No Respect

[Largent80]

Also, all of the previous 10 teams did NOT have John Schneider as G.M.

 

[davidonmi]

The cbs guys picked about 5 different teams to win the SB.
Not one of them was us. I love it

 

[kearly]

Seven CBS experts pick the SB winner, none pick Seattle. The only attempt at reasoning given was that a team hasn't repeated in 10 years. So because fluky teams like Baltimore and New York predictably flopped the next season, an incredibly dominant champ will flop also. After a decade plus of SB parity, the Seahawks just had the most dominating SB season since the '91 Redskins.

I don't see any disrespect. What I do see a nice mixture of East Coast Bias, intellectual laziness, and rank stupidity. It goes without saying that if this same exact team existed in New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay or Dallas, everyone would be lining up to call the repeat.

 

[MadSweeney]

Just from an outsider's perspective (and sincerely not trolling):

The Hawks have been well-deserved national media darlings since late into the 2012/2013 season. Even after losing to Atlanta in the divisional that year the team was still (deservedly) getting the majority of offseason love. To be clear, I think this is how it should be because the Hawks delivered on their promise and have been awesome since midway of 2012/2013.

Here's the part where I'll be accused of trolling: I think as fans you guys have a well worn narrative of being underdogs and ignored and not given the respect you deserve. I think to some degree that narrative has been forced to butt up against the reality of the last two years. As such, for some folks there's some cognitive dissonance, and any time someone says something incredibly benign (i.e. the Hawks are the best team in the NFL but going back-to-back is really hard) it's taken by some as "more of the same" and "yet another" epic slight. It's just not, though.

If we've learned anything in the last two years, it's that it was never an East Coast media bias or a legacy team media bias or anything else, it's just that the Hawks weren't ever consistently great for an extended period of time. The 9ers were crap through the first decade of the 2000s but in terms of media attention they still got it because of the 80s and 90s. It's the same story with the Cowboys now. If the Hawks put a few more great seasons together it will be the same story for them. And right now, when someone says the Hawks are the best team in the NFL but repeating is really hard, that's them giving the team their due. It's not a slight (they're acknowledged by almost all as the best team in the NFL!) even though some Hawks fans are well-trained in trying to hunt slights out.

Good post and I agree. For the record, I never claimed disrespect, and my last comment was meant that I hoped the players felt disrespected as that's their biggest motivator.

It IS lazy journalism though, whether by King or whomever. The analyst will say we're the most talented team in the NFL, the deepest, they talk about a healthy Harvin and how many weapons we have on offense, how good Wilson looks and how we have the best defense in the league, then go "well, since it hasn't been done in 10 years, they won't do it" What ?

The 04 Pats have nothing to do with us. We don't play the same division, the same teams, we have different personnel, depth, etc. So claiming something hasn't happened in 10 years, or a team that did something 10 years ago has no bearing on us specifically. Yes, we know it's all hard, but to say we're the best team, yet generally discount our chances is lazy. You don't have to bring specific analysis because "well hell, it hasn't been done in 10 years".

People said the same thing about Wilson. He wasn't going to be any good because historically, short QBs struggle. It didn't matter how well Russ read defenses, his athleticism, leadership, intangibles and tangible physical talent didn't matter as 'you have to be over 6' to be successful at QB".

There's ALWAYS an outlier. Being lazy doesn't change that.

I agree with this, and I want to point out to everyone that 10 years only means 10 champions with a chance to repeat. That's a very small sample size.

It's not just ten years, it's the whole modern era. Forty out of forty eight teams failed to repeat as champions. Picking a different team to win it is not disrespect, it's playing the odds.

 

[themunn]

It's not just ten years, it's the whole modern era. Forty out of forty eight teams failed to repeat as champions. Picking a different team to win it is not disrespect, it's playing the odds.

3x in a row is a lot harder (given it's never been done).

If 8 teams have won it twice in a row, it means that 16 out of 48 superbowls had a team either win the previous superbowl or the next superbowl.

And when you look into each decade, that kind of makes sense

The packers won it twice in the 60s
the dolphins won it twice in the 70s, as did the steelers. the steelers also won in 79/80
the niners won it in 89/90
the cowboys won it twice in the 90s as did the broncos
the patriots won it twice in the 00s

A team winning it two years in a row has happened in pretty much every decade (the 80s border on the 70s and 90s) since it's inception. It's not that unlikely to happen again.

 

[sc85sis]

Why not us?

