2005 Hawks vs 2013 Hawks

[MontanaHawk05]

2005 was the brief peak of a fragile, high-maintenance strategy. Pete's teams are much more resilient.

 

[Polaris]

FYI these stats are only through 12 games in the quotes.

What mainly distinguished the 2005 team was its scoring offense. At 28.2 points per game, the Seahawks led the NFL with Alexander, running behind Jones and Hutchinson, setting a league record with 28 touchdowns. Seattle’s scoring defense was almost as good, ranking seventh. The 2005 team allowed only five rushing TDs all season.

But 2005 doesn’t have much of a statistical advantage on 2013. While 2005 averaged 28.2 points per game, 2013 averages 27.8. 2005 yielded 16.9, but 2013 is a hair better at 16.3. 2005 had an average scoring margin of 10.5 points over its opponents. But 2013′s is 11.5. There is virtually no difference in takeaways/giveaways. As the tale of the tape shows, the teams are practically copies of each other:

SportsPressNW

Teams that the 2005 played that were good (which is still kind of irrelevant, you play who's on the schedule); Jags were 12-4, Giants were 11-5 and Redskins were 10-6. Teams that the 13 team almost lost to; the Texans, the Titans (remember, it doesn't count as a win according to some random poster) and the Bucs.

Complete Stats:

2005
Scored 452 points (28.2/g), 1st of 32 in the NFL
Allowed 271 points (16.9/g), 7th
Differential of 181 points (11.3/g), 2nd
50 Sacks 1st in the NFL
27 Sacks Taken
16 INTs
9 INTs Thrown
25 Passing TDs
18 Passing TDs given up
29 Rushing TDs
5 Rushing TDs given up

2013
Scored 417 points (26.1/g), 8th of 32 in the NFL.
Allowed 231 points (14.4/g), 1st.
Differential of 186 points (11.6/g), 2nd.
43 Sacks
44 Sacks Taken
28 INTs
9 INTs Thrown
27 Passing TDs
16 Passing TDs given up
14 Rushing TDs
4 Rushing TDs given up

And for giggles, I ran a pseudo simulation and the 2005 team won a majority of the time; What If Sports.

On the 2005 roster, I made DJack the #1 WR and on the 2013 roster, I made Harvin the #3 WR.

None of this is by far anything remotely conclusive, but to think that the 2013 team wins easily is short-sighted and a discredit to the greatest team in franchise history... but the 2013 could change that if they win it all.

That's all very nice, but as already noted, Football Outsiders has already considered all this and much more going back to 1989.

The 2013 Seahawks are much better than the 2005 Seahawks and it's not particularly close when you look at the advanced sabremetrics (i.e. DVOA). The 2013 Seattle DVOA is 40.1 which is one of the best in modern history. The 2005 DVOA was about 28% which is excellent, but definately not in the same class.

 

[TestMo1337]

So you're saying that there's no reason that a team with a "better" DVOA would ever lose to a team with a worse DVOA like the 2013 Colts, Niners or Cardinals, right?

Making the argument that it's a closed case is ridiculous. I've already stated that nothing is conclusive, even DVOA or any other way of deciding it... and to completely poke a hole in your argument, I present:

ISSUES WITH DVOA/DYAR
DVOA is limited by what’s included in the official NFL play-by-play or tracked by the Football Outsiders game charting project. Because we need to have the entire play-by-play of a season in order to compute DVOA and DYAR, these metrics are not yet ready to compare players of today to players throughout the league’s history. As of this writing, we have processed 21 seasons, 1991 through 2011, and we add seasons at a rate of roughly two per year (the most recent season, plus one season back into history.)

Both teams are great. At this point, I refuse to anoint a team that has yet to play a playoff game, let alone win two games to make it to the Superbowl. History is being written as we speak.

 

[Polaris]

The current era and 2005 are close enough that I believe that the comparisons are apt. I also never said that a team with a higher DVOA would never lose to a team with a lower one. In fact it happens all the time. Of course better teams lose to ones that aren't as good all the time as well. It's called "any given Sunday".

The point is that while some caution is merited, DVOA is a consistant metric that can and has been applies to both teams that are largely in the same era (unlike say the 1980s and now). The 2013 team is better.

 

[Hawknballs]

2005 was the brief peak of a fragile, high-maintenance strategy. Pete's teams are much more resilient.

