|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 3, 2015 12:24:27 GMT -6
For the sake of our inboxes...
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 3, 2015 12:30:16 GMT -6
Lol
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 3, 2015 12:30:38 GMT -6
Clayton, Zach, it would be interesting to get your perspective, do you see the parallels between the team you just described and the 2013 49ers?
Quoting from Clayton's email:
"we are on fire" - Lost to the Giants in 2012 NFC championship (in overtime), lost 2013 Super Bowl by 3 points on a pass on the last play of the game "we have the top defense in the league and honestly one of the best in history" - plenty of 9er (and non-9er) fans thought this "and the main talent is locked up for years" - it's pretty much all still there "We have an incredibly efficient young QB" - that's what everyone thought about Kap "and one of the best FOs and coaching staffs in the league" - Baalke's draft record, Harbaugh's coaching record... "We are one star receiver away from being unstoppable" - still waiting for that star receiver unfortunately...
Don't get me wrong, having actually won a superbowl makes a huge difference and the Kap to Wilson comparison is a harsh one, but in terms of future promise, everyone can regress...can you see where I'm coming from...
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 12:33:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 12:39:27 GMT -6
Clayton, Zach, it would be interesting to get your perspective, do you see the parallels between the team you just described and the 2013 49ers? Quoting from Clayton's email: "we are on fire" - Lost to the Giants in 2012 NFC championship (in overtime), lost 2013 Super Bowl by 3 points on a pass on the last play of the game "we have the top defense in the league and honestly one of the best in history" - plenty of 9er (and non-9er) fans thought this "and the main talent is locked up for years" - it's pretty much all still there "We have an incredibly efficient young QB" - that's what everyone thought about Kap "and one of the best FOs and coaching staffs in the league" - Baalke's draft record, Harbaugh's coaching record... "We are one star receiver away from being unstoppable" - still waiting for that star receiver unfortunately... Don't get me wrong, having actually won a superbowl makes a huge difference and the Kap to Wilson comparison is a harsh one, but in terms of future promise, everyone can regress...can you see where I'm coming from... No one was saying the 49ers D was as good as what the Seahawks D is. Seahawks D has been compared to the best in history and 49ers D was not. What main talent are you talking about for the 49ers? Kap? Boldin? Crabtree? Not everyone thought that about Kap lol Carroll and our coordinators have more of a pedigree and the coordinators are now head coaches, our GM is also a lot better drafter. 49ers are still waiting on a star WR as well.
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Feb 3, 2015 12:46:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on Feb 3, 2015 12:48:46 GMT -6
For who ever sent the email comparing the Seahawks to the 97, 98 Packers your exactly right. Was going to say the same thing. Potential fot a dynasty run is there but they arebt a dynasty yet.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 3, 2015 12:52:04 GMT -6
Or the ravens ?! Won a couple Super Bowls. Gonna constantly be around cause good drafting and coaching ?
No one? Seriously? You even both lost the patriots after having a huge lead.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 12:52:48 GMT -6
49ers D was as good as the Seahawks D When?
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 3, 2015 12:57:21 GMT -6
The niners defense was top notch. And if the Seahawks defense is sooooooo good. Why didn't the coaching staff trust them to stop tom terrific one last time?
Also, the Seahawks aren't a dynasty.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 13:08:38 GMT -6
You all are going to have your opinions and throw out "comparisons" but you are naive if that's all you are going to do. Comparing the Seahawks to another team is just plain lazy because the current Seahawks are unlike other teams.
Comparison to Green Bay: Not going to argue that RW is better than Farve because its too early to make that comparison. Also not going to argue that Carroll is better than Holmgren because Holmgren has a special place in Seahawks fan's hearts. I did not watch a lot of the 1996/97 Green Bay games (mainly because I was 8 years old) but I don't recall them being compared to the best defense in the history of the NFL (which the current Seahawks D are being compared to). I really dont want to go back and analyze their offense but it looks like they were towards the top offensively mainly because of Brett Farve. Completely different type of team.
