lost by nine, not six, because San Diego put the seahawks down by nine because San Diego executed a better game plan and the seahawks did not live up to seahawk fan expectations of an unrealistic 19-0 season.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

yeah they were able to do that because as mudwhistle spelled it out to you all earlier was because its tougher on a defense in sweltering heat conditions than it is an offense since the defense doesnt know whats coming at them.having to think in sweltering heat conditions is a lot more stressful than normal conditions as well. theres a reason WHY its called home field advantage you know. and your point about them wearing their dark colored uniforms helps prove the point they had the advantage,that made it all the more tougher on them.the link i posted earlier talked about that how the chargers wearing their whites in the heat was a smart idea.

they would have had a better chance at winning the game late in the end had carrol gone for it on fourth and 2 when they were around their own 35 yard line instead of punting the ball away again.I thought that was stupid of carrol to not go for it then.

Wilson had scrambled and picked up the majority of the yars back on third down.offense was not the problem,defense was.they hadnt stopped them all day long with any 3 and outs so I was thinking at that time-Man what the hell are you doing, go for it!!!

the offense that day was their strength,they made a game of it.that was a costly mistake carrol made.if they dont make it then at least they would go down trying what was working best that day-the offense.man you got to go for it at that point!!!!!

oh and as i mentioend earlier,someone who is used to working in conditions like that,is going to perform their job FAR better than someone who joins the company for the very first time on the job and works in conditions like that they are not used to for the first time their first day at work.amazing how none of this ever seems to register with any of you though.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

One has to keep in mind that the penalty stats don't reflect yards lost that were gained and then taken away due to the penalty. Some people that don't really understand football might be ignorant of that aspect of how penalties affect the ACTUAL outcome of any individual play ..a series ...or an outcome of a game.

I stand with around 400 yards minus the penalties and the yards lost gained that were taken away as a result of the penalties.

I don't understand seahawk fans that don't see reality, because many times such as holding the yards would not have been made in the first place. I have seen many plays called back because of penalties, or had yards added on. Also if you want to get technical, Hardin stepped out of bounds, now the seahawks May scored any way, however it may not have been a TDs. That is where people that don't really understand football and are just fanatics of one team lose touch with what football really is.

Some people who don't understand really football would know that the final score is the final score and that weather and what ifs are nothing more than a deflection of reality. The seahawks lost by nine, not six, because San Diego put the seahawks down by nine because San Diego executed a better game plan and the seahawks did not live up to seahawk fan expectations of an unrealistic 19-0 season.

Hey genius,try living in a climate year round where its cold all the time and then go out and work in someplace like phoenix arizona your first day on your new job in intense heat,conditions you are not used to and see how long YOU can keep up with the other workers out there who have been working in those same conditions for YEARS!!!!

you're fooling yourself if you dont believe you will not collapse that day or think clearly. AGAIN as i just said,there is a REASON that writer in that link i posted earlier said the chargers were smart for wearing their whites that day.duh.

I can handle the fact that they didnt go undefeated like I thought they had an excellent chance of doing,I can accept i overlooked it that they dont play well in hot temperatures,you cant seem to deal with reality though that playing in weather conditions you are not used to affects your thinking dramatically and how you normally are that day though.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

POPPYCOCK !!!!!!!

Seattle lost because SD converted on a freaky high number of third downs. It WASN'T because they were extra good at setting up with higher than average 1st and 2nd downs.

Seattle wasn't that good at racking up 3rd down conversions because dor the most part they didn't need them. They scooted own the field around 400 yards and like only had to convert like 3 3rd downs.

It may sound crazy but I think the Hawks offense was the Seahawks defense's worst enemy because they scored in about two minutes on each Seahawk drive and put their defense right back on the field with little time to rest and cool down from the previous SD drives. The Hawks punted rarely in the game...they had few 3 and outs. If they had taken MORE time to go down the field they probably would have won easily.

well they will have at least learned from experience from this game for the future in consider that next time.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

View attachment 32004

a typical juvenile post from you.

Look who is talking, the guy that has to use 100 emjoi in his responses. Give me a freakin break.

now what the hell is pooper rambling about?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

POPPYCOCK !!!!!!!

Seattle lost because SD converted on a freaky high number of third downs. It WASN'T because they were extra good at setting up with higher than average 1st and 2nd downs.

Seattle wasn't that good at racking up 3rd down conversions because dor the most part they didn't need them. They scooted own the field around 400 yards and like only had to convert like 3 3rd downs.

It may sound crazy but I think the Hawks offense was the Seahawks defense's worst enemy because they scored in about two minutes on each Seahawk drive and put their defense right back on the field with little time to rest and cool down from the previous SD drives. The Hawks punted rarely in the game...they had few 3 and outs. If they had taken MORE time to go down the field they probably would have won easily.

Seattle was 3/8 on third down. San Diego was 10/17. Seattle had 288 total net yards, San Diego 377. Seattle had an average of 6.7 yards per passing play, San Diego had 7.3. Seattle had a far, far better rushing average, 8.3 yards per compared to 2.7. However, Seattle only ran the ball 13 times compared to 37 for San Diego. And Seattle punted 4 times to 3 for San Diego.

I didn't watch a lot of the game (I had to watch the little one Sunday) but those stats paint a picture in which Seattle did a poor job playcalling and should have run the ball more frequently, both to keep their defense off of the field and because they were doing such a good job getting through San Diego's defense on the ground.