Mainly because the 2005 team was finding the best players available to fit a predetermined scheme. The 2013 team is about finding the right scheme to use the kinds of players you want on your team. If you find the right guys at multiple positions that are physically and mentally the kind of guys you're looking for regardless or at least not excluded by scheme, you get depth and personalities that mesh. If a guy goes down it's much easier to replace him with a predictable back-up when you've targeted such players.

 

[AF_Hawk]

FYI these stats are only through 12 games in the quotes.

What mainly distinguished the 2005 team was its scoring offense. At 28.2 points per game, the Seahawks led the NFL with Alexander, running behind Jones and Hutchinson, setting a league record with 28 touchdowns. Seattle’s scoring defense was almost as good, ranking seventh. The 2005 team allowed only five rushing TDs all season.

But 2005 doesn’t have much of a statistical advantage on 2013. While 2005 averaged 28.2 points per game, 2013 averages 27.8. 2005 yielded 16.9, but 2013 is a hair better at 16.3. 2005 had an average scoring margin of 10.5 points over its opponents. But 2013′s is 11.5. There is virtually no difference in takeaways/giveaways. As the tale of the tape shows, the teams are practically copies of each other:

SportsPressNW

Teams that the 2005 played that were good (which is still kind of irrelevant, you play who's on the schedule); Jags were 12-4, Giants were 11-5 and Redskins were 10-6. Teams that the 13 team almost lost to; the Texans, the Titans (remember, it doesn't count as a win according to some random poster) and the Bucs.

Complete Stats:

2005
Scored 452 points (28.2/g), 1st of 32 in the NFL
Allowed 271 points (16.9/g), 7th
Differential of 181 points (11.3/g), 2nd
50 Sacks 1st in the NFL
27 Sacks Taken
16 INTs
9 INTs Thrown
25 Passing TDs
18 Passing TDs given up
29 Rushing TDs
5 Rushing TDs given up

2013
Scored 417 points (26.1/g), 8th of 32 in the NFL.
Allowed 231 points (14.4/g), 1st.
Differential of 186 points (11.6/g), 2nd.
43 Sacks
44 Sacks Taken
28 INTs
9 INTs Thrown
27 Passing TDs
16 Passing TDs given up
14 Rushing TDs
4 Rushing TDs given up

And for giggles, I ran a pseudo simulation and the 2005 team won a majority of the time; What If Sports.

On the 2005 roster, I made DJack the #1 WR and on the 2013 roster, I made Harvin the #3 WR.

None of this is by far anything remotely conclusive, but to think that the 2013 team wins easily is short-sighted and a discredit to the greatest team in franchise history... but the 2013 could change that if they win it all.

Greatest team in franchise history? Sorry man, I loved that team as well but this 2013 team would lay the smacketh down.

 

[TestMo1337]

Last time I checked, you can't be the greatest if you haven't won anything. 2005 at least won the NFC.

 

[olyfan63]

I just have to shake my head at the people who label the 2005 Seahawks a "finesse" team... maybe on defense, but that was a SMASH-MOUTH offense, especially that left side of the O-line with Walt and Hutch. We were much more similar to the '98 Denver Broncos of Terrell Davis that finally got Elway his Super Bowl "W". I knew that Broncos team and their big-time running game would beat Green Bay in the Super Bowl. Our '05 Hawks had that same type of big-time running game, to run on ANYONE. Sure, the schemes were different and all that, zone blocking and such, but both teams had a big-time smash-mouth running game and could run on ANY team of their day. And we did, including running on the Steelers in Super Bowl XL.

Sure, the WCO passing part had some finesse to it, but that just made the running game that much more deadly and vice-versa.

I won't say the 05 team was a smash-mouth defense, because they weren't. They were a chewing-gum-and-baling-twine, overachieving defense. Truth is, it was really the emergence of an *adequate* D that led to the Super Bowl. The offense had been excellent and amazing the two seasons prior; all they needed was an "average" defense, instead of a crap defense.

Just try to tell the opposing D-linemen who just got de-cleated by Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson that they were run over by a couple "finesse" O-linement.

All that said, back to the topic.

I think if the 2005 Seahawks played the 2013 Seahawks, the 2013 Seahawks would win 7-8 times out of 10.

Games when the 2013 team wins:
a) Nearly all "normal" games when both teams play to the best of their abilities and strengths
b) Any games they are +1 or better on turnovers
c) Any game when the paper-thin 2005 team has key injuries at spots where there is a big dropoff (except Bevell might not be quick enough to see the improved matchup and target it)

Games the 2005 team wins:
a) When the 2005 Defense is +2 turnovers for the game (not including end-of-half Hail Marys)
b) When Hasselbeck is just having an out-of-his-mind day and avoiding stupid turnovers
c) The 2005 team gets a long special teams TD, either a return or a punt block, and doesn't otherwise give the game away with turnovers.

