2013 Carroll team v.s 2005 Holmgren team

Completely hypothetical of course but what would this scenario look like? Would it be as bad a stomping as we gave the Broncos or would the 05 offense have some success?

I think the 05 team would be able to run on the 13' team and control the game much more, also the game won't start with a safety. It would be much closer but I think the 13' team still wins by double digits. Hasselbeck would have been abused and we didn't have any quality WR in 05

I think it would have been ugly, but not as ugly as it was for the Brocoos. Beast Mode would have gone off. The '05 defense was not that special against the run. The coaching and attention to detail are on a different level under Carroll.

If the game came down to clock management, it would likely end in a tie. ; )

Loved that 05 team but no way do they beat 13. Holmy's (somewhat) predictable play calling would be a joy for Pete to defend and (hide your eyes SA fans) Alexander would be falling at Hass' feet every time he was handed the ball. That's not hating on SA. His patented safety first approach to the game wouldn't net him many yards against this bruising D, IMO.

I'm not sure what the score would be but in my humble opinion it would be ugly.
Our 2013 team would stomp the 2005 team. Our nasty defense would put a hurtin on our finess 2005 offense and I'm not sure our 2005 defense could handle Wilson and Lynch plus Harvin etc...

Love both teams but I just don't think it would be close.
So I'm gonna say...

2013 team - 33
2005 team - 6

I think this would look a lot like the Bronco game, actually. The 05 team might have some more success on the ground, but their dink and dunk passes would get sniffed out and clobbered just like Denver's. Love Hass, but he didn't have the arm to beat this defense. The 05 team didn't have the right type of weapons either (not enough speed). If Holmgren tried to turn this into a slow-paced, ground-and-pound game, then he plays right into Carroll's hands, and the 05 defense would be torched by Wilson & Co. regardless.

I love the 05 team, but I don't think this is a good match up for them at all.

HawkWow":3i609c6a said:

If the game came down to clock management, it would likely end in a tie. ; )

Loved that 05 team but no way do they beat 13. Holmy's (somewhat) predictable play calling would be a joy for Pete to defend and (hide your eyes SA fans) Alexander would be falling at Hass' feet every time he was handed the ball. That's not hating on SA. His patented safety first approach to the game wouldn't net him many yards against this bruising D, IMO.

Click to expand...

I don't know, running behind Walt and Hutch on the left, I think would open some holes. The '13 D wasn't that great at run defense. I think some yardage could be gained. But yea, SA would be a turtle with Kam coming full steam at him.

And I think Hass, Joe J, Engram, D Jack, and Stevens would have got beat up with those crossing routes and short passing game. It would be ugly.

Overall though I think they do much better than the Donkey's.

twisted_steel2":1hi2sx7f said:

I don't know, running behind Walt and Hutch on the left, I think would open some holes. The '13 D wasn't that great at run defense.

Click to expand...

The Seahawks allowed just four rushing TDs all season (tied with Carolina for fewest in the league). The 49ers, for the sake of comparison, allowed 11 rushing TDs. The Seahawks also allowed just six runs of 20 or more yards and a mere 19.7% of the runs against them resulted in first downs. Teams ran on Seattle because they knew they could not throw the ball, but they didn't have much success-- averaging less than four yards per carry.

hawknation2014":387bhpmh said:

twisted_steel2":387bhpmh said:

I don't know, running behind Walt and Hutch on the left, I think would open some holes. The '13 D wasn't that great at run defense.

Click to expand...

The Seahawks allowed just four rushing TDs all season (tied with Carolina for fewest in the league). The 49ers, for the sake of comparison, allowed 11 rushing TDs. The Seahawks also allowed just six runs of 20 or more yards and a mere 19.7% of the runs against them resulted in first downs. Teams ran on Seattle because they knew they could not throw the ball, but they didn't have much success-- averaging less than four yards per carry.

Click to expand...

You've dismissed the two most powerful RT & RG in Seahawks history, as possibly being unable to exploit the 2013 D-line, you do recall the manhandling those two gave other Defenses, giving SA a bunch of Red Zone punch-ins?
2013 Seahawks weren't anywhere near as efficient at scoring in the Red Zone, for where Shaun Alexander and his 1,880 yard Season was money down there.
As I see it, the only way the 05 Hawks beat the 13 hawks would be for the 05 Seahawks to beat the 13 Seahawks Secondary, and IMO, that's where the 05 would likely lose the match.

