2005 Seahawks or 2013 Seahawks?

If you could only choose one team which would it be and why?

well, we've seen one play, and have yet to see the other even start training camp...so....

Considering the 2005 Seahawks didn't win the Super Bowl, there's no reason at this point to take them over a team that could win the Super Bowl.

Easy I'd take the 2013, they seem to be the more complete team with better depth.
The 2005 defense was a bend but don't break outfit. IIRC Seattle lead the league in sacks. Had it not been for that Seattle would have been very average on defense. In contrast the 2013 defense returns virtually everyone of consequence and upgrades to most of those that left ie ( Trufaunt for WInfield, Avril & Bennett vs. Jones). The 2012 defense was the #1 ranked defense in points allowed #4 in yards allowed. This is the first time since I've followed the Seahawks (since 2003) that Seattle has a bona fide arse kicker of a defense. Before I was a Seahawks fan I followed the Tampa Bay Bucs when they had the stingiest defense around. Seattle's 2013 defense has the ability to reach close to those heights IMO.

Meanwhile the 2005 offense was great when it was clicking. But it wasn't dominant per se. I remember even that year being infuriated at the inconsistencies of the Seahawks offense. Other's teams could drive at will, SEattle at times was hot or cold. If you remember that EPIC game against the Giants when we won in OT after their kicker missed 3 FG's. We'll late in that game and in OT, Seattle struggle to get a single first down. That's how it seemed in 2005, when it was on, it was amazing, when it struggled it really had a hard time moving the ball.

Examples we lost to the Jaguars in week 1 and Washington im week 4. Both of which should have been W's against lesser teams, instead the offense was held in check the entire time. The only reason we beat the Rams on the road was due to a punt recover to ice the game. If you recall the 49ers game on the road. Seattle allowed a HORRIBLE 49ers team to come back and was within a 2 point conversion from tieing the game.

My point is the 2005 team was a great memory, but there were significant holes in that squad on BOTH offense and defense. I think that the 2013 squad is a more sound football team. With better talent on defense and on offense in the passing game for 2013 over 2005.

I'd take 2013- Rice, Harvin, Tate, Baldwin & Miller, McCoy vs 2005- Ingram, Juravicious, Jackson, J.Stevens

I'd take 2013- Unger vs 2005- Tobeck
Obviously - 2005- Jones, Hutch, vs Okung, Carp.

Right side is a wash as both teams have adaquate but not great right sides.

I'd take the combination of 2013- Lynch, Turbin, Robinson, Vs- Alexander, Morris, Strong.
Strong and Robinson are a wash. Alexander beats out Lynch barely. Turbin is a much more gifted player than Morris.

On defense it's not very fair:

I'd take Wagner and KJ over Tatupu and DD Lewis or Jaime Sharper.
Sherm, Browner, Kam, Earl > Significant advantage over 2005 squad of Boulware, Hamlin, Trufaunt, Herndon, M.Manuel

2005 has the advantage on the DL over the 2013 squad.

With the apparent bright future this team has, I'll take the 2013 Hawks any day.

2013 I'm in.

Honestly, I already thought the 2012 team probably could have won this match-up, so this 2013 team is a no brainer.

I don't think there's a single player in the 2005 Defense that would start for the 2013 Seahawks with the exception of 2005 Leroy Hill... and that's possibly only because we haven't drafted yet.
Marcus Tubbs might have made it in, but he's no gimme.

On offense it's a different matter, but Russell Wilson is more enjoyable to watch, and our receiving corps is probably better all around the board, right now I'm not sure if any of the 2005 corps would get into our team, Engram would probably push out Baldwin, but both would be the 4th receiver.
Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

I still have to go with 27 TD Alexander over Lynch and by some distance and our 2005 left side but really those are the only 3 players that would represent a substantial upgrade over what we currently have (and before anyone gets into the Alexander/Lynch debate, I'm basing this PURELY on Alexander's 2005 season vs what I expect from Lynch in 2013, not their careers or styles. Fact is, 2005 Alexander goes down as one of the greatest seasons by a RB of all time, 11th in yards all time and 2nd in TDs, definitely worthy of the MVP).



But that said, the 2005 Seahawks made the Superbowl. It all counts for nothing is the 2013 Seahawks don't, though I know which team I'd rather watch

themunn":2mbxgsz3 said:

Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

Click to expand...

I think the 2005 Jurevicius would break into the lineup simply because his skill set and size would be a great fit for Russell and this particular team.

themunn":g4rpwe30 said:

I don't think there's a single player in the 2005 Defense that would start for the 2013 Seahawks with the exception of 2005 Leroy Hill... and that's possibly only because we haven't drafted yet.
Marcus Tubbs might have made it in, but he's no gimme.

