Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:26 am 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:15 pm
Posts: 84
So, I was looking up Seahawks stuff today for about the 45th time today and came upon the Seahawks 35th anniversary team and my question is this: How many players on the current roster could replace the guys on the 35th anniversary team?

35th Anniversary Team
QB-Matt Hasselbeck
RB-Shaun Alexander
FB-Mack Strong
TE-John Carlson
WR-Steve Largent
WR-Brian Blades
WR-Bobby Engram
LT-Walter Jones
LG-Steve Hutchinson
C-Robbie Tobeck
RG-Bryan Millard
RT-Howard Ballard
DE-Jacob Green
DE-Michael Sinclair
DT-Cortez Kennedy
DT-Joe Nash
OLB-Chad Brown
OLB-Rufus Porter
ILB-Fredd Young
MLB-Lofa Tatupu
CB-Marcus Trufant
CB-Dave Brown
NB-Shawn Springs
SS-Kenny Easley
FS-Eugene Robinson
K-Norm Johnson
P-Rick Tuten
KR-Steve Broussard
PR-Nate Burleson


A couple of KEY points.

I am always VERY optimistic about the Seahawks and usually lean towards current players.
Key word is COULD replace.
This is not single season, this is GREATEST SEAHAWK of their position.

QB--Our love for Hasselbeck will never cede but the raw talent, desire, and determination Russell Wilson has, has us all believing he will be the best Seahawks QB ever.
RB--The only thing Lynch has against him is the duration. Alexander came drafted as "the guy" but did he ever really become THE FACE like Lynch has become? Finish 2012 like he has started and give us 2 more years similar, I think he takes it.
FB--This one is so tough, Mack was so strong and solid for so many years and became the heart and soul in a way, but geez, everything I've seen and heard of MRob is that he is very much the same way. We've been lucky as far as FB's go.
TE--Miller could definitely overtake this. Carlson was a bright spot of an otherwise forgetful season.
WR--Please.
WR--Sidney Rice has the potential. Can he stay healthy? If he stays with us as a healthy #1 for a bit with a developing Russell Wilson he takes this spot. Too much potential not to.
WR--Bobby was indispensable as a possession receiver. Doug Baldwin fits that mold so well based off last year. He's having a bit of a sophomore slump, but it happens. The way he came in as an UDFA last year, he can still definitely overtake this position.
LT--Next. But Okung deserves a mention. Doesn't mean he won't be great for us. Big Walt is just, well, Big Walt.
LG--Kind of similar as LT. The combo of Okung and Carp has been great, but it's tough to see anyone overtaking Hutch.
C--I think we will all be disappointed if Unger doesn't take this.
RG--Sorry, Milliard was definitely ahead of my time, I was 4 for his last season. I would definitely like to think McQuistan has been solid for us and a healthy Moffitt takes it, but the old timers will have to help here.
RT--Kind of see above. Only has Ballard listed as playing for us from 94-98. A little before my time for a position that doesn't really have much glory to it. Is there really anyone that could be considered greatest Seahawks RT of all time on our roster?


DE--Clemons has been so nasty for us. If he gives us a couple more years like he already has given us, he takes it.
DE--I think we are all disappointed if BI doesn't take it. So much potential and if he just develops a solid counter move to his outside speed rush, he will be a HOFer.
DT--Move on.
DT--Going to have to help me here, but I have to assume a 14 year Seahawks player takes it over anyone we have on the roster.
OLB--In the old Madden games I set a ridiculous amount of records with Chad Brown for sacks, but I gotta believe KJ could overtake this playing at the high level he is only as a second year guy.
OLB--Gotta think Rufus holds the fort here. Leroy has been great but he hasn't overtaken Rufus and I don't think he has the time to.
ILB/MLB--Combined the two. We are all sad if Bobby doesn't take this spot. Lofa was an integral part of our SB team, but injuries just got in the way and the way Bobby is playing as a rookie is just too inspiring.
CB--I think we all know Sherman has the chance to take over as the best CB in Seahawks history. Heck, he's a top CB in the league his second year! He talks the talk, has the swag that we all love, but most importantly he walks it.
CB--Browner has really come into his own this year. He showed great potential last year but had too many penalties. He has definitely chilled out in that regard and could overtake as the 2nd CB. But it's really tough to overtake Trufant, especially since Browner came in as a 27 year old.
NB--Skipping this as I don't really know if it's just a way to say a 3rd CB or a legitimate nickel back.
SS--We all hope Kam stays here and takes this as he very well might. He has been a main part of the new look, take no crap Seahawks defense that we love.
FS--We drafted ET thinking he was going to be a 10+ year Seahawk with many Pro Bowls. He hasn't disappointed yet.
K/P--Hauschka and Ryan can both overtake
KR/PR--Leon Washington I think probably already has overtaken.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:40 am 
* NET Baller *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 17426
Location: Graham, WA
whoaaaaaaaaaaa sir, people are gonna go nuts about the Kenny Easly thing. I never watched dude play, but I'm pretty sure he still belongs as the Seahawks greatest SS.