Putting it in perspective, just imagine the success that Marshawn, & Wilson would have, working behind that 05 O-line, and a Mack Strong led running game for Lynch to follow in the boot.

hawknation2014":3bzx80i5 said:

twisted_steel2":3bzx80i5 said:

I don't know, running behind Walt and Hutch on the left, I think would open some holes. The '13 D wasn't that great at run defense.

Click to expand...

The Seahawks allowed just four rushing TDs all season (tied with Carolina for fewest in the league). The 49ers, for the sake of comparison, allowed 11 rushing TDs. The Seahawks also allowed just six runs of 20 or more yards and a mere 19.7% of the runs against them resulted in first downs. Teams ran on Seattle because they knew they could not throw the ball, but they didn't have much success-- averaging less than four yards per carry.

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what your point is... I'm just saying SA (NFL MVP) running behind 1 Hall of Famer, and a future Hall of Famer, would have created some holes on that D. At least way more running success than Denver. unno:

The Pittsburg Defense couldn't hold the jock straps of the 13 Hawks defense. Having said that. 05 Hawks had trouble against Pitts D. Yea I know about all the bad calls and I am still upset about it. But the 05 Hawks were not good enough to overcome the refs and Pitts D. The 13 version would have.

Therefore I believe 05 Hawks would struggle to get 10 points against 13 Hawks. Denver's O was way better than the 05 Hawks and they couldn't do anything against the 13 Hawks and the safety has nothing to do with Denver's ineptitude.

13 Hawks would crush 05 Hawks. Like the 13 Broncos' the 05 Hawks cruised through a weak schedule and didn't play many tough teams. Their O was padded by weak opponents like Denver.

Love the 05 Hawks but they just are not the same team as 13 version.

A physical team dominates a finesse team in the Superbowl very time. 2013 all the way

rainger":1x8dbvmh said:

The Pittsburg Defense couldn't hold the jock straps of the 13 Hawks defense. Having said that. 05 Hawks had trouble against Pitts D. Yea I know about all the bad calls and I am still upset about it. But the 05 Hawks were not good enough to overcome the refs and Pitts D. The 13 version would have.

Therefore I believe 05 Hawks would struggle to get 10 points against 13 Hawks. Denver's O was way better than the 05 Hawks and they couldn't do anything against the 13 Hawks and the safety has nothing to do with Denver's ineptitude.

13 Hawks would crush 05 Hawks. Like the 13 Broncos' the 05 Hawks cruised through a weak schedule and didn't play many tough teams. Their O was padded by weak opponents like Denver.

Love the 05 Hawks but they just are not the same team as 13 version.

Click to expand...

Yea, the 05 Hawks struggled in that game, but I think it was an anomaly. I think they got so knocked off their game by the calls, out of rhythm, never recovered, maybe not a super fair comparison on how good or bad they really were.

8 out of 10 times, the Hawks beat the Steelers in that game and the Hawks do their normal routine of jumping on top quickly, ball control, and Walt/Hutch control the LOS.

Let's remember the Stealers were the 6th seed that year, and had some amazing luck even getting there. Then had some amazing luck and breaks to get out of there with the win. That game was not really an indication of how good the 05 Hawks were.

Lol

The thought of Hasselbeck, no matter how good he was that year vs the LOB is a funny thought.

2013 team would trample them boys.

His point was contending your comment about the Seahawks run defense.

Sure the Seahawks ranked 7th in the league in yards allowed tied with Denver whom everyone considers has one of the bet run defenses in the league.

In actuality they allowed the least amount of TDs, I mean two of their 4 TDs given up was to the Jags in garbage time. They were very effecient in limiting YPC.

And the funny thing is had Quinn not been cute in toying around with pass rush formations during the Rams/Bucs games as well as Bobby Wagner playing 100%... if the Seahawks just allowed their average of about 104 yards in those games, they've would have ended up with the 4th best run defense in the NFL.

So, overall Seahawks actually had a great run defense in all but 2-3 games last year, where they let things get out of hand.

