2005 Hawks vs 2013 Hawks

[themunn]

I think the 2005 WCO matches up very well with our defense, and the offense is without DOUBT better than any we faced this year.

Say what you want about Shaun Alexander, there is not a single back we faced this year that even comes CLOSE to how good Alexander was, and then with the 05 line as well?
If Tampa Bay and St Louis can scorch us to the tune of 200 yards, what do you think that 05 run game would do?

The 2005 run D was pretty damn good too, finishing 5th in yards allowed and allowing just 5 TDs on the year.

What the 2013 team has over the 2005 team is serious strength in depth, that said, the 2013 team would probably suffer as much as the 05 team did losing Manuel if it lost Thomas.

 

[themunn]

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.

It's a constant that compares teams and players against the league average that year. But the league changes and players change, just look at the number of top quality linebackers there were in the early to mid 00s, and how ever successful team had quality there. now it's arguably the least valuable position on defense.

 

[themunn]

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.

...the 2005 Seahawks averaged 15 yards MORE per game than the 2013 Seahawks, and allowed 10 yards LESS a game on defense. I can't see how you get your idea that the 2013 Hawks would run for more yards.

 

[Renohawk]

I would be interested if you could swap players from 05 to this years team, how many would crack the starting lineup. The obvious two are Walt and Hutch, then who?

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

I would be interested if you could swap players from 05 to this years team, how many would crack the starting lineup. The obvious two are Walt and Hutch, then who?

The interesting thing to me, would be to see what Lynch could do running left.

 

[tom sawyer]

Very interesting posts. Brought back some good memeories.

Both great seasons. just hoping ths one plays on to the most favorable conclusion!

 

[HawKnPeppa]

With the way our D is playing right now, I don't think the 2005 team would have much of a chance. Remember how Hass used to have one or two WTF passes/decisions per game when he was getting consistently pressured? Now imagine the 2005 Steelers Defense with a secondary that is 3X better. That's pretty much what we have right now. Think about some of the fronts Russell, Marshawn and co. have won against with 2/3 of the OL starters out.

Can anybody seriously tell me RW wouldn't have success against the likes of Wistrom, Fisher and Bernard when operating behind our OL starters. The 2005 secondary was assignment correct most of the time, but when your best player is Marquand Manuel that doesn't exactly strike fear into opponents.

The 2005 team might get the first points on the board, but 2013 team would eat them alive by the end of the game.

 

[warden]

When two good teams play each other, the more physical team usually wins. I will take the 2013 team. More balanced then the 2005 team. More physical then the 2005 team. We can run, throw, stop the run, rush the passer to go with the best secondary in the league. We can compete in a 6 to 3 game as well as we can compete in a shootout. We also are much stronger on the road. We also have much better depth.

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

Lynch would rush for 651 yards and 11 TDs.

Each hand off would look like a rugby scrum that just chugged into the end zone.

 

[rastahawk]

I like the '13 team not only because of their toughness and grit but because they can beat anyone. The '05 team was more finesse and I always felt, even back then, that if we clashed with a physical team that we'd struggle to win.

Team aside the other big factor for me is the coach. I can't tell you enough how much I like PC. I respected Holmgren for what he had accomplished but boy did I dislike his style. The rhythm dependent WCO, and the vanilla and most of all conservative play calling. The hand off on third and longs, not going for it on 4th and 1's on the opponents side of the field, etc... Pete is the anti-Holmgren. We're gonna be bigger, faster, stronger and younger than you. And btw you don't hold your position because you're a deserved vet, you earn it though competition.

Then QB's. I love Matt but he has a tendency to go ape sh!t when playing from behind in pressure situations. Also has a tendency to make absolute horrid decisions resulting in critical turnovers. RW is more sound and quietly punishing. Plus he never lets the situations get the better of his emotions. The '13 team wins hands down.

 

[olyfan63]

Why the 2013 Hawks outrush the superior 2005 rushing attack--Two words: Russell Wilson. Wilson rushes for net +50 yards on scrambles, so really +70 yards - 20 on sacks.

We 100% agree the 2005 Seahawks running backs would run for more yards than the 2013 running backs.

On further review, I'll adjust upward that the 2013s rush for 170 or 180 yards, 50 from Wilson, and the 2005s for 160.

I also think the 2013 group is better against the run, especially when prepared and focused. Just ask the Rams after that week 17 game...

The Steelers lit up the 2005 SeaHawks Defense for 181 yards rushing in Super Bowl XL. The Hawks amazing 2005 offense rushed for 137 in that game, which was a good day against that Steeler defense that allowed 86 yards per game in the regular season. The 137 number would/should have been higher but the Hawks were behind due to the game circumstances and had to be pass-first for the final few drives of the game.

The Steelers 181 yards included the Willie Parker 76 yard TD and 25 yards from QB Roethlisberger. If Rothlisberger gets 25 on that D, I say Russell Wilson gets 50-75.

 

[themunn]

Why the 2013 Hawks outrush the superior 2005 rushing attack--Two words: Russell Wilson. Wilson rushes for net +50 yards on scrambles, so really +70 yards - 20 on sacks.

We 100% agree the 2005 Seahawks running backs would run for more yards than the 2013 running backs.

On further review, I'll adjust upward that the 2013s rush for 170 or 180 yards, 50 from Wilson, and the 2005s for 160.

