Do we have a better team Today than the day Pete was hired?

[rcaido]

You are not answering the original question though. The question is were they better when Pete was hired. Lynch was a Carroll trade. Thomas was a Carroll draft pick. You need to answer the question based on the 2009 roster before Carroll was hired.

Looking over the rosters, the only starters who would probably start for this team if they were brought forward at that part of their careers are Hass, Curry and Mebane over what we have now. Unger was not that good in his rookie year and probably would not be able to beat out Gabe Jackson. I guarantee that Carroll would not have chosen Curry that early in the draft, but I would bet that under Carroll, Curry's career would have turned out much better.

i thought we were comparing the first season of Pete. Not sure why you would not include all the transactions and draft that year. In that case, talent wise its no comparison but probably we wont win as many games as that crappy 2009 year. They went 5-11, i think this team at max will win 5 games if we go into the season w/ Geno or Lock.

Its probably going to get worse w/ DK situation. Also, got to see if Penny can stay healthy. Lots of punting & FG this coming season.

 

[JayhawkMike]

So it seems most believe the roster is better. Mora‘s record was 5-11. I guess most of you then believe our record will be better than that?

I like discussion. People can trash me here but I like to hear opinions. Insulting people tells you more about the person making the insults than whom they insult.

 

[Rainger]

So it seems most believe the roster is better. Mora‘s record was 5-11. I guess most of you then believe our record will be better than that?

I like discussion. People can trash me here but I like to hear opinions. Insulting people tells you more about the person making the insults than whom they insult.

Well I am on the record as saying 8 or 9 wins however you can't compare wins. The schedule those Hawks played was not like playing this year's. The NFC west was terrible, we won the division after that season with a 7 and 9 team. The 2009 team would win 2 games against this current schedule.

 

[BASF]

Thank you and no thank you . I don't think i've ever had a harder time watching another player. Some of the stuff I saw this guy whiff on was dumbfounding.

For me it was Terreal Bierria. He cost us four or five games that season with his horrible play.

 

[LeaveLynchAlone]

We have a better roster now. Guys like Tyler, DK and Diggs put us over a bit. There are some good players on this roster, hell even Carson if he can play. We have some great safeties. Some other good defensive players. Fantastic WRs and decent RBs when healthy.

There wasn't much on that 2009 roster worth keeping. Mebane, Unger, and maybe Milloy.

But I am not sure this isn't just the OP being premature instead of wrong.
I expect we will be at or near an equivalent roster to the 2009 team in about 2-3 years.
We aren't there now. But it is probably coming.

 

[LeaveLynchAlone]

We are now.
Pretty sure we won't be later.
It will be pretty difficult to get to that 2009 where there are probably 5-7 players worth continuing with on the whole roster. But we will probably get very close.
That was the whole fear of keeping Pete when he lost his ability to adequately draft and now wasn't even getting much of the upside players anymore.

Be careful in mocking the OP because he might just turn out to be Nostradamus later.

 

[BlueTalon]

i thought we were comparing the first season of Pete. Not sure why you would not include all the transactions and draft that year.

"Do we have a better team Today than the day Pete was hired?"

I thought the title was pretty clear.

 

[themunn]

It's not even close

The only players from that 2009 team still there in 2010 that I would take today over their counterparts are:

Unger
Mebane
Bryant (on the peripheral, as we have some talented youngsters better at rushing, but Bryant set the edge well)
Trufant

Hasselbeck arguably better but much older than Lock & Geno so not sure I make that trade

 

[sc85sis]

Unquestionably yes. John and Pete made about 150 or so personnel transactions between January and the beginning of September in 2010 and kept at a similar pace for the next year or so. That team was completely overhauled after they were hired.

2010 Seattle Seahawks Transactions | ESPN

Visit ESPN to view the Seattle Seahawks team transactions for the current and previous seasons

www.espn.com

 

[Jac]

Fun Fact: The Seattle Seahawks had 0 Pro-Bowlers in 2009. The cupboards were virtually bare. They were old, slow, small, soft, and injury prone.

No comparison.

Courtesy of Tim Ruskell only drafting seniors from the major conferences. He deprived the roster of athleticism and potential.

