Lots of people (not necessarily here) said this is/was the best Seahawks team ever. Agreed? Not I. The funnest to watch hell yes I've seen bad teams and really good teams (2005) and still think the 2005 team was the best ever. If they made the Super Bowl and lost, sure maybe but does anyone still think this is the best team we've had? The 2005 team was amazing! Clutch, balanced and downright good! A finesse team. This year we are all that except clutch. Yes we had some amazing come backs but Ive never seen a team fold and lose the game so many times when they should have won. Literally every loss was due to the lack of closing. I'm sure many will disagree with me but games like AZ Detroit Miami and STL were literally lost in the last minute. Hell, even the SF loss we folded in the end. The reason being is youth and that's a good reason to choke I guess. Young guys need to learn how to finish and I think they will with experience. This team was so damn good but couldn't finish thus this is where we sit today

Leroy Hill said this team is at least a touchdown better then the 2005 team. I trust his opinion.

I'll go with the only team that made the SB

Your forgetting that that 2005 team had 2 playoff games at home. If we held on for 30 more seconds and beat ATL than I'd say without a doubt this was the best team. I don't beleive that 2005 team would have won on the road in the playoffs.

Just looking at the regular season this was the 3rd best season in Seahawks history.

I'd still give 2005 the edge for getting to the SUper Bowl. 2013 will be better than 2012. I guess this season proves more than anything the importance of home field advantage in the playoffs. Something hopefully we can do in 2013.

This was as rabid as I've been since 2005. So for me, this is at least equal to that one. And the excitement of having the best secondary in the league, including the best corner in the league who is only in his second year, and having a top-notch MLB who just finished his rookie year, AND having found our long-awaited franchise QB in the 3rd round, this season tops them all simply for the promise of tomorrow. I am more excited for the 2013 season than I was for the season following 2005.

'05 got the headline but '12 has the critical acclaim...

If only the falcons had Romo as their field goal holder we might have made it.

I think maybe so. Things just didn't quite pan out this year. If the team can remain relatively injury free next season, I think the '13 Hawks will be the better than '05. I can tell you one thing though - this is the first time since '05 that I felt that once we had the ball we were going to score, and that the other team wouldn't be able to stop it.

The 2005 team would have lost on the road I'm afraid.

I think this team is the best solely because this team knows how to fight through adversity while the 2005 team folded when tough times hit in XL. I never saw the determination fold in this team. Anyone really think the 2005 team would have responded the same way when we were down 20-0 at halftime against Atlanta?

Have watched this team for 37 years. The 05 team was good but had the weakest schedule in the league and then 2 home games against weak teams (in relation to today) The 05 team could not beat this team 3out of 10 times.

Yes, this is the best team in Seahawks history, unfortuantly also the most painfull devestating loss in Seahawk history not counting the Game where the Refs took away a SB.

Can you imagine the 2012 team playing 2005's schedule?

2005 lead the league in sacks. They could get constant pressure, 2012 could not.

2015 followed by, 2014, & 2013

JSeahawks wrote:Leroy Hill said this team is at least a touchdown better then the 2005 team. I trust his opinion.

Then that means this team didn't live up to it's potential.

"Best" is a subjective word. Best to me takes into account;

- talent
- record
- Superbowl

Maybe in 10 years when we have a bigger body of evidence to determine the talent part I'll change my mind. But as of today the 2005 team has two future Hall of Famers, won the NFC West, was 13-3, won the NFC Championship and went to the Superbowl............"best" in every category.

The 1986 team was the best Hawks team in my view. I stand by that. Look at the roster from top to bottom. Conservative coaching in the last 4 weeks cost them a Superbowl. They were the best team in the league at a time when the league was very tough from top to bottom. It was prior to the next expansion, and the Hawks beat the Giants in a slugfest and were clearly a stronger defensive team. Dave Krieg's hot and cold nature and Knox's penchant for establishing the run game with 3 or 4 minutes left were the hard part. But that team was great. Better than 2005 in my view, and if they had been in the NFC would have rolled to a Superbowl win.

I suspect Blue Talon will agree with me and others around back then may as well......at the end of the season, the '86 team was the best Seahawks team I've ever seen. They rolled the Donkeys (something like 41-17) who made the SB that season and beat the Vagiants who won it.

EDIT: Posted this before seeing Shark's post right above mine. We agree obviously.
By the way Shark, are you sure it wasn't the miuddle of the season that was the problem. I know for sure they rolled Denver the last game of the season.