Comparison to Baltimore Ravens: Super lazy comparison. I assume you are talking about the Ravens of 2012 and around that timeframe. For one, Wilson is much better than Flacco. Lynch is better than Rice. The defense is much better as it's already been established. Seahawks have been #1 or close to it in major defensive statistics for the last 2-3 years. Here are the Raven's stats and their ranking in their 2012 Superbowl winning 2012 season: Total Offense (YPG): 343.2 (19th) Passing (YPG): 241 (15th) Rushing (YPG): 102.4 (23rd) Total Defense (YPG): 372.3 (25th) Passing (YPG): 247 (23rd) Rushing (YPG): 125.8 (23rd) *Golf clap* for this wonderful comparison...
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 13:09:45 GMT -6
The niners defense was top notch. And if the Seahawks defense is sooooooo good. Why didn't the coaching staff trust them to stop tom terrific one last time? Also, the Seahawks aren't a dynasty. Top notch is one thing and yes the 49ers were a top defense. BUT the Seahawks were the best defense in the league and compared to the best defense in HISTORY....There is a difference
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 3, 2015 13:13:12 GMT -6
If you read the article Joe posted, the conclusion is that the Seahawks are one of the best defenses in history, as were...the 2011-2013 49ers.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 3, 2015 13:17:26 GMT -6
It's not even worth it. You guys are so clearly biased and refuse to even accept that you're too close.
They're a great team and will compete every year for the immediate future. But. They. Aren't. A. Dynasty. End of story. Win next year and we can retouch the subject. Until then, they're just a great team with a great 3 year stretch. Not unlike those niners.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 3, 2015 13:20:13 GMT -6
Going way back, but Zach when I said "still waiting for that star receiver" unfortunately I was talking about the 49ers.
As for star pieces back in 2013, no one was as high on Kap as they are now on Wilson, and appropriately so, but he had just torn Green Bay a new one and people certainly thought he'd develop into more than has done so far. Apart from that though, our O-line was one of the best in the league (at least in terms of run blocking and they could certainly hold their own against the pass rush too...if only that were still the case) and if I recall correctly names like Aldon Smith, Patrick Willis, Navarro Bowman and Justin Smith commanded some respect. But maybe that was just me.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 13:27:38 GMT -6
I'm not discounting the 49ers, yes they were a good defense, yes they were a top 5 defense for 2011-2013. Yes they had a great line that even Trent Richardson could probably gain 1200 yards with. Yes they had stars on defense. But the Seahawks were better. Noone was comparing the 49ers to the Steel Curtain or the Tampa Bay D of old like they were the Seahawks.
And about it being a dynasty, we don't need to talk about it anymore. You don't think the Seahawks are a dynasty, that's fine, it's your opinion and we will disagree. You are also biased towards your own teams so dont try to act like you are all impartial. You compare the Seahawks to other teams and the comparisons aren't even close.
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on Feb 3, 2015 16:06:33 GMT -6
It's like talking to a brick wall lol I don't really think Zach is getting what were saying or how were comparing teams. The reason why I compared Seattle to the 1997-1998 Packers is because both teams made back to back Super Bowls and won 1 and lost 1. The comparison has nothing to do with their defenses or offenses.
And the reason were all saying it's NOT a dynasty is because 2 or 3 years of success isn't a dynasty. To me 5+ years is a dynasty. Get to 2 or 3 more super bowls and win 1 or 2 more over the next 3 to 5 years and yes your a dynasty. But 2 super bowl appearances in 3 years is not a dynasty.