I also think the 2013 group is better against the run, especially when prepared and focused. Just ask the Rams after that week 17 game...

The Steelers lit up the 2005 SeaHawks Defense for 181 yards rushing in Super Bowl XL. The Hawks amazing 2005 offense rushed for 137 in that game, which was a good day against that Steeler defense that allowed 86 yards per game in the regular season. The 137 number would/should have been higher but the Hawks were behind due to the game circumstances and had to be pass-first for the final few drives of the game.

The Steelers 181 yards included the Willie Parker 76 yard TD and 25 yards from QB Roethlisberger. If Rothlisberger gets 25 on that D, I say Russell Wilson gets 50-75.

But Marshawn Lynch never ever gets that 75 yard TD run, and we've already seen our own guys get gashed for a few big runs in the pass.
Remember, the strength of the 2013 team is defense - and that Steeler team completed just 10 passes (one of them a trick play too). The Steelers defense won that game against our Number 1 offense - you really think the 2013 offense could do better?
And penalties! Penalties! The 2005 team was the least penalised in the league, the 2013 the most penalised.
On a neutral field, which way do you think a 50-50 call goes?


Note: I absolutely believe the 2013 Seahawks are a better team... BUT, I think the 2005 team is about the worst possible team they could face. Everyone talks about the Niners/Panthers etc being the teams that give us nightmares, but we've beaten them time and time again. The 2005 offense is better than any offense the 2013 (or 2012) team has faced

 

[jack_patera]

I go with dave krieg and 83 hawks...

 

[hawks4thewin]

Some Weighted DVOA food for thought, which i think is a great evaulater.

Team year Rank
Hawks 2005 Rushing Defense 4th
Hawks 2005 Passing Defense 25th

Hawks 2005 Passing Offense 3rd
Hawks 2005 Rushing Offense 4th
Hawks 2005 Special teams 18th


Team year Rank
Steelers 2005 Rushing Defense 1st
Steelers 2005 Passing Defense 5th

Steelers 2005 Passing Offense 6th
Steelers 2005 Rushing Offense 10th
Steelers 2005 Special teams 7th

Team year Rank
Hawks 2013 Rushing Defense 8th
Hawks 2013 Passing Defense 1st

Hawks 2013 Passing Offense 8th
Hawks 2013 Rushing Offense 7th
Hawks 2013 Special teams 6th

Hawks of 2005 were 24.4% Offense DVOA
Hawks of 2013 were 8.7% Offense DVOA

Hawks of 2005 were -2% DefenseDVOA
Hawks of 2013 were -30% Defense DVOA

So the 2005 hawks were about 16% better on average then the 2013 team on offense.
and the defense from 2013 is 28% better then 2005.

I have had to edit my spelling and typos on this far to much.. going back to work

 

[hawks4thewin]

Also one thing that we aren't considering is that the 2005 team seemed LUCKY, and this team seams to earn it..
I dont know which is better.... but I provided some good info there.

 

[SeahawksForever]

Just ran it 4 times on Whatifsports, with the '05 Hawks the home team every time, and they won 3 of 4. The one game where the '13 Hawks won, they domfaced Hasselbeck and the boys 29-6.

I'm sure the results would be different if I switched up the home and away scenarios.

 

[travlinhawk]

Forget about all the rankings and stuff for a minute and ask yourself how you felt during every game of 05 compared to 13. To me its easy, I didn't get any gray hairs watching the 05 offense. In fact it was almost a cocky feeling knowing that SA would just blast through the left side for a touchdown when we were close or that JJ would snatch that clutch first down ""catch"" when it mattered. The 05 offense was really hitting on all cylinders until we got f%&ing hosed in 40. The calls threw Matt off his game in a big way...I digress. Anyway, I think the 13 team has the mental toughness and defense over the 05 but the 05 team was like watching a well oiled machine most of the year. I don't think I can say that about the 13 team offense (yet). my 2...

 

[MidwestHawker]

Also one thing that we aren't considering is that the 2005 team seemed LUCKY, and this team seams to earn it..
I dont know which is better.... but I provided some good info there.

Meh. We were pretty lucky to escape the road game at St. Louis with a win this year. And I'd say the win over Houston this year was pretty comparable to the win over Dallas that year.

Overall the point differential of this team is only 5 points better than that of the 2005 squad. It's pretty close in terms of dominance.

 

[kf3339]

since the rule usually is that "Offenses win games; Defenses win championships" you pretty much have to go 2013 over 2005. But I do think it would be a pretty good game!

 

[BobcatHawk]

"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.

I find this argument against Alexander's effectiveness irritating, to say the least. Over and over, it's used against him, but you don't hear people saying the same about players like Emmitt Smith who literally had "mack truck holes" to work with. Emmitt was a great running back and wouldn't have been as good as he was without his o-line, same for Alexander.

Just because Lynch is a good power runner, doesn't make him necessarily better than Alexander, even though fans enjoy his play style better. In my opinion, Lynch gets caught from behind in situations where Alexander wouldn't have. Style points shouldn't be a factor in potential HOF consideration, but it seems it is as Earl Campbell is in the HOF with almost identical career numbers to Alexander, yet Alexander isn't worthy of consideration because he was soft and Campbell was a power runner.