Hawkstorian
Well-known member
We won the Superbowl so not sure how we can do better than that.
Hasselbeck":1crurj5a said:This is a slightly loaded question
Will we be worse because of the FA losses? Probably. That's what losing depth does to a roster. Will we still be good enough to win the Super Bowl again? Absolutely.
sutz":4u09gffi said:Voted yes, though I'm not confident that our W/L record will improve. Kind of like Pete's first two seasons. Both were 7-9, but 2011 was noticably better on the field than 2010.
more media crap LOLCALIHAWK1":1odf3vn9 said:Arizona wins the west. So worse. Charlie Casserly's words not mine.
rainger":6evpji30 said:But that is why I did not say more wins. I think a team can be "better" but due to circumstances not have as good of a record or even win the SB, but the team can be better.
Pete's second year of 7 and 9 was a much better team than the first 7 and 9 team even though the first one won a playoff game.
Some people simplify the question that better or worse just comes down to wins and losses or a championship. There are too many variables.
I think you can have a better team but not get the same results. There are plenty of teams that have won the Super Bowl who were not close to being the best team.
SonicHawk":1zpwokhc said:Blitzer88":1zpwokhc said:I just really hated seeing Tate go, he was just a huge part of our offense this year and Russell had a great connection with him.
You realize that Tate is completely replaced and even considerably improved upon with Harvin?
Thanks that means you agree with me this is what I said in my post.Hasselbeck":q4jdb0mx said:rainger":q4jdb0mx said:But that is why I did not say more wins. I think a team can be "better" but due to circumstances not have as good of a record or even win the SB, but the team can be better.
Pete's second year of 7 and 9 was a much better team than the first 7 and 9 team even though the first one won a playoff game.
Some people simplify the question that better or worse just comes down to wins and losses or a championship. There are too many variables.
I think you can have a better team but not get the same results. There are plenty of teams that have won the Super Bowl who were not close to being the best team.
This is why I said your question is somewhat 'loaded'
If the Seahawks go 11-5 and lose in the NFC Championship, that would by definition be a "worse" season than the 2013 one. But it doesn't mean the team sucked.. like you said.. the better teams don't always get the same results. A great example of this is the 2012 Seahawks.
This team is set up to be a bonafide contender more often than not. Assuming injuries don't wipe us out (which, every year, will eliminate a team from contention) and the like.
Charlie's an idiot.CALIHAWK1":zpoovmia said:Arizona wins the west. So worse. Charlie Casserly's words not mine.
The Donkeys made a good move in getting Ward... but what are the odds that Talib and Ware last the whole season?lsheldon":jgeasd09 said:Talking heads at ESPN are already saying were a worse team than last year. Simply because the team hasn't jumped into the FA fray with both feet like the panicking Donkeys.