2005 Hawks vs 2013 Hawks

[NorCalSeahawk]

Easy, if the 2013 team wins (or at least makes it to) the Superbowl then you can have the discussion. I know that's a simple way to look at it, but the 2005 team made it to the Superbowl, the 2013 teams needs to do the same to at least be in the discussion (for me at least).

As far as talent and what if's, whatever. I would take this years D over the 2005 D (this years secondary might be the best ever, the two are not even close), and I would take the 2005 offense over this years (the two O-lines are not even in the same universe in my opinion). Lots of things are a wash in my opinion, to hard to call, but I'll take the 2005 team until I see what this team (with the same home field advantage as the 2005 one had) can do in the playoffs. These next few weeks SHOULD be fun.

 

[irocdave]

Great question by the OP. I was geared up to defend the 05 team but several posters have represented them much better than I could have. The left side of the 05 line would have caved in our run D consistently. The 13 hawks run defense is still a question mark. Would MH have stayed with the run and grinded it out? I doubt it. MH would have had MH throw just because. The 13 defensive BF would have picked him off a couple of times and MS / RW would have gotten points out of it. The 05 defensive backfield consisted of guys that were signed off the street because of injury. Who knows what the outcome of that game would have been if the 2ndary was healthy? If the Hawks make it to the SB this year and get the same treatment from the Refs......who knows. The Hawks were the better team the last time they went to the SB. The "soft" D was laying licks on the never to be named team, the O line was kicking their ass, SA was running hard...I really don't get the "soft" label. That other team that called themselves "physical" got it handed to them in the first half. The calls were so bad it got the Hawks out of their game and the HC didn't help keep the boat upright.

That being said, I see the 13 team taking a close one. The 05 Hawks deserved that win, but were no were close to having the playmakers ( if PH plays) to this current team.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Easy, if the 2013 team wins (or at least makes it to) the Superbowl then you can have the discussion. I know that's a simple way to look at it, but the 2005 team made it to the Superbowl, the 2013 teams needs to do the same to at least be in the discussion (for me at least).

You do realize that single-elimination playoffs, like the NFL employs, are just huge variance-fests, yes?

I guarantee that this team would have taken care of the 2005 Redskins and 2005 Panthers. This year's NFC field is a hell of a lot tougher. I'd like to think we take care of business, but a failure to do so wouldn't leave this team short of the 2005 squad.

 

[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.

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.

Emmitt Smith, for as much as I didn't like the guy, was still a tough runner who didn't shy away from contact when it came his way. Earl Cambell made a living of running people over.
It's not about style points, either.
It's about Heart.
And Alexander simply didn't have enough of it when it came to running hard in the trenches, or fighting for that extra inch. He went down way too easily. It was as much his signature move as his long TD runs.