 

[bmorepunk]

Personally, I'm pretty much over the 'No Respect' mantra Seahawks most Seahawks fans seem to like to spout off about. It's weak.

I would think a lot of people who get upset about this sort of thing are pretty insecure.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

You earn your respect over time.....the bottom line is that if any other team named Dallas, San Francisco, Green Bay pulled off the smashing of Denver, the repeat word would be bandied about.

I still have experts touting the NFC West as the toughest division in football, when the reality is San Francisco looks spent, aging and not falling apart, but young in spots where they don't need to be and old in other spots.....Arizona is Arizona and the Rams are not beating teams 13-9 week in and week out.

If Seattle isn't wrapping up the Division title on Thanksgiving night in Santa Clara, it's only because a rash of bad luck or injuries. This team shed 5 starters from last years defense and appears to be faster, better and more aggressive (Bryant, Clemons, Browner, WTIII (nickel) and McDaniel.

I don't see any way we are not scoring points like we saw this pre-season...

If any other team named Dallas, SF, Green Bay, New England just ran through 2 pre-season teams off a Super Bowl crushing win by 5 TD's, they would be predicted by everyone.

Once we get another title, then and only then will Seattle earn respect. The time is NOW to win big, win with expectations and win with a swagger that shows teams who is #1.

I am ready to watch history to be made these next 2 years, they will be fun and enjoy every minute of it folks!!!

 

[MadSweeney]

It's not just ten years, it's the whole modern era. Forty out of forty eight teams failed to repeat as champions. Picking a different team to win it is not disrespect, it's playing the odds.

3x in a row is a lot harder (given it's never been done).

If 8 teams have won it twice in a row, it means that 16 out of 48 superbowls had a team either win the previous superbowl or the next superbowl.

And when you look into each decade, that kind of makes sense

The packers won it twice in the 60s
the dolphins won it twice in the 70s, as did the steelers. the steelers also won in 79/80
the niners won it in 89/90
the cowboys won it twice in the 90s as did the broncos
the patriots won it twice in the 00s

A team winning it two years in a row has happened in pretty much every decade (the 80s border on the 70s and 90s) since it's inception. It's not that unlikely to happen again.

No one is saying that it won't happen again, just that the odds of doing it arr lower.

 

[Natethegreat]

I get the its really really hard argument and pointing out how the last ten super bowl winners have fared but half the writers turn around and then pick Denver. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the super bowl loser has fared well either. So if your going to use that logic in one case why not in another?

 

[Sarlacc83]

I get the its really really hard argument and pointing out how the last ten super bowl winners have fared but half the writers turn around and then pick Denver. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the super bowl loser has fared well either. So if your going to use that logic in one case why not in another?

This is the funniest thing to me. You'd think they'd have learned their lesson about Manning in the playoffs, but they obviously haven't.

Besides the Saints, Patriots, and Eagles (maybe), I have a hard time imagining a different team than the Seahawks winning XLIX.

 

[Cartire]

I get the its really really hard argument and pointing out how the last ten super bowl winners have fared but half the writers turn around and then pick Denver. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the super bowl loser has fared well either. So if your going to use that logic in one case why not in another?

Yep, this is exactly what I have noticed. Cite precedent as a good reason for why not to pick us.

But then turn around and say Denver is their pick.

Fun fact: The last superbowl loser to win the next year? The 1972 Dolphins. A 42 year long trend.

Where the precedent remarks with that? Why has no writer mentioned that? Hell, we have heard that almost every year after a Super Bowl. All of a sudden, this year, we only hear, "Last time a team repeated was 10 years ago, precedent doesnt look good for seahawks."

Are you kidding me?

 

[Escamillo]

I agree. Whole lotta harbaughing going on here. King lazy? Guy is one of the most thoughful and dedicated guys in his business. But hey he correctly doesn't favor the odds. So lets make a fat joke and then start weeping about respect. . . That takes effort and hard work!

act like you've been there before, guys. Cuz unlike any other season, you have.

I've always wondered, why is it necessarily considered virtuous to "act like you've been there before", which means, act all jaded, that you shouldn't be excited about wins, you shouldn't care what is said in the media or message boards, you should just take everything in stride.

"Act like you've been there before" is usually uttered by fans of teams that lose because they don't want to see the fans of the winning team celebrate. I usually see it said by fans of college football teams, where after big wins, it's not uncommon for fans to rush the field. You see fans of the loser teams criticize that by saying, "act like you've been there before", to which I say, "Why? Why not rush the field, regardless of whether I've been there before or not?"