Like SF and Dallas in the 90's. Both teams went to and won 3 super bowls in less than 7 years. You could maybe call that a dynasty. What New England has done since Brady got there is a dynasty but back to back super bowls and 1 title is not enough yet. I think that's what Zach is struggling with the most here. The other Seattle fan seemed to realize they weren't there yet but were on the verge.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 16:24:20 GMT -6
It's like talking to a brick wall lol The only points you made was that they are similar to the 96/97 Packers and that they have the potential to be a dynasty. About your first point, I made solid points why the current Seahawks are different then the 96/97 Packers. I would love to hear how you think they are similar (and the comparison to the Ravens too lol) other than they won a Superbowl and then lost the next year. *Edit* I started replying before you edited your post, but I still think that your comparison isn't that great because the teams were completely different and the 96/97 Packers were not the dominant team that Seattle has been. About your second point, we are just going to disagree about Seattle being a dynasty. You think I'm being stubborn but we just disagree, me and Clayton could say the same thing about all of you. *Edit* The other Seattle fan (Clayton) may be more passionate about Seattle being a dynasty then me so dont just gang up on me because I'm the only one responding lately. Tell me why you think Seattle isn't going to sustain this level of dominance next year and in the future? All of their young studs are on long term contracts, none of their playmakers are leaving in FA, the main guys that might leave is Maxwell and Kearse. We had bigger guys (Tate and Browner) leave last year and didn't drop off. Everyone is coming back, other than a major injury, what's to stop this train?
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on Feb 3, 2015 16:31:49 GMT -6
It's like talking to a brick wall lol The only points you made was that they are similar to the 96/97 Packers and that they have the potential to be a dynasty. About your first point, I made solid points why the current Seahawks are different then the 96/97 Packers. I would love to hear how you think they are similar (and the comparison to the Ravens too lol) other than they won a Superbowl and then lost the next year. About your second point, we are just going to disagree about Seattle being a dynasty. You think I'm being stubborn but we just disagree, me and Clayton could say the same thing about all of you. See above, I edited my post explaining the comparisons. Yes it has 100% to do with the super bowl appearances. Also explained the dynasty thing above as well. Since 2010 Seattle has the 5th best record in the NFL, they are tied for 3rd in playoff appearances and are tied for 1st in Super Bowl appearances and Super Bowl wins, but 2 or 3 good years in a row and 1 title isn't a dynasty. I guess we just have different definitions of a dynasty.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 16:34:47 GMT -6
The only points you made was that they are similar to the 96/97 Packers and that they have the potential to be a dynasty. About your first point, I made solid points why the current Seahawks are different then the 96/97 Packers. I would love to hear how you think they are similar (and the comparison to the Ravens too lol) other than they won a Superbowl and then lost the next year. About your second point, we are just going to disagree about Seattle being a dynasty. You think I'm being stubborn but we just disagree, me and Clayton could say the same thing about all of you. See above, I edited my post explaining the comparisons. Yes it has 100% to do with the super bowl appearances. Also explained the dynasty thing above as well. Since 2010 Seattle has the 5th best record in the NFL, they are tied for 3rd in playoff appearances and are tied for 1st in Super Bowl appearances and Super Bowl wins, but 2 or 3 good years in a row and 1 title isn't a dynasty. I guess we just have different definitions of a dynasty. Replied to that above in my edited post. I am not saying that Seattle has been good since 2010, I'm saying since 2012 (when Wilson took over) they have been dominant. Me and Clayton are saying that this is the START of the dynasty. Yes, dynasties last for multiple years and that is what Seattle is on track to do. The start of a dynasty is still a dynasty.
