2014 Seattle Seahawks: Bittersweet Symphony

Ed Hillel · Dec 22, 2014

jsinger121 said:
Arizona and San Francisco have bottom 10 offenses. Outside of good defenses they really are gauntlet teams. San Fran is a shell of themselves and everyone knows Arizona is 1 and done.

Who has the tiebreaker between Arizona and Detroit? If it's Arizona, they may not be one and done in either Atlanta or Carolina. Either way, it's like a double bye for the Seahawks.

Edit: What he said.

Kenny F'ing Powers · Dec 22, 2014

jsinger121 said:
Arizona and San Francisco have bottom 10 offenses. Outside of good defenses they really are gauntlet teams. San Fran is a shell of themselves and everyone knows Arizona is 1 and done.

I won't even go into how putrid the Arizona offense is, but San Francisco's offense really has been terrible. Aside from their most recent game against San Diego, they went on an 8 week stretch where they averaged 4.4 yards per play. As a point of reference, the Oakland raiders are last in the NFL on the season with 4.6 yards per play. That's two months of horrid offense. Yes, they played the Seahawks defense. They also played the Raiders, Giants, Redskins...

A few months ago, the San Fran/Arizona stretch looked like the toughest part of the Seahawks schedule, but the chips fell the right way for them. I think the Seahawks got healthy and are a much better team now then they were in week 5, but I don't think this defense is an all-time juggernaut, or even as good as the defense was last year.

Hagios · Dec 22, 2014

ivanvamp said:
I would love to see an NFC Championship game of Seattle-GB, Seattle-Dallas, or Dallas-GB, with both teams (whoever is the matchup) playing at a high level.

The first mistake of sports fans is that they live excessively in the moment, but even doing my best to account for that, I don't see how Seattle doesn't win another Superbowl. The only thing that can stop them is injuries.

Silverdude2167 · Dec 22, 2014

Hagios said:
The first mistake of sports fans is that they live excessively in the moment, but even doing my best to account for that, I don't see how Seattle doesn't win another Superbowl. The only thing that can stop them is injuries.

Is this sarcasm? You are aware as everyone is saying that they have faced one average offense since the loss to St. Louis. And that average offense had Sanchez as the QB. Lets see them do well against good offenses, the teams that were giving them problems earlier in the year.

Lets say they make it to the Superbowl and the Pats do as well, you don't think the Pats can play with them? The Pats have given up 3 more points a game than SEA (take out the Pats first 4 games and they give up .7 more points a game) and score 5.7 more points a game. There is a big difference between the teams in one unit, but nothing can stop SEA.

dynomite · Dec 22, 2014

Hagios said:
The first mistake of sports fans is that they live excessively in the moment, but even doing my best to account for that, I don't see how Seattle doesn't win another Superbowl. The only thing that can stop them is injuries.

I don't think you've done a good enough job to account for it.

A few weeks ago the Seahawks lose to the Chiefs and everyone is writing them off. Then they beat up on Ryan Lindley, Mark Sanchez, and a bad 49ers team and there's nothing that can stop them?

The Seahawks are playing as well as anyone in football, are going to be the #1 seed, and have a good chance to win the Super Bowl again.

But I'm not sure that injuries are the "only" thing that can stop them. Bad turnovers at the wrong time and one or two defensive breakdowns can do that, too.

Edit: Or what Ed said below. Any NFL team can lose any game, even the best ones and even at home.

Ed Hillel · Dec 22, 2014

Hagios said:
The first mistake of sports fans is that they live excessively in the moment, but even doing my best to account for that, I don't see how Seattle doesn't win another Superbowl. The only thing that can stop them is injuries.

They aren't even 50% to win the Superbowl, and that's no knock on them. It doesn't mean they aren't the favorites, which they probably are given the NFC South roflcoptor, but winning a Superbowl in the NFL is really hard, even for the best teams. Assuming they win next week (which they should, but the Rams can be competitive), they're going to have to likely face one of Dallas/Green Bay and then likely one of New England/Denver/Pitt on a neutral field.

ifmanis5 · Dec 22, 2014

Seattle is the only team that actually scares me as a potential opponent. Tons of talent and a terrible matchup for the Pats.