I guess I'm tired of that cliche, particularly when nobody has ever given any reason why anyone should follow the cliche, or why it's inherently good to act jaded.

 

[Escamillo]

I love the lack of respect from the media and I hope they keep it coming. It's what keeps our team edgy and hungry, and what keeps the 12th Man salty and loud. I don't blame people who pick against the Hawks repeating. I love everything about this team and the way the FO runs it, but us winning the Superbowl again is a long shot. So was us winning the big one last year, or Russell being a viable NFL quarterback, or Sweezy being a strength instead of a weakness.

Foregone conclusions and automatics are boring. The nervous energy leading up to a game followed by the relief and almost "high" feel after the Hawks beat down another opponent is what makes it all so special. The media haters are good at keeping that tiny seed of doubt alive and in play. No matter how much success the Seahawks have I'll still always be a little bitter about all of the blown Bobby Ayala saves, idiotic trades, losing the Sonics, bad officiating in the Superbowl, Dave Kreig fumbles, Seahawks highlights getting no love on SportCenter, etc..

Signed,

ATM Angry Twelfth Man

The Seahawks winning the Super Bowl isn't any longer a shot than it is for anyone else, from a pure math standpoint. Each time has a 1 in 32 chance to win mathematically, putting everything else aside. So picking against a team just because "it's a long shot" is a dumb reason, because for each team, the chances of winning the Super Bowl is a "long shot". And the Seahawks winning the Super Bowl last year has no effect on their mathematical chances of winning this year. Just like if you flip a coin 9 times and get "heads" each time, there's still a 50% chance that the next flip will be "heads"; the previous coin flips are irrelevant to that.

 

[Escamillo]

And yet everyone loves Peter King when he gives Richard Sherman his own forum.

By your definition every sports writer in america employed by any successful network is a 'corporate shill'. To be a real writer with a valid opinion, you need to just be unemployed with a blog!

haha, I've nothing against Peter King.
But I don't understand you guys that say that it's wrong to care what he or others write, for if that's the case, then why read any of the sports media at all? This is entertainment. And people are entertained by reading what columnists have to say and also by discussing what columnists have to say, in agreement or in disagreement. That goes for sports, movies, music, etc. If you're not entertained by such discussions, then you can just ignore them. But I don't understand the lectures from those that claim to take pride in not caring what columnists say. That's fine for you, but others get entertainment by reading sports articles and also by discussing them on message boards. :thirishdrinkers:

 

[McG]

Flat out, if they all picked us to win or even the majority of them, a lot of people on here would be talking about how they are all just being bandwagon reporters. They would be annoyed that we are getting too much respect, or worried the team would lose it's edge because we are getting too much love. Being a fan of any Seattle team has given us as a fan base a bit of a complex, and it's understandable.

The media is what it is. It caters to the masses, many of the morons (lol, I mean come on Mike & Mike and Cowherd), I mean talk show hosts on ESPN radio even admit they talk about what is important or popular to the country, not a local fan base even if it's the truth. Do you think the East coast or the South want to hear about how great the Seattle Seahawks are? Of course not, they want to hear about teams that have almost no chance in hell of winning it all and how they are going to "turn it all around" this year.

I mean think about it, how many people do you think buy SI or go to SI.com that are Seattle fans, or for that matter live in the Seattle area total? Maybe 5-10%, maybe, but I even doubt it's that much, it's probably closer to 1-2%. Take all this BS from the national media with a grain of salt. By the end of the year, they will all have changed their tune and be singing our praises again and/or picking against us just to be "edgy". Don't get mad, get a laugh out of it. Think of it this way, if these guys weren't just doing it for the clicks, listeners, or subscribers, do you really think if the Pats, Cowboys, Giants, Steelers, Saints, Eagles, etc won a Superbowl 43-8, that any of those guys would be picking against them the next year? Yeah, I thought so, it's comical.

 

[Escamillo]

Just from an outsider's perspective (and sincerely not trolling):

The Hawks have been well-deserved national media darlings since late into the 2012/2013 season. Even after losing to Atlanta in the divisional that year the team was still (deservedly) getting the majority of offseason love. To be clear, I think this is how it should be because the Hawks delivered on their promise and have been awesome since midway of 2012/2013.

Here's the part where I'll be accused of trolling: I think as fans you guys have a well worn narrative of being underdogs and ignored and not given the respect you deserve. I think to some degree that narrative has been forced to butt up against the reality of the last two years. As such, for some folks there's some cognitive dissonance, and any time someone says something incredibly benign (i.e. the Hawks are the best team in the NFL but going back-to-back is really hard) it's taken by some as "more of the same" and "yet another" epic slight. It's just not, though.