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on Feb 3, 2015 16:46:31 GMT -6
See above, I edited my post explaining the comparisons. Yes it has 100% to do with the super bowl appearances. Also explained the dynasty thing above as well. Since 2010 Seattle has the 5th best record in the NFL, they are tied for 3rd in playoff appearances and are tied for 1st in Super Bowl appearances and Super Bowl wins, but 2 or 3 good years in a row and 1 title isn't a dynasty. I guess we just have different definitions of a dynasty. Replied to that above in my edited post. I am not saying that Seattle has been good since 2010, I'm saying since 2012 (when Wilson took over) they have been dominant. Me and Clayton are saying that this is the START of the dynasty. Yes, dynasties last for multiple years and that is what Seattle is on track to do. The start of a dynasty is still a dynasty. I guess I just misunderstood what you were claiming. I saw Clayton saying they weren't a dynasty yet but this could be the start of one. All I saw from you was this was ALREADY a dynasty. I'll listen to this is potentially the start of a dynasty talk though. They are a good team with a good coach. Good QB, RB, Defense, etc so yeah they could go on a long run of success. Also about the Green Bay/Seattle comparison. Green Bay went 26-6 with 2 super bowl appearances from 1996-1997, they were also 11-5 in the 1995 and 1998 seasons. Seattle went 11-5 in 2012 and went 25-7 in the 2013-2014 seasons so not sure why your saying the Seahawks were more dominant. The Packers were equally as good back in the late 90's. They actually had a better record in the 3 year period than Seattle did. Yes their teams got to those records in different ways but it all comes down to wins and loses and titles.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 3, 2015 17:01:28 GMT -6
Ya, I guess I should have been more clear. I do think it's the start of the dynasty and that's what I posted the day before the SB on our MFL site.
I just feel that the main difference between the Packers and Seahawks is that the Seahawks have everyone locked up that is a key contributor to the team. Their defense is also the top defense in the league. Ya, it got exploited by Brady in the Super Bowl, but Brady is also being talked about as the best QB who ever lived by many people. Also, the defense was not normal during the Superbowl with Sherman/Kam/Thomas hurt, Edelman taking out Lane by the knees and breaking his arm, Avril with the concussion. Not making excuses, just a great gameplan to target the replacement of the worst guy of the LOB and gain a ton of yards on him. Some might say that the intention was to injure a member of the LOB all along with Browner's comments during the week and how Edelman took down Lane.
I really dont know what the Packers team was set up like 20 years ago, so I really can't say for sure if they were the same as the Seahawks but it is rare for teams to have so many key young guys locked up for many years and be dominant. In terms of wins, losses, and titles I do see similarities. I do understand your point about that wins, losses, and championships are all that matters but like I stated earlier, I feel that the team isnt changing much in the coming years and will continue to be great.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 3, 2015 22:50:06 GMT -6
a) wagner could get hurt, and you guys were NOT dominant when he missed the first six games b) wilson looked mostly bad in these playoffs, he made some big throws, but he just didnt look good b1) you could credit this to his below average WR core, bunch of UDFA c) lynch, over pay him or dont pay him, either way might cause an issue c1) a few keyed in reporters have siad lynch is the soul of the team, while wilson the face of franchise, if they let lynch go they could lose guys mentally c2) the super bowl loss is recent so we dont know how people will react come OTA's etc, but i could see some beginning of discord, if there was any shred of discord, the super bowl loss/play calling could add to it. d) injuries could always strike and derail a team e) back to b, wilson could settle in as an above average game manager, who cant win you games, so scoring when needed may be an issue. e1) wilson isnt a bad quarterback, but he does have some limitations, that i admit, his legs help tremendously and i'd put him ahead of kaep by a mile e2) some highly respected qb guru's (jaws i believe?) said kaep was going to be a top QB just as recent as last season, so the earlier kaep/wilson comparisons werent THAT off e3) wilson looked human in the playoffs/season outside of a few magical throws that MOST starting qbs (the top 15-16 playoff caliber qb's) should make. e4) you absolutely could win the next 5-6 SB with wilson, but i doubt he'll ever be the better of the 2 QB in the SB f) the "core" may be locked up, but who's to say they continue being dominant. f1) what happens if Kam misses more time w/ injuries f2) speaking of injuries again, is there any doubt that a beaten up LOB let a slippery little edelman carve them up. could a healthy LOB maybe made some better tackles? f3) what happens to sherman after TJ surgery? i know he isnt throwing fastballs, but i havent heard of a defender getting this injury, could he reaggrivate it making an arm tackle on a blount or big back/WR (dez etc) g) most of my (our) comparisons were merely in the wins/losses/superbowl/playoffs catergory, you cant compare their defense to any previous defenses