_________________
Image
3elieve


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:44 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:13 am
Posts: 655
Location: Ballard
Thinking this team is better then the SB team...just that everyone else has gotten better too.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:50 am 
* NET Sage *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
Posts: 953
Throwdown wrote:
whoaaaaaaaaaaa sir, people are gonna go nuts about the Kenny Easly thing. I never watched dude play, but I'm pretty sure he still belongs as the Seahawks greatest SS.


You are absolutely correct sir. Easley was a guy who (if his kidneys didn't go out because he was popping so much ibuprofen before games) WOULD have been a Hall of Famer -- no doubt about it. In terms of his ability to sniff out where the ball was going to be (i.e. his coverage ability), his ability to create timely turnovers, and his ferociousness as a tackler and as a guy who could separate receivers from the ball -- he was right up with Ronnie Lott and the greatest players who have ever played. Seriously, how many Strong Safeties do you ever see who have tons of people wearing T-Shirts around town that say, "Easley Does It"? Right now, if you gave me a choice and said I could have Kam Chancellor or Kenny Easley (in his prime) playing SS for this team right now -- no hesitation, I'd take Easley.

For those who never had the opportunity of seeing him play, I found this 4 minute clip on Youtube. It's well worth your time. After watching it, you tell me who you'd rather have back there ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quxbCQ4m8Ww


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:54 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10044
Kam is good. Easley was a straight up killer. He had Kam's hits plus some, and Clay Matthews energy level. Sorry young dudes, but this one is no contest. If Easley had had Kam's size, Elway would have died a glorious death.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:10 am 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9550
Location: Monroe, WA
Off topic, but I love those old unis. :)

Easley was the man, to be sure. Unfortunately, I lived out of state back then and didn't get a lot of chances to actually see him play. He made a lot of highlight shows, though.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:20 am 
* NET Radish *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
Posts: 18007
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Lets start with Hutch, & Robbie Toebeck. Best we've had in franchise history.

And of course Kenny Easly.

And about 3-4 of those defensive players, including Tez.

And lets not for get Steve Largent.

:les:

_________________
Image
The SuperB owl ladys have left the building with our thanks.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:22 am 
* NET Radish *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
Posts: 18007
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Throwdown wrote:
whoaaaaaaaaaaa sir, people are gonna go nuts about the Kenny Easly thing. I never watched dude play, but I'm pretty sure he still belongs as the Seahawks greatest SS.



The Seahawks version of the best ever DB,,,Dick Butkus.

_________________
Image
The SuperB owl ladys have left the building with our thanks.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:37 am 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 5396
Location: Hagerstown, MD
The only player on the current roster I'd take over anyone on the 35th Anniversary team right now is Ryan over Tuten.

_________________
Image
You are absolutely entitled to state your opinion whenever you wish, and I am absolutely entitled to point out the stupidity of that opinion with the same frequency.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:44 am 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:15 pm
Posts: 84
The Radish wrote:
Lets start with Hutch, & Robbie Toebeck. Best we've had till now.

And of course Kenny Easly.

And about 3-4 of those defensive players, including Tez.

And lets not for get Steve Largent.

:les:



I don't really know what this is saying but regarding Hutch, Cortez, Big Walt, and Largent I said we didn't have anyone that replaces them....

And you'll all have to forgive me on Easley, I wasn't born yet to be able to watch him.

And remember, I didn't say any current players ARE on the current anniversary, but that they eventually COULD make the team.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:48 am 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:15 pm
Posts: 84
SeatownJay wrote:
The only player on the current roster I'd take over anyone on the 35th Anniversary team right now is Ryan over Tuten.


I think you guys are misinterpreting what I was saying.

I'm not saying take any players off the team NOW at this point in their career. But what players COULD possibly make the anniversary after their Seahawks career has played out.

