Do you think Lynch will be convicted for DUI and receive suspension?

Originally posted by zaghawk:
I am definitely not one who takes DUIs lightly. But the NFL didn't exactly do anything to Aldon either.

You know how it works. They wait until after the legal proceedings have finished, just with Lynch. The difference in this case is that Lynch used every legal method to delay any action and played in every game. Smith, on the other hand, voluntarily went into rehab and missed five games. The NFL has already said it will take the voluntary self-suspension into account when ultimately dealing out a penalty. I'm not sure what they'll do with Lynch, but he hasn't helped himself by simply stonewalling them and continuing to play.

Originally posted by crake49:
Thank you. And I didn't see any of them saying, "we beat them, but they didn't have Michael Crabtree" either.

I like this because I heard plenty "You only beat us because we didn't have Crabtree" "You only beat us because we didn't have Smith" "You only beat us because of the refs and the NFL is fixed unless we make it and win the Super Bowl"

But you are right, I do not recall many Hawks fans saying we beat you but you were lacking Crabtree. We had plenty of you letting us know that with out needing to say it ourselves.

Originally posted by Brahn:

Originally posted by crake49:
Thank you. And I didn't see any of them saying, "we beat them, but they didn't have Michael Crabtree" either.

I like this because I heard plenty "You only beat us because we didn't have Crabtree" "You only beat us because we didn't have Smith" "You only beat us because of the refs and the NFL is fixed unless we make it and win the Super Bowl"

But you are right, I do not recall many Hawks fans saying we beat you but you were lacking Crabtree. We had plenty of you letting us know that with out needing to say it ourselves.

OK, now beat us without PEDS!!

Originally posted by crake49:
I'm not sure what they'll do with Lynch, but he hasn't helped himself by simply stonewalling them and continuing to play.

His team won in the SB and he scored a touchdown. If his career was over tomorrow I believe he would probably say it was worth it. I know what you are saying, as far as in regards to his punishment, but any player would probably do the same in his situation.

Originally posted by Pillbusta:
OK, now beat us without PEDS!!

Fair enough, now beat us when it matters.

Originally posted by dave_n_ruth:
His team won in the SB and he scored a touchdown. If his career was over tomorrow I believe he would probably say it was worth it. I know what you are saying, as far as in regards to his punishment, but any player would probably do the same in his situation.

I didn't see Aldon Smith doing the same in his situation. But, you're right. The Seahawks don't care. They have their championship. This was a do or die season - $67 million for Harvin screwing up their cap situation for years to come, stonewall with Lynch and who cares what happens next season. That cap situation is already showing its face - Rice is gone. They're going to get rid of Red Bryant. They're going to have a lot less depth on the D-line. They've still got almost $25 million in cap space tied up with one receiver with a history of injury problems and one tackle. I'm guessing the $67 million they dropped on Harvin, who played for about a half hour over the course of the season, has something to do with Bennett's attitude. And next season, they've got to deal with Sherman, who clearly thinks he's the best corner in the game and probably expects more money than Revis got.

Originally posted by crake49:

Originally posted by dave_n_ruth:
His team won in the SB and he scored a touchdown. If his career was over tomorrow I believe he would probably say it was worth it. I know what you are saying, as far as in regards to his punishment, but any player would probably do the same in his situation.

I didn't see Aldon Smith doing the same in his situation. But, you're right. The Seahawks don't care. They have their championship. This was a do or die season - $67 million for Harvin screwing up their cap situation for years to come, stonewall with Lynch and who cares what happens next season. That cap situation is already showing its face - Rice is gone. They're going to get rid of Red Bryant. They're going to have a lot less depth on the D-line. They've still got almost $25 million in cap space tied up with one receiver with a history of injury problems and one tackle. I'm guessing the $67 million they dropped on Harvin, who played for about a half hour over the course of the season, has something to do with Bennett's attitude. And next season, they've got to deal with Sherman, who clearly thinks he's the best corner in the game and probably expects more money than Revis got.

Eh. You guys went through 20 years of garbage, and what do you remember? 5 rings.