 

[Ruminator]

A yes for me. It's weird, however, to think how the only Seahawk QB who ever successfully helped (along with the rest of the team) to bring home a Lombardi also bears responsibility for the last few years' so-so drafts (if he did, in fact, have a say on which players got drafted). In essence, he simultaneously boosted our team (via quarterbacking, esp. prior to getting remarried and putting on some bulk) and brought it down (draft "meddling"). Our team is clearly better today than the day Pete was hired, but imagine how even better it probably would be today had the FO made their decisions without RW's input.

 

[Jac]

So it seems most believe the roster is better. Mora‘s record was 5-11. I guess most of you then believe our record will be better than that?

I like discussion. People can trash me here but I like to hear opinions. Insulting people tells you more about the person making the insults than whom they insult.

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. The broader roster is much better and full of young potential. The QB position is the problem and will hold down the win count. They'll presumably address that in next year's draft. I do think that with their potential running game and improved defense, this is going to be a really annoying team to play against.

 

[FrodosFinger]

 

[toffee]

He always say that, and rightfully so.

 

[KinesProf]

Easily.

Really, the only worthwhile pieces that would eventually contribute to the Super Bowl squad that they inherited were Mebane, Ryan, Bryant and Unger. With Bryant and Unger becoming significantly better upon the arrival of the new regime.

And with 2X1's and 2x 2's coming up they should be in a position to target their next QB without an over investment of picks and money on the likes of Flynn and Whitehurst. I get why they did it, turning over stones, but the path to getting the QB they want should be a little more straight this time around (whether or not that player pans out will of course be tbd).

 

[jammerhawk]

Here are the two rosters:

2009 = https://www.statscrew.com/football/roster/t-SEA/y-2009

2022 = https://www.seahawks.com/team/roster

Several of the players who were of some time good quality on the 2009 roster were quickly jettisoned/cut or traded by PC/JS after the 2009 season as they were old and done, used up b/c of injury, or just poor fits. That 2009 team was a terrible quality team at almost every position, save for about 6 players. The team was in cap purgatory as well b/c of abysmal cap management. The team now has managed to eat the dead money of both Wilson and Wagner and has $17 million in available cap with 3 rookie deals remaining to be accounted for. In terms of logic and reasoned assessment removing the anti Pc/JS bias from the calculation the team is far better now than back in 2010 when this FO took over. Besides they went to 2 SBs and won one and a have been an almost perennial playoff team since.

If the team now under construction for this season is examined the only seriously deficient position in terms of quality depth is at QB. They go into the 2023 draft with 5 picks in the first 3 rounds and a very large available cap for FA acquisitions as well.

 

[toffee]

Fun Fact: The Seattle Seahawks had 0 Pro-Bowlers in 2009. The cupboards were virtually bare. They were old, slow, small, soft, and injury prone.

No comparison.

And yet, there are 6 votes for the 2009 team being better, quite speechless.

 

[JayhawkMike]

The only all pro we had last year was Bobby who is gone. Unless I’m reading this wrong.

2021 All-Pro Team: Jonathan Taylor, T.J. Watt, Cooper Kupp highlight roster

So most think we are better when we compare player to player but compared to other teams we are the same or worse as then?

 

[jammerhawk]

The anti-Pete bias is very strong from a vocal minority here.

Player to player position group to position group this year's team is better than the team from 2009

 

[Lagartixa]

The only all pro we had last year was Bobby who is gone. Unless I’m reading this wrong.

2021 All-Pro Team: Jonathan Taylor, T.J. Watt, Cooper Kupp highlight roster

So most think we are better when we compare player to player but compared to other teams we are the same or worse as then?

@Fade had mentioned the Pro Bowl in this thread, and now we're talking about All-Pros, so here's a source for reviewing the two things, just to make sure we're all clear on the differences:

All-Pro - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pro Bowl - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To summarize it in terms Wilson fans can understand, Russell Wilson has been selected (as a player or an alternate) for the Pro Bowl nine times in his career, but he has only been second-team All-Pro once, and he's tied with me in number of times being first-team All-Pro.

Including alternates, the Seahawks had four players selected for the 2022 Pro Bowl (after the 2021 season): Wagner and Diggs, plus Wilson and Duane Brown as alternates. For what it's worth, the Seahawks had seven players selected for the 2021 Pro Bowl (after the 2020 season): Wilson, Metcalf, Wagner, Adams, Diggs, Bellore (ST), and Ott. That left the Seahawks tied with Baltimore, Kansas City, and Green Bay for the most players any team had selected.

The Seahawks had zero players selected for the 2010 and 2011 Pro Bowls (after the 2009 and 2010 seasons, respectively).