Regardless of Bias, Seahawks Roll past Redskins
As in every important Seahawks game, the east-coast media bias made it seem as if the home team would be an underdog in this game.
This isn't a new phenomenon. The Seahawks have been fighting their location since the beginning of the franchise.
In the 2005 season, when the team bowled over nearly every NFC team, they were barely a favorite to win at home against the Carolina Panthers—even with a convincing victory the week before.
Last year, after the Seahawks barely beat the Cowboys at home, they went into Soldier Field to play the number-one ranked Bears as a double-digit underdog. They lost the game in overtime, and could have won it, had they been able to gain one extra yard on fourth down.
You would have think that sports analysts would learn from their mistakes. The Seahawks may not be the most-publicized team in the nation—and because of that, they seem to be proving everyone wrong. They have not only established themselves as a perennially powerful team, but also a true playoff threat after they won for the first time in twenty years in 2005.
Still, the Redskins seemed to be the consensus pick, and the so-called geniuses couldn't have been more wrong. MSNBC.com's game-picker Jay Novacek was wrong, as per usual.
It seems as if right when the game starts, Novacek's site pulls his predictions just so people can't prove him wrong—which he usually is.
The same site also boasted several stories straight from the Washington Post, declaring the Seahawks weak and expecting the emotional ride to plow in and out of Seattle. And what is plastered on their site after the loss? More information about fans heckling Sellers and other players while walking onto the field.
Really, Washington? This is what you need to report about? When your team loses in Seattle, you have to find a moral victory? Wide Receiver Deion Branch was spit on in Pittsburgh, the Seahawks lost, and there wasn't one article complaining about it.
I digress. Even on this site, Redskins mania sickened some analysts. On the official BleacherReport picks, six of the eleven analysts chose the 'Skins over Seattle, the most of any betting underdog of the Wild Card round.
A minimum of three other writers also picked Washington, NFL-The_Good_Bad_and_Marty_NFL_Wild_Card_Weekend_Preview-030108">one even saying that they would win by sixteen. The only individual article pick that I have seen taking the ‘Hawks is that of Adnan Tezer.
Something is wrong with a team with a backup quarterback traveling cross-country on a short week to one of the most-hostile stadiums in the NFL being favored over a team with really no injuries and several great players. See, I couldn't even formulate a half-decent sentence because of all the pluses on the side of Seattle.
Maybe it is just that I am a typical, angry Seattle fan, but I find it hard to ignore the fact that the Seahawks are two years removed from a Super Bowl, and have played in the playoffs five out of the last six seasons.
This will likely be the last of my vitriolic articles this season, as I am not brimming with confidence about the team playing in Green Bay next weekend—but let's not just throw out everything a team has, simply because an opponent is riding a four-game high.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?