NFL Players and Executives Call Seattle Next Dyanasty

[Bigpumpkin]

Definition of a dynasty....

When the opposing team sees your name on their schedule, they automatically assume a "loss".

 

[kearly]

With respect to Scotte and many others, everyone pulling the "2010 Packers were a potential dynasty" card is indulging in revisionist history. The 2010 Packers went 10-6, a record that would have missed the playoffs in a lot of NFC divisions the past couple years. Their DVOA that season only ranked 4th, a 23.0 score that is dwarfed by the 38.7 and 40.0 DVOA scores the Seahawks posted the last two seasons, the best by any team back to back in 17 years. Green Bay was a deserving Champion, but they were not an exceptional one.

Their defense, while good, only scored about half the distance from the median that Seattle's just did. It was built mostly around ordinary players. There were just two guys you could say were elite, Matthews and Woodson, and Woodson was nearing the end of his prime. Capers did have a good track record at the time but always in short stints. Flash forward to today, and most Packers fans want him gone. Their 2010 defense and team on the whole compares pretty well to New Orleans last season, a good team but one that didn't even win their division and struggled to beat the Eagles in the playoffs.

The Packers were a young team. But aside from Rodgers and Matthews, not many of those young players were actually all that good. Almost all the playoff games they've won in the Rodgers era have been very close games. They didn't dominate, they survived. And even when their defense was good, they were a finesse team. Which is why I never bought into them as a true dynasty.

Regarding the Patriots, they ARE a dynasty. Three in four years gets them there. The two silver medals they got in 2007 and 2011 should factor into the discussion as well. Funny enough, some of their best teams came in seasons when they didn't win the Superbowl. In 2010 they had an astounding 44 DVOA, and didn't even make the big game.

I think the Patriots ended as a threat to win the SB after 2011. Since then, they have been good but never after that were they great. That's a 10 year run making the SB every other year. I only see positive lessons to learn from the Patriots, not negative ones. Every team has to evolve over time and the Patriots have done this as well as anybody. If not for a helmet catch, we'd be saying that the Patriots dynasty peaked in 2007.

 

[HawkWow]

I'll spell it out for you. I am concerned about the long term negative impact on a potential "dynasty", which is the topic of this thread, that missing on Michael, Irvin, Hill, Carpenter and Moffitt could have for us. So far so good, we won A SB, but again my point, Richardson and Britt will have to contribute if we are to continue winning SBs. You argue this? Do understand these high rd guys are not making peanuts like Sherm and Wilson have been. Them sitting around costs us other players.

In closing: We have to get more productivity out of our early rd guys for any shot at any dynasty. In the last 9 or 10 years we've had 1 (one) successful year of drafting in the first rd, alone. That is incredibly bad no matter what color glasses you look through. You say Michael was "red shirted" I say he couldn't get on the football field. And no, I am not thrilled we used our 15 in the 12 draft on Irvin. Etc.

We could go on and on about this but I get the sense you are arguing for the sake of arguing. No rational person could believe "it's OK to keep missing on high priced draft picks...we will become a dynasty anyway".

Let me spell it out for you. Btw, you didn't have to go there.

You can't say we missed on those draft picks yet. Bottom line. I don't think any of those players need to contribute next year for us to win a Super Bowl. Do I want them to contribute? Of course. Do they need to? No. That is what having depth is all about.

It is hard to have a conversation about this with you because you seemingly think that Michael, Hill, & Irvin are already busts which is a really stupid way of looking at things. You have a condescending tone which brings out the condescending tone in others.

LOL. you will need to show me where I said Irvin, Michael or Hill are busts before I feel compelled to continue with you.

I can't spell it out any clearer for you but will repeat the sentiment of post that you decided to challenge:

IF we are going to become a dynasty, we will likely need to start doing better with our early rd picks.

You took exception to that and for the life of me, I can't understand why (nor do I care).

 

[bjornanderson21]

As good as the hawks have been, expensive busts like Percy Harvin can put an end to dynasty talk quickly.

We will be lucky to afford that gigantic mistake, and the next bust as big as Harvin will end all talk of dyansty.

Pennwise and poundfoolish.

 

[HawkWow]

Definition of a dynasty....

When the opposing team sees your name on their schedule, they automatically assume a "loss".

Agreed. Pre-Lynch / Carroll, they saw Seahawks on the schedule and automatically assumed "soft".

I think I'm as happy about the loss of that label as I am winning the SB.

 

[Sac]

As good as the hawks have been, expensive busts like Percy Harvin can put an end to dynasty talk quickly.

