Historic D?

[wait_a_sec]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/seahawks-d ... --nfl.html

Nice little read. Merry Christmas.

[c_hawkbob]

Only premature if we fail this year.

Nice link.

[monkey]

Good link, and worth a serious discussion in my opinion.
No matter how a person would rate all time defenses, the current rules in the NFL, MUST be taken into account.
Given the current rules heavily favoring passing offenses, this Seahawks defense MUST be a part of the conversation of all time greatest.

Had they just been dominant once, last year, then the defense could probably be dismissed as an anomaly, one really good season, maybe a top 15 all time great defense for one season, and one of the greatest defensive Super Bowl performances of all time, and leave it at that; but now that they are making it back to back seasons of defensive dominance, it MUST be said that this defense is top five all time, at the least, and EASILY the single greatest of this current modern era.

Since the advent of all the rules changes to help the passing game, the Seahawks defense is EASILY the greatest, and it's not arguable or even close. Regardless of era, I think the LOB is the greatest secondary of all time, with only the great Raiders secondary even in the conversation.

[RiverDog]

I am going to remain consistent and state that I do not like comparing players or teams from different eras as the game has changed so much that it is not apples to apples. Suffice it to say that the Hawk D is the best of the current era.

[HumanCockroach]

Good link, and worth a serious discussion in my opinion.
No matter how a person would rate all time defenses, the current rules in the NFL, MUST be taken into account.
Given the current rules heavily favoring passing offenses, this Seahawks defense MUST be a part of the conversation of all time greatest.

Had they just been dominant once, last year, then the defense could probably be dismissed as an anomaly, one really good season, maybe a top 15 all time great defense for one season, and one of the greatest defensive Super Bowl performances of all time, and leave it at that; but now that they are making it back to back seasons of defensive dominance, it MUST be said that this defense is top five all time, at the least, and EASILY the single greatest of this current modern era.

Since the advent of all the rules changes to help the passing game, the Seahawks defense is EASILY the greatest, and it's not arguable or even close. Regardless of era, I think the LOB is the greatest secondary of all time, with only the great Raiders secondary even in the conversation.

PFF had an excellent write up on this defense, the crazy thing to me is, this is almost three full seasons at this point of being one of the best in the NFL, no matter injuries, departures etc they continue to perform at the top of the NFL and far above the "mean" in the NFL. Something that is simply unheard of in todays FA period. They continue to identify, and get the athletes that fit their system, and excell in said system, even if they happen to be backups or even the backups, backup.

[Hawktawk]

I think the numbers being put up by the Hawks are even more impressive when you look at them in the historical context. In the days of the Steel Curtain or the Bears 46 the rules were far different from the pro offense rules of today. To a great degree that is also true of the great Ravens D of the early 2000's.The LOB succeeds in spite of laundry all over the field every week.The collection of talent is unbelievable. There is no weak link.This Hawks D is all time filthy.

[Zorn76]

IMO, because we have a D with a memorable nickname (LOB), and that we CRUSHED a SB Broncos team that was, in fact, favored (3 pts by kickoff?), we will be remembered years down the road.

We even tied for 3rd in terms of margin of victory in a Super Bowl. Futhermore, you can make a legit point by saying that ours was the most impressive, given that SF and Dallas were favorites against the Broncos and Bills, respectively. It's not the 49ers or Cowboys fault for playing those teams - and they did what they were supposed to do - but Seattle's win over Denver was a bigger deal.

[c_hawkbob]

I am going to remain consistent and state that I do not like comparing players or teams from different eras as the game has changed so much that it is not apples to apples. Suffice it to say that the Hawk D is the best of the current era.

You can beg out of any best of discussion in any sport with that line of thought, but it doesn't render the conversation invalid or anything. It just means there are a lot of factors to be considered when giving it honest consideration.

[RiverDog]

You can beg out of any best of discussion in any sport with that line of thought, but it doesn't render the conversation invalid or anything. It just means there are a lot of factors to be considered when giving it honest consideration.

I beg to differ. MLB, for example, is much less dynamic. Compared to the NFL there have been very few rule changes in baseball, the most significant being the designated hitter rule that's now close to 50 years old, and that was just in one league. The NFL is constantly tinkering with their rules, points of emphasis, game timing, etc. All those changes makes comparative discussions between past and present a lot more difficult.

With the exception of MLB's PED scandal, their records and accomplishments from the past are much more comparable to contemporary times than are their counterparts in the NFL. Joe DiMaggio's 156 game hitting streak is still as impressive an achievement now as it was 70 years ago, whereas Johnny U's TD 52 year old streak of 47 games with one TD pass barely got noticed because it got eclipsed in rapid fashion by not one, not two, but three QB's (Brees, Manning, Brady). Very, very few contemporary records or achievements in the NFL are comparable with those of 40+ years ago, at least not when you compare it with the purity of those produced in MLB.