and finally, i think it's too early to crown them a dynasty, could they become one if things fall into place, Sure. but i think MORE likely is a Ravens trajectory, always relevant, constantly making playoffs (unless niners rebound and cardinals fix qb, then it might be tighter like the AFC north was) maybe winning 1-2, or at least making it there. the biggest issue w/ Seahawks is how stacked the NFC is atm. Atlanta could always rebound, packers will be a factor with rodgers. Lions may have figured some things out (Suh is a huge question mark there) Newton and the panthers could keep growing and cause problems (with a similarly nasty defense that the seahawks feasted on ((every team has one bad game))) (seahawks lost to the cardinals in 2013 finale didnt they?) that's not even factoring in the eagles/cowboys/giants who could always make some noise (imagine if chip finds a QB (any coach can pick on your 4th/5th CB if your 3rd CB hurts himself, and the patriots game plan was very similar to what a chip kelly could do to you guys in a playoff game)
im done ranting
in short, yes they could be a dynasty, but i predict they'll stumble here/there maybe win 1 more eventually, but i think we'll see them in playoffs more often then not until the coach/gm is broken up, then who knows.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 3, 2015 22:51:25 GMT -6
one big point i missed, the seahawks are gonna give russell wilson a fat contract, and therefore make it hard to lock up future guys. you say they have the core locked up, but injuries/trades/nfl happens and you'll need to lock up more guys eventually.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 4, 2015 0:41:00 GMT -6
a) wagner could get hurt, and you guys were NOT dominant when he missed the first six games b) wilson looked mostly bad in these playoffs, he made some big throws, but he just didnt look good b1) you could credit this to his below average WR core, bunch of UDFA c) lynch, over pay him or dont pay him, either way might cause an issue c1) a few keyed in reporters have siad lynch is the soul of the team, while wilson the face of franchise, if they let lynch go they could lose guys mentally c2) the super bowl loss is recent so we dont know how people will react come OTA's etc, but i could see some beginning of discord, if there was any shred of discord, the super bowl loss/play calling could add to it. d) injuries could always strike and derail a team e) back to b, wilson could settle in as an above average game manager, who cant win you games, so scoring when needed may be an issue. e1) wilson isnt a bad quarterback, but he does have some limitations, that i admit, his legs help tremendously and i'd put him ahead of kaep by a mile e2) some highly respected qb guru's (jaws i believe?) said kaep was going to be a top QB just as recent as last season, so the earlier kaep/wilson comparisons werent THAT off e3) wilson looked human in the playoffs/season outside of a few magical throws that MOST starting qbs (the top 15-16 playoff caliber qb's) should make. e4) you absolutely could win the next 5-6 SB with wilson, but i doubt he'll ever be the better of the 2 QB in the SB f) the "core" may be locked up, but who's to say they continue being dominant. f1) what happens if Kam misses more time w/ injuries f2) speaking of injuries again, is there any doubt that a beaten up LOB let a slippery little edelman carve them up. could a healthy LOB maybe made some better tackles? f3) what happens to sherman after TJ surgery? i know he isnt throwing fastballs, but i havent heard of a defender getting this injury, could he reaggrivate it making an arm tackle on a blount or big back/WR (dez etc) g) most of my (our) comparisons were merely in the wins/losses/superbowl/playoffs catergory, you cant compare their defense to any previous defenses and finally, i think it's too early to crown them a dynasty, could they become one if things fall into place, Sure. but i think MORE likely is a Ravens trajectory, always relevant, constantly making playoffs (unless niners rebound and cardinals fix qb, then it might be tighter like