Basically I guess it's an upside/potential thing.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:50 am 
* The Doc *
* The Doc *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
Posts: 8857
Location: Covington, Washington
I think in time Mebane would be rated higher than Joe Nash. Joe was a grinder and a damn good player, but Mebane has taken his game to another level.

As far as Easley, all I can say is teams would not throw at him after awhile. Oakland's Pro-Bowl TE, Todd Christiansen (sp?) moaned about the fact that even when Easley was obviously hurting toward the end of his career, the Raiders refused to throw at him. He could have played FS but the coaches wanted Harris there early in Kenny's career. Easley was making an impact from his rookie season with turnovers and being a physical presence. I feel sorry for those fans that didn't get to see him play. I blame the Kingdome for aiding in his demise, that and his warrior determination to be on the field despite whatever ailments he was feeling.

But again, this is all just about an opinion so I wouldn't disregard someone else for their opinion. These debates happen as your club's history unfolds.

_________________
Image
Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
Wilson will sign for $18M+ (3/4/2014)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:51 am 
* NET Baller *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 17426
Location: Graham, WA
SeaToTheHawks wrote:
SeatownJay wrote:
The only player on the current roster I'd take over anyone on the 35th Anniversary team right now is Ryan over Tuten.


I think you guys are misinterpreting what I was saying.

I'm not saying take any players off the team NOW at this point in their career. But what players COULD possibly make the anniversary after their Seahawks career has played out.

Basically I guess it's an upside/potential thing.


Ohhhhhhhhhhh

Well in that case, I think Bobby Wagner could overtake Lofa, Russell Wilson has a pretty good shot as well.

_________________
Image
3elieve


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:00 am 
NET Practice Squad
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:50 pm
Posts: 49
I like Carlson, but the fact that he was only healthy for two seasons, which he was very productive mind you, makes it tough for me to consider him. My history only goes back to the late 90's. Probably my favorite not necessarily the best is Itula Mili as an over all complete tight end. I think Zach Miller talent wise, might be the best tight end we've never used. Lets hope that changes starting this weeks, building off of last weeks TD.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:00 am 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
Posts: 10181
Location: Vancouver, WA
Throwdown wrote:
whoaaaaaaaaaaa sir, people are gonna go nuts about the Kenny Easly thing. I never watched dude play, but I'm pretty sure he still belongs as the Seahawks greatest SS.

Not only does Kenny belong as the Hawks' greatest SS ever, he belongs in the HOF. When he was right, an arguement can be made for him being the Hawks' best defensive player ever. Yes, possibly better than Tez. And remember, I said "argument" and "possibly".



Ryan has pretty much just about surpassed Tuten. I think Sherman will easily blow by Tru and Brown (I was never as big a fan of his play as a lot of people......he made spectacular int plays but gave up too muh underneath stuff IMO) and Browner could as well. RW can surpass Hass in the long run and though Marshawn may not surpass Shaun in some people's eyes, I'm not so sure I wouldn't choose him first for my team based on atttitude and fire and will and determination.

_________________
From the white sands
To the canyon lands
To the redwood stands
To the barren lands

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:28 am 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:45 am
Posts: 152
Scottemojo wrote:
Kam is good. Easley was a straight up killer. He had Kam's hits plus some, and Clay Matthews energy level. Sorry young dudes, but this one is no contest. If Easley had had Kam's size, Elway would have died a glorious death.


Kenny Easley is virtually the same size as Kam. They are both 6'3", with Easley at about 220 during his playing days. Thirty years ago, Easley was an absolute monster. For comparison sake, Jacob Green - a traditional sized DE of the era - was 6'3" 250 (I always thought he was huge when I was a kid). He is the exact same size as Chris Clemons. Green today would be considered "smallish" to play DE....player size has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. When people said that Easley was a linebacker playing safety....it was almost literally true. Tom Jackson, the premiere MLB of the era, was 5'11" 220. Easley played the run as well as any linebacker, and the pass as well as any cornerback. His pass rushing ability was also dynamic (I even think the Seahawks may have lined Easley up at hybrid DE position once or twice, rushing the QB with his hand in the ground....he had a few sacks, mostly on blitzes). He also ran back punts.