If we go through 3-4 years of garbage for one, I think it's fair. But personally, I don't see this team going through garbage outside of anything catastrophic. The team may not be quite as dominant as this year on defense, but making it to playoffs is all you need for a chance to win the Super Bowl. On the bright side, Seattle may suffer cap casualties, but a lot of the stars on the Niner team itself are getting old (and this is just from reading what people are posting here). Maybe we should all be worried about the Rams and Arizona.

Originally posted by zaghawk:

Originally posted by crake49:

Originally posted by dave_n_ruth:
His team won in the SB and he scored a touchdown. If his career was over tomorrow I believe he would probably say it was worth it. I know what you are saying, as far as in regards to his punishment, but any player would probably do the same in his situation.

I didn't see Aldon Smith doing the same in his situation. But, you're right. The Seahawks don't care. They have their championship. This was a do or die season - $67 million for Harvin screwing up their cap situation for years to come, stonewall with Lynch and who cares what happens next season. That cap situation is already showing its face - Rice is gone. They're going to get rid of Red Bryant. They're going to have a lot less depth on the D-line. They've still got almost $25 million in cap space tied up with one receiver with a history of injury problems and one tackle. I'm guessing the $67 million they dropped on Harvin, who played for about a half hour over the course of the season, has something to do with Bennett's attitude. And next season, they've got to deal with Sherman, who clearly thinks he's the best corner in the game and probably expects more money than Revis got.

Eh. You guys went through 20 years of garbage, and what do you remember? 5 rings.

If we go through 3-4 years of garbage for one, I think it's fair. But personally, I don't see this team going through garbage outside of anything catastrophic. The team may not be quite as dominant as this year on defense, but making it to playoffs is all you need for a chance to win the Super Bowl. On the bright side, Seattle may suffer cap casualties, but a lot of the stars on the Niner team itself are getting old (and this is just from reading what people are posting here). Maybe we should all be worried about the Rams and Arizona.

what 20 years were those?

Originally posted by crabman82:

Originally posted by zaghawk:

Originally posted by crake49:

Originally posted by dave_n_ruth:
His team won in the SB and he scored a touchdown. If his career was over tomorrow I believe he would probably say it was worth it. I know what you are saying, as far as in regards to his punishment, but any player would probably do the same in his situation.

I didn't see Aldon Smith doing the same in his situation. But, you're right. The Seahawks don't care. They have their championship. This was a do or die season - $67 million for Harvin screwing up their cap situation for years to come, stonewall with Lynch and who cares what happens next season. That cap situation is already showing its face - Rice is gone. They're going to get rid of Red Bryant. They're going to have a lot less depth on the D-line. They've still got almost $25 million in cap space tied up with one receiver with a history of injury problems and one tackle. I'm guessing the $67 million they dropped on Harvin, who played for about a half hour over the course of the season, has something to do with Bennett's attitude. And next season, they've got to deal with Sherman, who clearly thinks he's the best corner in the game and probably expects more money than Revis got.

Eh. You guys went through 20 years of garbage, and what do you remember? 5 rings.

If we go through 3-4 years of garbage for one, I think it's fair. But personally, I don't see this team going through garbage outside of anything catastrophic. The team may not be quite as dominant as this year on defense, but making it to playoffs is all you need for a chance to win the Super Bowl. On the bright side, Seattle may suffer cap casualties, but a lot of the stars on the Niner team itself are getting old (and this is just from reading what people are posting here). Maybe we should all be worried about the Rams and Arizona.

what 20 years were those?

From '83 to '98, SF was a power house. Winning 10 or more games every year. Outside of that, they had their share of "garbage". Eight losing seasons from 1999 to 2008 for example.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/

I'm sure you can find 20 "garbage" years in there.

Originally posted by fiveoldrings:
From '83 to '98, SF was a power house. Winning 10 or more games every year. Outside of that, they had their share of "garbage". Eight losing seasons from 1999 to 2008 for example.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/

I'm sure you can find 20 "garbage" years in there.