It would be closer than some are saying. The 13 defense would have a tough time stopping the 05 running attack. Hass is crafty for sure, the 05 teams would put up some points definitely. And for people saying "we did this to denver and they're better" We also gave up 34 points to the colts, and heck 24 points to Tampa freaking Bay at home. One game doesn't tell the full story.

People really seem to undervalue just how could that offense was when it was clicking and of course no one gives SA his dues as the best RB in Hawks history. Did he run behind an elite line? Yep. Was he elite himself? Yes.

And another things, our redone offense this year was not good. When we got close, we kicked FGs. The 05 defense had a great bend but don't break defense where they got very good when teams got in close.

twisted_steel2":1nzws4dg said:

hawknation2014":1nzws4dg said:

twisted_steel2":1nzws4dg said:

I don't know, running behind Walt and Hutch on the left, I think would open some holes. The '13 D wasn't that great at run defense.

Click to expand...

The Seahawks allowed just four rushing TDs all season (tied with Carolina for fewest in the league). The 49ers, for the sake of comparison, allowed 11 rushing TDs. The Seahawks also allowed just six runs of 20 or more yards and a mere 19.7% of the runs against them resulted in first downs. Teams ran on Seattle because they knew they could not throw the ball, but they didn't have much success-- averaging less than four yards per carry.

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what your point is... I'm just saying SA (NFL MVP) running behind 1 Hall of Famer, and a future Hall of Famer, would have created some holes on that D. At least way more running success than Denver. unno:

Click to expand...

My point was the Seahawks did have a GREAT run defense last season:

Allowed only four rushing TDs- tied with Carolina for best in the NFL.
Allowed only six runs of 20 or more yards- tied for 4th best in the NFL.
Allowed only 3.9 yards per carry- tied with the 49ers for 7th best the NFL.
Allowed only 19.7% of their opponent's runs to gain a First Down- eighth best in the NFL.

The 2005 Seahawks is like the 2013 Broncos, but with a much better running back, better OL (including a HOF tackle), and a less prolific (though still good) passing attack. Both had mediocre defenses. Like the Broncos, the 2005 Seahawks were a finesse team, some might even say they were "soft", though not as soft as the Broncos because the Seahawks could run the ball better.

Both the 2005 Seahawks and 2013 Broncos had the #1 offense in points scored. Seattle was #2 in yards, Denver #1 in yards. On defense, Seattle was #16 in yards, Denver #19 in yards. So all of that is comparable. The one big difference is their respective defensive rank on points scored: Seattle was 7th, Denver 22nd. So Seattle gave up lots of yards, but not many points, whereas Denver was worse on points than yards (I don't know if that could be due to a larger number of possessions in Denver games?).

So I see the 2013 Seahawks beating the 2005 Seahawks in a similar manner as they beat the 2013 Broncos and Saints, though not with as large a margin of victory.

Bobby Engram was the 2005 Seahawks leading receiver. He's one of my favorite Seahawks of all time, but would he and Darrel Jackson do better against LOB than Denver's receivers? I don't think so. But the 2005 Seahawks had a great OL, unlike Denver, so that would help since Hasselbeck would have more time to throw than Manning did. As for Shaun Alexander, the Seattle media always declared him to be soft, unjustly, but I think the 2013 Seahawks would be able to at least contain him.

On the other side of the football, the 2005 Seahawks were ranked 16th. The 2013 Seahawks didn't have much trouble with defenses ranked that low (they struggled with top-5 defenses at times, which they played a lot!). So I think the 2013 Seahawks would put up decent to impressive points on the 2005 Seahawks.

2013 Seahawks would win at least seven out of ten times. Finesse teams don't match up well against the 2013 Seahawks. As for margin of victory, could be anywhere from 3 to 24 point margin in any given game, typical margin about 11 or so.

Escamillo":2fb7xuie said:

The 2005 Seahawks is like the 2013 Broncos

Click to expand...

Those two teams aren't alike at all.

Hawkfan77":1tevubub said:

People really seem to undervalue just how could that offense was when it was clicking and of course no one gives SA his dues as the best RB in Hawks history. Did he run behind an elite line? Yep. Was he elite himself? Yes.

Click to expand...

Agree.