Easley was by far the most dominant safety of the short time he played. Ronnie Lott was always very good, but Easley overshadowed him during the first few years after they were both drafted in the first round.

i agree that Kam is good, and I love his game. But Easley was on track to be one of the best to ever play the game until his career was cut short. No contest


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:48 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10044
Spleenhawk2.0 wrote:
Scottemojo wrote:
Kam is good. Easley was a straight up killer. He had Kam's hits plus some, and Clay Matthews energy level. Sorry young dudes, but this one is no contest. If Easley had had Kam's size, Elway would have died a glorious death.


Kenny Easley is virtually the same size as Kam. They are both 6'3", with Easley at about 220 during his playing days. Thirty years ago, Easley was an absolute monster. For comparison sake, Jacob Green - a traditional sized DE of the era - was 6'3" 250 (I always thought he was huge when I was a kid). He is the exact same size as Chris Clemons. Green today would be considered "smallish" to play DE....player size has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. When people said that Easley was a linebacker playing safety....it was almost literally true. Tom Jackson, the premiere MLB of the era, was 5'11" 220. Easley played the run as well as any linebacker, and the pass as well as any cornerback. His pass rushing ability was also dynamic (I even think the Seahawks may have lined Easley up at hybrid DE position once or twice, rushing the QB with his hand in the ground....he had a few sacks, mostly on blitzes). He also ran back punts.

Easley was by far the most dominant safety of the short time he played. Ronnie Lott was always very good, but Easley overshadowed him during the first few years after they were both drafted in the first round.

i agree that Kam is good, and I love his game. But Easley was on track to be one of the best to ever play the game until his career was cut short. No contest

Sorry, not buying it. Kenny was listed at 206, and I take that as gospel. He never looked as big as Kam.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:08 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 4267
Tez was one of the greatest, but it was never an argument in my mind that Kenny Easley was the greatest defensive player in Seahawk history and should be in the HOF already.

I think Leon Washington already is the best returner this team has ever had, but Burleson was dang good.

Ryan might overtake Tuten, but I'm not sold that he has so far. Bootin Tuten was a good one.

I think Sherman winds up on that list, I don't believe that Browner will.

I suppose there might have been a FB in the history of the NFL as awesome as Mack Strong, but you'll have to one: jog my memory who it was and two: convince me you're right.

Eugene Robinson still ranks as the best FS we've ever had and I really would hate to see him bumped off but if ET's career continues...mind I said continues...to go as well as it started, then he'll knock him off. Last few games haven't been ET's best, this season hasn't been as good as previous, ET has dropped too many INTs, but everyone has ups and downs and it will take a full career to finally tell, but yes, if anyone can knock off Robinson it's ET.

Can Wilson surpass Hass? Sure. But, while I love Hass and he's one of my favorite Hawks of all time because of his great personality, I never thought he was the greatest QB or even belongs on that list. Stats say one thing, having to play for a new franchise back in the days when new franchises took years to get good hurt Zorn's stats. But the eyeball test always told me that Zorn was without a doubt the greatest QB we ever had. Can Wilson surpass Zorn? I'm hoping he can BE the next Jim Zorn.

_________________
Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:18 am 
* The Doc *
* The Doc *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
Posts: 8857
Location: Covington, Washington
As far as FB, I appreciated what Mack Strong did for the organization but John L Williams was one of the most versatile, dynamic players on offense the Seahawks have had. He and Warner were a great combination and John L could surprisingly take it to the house at any moment. I think Strong got voted in due to better familiarity with the 2000's Seahawks. John L was special.

BTW, not going to try to convince anyone that I am right. It is all about opinion.

_________________
Image
Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
Wilson will sign for $18M+ (3/4/2014)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:29 am 
[[ .NET Godfather ]]
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
Posts: 7663
Location: Maple Valley, WA
drdiags wrote:
As far as FB, I appreciated what Mack Strong did for the organization but John L Williams was one of the most versatile, dynamic players on offense the Seahawks have had. He and Warner were a great combination and John L could surprisingly take it to the house at any moment. I think Strong got voted in due to better familiarity with the 2000's Seahawks. John L was special.

BTW, not going to try to convince anyone that I am right. It is all about opinion.


I agree. Love me some Strong but there's a special place in my heart for John L.

Image

_________________
Image

"We're about to be legendary." - Richard Sherman to the Seahawks sideline in the 3rd quarter of SBXLVIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:30 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm
Posts: 3179
Throwdown wrote:
whoaaaaaaaaaaa sir, people are gonna go nuts about the Kenny Easly thing. I never watched dude play, but I'm pretty sure he still belongs as the Seahawks greatest SS.

