If we finish 15-1...

skater18000 · Nov 20, 2013

Russell will be one victory away from having the best winning percentage of all time.

He currently sits at 3rd all time with a record of 21-6 behind. Wouldn't that be awesome if Russell had the best winning percentage of all time, and of course he owns the best home winning pecentage of all time.

RolandDeschain · Nov 20, 2013

He has already won the award for stealing my heart.

*swoon*

MizzouHawkGal · Nov 20, 2013

Be damn hard to top Otto Graham and the other guy...68-16 or something more ridiculous.

skater18000 · Nov 20, 2013

KCHawkGirl":19nf2463 said:
Be damn hard to top Otto Graham and the other guy...68-16 or something more ridiculous.

Russell's 6 games away from taking the lead though

themunn · Nov 21, 2013

That's a record that is worthless before you retire though, since it's one you can lose again.

I thought this thread was going to be the question I was going to ask - if the Seahawks finish 15-1 AND win the Superbowl... based on how they've played so far, how would they rank in the pantheon of great teams? Only three other teams have won 18 games in a season, only two of them won the Superbowl. The 84 49ers, the 85 Bears and the 07 Patriots.

Are we that level? Obviously, if we win, yes IMO. But will others see it like that?

scutterhawk · Nov 21, 2013

KCHawkGirl":261awzsw said:
Be damn hard to top Otto Graham and the other guy...68-16 or something more ridiculous.

Not too much impressed with the records in days of old.
At least not after listening to Steve Largent, and hearing him go on about how much Bigger, and Faster the players are nowadays, as compared to the times that he was tearing it up, ALTHOUGH he did say that he thought that he would stillhave been able to compete with the huge and athletic monster Corners that are now playing the games, but he said that he had his doubts that he could have been as effective, and made the same kind of impact if he had to face the same kind of players back in his hay-day.

RiverDog · Nov 21, 2013

skater18000":1cx4w5f1 said:
Russell will be one victory away from having the best winning percentage of all time.

He currently sits at 3rd all time with a record of 21-6 behind. Wouldn't that be awesome if Russell had the best winning percentage of all time, and of course he owns the best home winning pecentage of all time.

I could care less about individual stats and honors. Just give me a Lombardi. That's all I want.

kearly · Nov 21, 2013

themunn":3p0efuhc said:
That's a record that is worthless before you retire though, since it's one you can lose again.

I thought this thread was going to be the question I was going to ask - if the Seahawks finish 15-1 AND win the Superbowl... based on how they've played so far, how would they rank in the pantheon of great teams? Only three other teams have won 18 games in a season, only two of them won the Superbowl. The 84 49ers, the 85 Bears and the 07 Patriots.

Are we that level? Obviously, if we win, yes IMO. But will others see it like that?

At 18-1? They'd better.

LawlessHawk · Nov 21, 2013

scutterhawk":39vz03yg said:
Not too much impressed with the records in days of old.
At least not after listening to Steve Largent, and hearing him go on about how much Bigger, and Faster the players are nowadays, as compared to the times that he was tearing it up

Theory of Relativity??

The Radish · Nov 21, 2013

LawlessHawk":spgfjx58 said:
scutterhawk":spgfjx58 said:

Not too much impressed with the records in days of old.
At least not after listening to Steve Largent, and hearing him go on about how much Bigger, and Faster the players are nowadays, as compared to the times that he was tearing it up

Click to expand...

Theory of Relativity??

I'm just the opposite, seeing these older records and looking at what they had to work with in those days. Some really bug me like the most yards by a running back. they gave the record to a guy that barely broke it in 16 games while OJ made his yards in a 14 game season. I think they should show that difference.

I think records like that they should list as yards gained in 14 & 16 game seasons.

:les:

MizzouHawkGal · Nov 21, 2013

The Radish":ttyt8we0 said:
LawlessHawk":ttyt8we0 said:

scutterhawk":ttyt8we0 said:

Not too much impressed with the records in days of old.
At least not after listening to Steve Largent, and hearing him go on about how much Bigger, and Faster the players are nowadays, as compared to the times that he was tearing it up

Click to expand...

Theory of Relativity??

Click to expand...

I'm just the opposite, seeing these older records and looking at what they had to work with in those days. Some really bug me like the most yards by a running back. they gave the record to a guy that barely broke it in 16 games while OJ made his yards in a 14 game season. I think they should show that difference.

