I’m hearing a lot of Pete Caroll’s Seahawks this week. This Seattle team is readying themselves for a visit from the New England Patriots this weekend.
Thus far this season, the Seahawks are a mediocre 3-2.
I’ve been watching this Seattle team, really ever since Pete Carroll arrived in the Pacific Northwest. On August 27th, I decided I was not buying in. I took their season win total under. For taking such a risk I was granted massive +255 odds. That means $100 wins $255. Not too shabby. But that shows just how big a risk Seattle is. That means Vegas and/or the public believed Pete Carroll had something brewing in Seattle.
What was the team’s win total number?
The Seahawks win total over/under was set at 6.5.
A 14-12 horseshit victory against the Packers makes the over look to be in play, for sure. However, this team has only scored 20-points one time through 5 games. In today’s NFL, that isn’t going to cut it.
This week, all the Seattle hype has continued to roll on. This after their 16-12 win over Carolina last week. With New England traveling across the country to take on the 12th man and the Seahawks, the Patriots are only 3.5 point favorites.
Lets take just one step back. Recall the two scores I referenced earlier; 14-12 and 16-12. What decade is this?
The Seahawks defense is solid. However, there is no shot that the offense can go toe-to-toe with New England. The teams Seattle has played so far have been offensively challenged to say the least. The best (based on the eye test) is of course Green Bay. Consequently, the Pack is also the best ranked team offense Seattle has faced. That ranking? 15th out of 32 teams.
The Patriots are ranked, based on points per game, as the best offensive team in the league.
The Patriots will be a whole new animal for Caroll’s defense to have to deal with. Moreover, Carroll hasn’t faced a playoff caliber coach this season with his new Seahawks team. In the end, for me, this still just comes down to Belichick versus Carroll.
I’ll take Belichick until Carroll proves that I shouldn’t.
