1) I could care less either but he was not interfered with or it would've been called. It wasn't. You're entitled to your opinion of course.
2) Seattle lost Harvin and Browner and Averil have both been hurt. I guess they shouldn't worry about playing effective football?
3) We just disagree. I'm not saying he's the best of the best but when he's had a solid coaching staff and players surrounding him, he's won big games. Period.
4) I think I'm confused. I would never take a RB at #1???
1. If he was interfered with it would've been called? Umm what I am about to say is going to shock you but sometimes in NFL games the correct call isn't made.
2. I know Seattle has lost guys, what does this have to do with anything? I was just making the point that losing your top 2 weapons in the passing game is going to compromise your effectiveness, this seems pretty obvious to anyone with a clue.
Those last 2 you really seemed like you just want to argue. You act like I'm trying to be the guys PR agent, I realize your a Seahawks fan but I just look at every team/situation for what it is. No Crab/No VD = Less effective Kaepernick....Kinda like no X/Y/Z = Less effective Tom brady..That is all i was saying
3. i got no problem with Alex Smith, we'll see what happens with KC. FWIW Their schedule is easy as hell so I do think they can go 11-5.
4. If you are a rebuilding team why would you want an above average RB over a #1 pick? Clearly the right play is to take the #1 pick. Most GMs would say they made a great deal. T-Rich is a solid power back but he isn't an elite RB and you would take the equity of a #1 pick over a solid RB unless you were a team contending possily. RB is the most fungible position in the NFL and T-Rich has been league avg effectiveness and looked average so far.