Maybe you need to work on your arithmetic. That looks like about 10 years to me. And, since the Niners won their first Super Bowl in '81, not '83, you need to work on your history as well. But, on the merits, your argument just doesn't hold water. From '81 to '98 there wasn't even one full season in which the Niners won less than 10 games. No team has ever put a run together even close to that kind of success. So, apart from the strike-shortened '82 season, which was "garbage" for a lot of teams, there wasn't one "garbage" year in that entire stretch. The problem a lot of Seahawk fans have, and I get it because most of you haven't really been NFL fans for very long, is that you have very little perspective. You think history began when you entered the NFC West. You're like the rich kid who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. The Seahawks are real good these days. And they totally deserve the championship they've finally brought home to the Northwest. No true NFL fan can deny that. But don't suffer under the impression that you've somehow risen to the level the Niners occupy in the halls of NFL history. You're not even close. You're not even among the greatest rivals the Niners have been challenged by and you won't be there until you break Niner fans' hearts more than a few more times. And, maybe the Seahawks will rise to that. Who knows. I don't think so. I think they've got an impetuous, impatient billionaire a-hole for an owner who mortgaged their future to make one desperate shot at a championship that worked. We'll start to find out if I'm right about that in the next couple of seasons.

Originally posted by crake49:
Maybe you need to work on your arithmetic. That looks like about 10 years to me. And, since the Niners won their first Super Bowl in '81, not '83, you need to work on your history as well. But, on the merits, your argument just doesn't hold water. From '81 to '98 there wasn't even one full season in which the Niners won less than 10 games. No team has ever put a run together even close to that kind of success. So, apart from the strike-shortened '82 season, which was "garbage" for a lot of teams, there wasn't one "garbage" year in that entire stretch. The problem a lot of Seahawk fans have, and I get it because most of you haven't really been NFL fans for very long, is that you have very little perspective. You think history began when you entered the NFC West. You're like the rich kid who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. The Seahawks are real good these days. And they totally deserve the championship they've finally brought home to the Northwest. No true NFL fan can deny that. But don't suffer under the impression that you've somehow risen to the level the Niners occupy in the halls of NFL history. You're not even close. You're not even among the greatest rivals the Niners have been challenged by and you won't be there until you break Niner fans' hearts more than a few more times. And, maybe the Seahawks will rise to that. Who knows. I don't think so. I think they've got an impetuous, impatient billionaire a-hole for an owner who mortgaged their future to make one desperate shot at a championship that worked. We'll start to find out if I'm right about that in the next couple of seasons.

the myth among seahawk fans is that theres was 20 years of garbage. no theres been 20 seasons since the last super bowl win. aside from that you had super bowl contenders in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, and 2013. we fully acknowledge the down period from 2003 -2010. how it doubled in length to 20 years of garbage is beyond me.

Originally posted by crake49:

Originally posted by fiveoldrings:
From '83 to '98, SF was a power house. Winning 10 or more games every year. Outside of that, they had their share of "garbage". Eight losing seasons from 1999 to 2008 for example.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/

I'm sure you can find 20 "garbage" years in there.

Maybe you need to work on your arithmetic. That looks like about 10 years to me. And, since the Niners won their first Super Bowl in '81, not '83, you need to work on your history as well. But, on the merits, your argument just doesn't hold water. From '81 to '98 there wasn't even one full season in which the Niners won less than 10 games. No team has ever put a run together even close to that kind of success. So, apart from the strike-shortened '82 season, which was "garbage" for a lot of teams, there wasn't one "garbage" year in that entire stretch.

What was it about "from '83 to 98 they were a power house, winning more than 10 games in each season" you didn't understand? I made no mention of '82 for that reason but it's still a gap in the streak.

As for the '81 SB win (which has no bearing on the point that was being made), the three years leading to that win resulted in records of 2-14, 2-14 and 6-10. Now we're up to 11 garbage seasons (unless you think losing more games than you win shouldn't be considered garbage or worthless?).

Fact: SF has had 21 losing or what I would qualify as "garbage" seasons since 1962. What's wrong with my arithmetic again?

