JSeahawks wrote:Leroy Hill said this team is at least a touchdown better then the 2005 team. I trust his opinion.
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.
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
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.
NFSeahawks628 wrote:2012 is the most competitive team by far. Did we ever lose by more than 7 points this year?
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.