Games each team wins
1) Team gets pick-6 when the other team is in the red zone, that's a 14-point swing (much more likely for 2013 team). Ditto for a long fumble recovery.

Normal game:
- 2005 Seahawks rush for 150 yards
- Hasselbeck passes for 200-250 yards
-2013 Seahawks rush for 160 yards. Lynch gets 80-110 of those yards.
- Wilson passes for 220 yards
- Wilson runs for 50 yards including key first downs. This is really the '05 team's undoing and leads to 2 TD's on drives Wilson kept the drive alive with his legs.
- Tate makes a big play or two on a catch and run play, and/or a big punt return
- Kearse and/or Tate make a clutch jump-ball long TD catch.
- Legion of Boom picks off at least 1 Hasselbeck pass.
- 2013 Special Teams have at least 1 difference-maker type play, a Tate ret

Normal game score: 27-17, 2013 Seahawks

 

[olyfan63]

My scenarios above were based on a neutral site. The simulator mentioned by another poster was entertaining...
http://www.whatifsports.com/nfl/default.asp#top
That simulator really likes the 2005 Seahawks! They won 90% of the home games, and 50% of the road games agains the 2013 Seahawks.
The 2005's are especially dominant in "West Coast Offense" mode.

Hey, it's a simulator. I stand by my 27-17 average score for the 2013's and the 2013's winning 7 out of 10 over the 2005's.
Gotta say though, the 2005 Holmgren-Hasselbeck-Alexander-Hutchinson-Jones-Tobeck-DJack-Engram-Jurevicius-Stevens team was truly the irresistible force when it came to offense. An extremely dominant offense against everyone they faced. I think the simulator must have factored that in, but not truly given the 2013 defense the level of props they deserve from the eyeball test of the 2013 season.

 

[Zorn76]

The one thing - and it's a biggie - that makes this match up interesting is the '05 OL vs the '13 DL.
That's the main noticeable mismatch in '05's favor.

In the end, though, '13 wins. Lynch would be more effective (and clutch) than Alexander, and the same holds true with RW vs Hass. The defensive secondary isn't even close, and would significantly offset '05's advantage blocking for Matt.

Even with the polar opposite rankings when it comes to penalties, this year's team takes it.
Carroll: 24
Holmgren: 20

 

[olyfan63]

I also think the 2013 teams total team speed on Defense, especially at linebacker, would give the 2005 group fits, and match up well against the Holmgren WCO. But in the end, yeah, the left side of the O-Line would (and did) overpower just about any D-line.
Sherman on DJack, now that would be an interesting matchup, and I'd go with Sherman to win most of the time. Browner--er Maxwell on Jurevicius, and nickel backs WTIII or Lane on Engram. Advantage '13 team. But that '05 running game... they'd just keep matriculating the ball down the field, bless Hank Stram's soul.

 

[Vetamur]

The 2013 Seahawks have at times been vulnerable to the run. The Rams ran for 200+ yards on them the first match up. People here honestly dont think Walter Jones and Hutch, plus FB Mack Strong wouldnt be able to run off tackle left all day against this D?

THere is a lot of selective memory going on here.. 1880 yards for Alexanders.. 29 rushing TDs for the team as a whole is a finesse team? The passing game was timing based no doubt..but Im not sure JJ and Engram were "finesse" types.

Im utterly shocked even at the claim that Lynch is a more effective back than Alexander.

Lynch's running style appeals to the masses.. but he will never approach Alexanders numbers at their respective peaks.

I suspect the 2013 team would win on a neutral field because I think the current defense is one of the all time greats when you consider what theyve done in the current rule setting..but 05s offense was clearly better..and its weird that people here dont admit that after the season long hand wringing we've done over the state of the offense.

 

[Zorn76]

"Im utterly shocked even at the claim that Lynch is a more effective back than Alexander."

And clutch. Yes.
Especially when it counts most.

 

[Vetamur]

I mean..wow.. the short term memory loss here. Lynch was clutch in the playoffs last season? Because I remember ill timed fumbles in the playoffs.

let me just add.. people will debate whether Alexander belongs in the HOF (he doesnt in my opinion).. Lynch is never even going to spur that discussion except among the most homeristic Seahawk fans.