The problem a lot of Seahawk fans have, and I get it because most of you haven't really been NFL fans for very long, is that you have very little perspective. You think history began when you entered the NFC West. You're like the rich kid who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. The Seahawks are real good these days. And they totally deserve the championship they've finally brought home to the Northwest. No true NFL fan can deny that. But don't suffer under the impression that you've somehow risen to the level the Niners occupy in the halls of NFL history. You're not even close. You're not even among the greatest rivals the Niners have been challenged by and you won't be there until you break Niner fans' hearts more than a few more times. And, maybe the Seahawks will rise to that. Who knows. I don't think so. I think they've got an impetuous, impatient billionaire a-hole for an owner who mortgaged their future to make one desperate shot at a championship that worked. We'll start to find out if I'm right about that in the next couple of seasons.

So your actual issue with the post is completely unrelated to the actual post? Quite the straw man you've built up there.

On average (without checking) I'm guessing that Seattle has a higher percentage of losing seasons than SF in their team history. That has no bearing on the point that was made by the poster that I quoted. That said, continue to ignore the actual post and go on a rant about something entirely unrelated.

[edit] Please note that when I said you could probably find 20 garbage years "in there", I was referring to the link that shows SF's record for every season of their existence. Perhaps some of you misunderstood.

Originally posted by fiveoldrings:
What was it about "from '83 to 98 they were a power house, winning more than 10 games in each season" didn't you understand? I made no mention of '82 for that reason but it's still a gap in the streak.

As for the '81 SB win (which has no bearing on the point that was being made), the three years leading to that win resulted in records of 2-14, 2-14 and 6-10. Now we're up to 11 garbage seasons (unless you think losing more games than you win shouldn't be considered garbage or worthless?).

Fact: SF has had 21 losing or what I would qualify as "garbage" seasons since 1962. What's wrong with my arithmetic again?


So your actual issue with the post is completely unrelated to the actual post? Quite the straw man you've built up there.

On average (without checking) I'm guessing that Seattle has a higher percentage of losing seasons than SF in their team history. That has no bearing on the point that was made by the poster that I quoted. That said, continue to ignore the actual post and go on a rant about something entirely unrelated.

this whole thing has flown right over your head. nobody claimed the 49ers were power houses in the 60's or 70's. its the whole notion than from our last title in 1994 until harbaugh that they were all garbage seasons. yeah its been 20 years, but only half of those were non-playoff years, 99-2000 and 03-10. the 49ers didnt stop being sb contenders after their last title win and thats the impression i was getting from zaghawk when he threw out the 20 years of garbage line.

Originally posted by crabman82:
this whole thing has flown right over your head. nobody claimed the 49ers were power houses in the 60's or 70's. its the whole notion than from our last title in 1994 until harbaugh that they were all garbage seasons. yeah its been 20 years, but only half of those were non-playoff years, 99-2000 and 03-10. the 49ers didnt stop being sb contenders after their last title win and thats the impression i was getting from zaghawk when he threw out the 20 years of garbage line.

Zag wasn't talking about (nor was I) the 20 years after the last SB win. He was referring (correct me if I am wrong, Zaghawk) to the life of the franchise.

Why would he reference the 5 rings from a period that resulted in zero rings? Clearly I'm not the one that missed the point.

Originally posted by fiveoldrings:

Originally posted by crabman82:
this whole thing has flown right over your head. nobody claimed the 49ers were power houses in the 60's or 70's. its the whole notion than from our last title in 1994 until harbaugh that they were all garbage seasons. yeah its been 20 years, but only half of those were non-playoff years, 99-2000 and 03-10. the 49ers didnt stop being sb contenders after their last title win and thats the impression i was getting from zaghawk when he threw out the 20 years of garbage line.

Zag wasn't talking about (nor was I) the 20 years after the last SB win. He was referring (correct me if I am wrong, Zaghawk) to the life of the franchise.

Why would he reference the 5 rings from a period that resulted in zero rings? Clearly I'm not the one that missed the point.

if i'm off base, i'm off base but i'll let him answer that. i thought he was essentially saying, you guys just went through 20 years of garbage and what do you remember? the 5 rings that proceeded that time period. which is true, although it wasnt 20 years, it was about 10 years of bad football but by in large the we tend to remember the 5 rings, not the years of bad football that followed.