On offense it's a different matter, but Russell Wilson is more enjoyable to watch, and our receiving corps is probably better all around the board, right now I'm not sure if any of the 2005 corps would get into our team, Engram would probably push out Baldwin, but both would be the 4th receiver.
Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

I still have to go with 27 TD Alexander over Lynch and by some distance and our 2005 left side but really those are the only 3 players that would represent a substantial upgrade over what we currently have (and before anyone gets into the Alexander/Lynch debate, I'm basing this PURELY on Alexander's 2005 season vs what I expect from Lynch in 2013, not their careers or styles. Fact is, 2005 Alexander goes down as one of the greatest seasons by a RB of all time, 11th in yards all time and 2nd in TDs, definitely worthy of the MVP).



But that said, the 2005 Seahawks made the Superbowl. It all counts for nothing is the 2013 Seahawks don't, though I know which team I'd rather watch

Click to expand...

I would choose big Walt and Hutch for the LH OL. Justin Smith would be a non-factor regardless of his health.

Lets see

QB goes to 2013
RBs goes to 2005 slightly
WRs goes to 2013
TE goes to 2013
OL goes to 2005 by a huge margin
DL goes to 2013
LB goes to 2013
Secondary goes to 2013 by a huge margin
Coaching goes to 2005

Im taking 2013 Seahawks without question.

LB goes to 2005.

themunn":3s3ko6jh said:

I don't think there's a single player in the 2005 Defense that would start for the 2013 Seahawks with the exception of 2005 Leroy Hill... and that's possibly only because we haven't drafted yet.
Marcus Tubbs might have made it in, but he's no gimme.

On offense it's a different matter, but Russell Wilson is more enjoyable to watch, and our receiving corps is probably better all around the board, right now I'm not sure if any of the 2005 corps would get into our team, Engram would probably push out Baldwin, but both would be the 4th receiver.
Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

I still have to go with 27 TD Alexander over Lynch and by some distance and our 2005 left side but really those are the only 3 players that would represent a substantial upgrade over what we currently have (and before anyone gets into the Alexander/Lynch debate, I'm basing this PURELY on Alexander's 2005 season vs what I expect from Lynch in 2013, not their careers or styles. Fact is, 2005 Alexander goes down as one of the greatest seasons by a RB of all time, 11th in yards all time and 2nd in TDs, definitely worthy of the MVP).



But that said, the 2005 Seahawks made the Superbowl. It all counts for nothing is the 2013 Seahawks don't, though I know which team I'd rather watch

Click to expand...

That is the biggest point of 2013 with Russell and this team they can make plays, keeping you on the edge of your seat

I vote for the 2013 Seahawks with the idea they don't regress from the 2012 Seahawks. The base for the 2013 team is created from a style that I find very enjoyable to watch. The other reason is that the culture and divisional environment is much more highly regarded. jwaters1 did a great job of recapturing the lows of the 2005 season and also there was the criticism in 2005 that the Seahawks played in a non-competitive division. Sins of the father type of association going on there.

Had many arguments with the NFCN and NFCE folks that flaunted SOS as the jockeying for playoff seeding was unfolding. Still remember that joker Bayless saying how a #1 seeded Seahawks team didn't deserve to be in his Superbowl. I doubt anyone will be second-guessing this team if it makes it to the promise land. I like that.

Now they just have to go out there and actually do something because all this talk is worth only the hot air we all are blowing.

DavidSeven":1k6lxcdq said:

themunn":1k6lxcdq said:

Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

Click to expand...

I think the 2005 Jurevicius would break into the lineup simply because his skill set and size would be a great fit for Russell and this particular team.

Click to expand...

At the expense of who?
His skillset is most similar to that of Sidney Rice, with a bit more strength, almost like a quasi-TE - a hybrid of Miller and Rice.
However, we don't need really need a player of that mould as we have the two mentioned above, and looking back, was he really that impressive?
10 TDs is nothing to scoff at yes, but he only had 694 yards on 55 receptions.
For comparison, Rice and Tate both had 7 TDs and 748/688 yards respectively on 50 and 45 receptions. Those were our number 1 and 2 receivers, I expect both tallies to increase significantly this year, even with the addition of Harvin.
I don't think he'd replace any of the three above and certainly not Miller either.

2005 hawks played in the superbowl(* and should have won*) 2013 hawks are playing on paper right now enough said.

I went with 2013. We know what happened to the 2005 squad...

the 2013 squad is young, and most are signed up for 2-3 years if not longer.

The 2005 squad was aging and the window closed quickly.

I like the ceiling of this team over the 2005 one. Russell Wilson has the chance to be dominant; Hass was great, but never dominant.

Oh, and let us not forget, the 2005 team did win the Super Bowl. Just not officially.

I was allowed to pick both....so I did. Different eras. A better question is, which team would you exchange for any other in the NFL at that time? Correct answer: None! So I picked both.

According to FO, the 2005 Hawks was vastly superior on offense to the 2012 Hawks. It's not even close. That team was the #1 offense. The 2012 Hawks defense was vastly superior to the 2005 Hawks. 2012 Hawks had the leagues best defense.

The 2005 team won the Super Bowl. The 2012 team didn't make the Super Bowl.

Until the 2013 team proves they're better than the 2012 squad, the 2005 team is still the best.