I think records like that they should list as yards gained in 14 & 16 game seasons.

:les:

Most definitely it's just like baseball with the 154/162 game seasons. Didn't the NFL start out with 12 game seasons?

fenderbender123 · Nov 21, 2013

The Radish":262ybr7k said:
LawlessHawk":262ybr7k said:

scutterhawk":262ybr7k said:

Not too much impressed with the records in days of old.
At least not after listening to Steve Largent, and hearing him go on about how much Bigger, and Faster the players are nowadays, as compared to the times that he was tearing it up

Click to expand...

Theory of Relativity??

Click to expand...

I'm just the opposite, seeing these older records and looking at what they had to work with in those days. Some really bug me like the most yards by a running back. they gave the record to a guy that barely broke it in 16 games while OJ made his yards in a 14 game season. I think they should show that difference.

I think records like that they should list as yards gained in 14 & 16 game seasons.

:les:

One thing I always point out when somebody downgrades stats and performances of players of the old days is that if that player had been born in today's evolution of mankind and with all the equipment, training, technology and all-around know-how to tune an athlete, they would be even better.

TwistedHusky · Nov 21, 2013

Go watch some film of NFL games in the 80s, or worse, the 70s.

DBs were practically allowed to impale someone on a pickaxe in an attempt to stop people from catching the ball.

Largent would have flourished in a system where you can barely impede the progress of a WR vs an older era where you could literally closeline receivers to keep them from being able to catch the ball.

Players are certainly bigger and faster, but the rules of the game are so slanted in favor of the offense that the records don't matter anymore. Offensive players get more possessions because current rules give them more opportunities for first downs and for the TDs that follow. Remember when Kurt Warner was putting up 300+ yd passing games routinely and it was this amazing accomplishment? Now QBs routinely rip past the 300 yd mark and nobody bats an eyelash.

I truly believe that offensive production is inflated by the changes in rules and officiating practices (as well as # of games).

Largent would have done just fine.

Lieutenant Dan · Nov 21, 2013

TwistedHusky":226beeqs said:
Go watch some film of NFL games in the 80s, or worse, the 70s.

DBs were practically allowed to impale someone on a pickaxe in an attempt to stop people from catching the ball.

Largent would have flourished in a system where you can barely impede the progress of a WR vs an older era where you could literally closeline receivers to keep them from being able to catch the ball.

Players are certainly bigger and faster, but the rules of the game are so slanted in favor of the offense that the records don't matter anymore. Offensive players get more possessions because current rules give them more opportunities for first downs and for the TDs that follow. Remember when Kurt Warner was putting up 300+ yd passing games routinely and it was this amazing accomplishment? Now QBs routinely rip past the 300 yd mark and nobody bats an eyelash.

I truly believe that offensive production is inflated by the changes in rules and officiating practices (as well as # of games).

Largent would have done just fine.

Great post, but in addition, all things be equal, Largent himself playing in this age would also be stronger and more 'fit' if you like, in line with current team strength and conditioning practices. It's interesting to imagine him stronger and yes, a bit faster...and man-handled less.

BlueTalons · Nov 21, 2013

themunn":2b3drkc6 said:
That's a record that is worthless before you retire though, since it's one you can lose again.

I thought this thread was going to be the question I was going to ask - if the Seahawks finish 15-1 AND win the Superbowl... based on how they've played so far, how would they rank in the pantheon of great teams? Only three other teams have won 18 games in a season, only two of them won the Superbowl. The 84 49ers, the 85 Bears and the 07 Patriots.

Are we that level? Obviously, if we win, yes IMO. But will others see it like that?

Yep and nobody talks about the 1998 Vikings, the 2004 Steelers, or the 2011 Packers...gota have the Lombardi!

If we finish 15-1...

skater18000

Member

RolandDeschain

Well-known member

MizzouHawkGal

Well-known member

skater18000

Member

themunn

Well-known member

scutterhawk

Well-known member

RiverDog

Well-known member

kearly

New member

LawlessHawk

New member

The Radish

New member

MizzouHawkGal

Well-known member

fenderbender123

Well-known member

TwistedHusky

Well-known member

Lieutenant Dan

Member

BlueTalons

New member

Similar threads

Latest posts