Of course, it's very hard to know what the game was like just from the stats.

Seattle passed more than usual because they trailed most of the game and played catch up.

The heat was a factor for both sides however San Diego didn't avoid Sherman and it paid off.

the heat was a factor but AGAIN,there is a reason WHY its called home field advantage Einstein.

 

[B. Kidd]

Rivers had a decent day, but according the SFNJ's Seattle's defense is supposed to be "unstoppable", right? Sherman can't be beat, right? Guess they have feet of clay after all......oh wait, sorry, it was the dark colored uniforms.....

Wanna know the real reason Seattle lost? San Diego was able to consistently get decent gains on first and second downs. That set up third-and-short, and five of San Diego’s third-down conversions were 2 yards or less. Rivers excels at 3-5 yard passes. None of their passes were longer than 21 yards.

POPPYCOCK !!!!!!!

Seattle lost because SD converted on a freaky high number of third downs. It WASN'T because they were extra good at setting up with higher than average 1st and 2nd downs.

Seattle wasn't that good at racking up 3rd down conversions because dor the most part they didn't need them. They scooted own the field around 400 yards and like only had to convert like 3 3rd downs.

It may sound crazy but I think the Hawks offense was the Seahawks defense's worst enemy because they scored in about two minutes on each Seahawk drive and put their defense right back on the field with little time to rest and cool down from the previous SD drives. The Hawks punted rarely in the game...they had few 3 and outs. If they had taken MORE time to go down the field they probably would have won easily.

well they will have at least learned from experience from this game for the future in consider that next time.

What is it that you think they need to learn from this experience?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Weather conditions are a poor excuse for some sloppy play by the Seahawks defense...both teams were playing in the same weather and it didn't seem to hinder either Seattle or SD offense.

town and snny

Logic and common sense dont ever seem to register with antiquity and many others here.lol.

How did you get that out of using weather conditions are a poor excuse?....Seattle was out smarted and outplayed by San Diego and weather didn't have any thing to do with it.

I think you need to try a little experiment.

The next time it is hot, above 90, in your town go out and do something that raises your heart rate like raking the lawn vigorously dressed in pure white reflective clothing..no shorts..that would be cheating..wear long pants.

THEN go in and change to an all black outfit and do the same work.

You will immediately understand why the Chargers have a serious advantage playing at home when it is hot.

this kind of logic and common sense reasoning never seems to ever dawn on these seahawks bashers. I mentioned arizona earlier because I have relatives that live out there and I know from personal experience,its quite a bit tougher doing a job like that out in that heat out there in a black t shirt than when your're wearing a regular white shirt.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Weather.com said the humidity was an unbearable 63% there! I'll bet the players were all wiping their brows.

Once or twice!

they are wrong,I watched the game,they showed a temperatue gauge on the field and mentioned it was at a 120% on the field going by what the gauge was showing us.

Only 118.

It gets hot this time of year in SD. I remember one time it got to 123 degrees.

Looks like the announcers thought the indicater was at a 120 cause thats whats they said and thats what it looked like the marker said.

NOW maybe all this bullshit talk that it wasnt a scorcher down there will FINALLY stop. as people can see below ,homefield advantage did come into play with the chargers used to it where the seahawks are not.

SAN DIEGO -- The usual paradise-like weather conditions of San Diego were more like a day in the Sahara Desert on Sunday, and the Seattle Seahawks' defense wilted away in the sweltering heat.

The defending Super Bowl champs got pushed around and outmuscled most of the day by the San Diego Chargers, who came away with a 30-21 victory at blisteringly hot Qualcomm Stadium.

The air temperature was 95 degrees at kickoff, but down on the field temperatures reached 118 degrees. The Chargers wisely wore all white and the Seahawks had to wear their dark blue jerseys.

It was a lot warmer than we're used to and the defense was out there for some really long drives,” Seattle tight end Zach Miller said. “You can’t help but get tired.”


Seattle free safety Earl Thomas left the game in the third quarter and went to the locker room for IV fluids because of cramps in his legs from the heat, but he returned one series later.

“It was hot and there was a lot of cramping up when [the defense] was out there long time," Thomas said. “I exert a lot of energy out there, and in this heat it was kind of hard for me at times.


the players wont use it as an excuse but like the article says it WAS a factor because they had no way of being prepared for it and the chargers are used to it having to play in it at times so that was their advantage for sure.

San Diego Heat Wave Will Challenge The Seattle Seahawks

something i noticed after i made this post here was how the seahawk bashers retreated from saying the heat wasnt that hot on the field when they were proven wrong on that to THEN coming up with wacky asinine claims that them wearing their dark uniforms and playing in conditions they arent used to wasnt a factor and didnt play a role in the game.

Obviously all you seahawk bashers who keep saying them playing in their darks and in sweltering conditions that they arent used to shouldn't have been a major factor,have never done what Huggy mentioned earlier on trying to go outside and do a very difficult physical task in humid conditions in the heat with dark colored clothing on and then doing the same task another day in the same conditions but with white on,saying it doesnt affect you physically or mentally much worse like antiquity nutcase and others,have OBVIOUSLY never experienced that before like I have out in arizona.


there IS a reason WHY the miami dolphins always wear their white uniforms in all their home games during the day you know?