SharkHawk wrote:The 1986 team was the best Hawks team in my view. I stand by that. Look at the roster from top to bottom. Conservative coaching in the last 4 weeks cost them a Superbowl. They were the best team in the league at a time when the league was very tough from top to bottom. It was prior to the next expansion, and the Hawks beat the Giants in a slugfest and were clearly a stronger defensive team. Dave Krieg's hot and cold nature and Knox's penchant for establishing the run game with 3 or 4 minutes left were the hard part. But that team was great. Better than 2005 in my view, and if they had been in the NFC would have rolled to a Superbowl win.

I assume you mean 4 weeks in the middle of the season, rather than the last 4 weeks. That team won its last 5 pretty convincingly.

For the record, this year's team allowed fewer points, scored more points, and played just as difficult a schedule as that 1986 team.

Yeah, sorry. I meant to say that they hit that 4 game patch later on that killed them. I knew it wasn't the last 4 weeks. I knew it was 4 weeks though, and I knew it wasn't at the beginning of the season. They were playing great, hit a skid, and then were playing the best ball in the NFL but failed to qualify for the playoffs which was a real tragedy. Every team in the league breathed a serious sigh of relief when they didn't qualify for the playoffs. i think they would have rolled everybody and easily won the Superbowl, and so did most major writers. As I said before, some people had them ranked as the best team in the league at the end of the regular season, yet they didn't make the playoffs.

I compare that team to this year, where if they had just gotten it together for one little week, then things would have been much different. That 4 game skid killed them, but I believe Easley was injured at different points as that was his last full season and he was essentially playing with a half of a kidney and other injuries. That defense was just freaking ridiculous.

The 2012 team. Granted the defense folded in the last minute in some games...but I really like the ability of this team to come back and win games in the 4th quarter.

1984 team was pretty damn good. Played in an extremely tough division.
The Broncos where 13 and 3 ,
the Raiders were 11 and 5 plus Superbowl champs
I believe the other two team finished 500 or better
Even playing in such a tough division we finished 12 and 4

Our defense that year had 64 TOs, yes 64 turnovers

And they had all this success with Warner on IR. Imagine if he was healthy

JSeahawks wrote:Leroy Hill said this team is at least a touchdown better then the 2005 team. I trust his opinion.

Silent screaming while clutching at my ears. Roland understands.

warden wrote:1984 team was pretty damn good. Played in an extremely tough division.
The Broncos where 13 and 3 ,
the Raiders were 11 and 5 plus Superbowl champs
I believe the other two team finished 500 or better
Even playing in such a tough division we finished 12 and 4

Our defense that year had 64 TOs, yes 64 turnovers

And they had all this success with Warner on IR. Imagine if he was healthy

Oh yes, 1984, the year I became a Seahawk fan after watching them shut out the Chargers on Monday Night Football. Man that team was fun to watch.

SharkHawk wrote:The 1986 team was the best Hawks team in my view. I stand by that. Look at the roster from top to bottom. Conservative coaching in the last 4 weeks cost them a Superbowl. They were the best team in the league at a time when the league was very tough from top to bottom. It was prior to the next expansion, and the Hawks beat the Giants in a slugfest and were clearly a stronger defensive team. Dave Krieg's hot and cold nature and Knox's penchant for establishing the run game with 3 or 4 minutes left were the hard part. But that team was great. Better than 2005 in my view, and if they had been in the NFC would have rolled to a Superbowl win.

The 86 team would have won the bowl. Team was hitting on all cylinders by years end. If I recall they destroyed the Broncos the last game of the year. I also remember the Giants game which we won too. We beat both SB teams.

Yes, I think the Giants game was a slugfest. Like 13-10 or something, and the Broncos game was an absolute thrashing. The Hawks were clearly the better team against the Giants though, even though it was a close game. I wish I felt like looking up that season, but I'm just burned out. That season was a real downer at the end.

The teams in the next few seasons were also good. We got screwed in Houston on a clear INT by Fredd Young that would have sealed the deal, but even on replay the refs said "inconclusive". I've not supported NFL referees since. Every time they threaten strike I hope they do so and get fired and the whole system gets replaced, and it all started on that day in Houston in 87 or 88. It was criminal. That was a really good defensive team.

DVOA says this years team is better...
And leeeeroy........ at least a touchdown better.
that's 2.... and my opinion is 3... so this is done.. lock it up.

SharkHawk wrote:Yes, I think the Giants game was a slugfest. Like 13-10 or something, and the Broncos game was an absolute thrashing. The Hawks were clearly the better team against the Giants though, even though it was a close game. I wish I felt like looking up that season, but I'm just burned out. That season was a real downer at the end.

The teams in the next few seasons were also good. We got screwed in Houston on a clear INT by Fredd Young that would have sealed the deal, but even on replay the refs said "inconclusive". I've not supported NFL referees since. Every time they threaten strike I hope they do so and get fired and the whole system gets replaced, and it all started on that day in Houston in 87 or 88. It was criminal. That was a really good defensive team.