It's a lot easier to have a comparative discussion about past vs. present MLB teams/players than it is in the NFL.

[kalibane]

Sorry Riv doesn't work.

1. Baseball almost an exception. Offense in baseball is so hyper individualized that it can be statistically parsed more than any other sport.

2. Even with #1 you still have to adjust for era (even if some people choose to be willfully ignorant about some aspects). Whether it's the dead ball era, the insanely high pitching mounds of the late 60's early 70's, steroid era, pre negro leagues, the players who lost years to WWII. It's impossible to make a pure apples to apples comparison between eras even in baseball.

It's you're prerogative and there is nothing wrong with your stance, but I gotta agree with Bob to a certain extent. You can beg out of quite a few discussions citing "impossible to compare era".

I would agree that you can never say with 100% certainty but if you do your due diligence and proceed with care you can make arguments to compare eras. You just have to factor in extra variables.

[RiverDog]

Sorry Riv doesn't work.

1. Baseball almost an exception. Offense in baseball is so hyper individualized that it can be statistically parsed more than any other sport.

2. Even with #1 you still have to adjust for era (even if some people choose to be willfully ignorant about some aspects). Whether it's the dead ball era, the insanely high pitching mounds of the late 60's early 70's, steroid era, pre negro leagues, the players who lost years to WWII. It's impossible to make a pure apples to apples comparison between eras even in baseball.

It's you're prerogative and there is nothing wrong with your stance, but I gotta agree with Bob to a certain extent. You can beg out of quite a few discussions citing "impossible to compare era".

I would agree that you can never say with 100% certainty but if you do your due diligence and proceed with care you can make arguments to compare eras. You just have to factor in extra variables.

I never said baseball was easy to compare apples to apples, only that it is much easier to do so in MLB than it is in the NFL. Records and achievements in baseball are a lot more sacred than they are in football.

[c_hawkbob]

But you were saying that in the context that it made my statement invalid, which it did not.

[kalibane]

I agree but you were saying you "beg to differ" with Bob's point which came across as a little more than just saying it was easier. Where as what Bob was saying I think still applies to baseball.

[RiverDog]

I was not trying to invalidate anyone's POV. I was only expressing that of my own, which is that it is extremely difficult to compare our defense with great defenses of the past, ie The Steel Curtain, Purple People Eaters, Doomsday, No Name, and so forth.

I brought up the point about baseball's relative stability to show how much football has changed compared to other sports and the difficulty of having a discussion based on past vs. present in football as a response to Cbob's statement that you can 'beg out" of any such discussion in any sport using my rationale.

[NorthHawk]

I can agree with RD to a large extent.
The removal of the head slap, no use of stickum, no contact after 5 yards to name just a few are all fundamental changes that make it harder to play Defense effectively today.
I think this makes our Secondary (and maybe entire Defense) even better by comparison, but we can never know how well the Defenses of past years would do.

There are obviously players that could have played in any era, but would the players of the day collectively be as good in today's Defenses? I suspect those great Defenses of the past would have found a way to be effective, but I'm not sure they would dominate as they did in their day.

As well, stats weren't as available in the past unlike Baseball which has always been a statisticians dream, so we don't have as much to go on for a lot of comparisons. When did they start keeping official Sack stats? I think it was relatively late in the NFL history books.

Since a lot of stats weren't kept, it can make comparisons harder and perhaps impossible to get valid information on which to make sound judgements.

[kalibane]

The comparison in this instance is pretty simple (and this is why I think Bob has astutely pointed out that it can be used a copout). Example... comparing the 1985 Bears and the 2013 Seahawks:

1. Both were number one in defensive yardage allowed and scoring allowed.

2. Bears gave up 12.4 points per game.

3. Seahawks gave up 14.4 points per game.

4. Average scoring for the league in 1985 was 21.5 points per game.

5. Average scoring for the league in 2013 was 23.4 points per game.

6. Bears surrendered 9.1 points per game fewer than the league average (or 42.3% fewer points).

7. Seahawks surrendered 9 points per game fewer than the league average (or 38.5% fewer points).

From a general standpoint the 85 bears were 3.8% more effective than the 2013 Seahawks. From that information can we say for 100% certainty that the Bears were better or the Seahawks were better? No. But it does show that the Seahawks defense belongs in the discussion... which is the point.

[Long Time Fan]

The comparison in this instance is pretty simple ........... show that the Seahawks defense belongs in the discussion... which is the point.

This

[NorthHawk]

My apologies.
I was under the impression this discussion was about who was best.
There are a lot of Defenses throughout the history who played well and might be in the conversation, but there have been some significant rule changes that could materially impact how well older teams would play in today's environment.