 

[BioDawg03]

I have to agree with Vetamur that people are not giving Alexander enough credit, or the OL when they were at their peak in 2005.... That was the single best year for a RB/OL in the history of this franchise. 1880 yards and 28 total touchdowns don't happen by accident.... never mind the fact he ran for nearly a yard more per carry that season than Lynch.... I know people hated his style, but Alexander was awesome and NFL MVP for a reason....

Also, I think people are remembering the Hasselbeck from the end of his time in Seattle.... he was outstanding that season and did not turn the ball over, neither did that O since they were #2 in the NFL at protecting the football....

Which QB had a better year:
65.5% 3459 yards 24 TDs 9 INT 1 rushing TD
or
63.1% 3357 yards 26 TDs 9 INT 1 rushing TD

Also, don't discount the fact that the 2013 team has allowed 44 sacks this season, and the 2005 team was #1 in the NFL in sacks.... and this O has had issue with teams that are good at getting after the QB.... Even though Wilson added 500+ yards running the ball the 05 team still had a much more effective running game...

I'm not sure which team would win if they played on a Neutral field.... but I think many are falling prey to the tendency to favor the most current team...

 

[scutterhawk]

05 team had something the current team doesn't have, and that is a top-tier offensive line.

If we had that offensive line forget about it. we'd be undefeated and it wouldn't have been close.

Yep.
I'm pretty sure that with big Walt, Hutch, Tobeck, Grey, and Locklear, our 13 Defense front 7 would get pushed around some ,and Alexander would get his first downs, and in the Red Zone, he was pretty Money for the End Zones.
I would love to have seen what the Beast could have done with a line like the 05 O-Line.
Though I do have my doubts that Hasselbeck would have anywhere near the kind of success throwing against 13's Secondary that he did in 05 though, because let's be honest here, Hasselbeck never had to face a Secondary the likes that we have now.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Tie game at end of regulation. 2005 team wins coin flip and Hasselbeck exclaims "We want the ball and we're going to score." Matt throws an INT to Sherm. RW then leads his offense to win it on a toss to Zachary Miller.

 

[ensett]

Defense
05: Allowed 58% completion, 16 ints, 50 sacks. allowed 3.6 yards per carry, 16 PPG
13: Allowed 59% completion, 28 ints, 44 sacks. allowed 3.9 yards per carry, 14 PPG

Offense
05: 65%, 27 sacks, 4.7 yards per carry, 14 turnovers, 28 PPG - team had 94 penalties for 846 yards
13: 63%, 44 sacks, 4.2 yards per carry, 19 turnovers, 26 PPG - team had 128 penalties for 1183 yards

I think it would be way closer than anybody wants to give the 05 team credit for. That was an extremely good team.

 

[scutterhawk]

"Im utterly shocked even at the claim that Lynch is a more effective back than Alexander."

And clutch. Yes.
Especially when it counts most.

Again....You have to consider the O-Line that these two RB's had pushing D's for them.
You could drive a Mack Truck through the holes that 05's O-Line, and Mack Strong opened up for Alexander to run through, especially anywhere near the End Zone.
So Alexander had better numbers, but he also had the best Offensive line in the NFL blowing the doors off for him.
Lynch isn't anywhere near as easy to bring down with an arm tackle either.
It's just speculation here, BUT, I do believe that Lynch would have been a monster with that 05 O-Line.

 

[olyfan63]

I mean..wow.. the short term memory loss here. Lynch was clutch in the playoffs last season? Because I remember ill timed fumbles in the playoffs.
...

What are you, the memory hole guy?
Oh, you're absolutely correct, that's what! On both counts, including the silly "finesse" tag!

Lynch also had his positive clutch moment, the play at Washington to scoop up the Wilson fumble and run for a 1st down. OK, playoff clutch moments, plural, can't overlook the obvious. Need I even say it?

People repeating the "finesse" tag about the 2005 team... Amazing that people can forget the sheer power and execution of the 2005 Seahawks running game, running on EVERYONE. Must be people repeating what the know-nothing "national media" tells them to think, instead of believing what they saw with their own eyes. (or they're Johnny-come-lately's who didn't SEE the 2005 team)

My all-time favorite was that Raiders game in 2001, just so satisfying watching Alexander demolish the Raiders on Monday night when he ran for 266 yards on 35 carries. Sure, that was 2001, but Alexander and the running game were in that kind of form for most of the 2005 season.