Giant game was 17-12

Cool, and it wasn't even that close. We were clearly the vastly superior team.

Kinda sad that our best team never made the Superbowl

Best? Don't know.

Most resilient? I think that's very likely. The 2012 team never panicked.

I think this team was close to the 2005 squad. This conversation would be different if the Seahawks defense would've stopped the Falcons from charging up the field to kick a 49 yard field goal in less than 30 seconds. Or if by some miracle Russell Wilson's Hail Mary pass with a couple seconds left in the game was caught by Golden Tate, haha...

Anyway.. I think the 2013 Seattle Seahawks has the potential to be the best in franchise history. So far. There is the potential for many great seasons in the near future as well. We only have a few holes to fill. Pass Rush, a franchise receiver and then shore up the offensive line. Oh and we need a defensive coordinator.

Next season, they're going to give Russell Wilson the keys to the offense from day one. Instead of limiting him half the season like they did in 2012. Russ will get most of the snaps in the preseason, giving our offense 4 games to 'click' before they embark on the regular season.

If we have a really good draft this off-season. The Seahawks can OWN the National Football League. No doubt in my mind.

Great post and glad to see some old timers giving love to the 1984 and 1986 Seahawks. For those of you who are interested, here's a great article about the 1986 team by Clare Farnsworth.

http://www.seahawks.com/news/articles/a ... a2e1241750

Personally, I would have to go with the 2005 team as the best. But it could very easily have been the 1984 Seahawks. That team had an incredible defense and Dave Krieg had 3,671 yards and 32 TDs. Unfortunately Krieg also had 24 int., 11 fumbles, and was sacked 42 times, primarily because the team had no running game. The sad thing is running the ball should have been a strength for this team, but Curt Warner tore up his knee in the first game of the season. The previous year (his rookie year) Warner lead the AFC in rushing with 1,449 yards. He also had 14 TDs and 42 catches. With Warner in 1983 the team averaged 132 yards a game rushing. Without him in 1984 it was 103 yards a game. This team lost one of its best (maybe the best) offensive player in the first half of the first game and still managed to go 12-4 while playing in the tough AFC west.

As for best offensive Seahawk team, hard to go against the 2005 team. Hasselbeck at QB and Alexander running behind a HOF left side.

Best defense, the 1984 team. That defense was fifth in points and sixth in yards. It had 38 int. and 25 FR. That's SIXTY-THREE total TOs. It had 55 sacks. It forced 4 or more TOs in 10 of the 16 games.

Sack totals for it's top 4 DLs (keep in mind this was a 3-4 team).
Jeff Bryant - 14.5
Jacob Green - 13.0
Joe Nash (the nose tackle) - 7.0 (and 82 tackles)
Mike Fanning (part time player) - 7.0

Here are the interception totals for the secondary.
Kenny Easley (IMHO should be in the HOF) - 10 with 2 TDs
Dave Brown - 8 with 2 TDs
John Harris - 6
Keith Simpson - 4 with 2 TDs.

I love the teams current defense, but the 1984 defense was lights out.

You can't compare teams, as football changes with time. An example is passing stats. In the '80s the Largent and other top Wrs around the league would catch 70-80 balls. Now, the tops guys are grabbing over 100.
That offense that Holmren ran in 2005 was awesome. Jones, Tobeck, and Hutch paved huge alleys for Alexander. Hasselbeck could pick any secondary apart with those WCO timing routes. He had an unbelievable sense with DJax.
84 would have been incredible if Warner didnt get hurt in the 1st game. The D was filled with playmakers, Knox was our best coach, and Krieg to Largent was unstoppable.
This year's team had a ton of swagger and passion at the end. I'd take Wilson in the clutch over anybody we've had.
Another really good team was(I forget the year) the year we had Moon as our QB. He got hurt in a rediculous rain storm in KC. He was throwing bombs all over everybody to Galloway and McKnight. waters was solid, and our D was pretty sick with Springs, Kennedy, darren Smith, etc. A very fast defense
Anyways, If I had to pick one team.....It'd be the 2013 team. looking forward to it.

Not only is this year's team the best Seahawk team ever, it is the best team in any sport since the beginning of time!!

As a whole, I think this is the best team ever. Not this Season, but as it applies to an era, yes.

The Holmgren era Seahawks really came on strong in 2003, they could beat anyone as that offense was a well-oiled machine, but the defense left a lot to be desired. Made up of aging veterans, there were many players that were at their peak. In 2004, that age and defense showed, costing the Hawks an early exit from the playoffs. The 2005 team was solid and dangerous. That would be the pinnacle of the Holmgren era Seahawks and it took Holmy 6 years to get them there.

