Historically Speaking (Seahawks Wise) How Good Are We?

Throwdown":18upcv6i said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Spleenhawk2.0":mi4xslcf said:

Scottemojo":mi4xslcf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

SalishHawkFan":9oh6x674 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Uffda":jqsunthi said:

Thinking this team is better then the SB team...just that everyone else has gotten better too.

Click to expand...

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.

Aros":1jicc55v said:

drdiags":1jicc55v said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

sutz":2pxg40gb said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 Worlds":3cgpcmje said:

sutz":3cgpcmje said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.