Yep, if you haven't seen Kenny "THE ENFORCER" Easley play, you missed out on one of the most outstanding for the FS position in the NFL,,Yes there were some other greats back then, but none that could have been considered BETTER.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:31 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 4267
Hey, I'll admit that John L. was special. Had Mack Strong not come around I'd never thought anyone could have bumped John L off that list. Much as I like KRob, he's never going to surpass John L., let alone Mack Strong

_________________
Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:27 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4667
Location: The 5-0
Spleenhawk2.0 wrote:
Scottemojo wrote:
Kam is good. Easley was a straight up killer. He had Kam's hits plus some, and Clay Matthews energy level. Sorry young dudes, but this one is no contest. If Easley had had Kam's size, Elway would have died a glorious death.


Kenny Easley is virtually the same size as Kam. They are both 6'3", with Easley at about 220 during his playing days. Thirty years ago, Easley was an absolute monster. For comparison sake, Jacob Green - a traditional sized DE of the era - was 6'3" 250 (I always thought he was huge when I was a kid). He is the exact same size as Chris Clemons. Green today would be considered "smallish" to play DE....player size has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. When people said that Easley was a linebacker playing safety....it was almost literally true. Tom Jackson, the premiere MLB of the era, was 5'11" 220. Easley played the run as well as any linebacker, and the pass as well as any cornerback. His pass rushing ability was also dynamic (I even think the Seahawks may have lined Easley up at hybrid DE position once or twice, rushing the QB with his hand in the ground....he had a few sacks, mostly on blitzes). He also ran back punts.

Easley was by far the most dominant safety of the short time he played. Ronnie Lott was always very good, but Easley overshadowed him during the first few years after they were both drafted in the first round.

i agree that Kam is good, and I love his game. But Easley was on track to be one of the best to ever play the game until his career was cut short. No contest


Excellent post and something I've been saying for years. Living in Hawaii, I am surrounded by 9er scum (j/k). The argument of who was better; Easley vs. Lott, is one I've always been too out numbered to win. Lott was tough as hell and very special. He also played on a frikin' all star team. Easley, for you young guys, was to his position what Walt was to his. I recall Easley knocking Joe Montana out of the Pro-bowl. The press got on him and tried to convince him the game was meant as "fun". Easley replied "then you invited the wrong MFer".

On a personal level, Easley threw me his jersey in the Kingdome after being told he could not play in the game. He was disgusted and taking off his jersey, I yelled at him and talked him into throwing it to me. He did...and security took it away calling it "property of the Seattle Seahawks". I was also kicked out of the stadium because of my reaction to this.

We treated Easley very poorly and it was the Hawks docs insistance he take copius amounts of advil that did him in. We then attempted to deal him away (Cardinals?). Some may remember this, but Easley wanted to continue playing while undergoing dialysys (sp?). And the 9er fans rave about Lott's finger, LOL. Easley is somewhere right now very proud of the D this 2012 team is playing (for the most part). I hope he one day gets the hall. Few, if any, were ever better at the position.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:59 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4667
Location: The 5-0
SalishHawkFan wrote:
Hey, I'll admit that John L. was special. Had Mack Strong not come around I'd never thought anyone could have bumped John L off that list. Much as I like KRob, he's never going to surpass John L., let alone Mack Strong



Curt Warner could have been our best ever but John L made a very average QB by the name of Dave Krieg a household name. John L did so many things, and as far as complete backs, he was the best, IMO, of this franchise's history. I'm not a big Alexander fan, but I give him honorable mention (based on the gawdy numbers Hutch and Walt paved the way for). Not a fan of Chris Warren either, because of his off-field persona, but behind Walt and Hutch, I believe he too would have been better than SA.

But to the topic...IF Lynch ran behind those two....who knows? What I do know is he would be the starting TB in the pro-bowl and leading the league in yards, annually. Walt and Hutch would have also added about 600 carries to his career as well.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:37 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:32 am
Posts: 1453
Location: Victoria BC
Uffda wrote:
Thinking this team is better then the SB team...just that everyone else has gotten better too.

If we are better than the SB team but everyone else has gotten better as well then it is all relative. Meaning relative all things being equal we are not better, although it feels like it is. This is the problem with comparing era's. You are what you are in the era you are in.