the AFC north was) maybe winning 1-2, or at least making it there. the biggest issue w/ Seahawks is how stacked the NFC is atm. Atlanta could always rebound, packers will be a factor with rodgers. Lions may have figured some things out (Suh is a huge question mark there) Newton and the panthers could keep growing and cause problems (with a similarly nasty defense that the seahawks feasted on ((every team has one bad game))) (seahawks lost to the cardinals in 2013 finale didnt they?) that's not even factoring in the eagles/cowboys/giants who could always make some noise (imagine if chip finds a QB (any coach can pick on your 4th/5th CB if your 3rd CB hurts himself, and the patriots game plan was very similar to what a chip kelly could do to you guys in a playoff game) im done ranting Hard to follow your chain of thought since you bounce back and forth and addressed the same point (injuries) over and over again but I guess I will try to address all your points. a) Yes, injuries do happen in the NFL. They could happen to any player, at any time, on any team. Wagner was actually healthy during the first 6 weeks of the year, he sat out Week 7 - 11 against the Rams, Panthers, Raiders, Giants, and Chiefs. Seahawks went 3-2 during that stretch losing at the Rams who converted a fake punt towards the end of the game and barely at the Chiefs. The defense wasn't great, but Wagner wasn't the reason they lost. On a side note, many believe that the Seahawks struggled early in the season because they were trying to run their offense around Percy Harvin and he was causing issues in the locker room, but that's going off topic. b) Wilson wasn't phenomenal in the playoffs, but he wasn't "mostly bad". Sure, his game against Green Bay was awful but if you look at his QBR, his average in all the playoffs games (including his terrible game) was 63.3 while his regular season average QBR was 62.4. His 3rd and 4th QBR games were the divisional round game and the Superbowl. He made mistakes in the playoffs, but still performed pretty well overall. I'm sure you will find some stat that contradicts my point though. b1) Ya, our WR are awful...I'll give ya that. I think our expert said the collective WR corp was average with Harvin, I can't image what they are without him lol. That being said, they make big plays when they need to. c) Ya, the Lynch issue is a hot topic. Don't know what'll happen, if he's back then he's a top 5 RB. If he's not back, then next man up. I think it'll be Turbin and I dont think he will be bad. When given chances he has shown he can pick up yards and break a few tackles. He's no Lynch, but I could see him putting up 900+ yards if given the touches Lynch gets. c1) Who are these keyed in reporters? True, a lot of guys in the locker room love Lynch, but they have loved a lot of players that have come and gone over the last couple of years. A lot of people thought players would be pissed about starting Wilson over Flynn, nothing happened. Michael Robinson was a huge player in the locker room and when he was cut a lot of players were upset, but the train kept moving didn't it? The guys in this locker room understand that this is a business and not everyone can be kept. We lost a lot of good guys last year who cashed in on the Superbowl win and went to other teams who paid more. People were upset, but they understood and they kept going. Lynch would be a hard loss, but the team knows it's all about the next man up. c2) There's no evidence of that at all. Some players were upset about what happened, but that's not going to affect the future. Carroll led this team to back to back Superbowls, they will continue to follow him. Whenever there are issues in the locker room, (Tate, Harvin) they get addressed and handled immediately. d) Yes, you mentioned injuries...See point a e) Wilson is not just a game manager. A game manager is Alex Smith, someone who doesn't really have the talent or weapons to make big plays so makes little plays and goes for the low risk plays to avoid mistakes. This isn't Wilson at all. Wilson can make the big throw, he can make plays with his feet, but he also knows how to limit mistakes. He will never throw for 4,500 and 40 TDs, but he doesnt need to because he throws 3,500 yards, 20-25 TDs and runs for another 700+ yards and a handful of TDs. That's what he's doing now, so unless he has a Kaep-type slide, I dont see why he won't continue. e1) There are few QBs I would take over him to build a franchise around. Luck, Rodgers for sure, maybe Brady (age), Stafford (mistakes), Cam (ugh), but the list gets hard to justify after that. e2) It's hard to give an un-biased opinion of Kaep, but I never thought he was on the same level as Wilson after probably game 6 of his rookie year. Kaep makes too many mistakes and is not as good a