I'm not so certain that Defenses of the past could be close to how good ours has been the last couple of years - and that's the problem - the rule changes have a great impact on the product so comparisons are very difficult.

We can say with certainty that past Defenses were dominating in their era, and would probably find a way to do well, but beyond that it's difficult to truly interpolate how well they would stack up today. I think the rule changes have that much impact.

Are the Seahawks in the discussion? Absolutely. Are they the best of the bunch or near the top? There's no concrete method of proving either way.

[c_hawkbob]

My apologies.
I was under the impression this discussion was about who was best.
There are a lot of Defenses throughout the history who played well and might be in the conversation, but there have been some significant rule changes that could materially impact how well older teams would play in today's environment.

I'm not so certain that Defenses of the past could be close to how good ours has been the last couple of years - and that's the problem - the rule changes have a great impact on the product so comparisons are very difficult.

We can say with certainty that past Defenses were dominating in their era, and would probably find a way to do well, but beyond that it's difficult to truly interpolate how well they would stack up today. I think the rule changes have that much impact.

Are the Seahawks in the discussion? Absolutely. Are they the best of the bunch or near the top? There's no concrete method of proving either way.

Of course not. Just like arguing Ali or Joe Louis in their primes, there's just no "concrete method of proving" ANY such argument either way, but that doesn't mean it can't be intelligently discussed. As Kal demonstrated you may not be able to "prove" a position but you can darn sure solidly support one.

[NorthHawk]

I think the best you can say is teams were the best of their era - and it's the same thing for your example of boxing. Beyond that, there are so many changes from diet to training and coaching, not to mention rules, it's difficult to solidly support your arguments for or against to compare and discuss who might be better or who belongs where in the rankings.

[kalibane]

Honestly you can't even definitively prove who the best of a given era was. One person prefers Marvin Harrison one person prefers Randy Moss. Both have defensible arguments. I can't I imagine how boring sports bars and barber shops would be if we only stuck to that which we could pin down with absolute fact.

[HumanCockroach]

IMHO any team or player that performs on par or better than a past performer, in an era that specifically makes it more difficult to perform at that level via rules or changes, gains the tie breaker. For instance, Baseball, if a player playing by the rules in place were to hit the same amount of homeruns as a player that played in ball parks that had fences 100' closer, and had four strikes instead of three, I would have zero problems agreeing that the present players accomplishment trumped the former.....

IMHO that is indeed the argument in this case. Seattle IS performing on a NEVER before seen level ( over a three season period) with MORE difficult rules put in place. NO defense, whether it be the 85 Bears or the 70's Steelers accomplished what Seattle has over a continuous 3 year period, none ( the Bears are the closest, as they did so for 2 seasons), so IMHO should Seattle continue on the path they are currently on ( ONE game left to play) and did so, when the rules ( as well as the ability to keep said players doing it) trumps, a more lax, easier, more sustaniable time frame from the 70's or 80's, and it isn't even close.

[RiverDog]

Honestly you can't even definitively prove who the best of a given era was. One person prefers Marvin Harrison one person prefers Randy Moss. Both have defensible arguments. I can't I imagine how boring sports bars and barber shops would be if we only stuck to that which we could pin down with absolute fact.

I can agree with the above, and in light of Kal's observation, I guess I ought to change my stance a little to accept discussions and comparisons. I don't mind comparing us with the '85 Bears or any of the other great defenses of past decades. Our Hawks definitely belong in any discussion that mentions defense as it's chief topic. What I really don't like is rating one as being better than another.

What started me off on this kick of not liking to compare teams and players from different eras was when some organization, I forget now who, named Michael Jordan as the best athlete ever. What a croc!

[HumanCockroach]

Just a little tidbit I heard on the radio today..

Seattle is the first defense since the "purple people eaters" 69-71 to lead the league in scoring defense three consecutive seasons. No Steel Curtain, no Bears, no Killer B's no defense in history has lead the league three consecutive season in that regard with a Championship win, none. Seattle is the one and only.

[RiverDog]

Just a little tidbit I heard on the radio today..

Seattle is the first defense since the "purple people eaters" 69-71 to lead the league in scoring defense three consecutive seasons. No Steel Curtain, no Bears, no Killer B's no defense in history has lead the league three consecutive season in that regard with a Championship win, none. Seattle is the one and only.

Nice. But it won't mean squat unless we bring home another Lombardi and elevate ourselves to the SB repeat gang.

[jshawaii22]

Can you all imagine how far we've come in the past 3 years...

Now, even ONE SB is not enough. We're just "common" Super Bowl winners. Now we need at least TWO before we can even consider ourselves as one of the best.

I love it.

[RiverDog]

Can you all imagine how far we've come in the past 3 years...

Now, even ONE SB is not enough. We're just "common" Super Bowl winners. Now we need at least TWO before we can even consider ourselves as one of the best.