The 2012 Hawks were with little weakness. Their downfall was experience more than anything and they still dominated their way through the 2nd half of the season. Built with youth, the 2012 team is really a stepping stone. Unlike the 2004 team, this team is not desperate. They do not need to sign a 40 year old Jerry Rice or aging DE. They have a lot of flexibility and developed over the season. In 2013, this is designed to hit the ground running. No training wheels for Wilson. He just simply needs to keep using what he knows and add a little seasoning to his game. This team will be strong for a long time and renewable.

2012 is the most competitive team by far. Did we ever lose by more than 7 points this year?

NFSeahawks628 wrote:2012 is the most competitive team by far. Did we ever lose by more than 7 points this year?

What separates the 2012 team from the rest is Russell Wilson. The Seahawks have never had a QB with his physical skills and mental approach to the game. The closest is probably Hasselbeck, but Wilson is a much better athlete with a much better arm.

Warren Moon played for the Seahawks and is in the hall of fame. So I'm going to disagree with you heartily here. Warren had more physical skills than about 99% of QB's who have ever played the game, and his mental approach was terrific. Warren was a winner and flat out dominated at times. Anybody who saw him play in the CFL like I did saw a man who was so far ahead of his competition that it was embarrassing that he wasn't in the NFL. It was like Michael Jordan playing hoops against sixth graders. He was that good. Warren was a better NFL player than Matt Hasselbeck and had one of the best seasons for a Seahawk even when he was well past his prime and was a backup to John Friesz to start the year.

Warren was a better athlete than Hasselbeck, had a better arm, had a better career, and was a Seahawk.

Russell Wilson reminds me very much of Jim Zorn. Zorn played on a very run oriented team, but his early years were very very impressive. If he were surrounded by the talent that Russell is, then I think Zorn could have put up some really good numbers for the era. Remember, Zorn led the team to a winning record in their 3rd season, and that was in the days where they didn't have free agency, so you got other team's cast-offs and built through the draft. The team had very little talent and Zorny still led them to a winning record in the franchises infancy. That was nearly as impressive to me as what Russell did this year. Different era, I know... but Zorn was a darn good QB and one heck of a great athlete. He could run as well as Russ and could throw off of either foot with accuracy. Until he busted his leg he was a star and was also talked about as a "next Tarkenton". National media loved him and many people from around the country became Hawks fans because they enjoyed watching Zorn to Largent.

SharkHawk wrote:Warren Moon played for the Seahawks and is in the hall of fame. So I'm going to disagree with you heartily here. Warren had more physical skills than about 99% of QB's who have ever played the game, and his mental approach was terrific. Warren was a winner and flat out dominated at times. Anybody who saw him play in the CFL like I did saw a man who was so far ahead of his competition that it was embarrassing that he wasn't in the NFL. It was like Michael Jordan playing hoops against sixth graders. He was that good. Warren was a better NFL player than Matt Hasselbeck and had one of the best seasons for a Seahawk even when he was well past his prime and was a backup to John Friesz to start the year.

Warren was a better athlete than Hasselbeck, had a better arm, had a better career, and was a Seahawk.

Russell Wilson reminds me very much of Jim Zorn. Zorn played on a very run oriented team, but his early years were very very impressive. If he were surrounded by the talent that Russell is, then I think Zorn could have put up some really good numbers for the era. Remember, Zorn led the team to a winning record in their 3rd season, and that was in the days where they didn't have free agency, so you got other team's cast-offs and built through the draft. The team had very little talent and Zorny still led them to a winning record in the franchises infancy. That was nearly as impressive to me as what Russell did this year. Different era, I know... but Zorn was a darn good QB and one heck of a great athlete. He could run as well as Russ and could throw off of either foot with accuracy. Until he busted his leg he was a star and was also talked about as a "next Tarkenton". National media loved him and many people from around the country became Hawks fans because they enjoyed watching Zorn to Largent.

I agree with you about Moon, but I was only considering QBs who spent the majority of their career in Seattle (so essentially Zorn, Krieg, and Hasselbeck). As for Zorn, I loved watching him play. In the early years Zorn to Largent was the reason to turn on the TV and watch the Seahawks. Well, that and to see what nutty fake field goal they would try that week (Efren Herrera is still one of my all time favorite Hawks). However, I would have to put Wilson ahead of him in terms of physical ability. Wilson is a better athlete with a better arm. Just my opinion.

This doesn't mean I don't respect Zorn and what he accomplished. Winning the offensive ROY award on an expansion team is astonishing. I still think Zorn and Largent should have been added to the Ring of Honor together. Zorn (and Largent) made a bad expansion team interesting and relevant.