Would our defense be more widely viewed as "the best" if...

Serious question: Would people be more inclined to consider this one of the best defenses in history if we'd actually allowed Denver to look more like an explosive offense and less like an offense that could be shut down (quite easily apparently) by a fast, physical defense that wasn't going to let them dictate how the defense plays?

Just seems like so many people are now inclined to say that Denver were a bunch of pretenders because we beat them so badly. As a result, our reputation takes a hit because we didn't beat a great team, we just beat a good team that nobody else had figured out.

Am I over thinking this? I think it's plain as day.

No, people have been saying we belong in the conversation BECAUSE of how we handled the best Offense of all time. Before the Super Bowl, most people just said we were "great" and "elite", but because of the statement the Seahawks D made, they rose in the rankings for most people.

This is the way we wanted it and it should be. If we beat the 43-17, it wouldn't have been as impressive.

I've been hearing people say we're in the discussion with the '85 Bears. History will look back on this D a little more fondly IMO than it seems like right now.

if the seahawks would've gotten a shutout 43-0
It would've looked more impressive.
I don't follow your logic

Yeah, I wanted the shutout badly and was bummed we let them score. Still a slaughter by a great D anyway.

And just remember...which offenses did the Bears and the Ravens play against?

Axx":2y4630po said:

if the seahawks would've gotten a shutout 43-0
It would've looked more impressive.
I don't follow your logic

Click to expand...

In listening to some (radio, nfln, espn) I hear a lot of guys now talking about the Denver offense in the way that they should have been before the game. They've played bad defenses, they were not able to get their YAC because we can tackle, Manning looked "old", etc.

Just a lot of diminishing Denver's offense, opposed to recognizing the defense. Plenty of people are giving our defense praise, don't get me wrong.

My point is directly related to how our defense absolutely destroying this offense seems to have diminish just how good our defense is perceived because a lot of people think it just means Denver wasn't that good after all.

I could be wrong, just throwing it out there because that's how I've read some of the coverage since.

[edit] and I'm not saying Manning sucks so please, nobody try to take it that route.

253hawk":qpdfyrgt said:

And just remember...which offenses did the Bears and the Ravens play against?

Click to expand...

The Ravens didn't play a great Offense in the Super Bowl, but in the playoffs they dominated the #2 and #3 (I believe) offenses in the NFL at that time. Held Denver to 3 points, the Titans to 10 points, and the Raiders to 3 points. Then they allowed 7 points in the Super Bowl.

The Broncos and Raiders had powerhouse offenses at the time, so that was impressive they held them each to 3 points. It would have been like us holding the Saints to 3 points (which for a while it looked like we could).

The Bears also had 2 shutouts in the playoffs. One against the NFL's leading rusher that year (held to 32 rushing yards in the game) & Phil Simms at QB in the Giants game. Then in the NFCC they held Eric Dickerson and the Rams to 130 total yards of Offense. 2 playoff shutouts! And then only allowed 10 points in the Super Bowl.

So they did play some good Offenses and went up against Hall of Fame players.

These Defenses were insane and I have no problem if we are ranked behind them. But they are the only two I would put us behind.

Absolutely not.
You have got to consider that, 1.> Peyton is a wily Veteran, and supposedly is able to speed read Defenses better than anyone else in the League, + he's considered the best Quarterback to play the game EVER, Yet, the Seahawks held him to 8 points and basically those were garbage time points.

And 2.>He threw for over 5,000 yards, and a record smashing scads of Touchdowns this last Year, and yet, this #1 Defense made him look like a rookie.
Now there are still going to be those that say the Seahawks are pretty good, BUT, there will be those that will follow it up with their opinion of who they consider as better, or best Defenses EVER.
The Seahawks are unarguably, right up there at the top, and with this League having gone "Pass Happy", Pete Carroll has answered to how you can neutralize those teams that don't utilize some running game, to help bolster their Offensive attack stats.

Jim Rome actually said it best. Something to the effect of this wasn't the 85 Bears beating up Steve Grogan or the 2000 Ravens throwing around Kerry Collins. This was a team manhandling a man whose face belongs on Quarterback Mount Rushmore and and offense that broke tons of records. I think allowing 8 points was letting them off easy.

A shut out and the hawks are the owners of the greatest defensive performance ever

Axx":2aj8bdzr said:

if the seahawks would've gotten a shutout 43-0
It would've looked more impressive.
I don't follow your logic

Click to expand...

This. I was hearing some talk on ESPN radio and they were saying the Bears only allowed 7 points in that entire playoffs and SB win. 3 games....7 points.

Funny though, they're talking about us being as good as them straight up. The objective guys are saying the front 7 for the Bears was better, but our back end was way better. No one is accounting for all of the rule changes. Hell, even the 2000 Ravens were allowed to hold WRs and contact them downfield.

Imagine this secondary if they were allowed to get away with MORE.