_________________
Seahawks + PC/JS + Russell Wilson = Superbowl XLVIII +


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:06 pm 
* NET Sage *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
Posts: 953
Aros wrote:
drdiags wrote:
As far as FB, I appreciated what Mack Strong did for the organization but John L Williams was one of the most versatile, dynamic players on offense the Seahawks have had. He and Warner were a great combination and John L could surprisingly take it to the house at any moment. I think Strong got voted in due to better familiarity with the 2000's Seahawks. John L was special.

BTW, not going to try to convince anyone that I am right. It is all about opinion.


I agree. Love me some Strong but there's a special place in my heart for John L.

Image


I have to wholeheartedly agree with both the good Doctor and my fellow Todd here. Now I loved Mack Strong and respect him immensely for what he did on the football field and meant to this organization ... BUT John L. Williams is IMO hands down the best FB this team has ever had. John L. not only was able to block like Strong did ... but he also was a surprisingly good runner and had phenomenal hands as a receiver coming out of the backfield. He was actually quite a weapon in the passing game. I remember debates at the time that were placing him right up there next to Tom Rathman, saying basically that it was Rathman and then John L as the best 2 fullbacks in the league. Though he's never gotten the recognition he deserves (nor ever will because he played on some pretty mediocre Seahawk teams) I contend that John L. is one of the best fullbacks to ever play in this league. If he'd had a better supporting cast around him, he might have found himself in the Hall of Fame. He was that good.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:15 am 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9550
Location: Monroe, WA
Nope. I'll go with Mack Strong. Perhaps because John L only played out his rookie deal and moved on, to Pittsburgh IIRC.

IMHO, Mack was more of a pure FB in the classic sense, while John L could have probably played tailback in a pinch.

John L was a great talent, but he ditched the team for greener pastures. Mack had not only talent, but loyalty.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:25 am 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8828
Location: Granite Falls, WA
sutz wrote:
Nope. I'll go with Mack Strong. Perhaps because John L only played out his rookie deal and moved on, to Pittsburgh IIRC.

IMHO, Mack was more of a pure FB in the classic sense, while John L could have probably played tailback in a pinch.

John L was a great talent, but he ditched the team for greener pastures. Mack had not only talent, but loyalty.


Sorry sutz... John L played 8 of his 10 years right here in Seattle. He was a Seahawk and will always be known as a Seahawk.

Not to mention our best fullback ever.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:08 am 
* NET Sage *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
Posts: 953
Tech Worlds wrote:
sutz wrote:
Nope. I'll go with Mack Strong. Perhaps because John L only played out his rookie deal and moved on, to Pittsburgh IIRC.

IMHO, Mack was more of a pure FB in the classic sense, while John L could have probably played tailback in a pinch.

John L was a great talent, but he ditched the team for greener pastures. Mack had not only talent, but loyalty.


Sorry sutz... John L played 8 of his 10 years right here in Seattle. He was a Seahawk and will always be known as a Seahawk.

Not to mention our best fullback ever.


Tech is 100% Correcto there Sutz. John L. only played his last 2 seasons (1994 and 1995) in Pittsburgh because he was long in the tooth from a football standpoint (he was 30 when he left) and the Seahawks decided to move in a new direction. Seriously, that would be like years from now someone faulting Matt Hasselbeck for being a Titan -- not his fault when the TEAM decides not to renew his contract. And you want to know WHY they decided that? Well it's because the Seahawks had this undrafted rookie that the team had signed out of Georgia in 1993 ... who spent the entire '93 season on the practice squad that they really liked. Maybe you've heard of him -- Mack Strong.

Now there's no denying Mack Strong was a heck of a fullback. He went to the Pro Bowl Twice ... but so did John L. Williams (in 1990 and 1991). The reason that I say John L. over Strong though is that John L. was a much more COMPLETE fullback than Strong -- he truly could do it all. He caught 76 passes for 657 yards and 6 TD in 1989 ... he had 73 catches for 699 yards in 1990 ... 61 catches for 499 yards in 1991 ... and 74 catches for 556 yards in 1992. So in addition to being a good runner and extremely good blocker, he was also very much a weapon in the passing game -- an outlet with magnetic hands that I would LOVE to have for a young Russell Wilson right now. Seriously, when you start talking about the greatest fullbacks ever to play in the NFL -- Tom Rathman, Moose Johnson, Mike Alstott, etc. -- John L. is definitely in the conversation there with all of those guys.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]



 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.