runner/scrambler as RW. Besides the point though e3) Already addressed that in point b for the playoffs. For this season I disagree. It was his best season rushing the ball and while he threw less TDs this year, he had his highest passing yards of all 3 years and lowest INTs. Like you said, you could chalk that up to his crappy WRs. e4) Well, can't really answer this one. Obviously I'm not going to say he is better than Brady and Manning in their total careers. He was a lot better than Manning last year during the SB though lol. Let's look at previous QBs in the Superbowl....SB47: Flacco and Kaepernick, Wilson is definitely better than them. SB46: Eli and Brady, Wilson probably could have been better than Eli. SB45: Big Ben and Rodgers, taking Wilson over the rapist. SB44: Brees and Peyton, both better. SB43: Big Ben and Kurt Warner, thats tough...Wilson over the rapist and I do like Warner so I'll give the slight edge to him. Going back further, we just get repeats except for Grossman in SB41....o Grossman.... f) They are going into their prime and there's nothing to suggest they are tapering off. f1) Third time with injuries, next man up. f2) Maybe you need to watch the game again, but the LOB did not let Edelman carve them up. After Edelman dove at Lane's knee to try to hurt him and broke his arm, the backup Simon got put in. Simon is not part of the LOB, he is a backup and lucky to be on the team. The passed to whoever Simon was guarding and Brady carved them up. Yes, Brady carved them up because frankly, Brady can make any WR look good and that was in no part Edelman's doing. The remaining 3 of the LOB that weren't injured cheaply were still all injured and played great games. Didn't see Sherman or Thomas give up a TD did you? (But Revis apparently can't get around a ref to stop a TD...) Sherman was throw at 1 time and that was with a bum arm. f3) There are some reports he might not need surgery, not sure at this time. But he was fine in the Superbowl, I imagine that fixing his injury might make him better...but I'm not a doctor... g) you can compare the Seahawks D to other defenses, that's why experts compare them to the Steel Curtain and the Tampa Bay defense back in the day. Your other points: Yes, the NFL is full of parody, yes there are good teams, but right now the Seahawks are one of the elite teams and nothing in the near future is changing that. Your "big" point you missed and put in your 2nd post about Wilson getting a large contract: Carroll and the best GM in the game (Schneider) have accounted for this for the last couple of years in how they have been offering and structuring contracts to make them very friendly for Wilson to get his due. We cleared a lot of cap space (Harvin) to make it happen and have big money to spend. They have also found a lot of cheap, quality guys to fill important roles in the last couple of seasons because they draft smart and know what to look for. Chris Matthews (you know the guy who had the most receiving yards in the Superbowl) was on the practice squad for most of the year. One of the guys on their final 53 man roster going into the Superbowl was a valet driver the previous week. Their final WRs going in the Superbowl were all UDFAs. Half their defense was picked in the later rounds. You see what I'm getting at? The front office turns farts into gold and it works. They find talent in the 5th round that most teams can't get in the 2nd... Also, I disagree about you not thinking they are a dynasty. Lastly, I do enjoy this fun discussion I am having with a few of you. Kinda brings some fun to the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 11, 2015 17:39:01 GMT -6
had a big test in school today, wore my buddies seahawks jersey because i knew i'd pass even if i shouldnt have.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 11, 2015 17:53:55 GMT -6
How many Cardinals fans does it take to change a light bulb? None, they are happy living in the Seahawks shadow.
I would have started a Cardinals hype train thread, but didn't want Chance to have to deal with an empty folder.
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Feb 11, 2015 21:19:06 GMT -6
ha, you guys got jokes.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 11, 2015 22:31:23 GMT -6
im not a cardinals fan.
the seahawks have had like 3 good seasons in the past 30 years, calm down sir.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 12, 2015 0:24:06 GMT -6
Ah yes, how could I forget.... Funny you mention 30 years, because that's how long it was since the Bears won the Super Bowl... Seriously, you have a top 5 RB, two top 10 WRs, top 10 TE, an elite defense, and still finish 5-11. (That's almost as bad as the Browns....o, wait...) I mean seriously, a monkey (or Alex Smith) could play QB for this team and still be .500
|
|