We will be lucky to afford that gigantic mistake, and the next bust as big as Harvin will end all talk of dyansty.

Pennwise and poundfoolish.

Please. Percy is going to light it up this year. His performance in the Superbowl alone was worth what we paid him last year.

 

[Sports Hernia]

As good as the hawks have been, expensive busts like Percy Harvin can put an end to dynasty talk quickly.

We will be lucky to afford that gigantic mistake, and the next bust as big as Harvin will end all talk of dyansty.

Pennwise and poundfoolish.

Speaking of foolish, that's exactly what your post was.
Harvin was ca$hmoney when we needed him the most, in the Super Bowl, end of story!

 

[bigtrain21]

I'll spell it out for you. I am concerned about the long term negative impact on a potential "dynasty", which is the topic of this thread, that missing on Michael, Irvin, Hill, Carpenter and Moffitt could have for us. So far so good, we won A SB, but again my point, Richardson and Britt will have to contribute if we are to continue winning SBs. You argue this? Do understand these high rd guys are not making peanuts like Sherm and Wilson have been. Them sitting around costs us other players.

In closing: We have to get more productivity out of our early rd guys for any shot at any dynasty. In the last 9 or 10 years we've had 1 (one) successful year of drafting in the first rd, alone. That is incredibly bad no matter what color glasses you look through. You say Michael was "red shirted" I say he couldn't get on the football field. And no, I am not thrilled we used our 15 in the 12 draft on Irvin. Etc.

We could go on and on about this but I get the sense you are arguing for the sake of arguing. No rational person could believe "it's OK to keep missing on high priced draft picks...we will become a dynasty anyway".

Let me spell it out for you. Btw, you didn't have to go there.

You can't say we missed on those draft picks yet. Bottom line. I don't think any of those players need to contribute next year for us to win a Super Bowl. Do I want them to contribute? Of course. Do they need to? No. That is what having depth is all about.

It is hard to have a conversation about this with you because you seemingly think that Michael, Hill, & Irvin are already busts which is a really stupid way of looking at things. You have a condescending tone which brings out the condescending tone in others.

LOL. you will need to show me where I said Irvin, Michael or Hill are busts before I feel compelled to continue with you.

I can't spell it out any clearer for you but will repeat the sentiment of post that you decided to challenge:

IF we are going to become a dynasty, we will likely need to start doing better with our early rd picks.

You took exception to that and for the life of me, I can't understand why (nor do I care).

Because how do you know they haven't done well unless you are classifying them as bad picks before you should.

Edited: due to obvious answer

 

[RolandDeschain]

This could be my favorite post in the history of .net

I laughed for at least a minute. Perhaps I am just that easily entertained today...


Take a bow Roland!

*bows*

With respect to Scotte and many others, everyone pulling the "2010 Packers were a potential dynasty" card is indulging in revisionist history. The 2010 Packers went 10-6, a record that would have missed the playoffs in a lot of NFC divisions the past couple years.

Actually if you recall, with proper officiating they would have lost to the Vikings and gone 9-7, missing the playoffs altogether since two other NFC teams went 10-6 that year and missed the playoffs behind the Packers. (League admitted two blown TD calls in favor of the Packers in that game which they barely 'won.')

Packers fans don't like to talk about that, particularly after the fail Mary game against us.

 

[General Manager]

After Peyton's poor showing in the Super Bowl and his increased age, it's time for the NFL media to pass the torch. Andrew Luck will be given MVP this season as long as he throws more touchdowns than interceptions, and he'll also be declared King of the Andals and Protector of the Realm.

ESPN has been doing a full court press for Luck since before he was drafted, did we get a rematch with them this year at the C-link. Probably not can't risk having him on the chopping block here in Seattle.

 

[RolandDeschain]

ESPN has been doing a full court press for Luck since before he was drafted, did we get a rematch with them this year at the C-link. Probably not can't risk having him on the chopping block here in Seattle.

I can't wait until the Colts have to come to our house. It could be a while, but... :3: :3: :3: :3: :3: :3:

 

[Jayburd14]

Much better topic than thinking about how much we suck, which seems just like a life-time ago.

I couldn't of said it better myself

 

[Sac]

Much better topic than thinking about how much we suck, which seems just like a life-time ago.

I couldn't HAVE said it better myself

^^^
You could have if you said it this way.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I love you, Sac. Continue doing THE LORD'S work.

 

[Sac]

I love you, Sac. Continue doing THE LORD'S work.