I love it.

A lot of teams have one Lombardi, but not very many have won two in a row. Here's the list:

Green Bay (1967,1968)
Miami (1973,1974)
Pittsburgh (1975,1976)
Pittsburgh (1979,1980)
San Francisco (1989,1990)
Dallas (1993, 1994, also in 1996)
Denver (1998-1999)
New England (2004, 2005)

There's only been one back-to-back title in this century, and that was 10 years ago. It's the longest back-to-back drought since they've been playing the game. Most will attribute that to free agency, the salary cap, revenue sharing, and other measures that have tended to level the playing field.

There's some pretty fair teams that never won back-to-back titles, including the Giants, Redskins, and Raiders.

A lot of great teams never won two in a row. Not the Giants, the Redskins, the Raiders, nor da Bears.

Winning two in a row would put us up there in elite category with the best of the best. Next year, we'll be talking about 3 in a row!

[Long Time Fan]

But it won't mean squat unless we bring home another Lombardi and elevate ourselves to the SB repeat gang.

This sort of sentiment cuts both ways.

Now we need at least TWO before we can even consider ourselves as one of the best.

I love it.

I get it; the quest to be one of the best ever; pretty heady stuff.

But are we setting ourselves up to under-appreciate the feats along the way?

The reason that I ask this is that I still see game day threads whereby confidence in this team falls off when, for example, they fall behind in the first half to the Rams. Its almost a historic greatness or bust mentality.

These last three seasons (Wilson years) have been so much fun. I fear that only in the distant future of our teams revision to the mean, will they be appropriately appreciated. These are the best of times.

[HumanCockroach]

Nice. But it won't mean squat unless we bring home another Lombardi and elevate ourselves to the SB repeat gang.

???? I thought this thread about historic D performance, so I suppose I am missing what you are talking about... The only defense that has performed at this level, over this time, is the Seattle Seahawks, so Championship or no Championship, they are IMHO the best defense in the history of the game. What's more is they did it, in a period of time, with all the cards stacked against them to do it. Which IMO is crazy to think of in historical perspective.

Doesn't mean I don't WANT that validation, just that, with or without it, ladies and gentleman, you have the priviledge of watching perhaps the greatest defense in the history of the league, don't attempt to diminish those accomplishments, as they are indeed fleeting, and short lived

[RiverDog]

???? I thought this thread about historic D performance, so I suppose I am missing what you are talking about... The only defense that has performed at this level, over this time, is the Seattle Seahawks, so Championship or no Championship, they are IMHO the best defense in the history of the game. What's more is they did it, in a period of time, with all the cards stacked against them to do it. Which IMO is crazy to think of in historical perspective.

Doesn't mean I don't WANT that validation, just that, with or without it, ladies and gentleman, you have the priviledge of watching perhaps the greatest defense in the history of the league, don't attempt to diminish those accomplishments, as they are indeed fleeting, and short lived

My point is that if we want to be remembered as one of the best, including by casual fans and not just football junkies like us, we need another Lombardi within a year or two. There's just too many teams, such as Chicago, Tampa Bay, and Baltimore, that had very good defenses that won the SB in one year but couldn't sustain it and win two Lombardi's within a few years of each other. I don't want to be known as a fluke.

I want that second Lombardi!

[BelizeHawk]

that second Lombardi puts us in an elite category.
Packers
Steelers
Dolphins
Cowboys
49ers
Broncos
Patriots

[mykc14]

that second Lombardi puts us in an elite category.
Packers
Steelers
Dolphins
Cowboys
49ers
Broncos
Patriots

I don't know that is necisarrily true. Elite, IMO is something that only a small amount of teams have done (maybe around 10%). Winning our 2nd Lombardi in a row would be special and put us on a trajectory to be in that elite category but as far as just winning it we would be the 8th team to do that which is 25% of the league.

[HumanCockroach]

that second Lombardi puts us in an elite category.
Packers
Steelers
Dolphins
Cowboys
49ers
Broncos
Patriots

It puts the Seattle Seahawks in that category, not the defense, the defense already is in their OWN category, all by their onesome.

[HumanCockroach]

My point is that if we want to be remembered as one of the best, including by casual fans and not just football junkies like us, we need another Lombardi within a year or two. There's just too many teams, such as Chicago, Tampa Bay, and Baltimore, that had very good defenses that won the SB in one year but couldn't sustain it and win two Lombardi's within a few years of each other. I don't want to be known as a fluke.

Are you saying the Ravens, Bucs, Bears, Steelers defenses are "flukes" because if that wasn't your point, you sure made it seem like it was. The only one of those defenses that won multiples, was the Steelers, and yet they didn't/ couldn't accomplish Seattles dominance on the defensive side of the ball, even without, FA and caps.