If we've learned anything in the last two years, it's that it was never an East Coast media bias or a legacy team media bias or anything else, it's just that the Hawks weren't ever consistently great for an extended period of time. The 9ers were crap through the first decade of the 2000s but in terms of media attention they still got it because of the 80s and 90s. It's the same story with the Cowboys now. If the Hawks put a few more great seasons together it will be the same story for them. And right now, when someone says the Hawks are the best team in the NFL but repeating is really hard, that's them giving the team their due. It's not a slight (they're acknowledged by almost all as the best team in the NFL!) even though some Hawks fans are well-trained in trying to hunt slights out.

Good post for the most part. The problem I have is "It's hard to repeat" is not a solid argument to pick against a team, because "it's hard to win a particular Super Bowl" for any given team, period. Is there evidence that it is harder for the defending champions to win the Super Bowl than it is for each of the rest of the teams? No, there is no such evidence. From a pure math standpoint, the chances of winning two Super Bowls in a row is 1/1024. But after already having won the first Super Bowl, the mathematical chances of winning the next one is 1/32, just like it is for every other team. (Just like there's a 1/(2^N) chance of flipping a coin N times and getting "heads" each time, but after successfully doing it the first N-1 times, the chances of doing it the Nth time is 1/2, just as would be the case for any given flip of the coin.)

OK, let's put aside the pure mathematical odds, and try to look at historical odds. There have been 48 Super Bowls, and the defending champion has won 8 of them. That means the defending champion has a 1/6 chance of repeating, historically, which is much better than the pure mathematical odds of 1/32. "Oh, but most of those repeats were in the pre-salary-cap era." OK, let's look at just the salary cap era, which began in 1994. Since 1994 there have been 20 Super Bowls, and the defending champion has won twice. That means there is a 1/10 chance of a team repeating, historically. That's still a lot better than the pure mathematical odds of 1/32. It also means that the odds of a given SB being won by the defending champion are greater than the odds of it being won by a particular non-SB champ (though not greater than it being won by any non-specified SB champ, obviously).

So, "I predict that a team other than the SB champs will win, because the historical odds are against SB champ repeating" and leaving it at that is sound logic. But if one goes on to actually choose a particular one of the non-SB champs to win, then it's not reasonable to do it based simply on "the odds", because history shows that the odds of the SB champ winning are actually better than as the odds of a particular one of the rest of the teams winning. And saying "The defending SB champ is the best team, but I'll pick another particular team over them just because of the odds" is even more unsound. You have to have a better reason than "the odds" to pick a particular team over the defending champs.

(BTW, East Coast bias is very real, but it's more "NFC East" bias. Not in terms of positive press, but in terms of amount of press coverage over all. At times it seems that the NFC East gets more national media attention than the rest of the divisions combined, regardless of how good or horrible the NFC East is in a given year. Even the AFC East gets a tiny amount of coverage by comparison.)

 

[RiverDog]

I still don't understand why some fans get worked up over this. Besides, the hawks have been getting plenty of respect from people across the country.

We are the best team and we know it. Thats what matters. The hawks will go out and prove it just like they did last year.

Another thing, repeats ARE difficult and rare. In fact its rare enough that even intelligent people could go against the best team repeating as champs. If it wasn't the hawks that we're talking about and someone offered me even money that the defending champs wouldn't repeat I would take that bet. No disrespect to the champs but thats a safe bet.

But since it is the Hawks, im gonna sit back and enjoy the repeat.

Agreed. Who gives a rat's behind what is being said in the media? It's not going to effect the product on the field one iota and it isn't going to effect my enjoyment of the game.

Good point about repeats. They don't happen very often nowadays. More teams. Parity and free agency has made it much more difficult. No one in their right mind would bet on the Seahawks to repeat if the odds were straight up. I don't understand why it's so outrageous for a broadcaster to make a statement that they won't repeat based on the results from the recent past that any fool would take into account.

And yes, the Hawks have been getting plenty of respect lately. Most power polls have us ranked #1. Teams are beginning to copy what the Hawks have been doing. The league is actively trying to take away some of our advantages by selecting certain rules they want more rigid enforcement of. If that's not a show of respect, I don't know what is.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I'm over the whole "no respect" thing. Doesn't matter, they are the champs, let people doubt them. Just adds more chips.