(hugz)

 

[Scottemojo]

With respect to Scotte and many others, everyone pulling the "2010 Packers were a potential dynasty" card is indulging in revisionist history. The 2010 Packers went 10-6, a record that would have missed the playoffs in a lot of NFC divisions the past couple years. Their DVOA that season only ranked 4th, a 23.0 score that is dwarfed by the 38.7 and 40.0 DVOA scores the Seahawks posted the last two seasons, the best by any team back to back in 17 years. Green Bay was a deserving Champion, but they were not an exceptional one.

Their defense, while good, only scored about half the distance from the median that Seattle's just did. It was built mostly around ordinary players. There were just two guys you could say were elite, Matthews and Woodson, and Woodson was nearing the end of his prime. Capers did have a good track record at the time but always in short stints. Flash forward to today, and most Packers fans want him gone. Their 2010 defense and team on the whole compares pretty well to New Orleans last season, a good team but one that didn't even win their division and struggled to beat the Eagles in the playoffs.

The Packers were a young team. But aside from Rodgers and Matthews, not many of those young players were actually all that good. Almost all the playoff games they've won in the Rodgers era have been very close games. They didn't dominate, they survived. And even when their defense was good, they were a finesse team. Which is why I never bought into them as a true dynasty.

Regarding the Patriots, they ARE a dynasty. Three in four years gets them there. The two silver medals they got in 2007 and 2011 should factor into the discussion as well. Funny enough, some of their best teams came in seasons when they didn't win the Superbowl. In 2010 they had an astounding 44 DVOA, and didn't even make the big game.

I think the Patriots ended as a threat to win the SB after 2011. Since then, they have been good but never after that were they great. That's a 10 year run making the SB every other year. I only see positive lessons to learn from the Patriots, not negative ones. Every team has to evolve over time and the Patriots have done this as well as anybody. If not for a helmet catch, we'd be saying that the Patriots dynasty peaked in 2007.

I think it was Rodgers, what looked like a rising D full of stars, and a 10-6 record despite having a ton of injured players talking dynasty.

 

[Scottemojo]

With respect to Scotte and many others, everyone pulling the "2010 Packers were a potential dynasty" card is indulging in revisionist history. The 2010 Packers went 10-6, a record that would have missed the playoffs in a lot of NFC divisions the past couple years. Their DVOA that season only ranked 4th, a 23.0 score that is dwarfed by the 38.7 and 40.0 DVOA scores the Seahawks posted the last two seasons, the best by any team back to back in 17 years. Green Bay was a deserving Champion, but they were not an exceptional one.

Their defense, while good, only scored about half the distance from the median that Seattle's just did. It was built mostly around ordinary players. There were just two guys you could say were elite, Matthews and Woodson, and Woodson was nearing the end of his prime. Capers did have a good track record at the time but always in short stints. Flash forward to today, and most Packers fans want him gone. Their 2010 defense and team on the whole compares pretty well to New Orleans last season, a good team but one that didn't even win their division and struggled to beat the Eagles in the playoffs.

The Packers were a young team. But aside from Rodgers and Matthews, not many of those young players were actually all that good. Almost all the playoff games they've won in the Rodgers era have been very close games. They didn't dominate, they survived. And even when their defense was good, they were a finesse team. Which is why I never bought into them as a true dynasty.

Regarding the Patriots, they ARE a dynasty. Three in four years gets them there. The two silver medals they got in 2007 and 2011 should factor into the discussion as well. Funny enough, some of their best teams came in seasons when they didn't win the Superbowl. In 2010 they had an astounding 44 DVOA, and didn't even make the big game.

I think the Patriots ended as a threat to win the SB after 2011. Since then, they have been good but never after that were they great. That's a 10 year run making the SB every other year. I only see positive lessons to learn from the Patriots, not negative ones. Every team has to evolve over time and the Patriots have done this as well as anybody. If not for a helmet catch, we'd be saying that the Patriots dynasty peaked in 2007.

I think it was Rodgers, what looked like a rising D full of stars, and a 10-6 record despite having a ton of injured players that had media folks talking dynasty.

 

[bigDhawk]

Here's my dynastic prediction:

In February of 2016, on Levi field in Santa Clara, The Seahawks will be the first 3-PETE Super Bowl champions in NFL history.

 

[Sac]

Here's my dynastic prediction:

In February of 2016, on Levi field in Santa Clara, The Seahawks will be the first 3-PETE Super Bowl champions in NFL history.

I approve this message.

 

[Sherman4Prez]

DP