TheMoralBully · Dec 22, 2014

Wilson is an entirely different degree of mobile than Rodgers and Smith. He almost hit 1,000 yards rushing this year, basically 3X the production of Smith and Rodgers. I also don't really feel like the Patriots did a great job containing Rodgers; he had a few key runs and was constantly extending plays, letting Adams work longer against our 3rd and 4th CBs. That's pretty much what Rodgers does. The did do a great job against Luck.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Dec 22, 2014

TheMoralBully said:
Wilson is an entirely different degree of mobile than Rodgers and Smith. He almost hit 1,000 yards rushing this year, basically 3X the production of Smith and Rodgers. I also don't really feel like the Patriots did a great job containing Rodgers; he had a few key runs and was constantly extending plays, letting Adams work longer against our 3rd and 4th CBs. That's pretty much what Rodgers does. The did do a great job against Luck.

Sure, Wilson is more mobile and he's really good. Nobody is doubting that. But what makes you think that our defense as currently constructed is especially ill-equipped to deal with him (compared to other teams)?

ivanvamp · Dec 22, 2014

Hagios said:
The first mistake of sports fans is that they live excessively in the moment, but even doing my best to account for that, I don't see how Seattle doesn't win another Superbowl. The only thing that can stop them is injuries.

They may be the best overall team in the NFL right now, but my goodness, hasn't history shown us that supposedly unstoppable teams often lose in the playoffs?

- 2001 St. Louis
- 2004 Pittsburgh
- 2005 Indianapolis
- 2007 New England
- 2009 Indianapolis
- 2010 New England
- 2011 Green Bay
- 2012 Denver
- 2013 Denver

It happens fairly regularly. Let's not forget, in 5 of the last 6 games the Seahawks have scored 20, 19, 19, 24, and 17 points. That's an average of 19.8 per game. Could New England win a 21-20 game against them? Yes, I think so.

dynomite · Dec 22, 2014

Interesting questions. I hope we revisit them in a month...

ivanvamp said:
They may be the best overall team in the NFL right now, but my goodness, hasn't history shown us that supposedly unstoppable teams often lose in the playoffs?

Right. Also, how often do both #1 seeds meet in the Super Bowl? I'm pretty sure it has only happened 3 times in the last 20 years:

-2013 Denver/Seattle
-2009 NO/Indy
-1993 Buffalo/Dallas

Pats were the #2 in '04, etc. To be Peter King, something weird happens almost every week in the NFL.

Bosoxen · Dec 22, 2014

DanoooME said:
Beast Quake 1 vs. 2. I think 1 is better because Lynch had a harder time getting through the line initially and had to evade/break more tackles downfield.

http://gfycat.com/DiligentWavyCopperbutterfly

Yeah, I would definitely go with #1. Though one could make a case that #2 was just as impressive, based solely on the vast difference in quality of defenses, #1 has the trump card of occurring in the playoffs.

Silverdude2167 · Dec 28, 2014

Lost by 9 to SD this year, still two scores.

Silverdude2167 · Dec 28, 2014

DanoooME said:
Clearly reading comprehension isn't your strength.

What is the difference between losing by 9 and 10 other than an arbitrary number? You would not play any differently when trying to come back from the deficit.

DJnVa · Dec 28, 2014

Lots of sports hinge on things that are arbitrary numbers.

Dan to Theo to Ben · Dec 28, 2014

Silverdude2167 · Dec 28, 2014

DrewDawg said:
Lots of sports hinge on things that are arbitrary numbers.

True, but if we are creating the analysis the better measure of a good team is to look at when they last lost by 2 scores. There is no reason to look at 10 points but not 9 since both require you to score twice to come back.

ragnarok725 · Dec 28, 2014

Silverdude2167 said:
True, but if we are creating the analysis the better measure of a good team is to look at when they last lost by 2 scores. There is no reason to look at 10 points but not 9 since both require you to score twice to come back.

It's trivia, not analysis. It's interesting, not illustrative. If we were looking to analyze, there are way better metrics than this regardless of what arbitrary line you draw.

wibi · Dec 28, 2014

Silverdude2167 said:
True, but if we are creating the analysis the better measure of a good team is to look at when they last lost by 2 scores. There is no reason to look at 10 points but not 9 since both require you to score twice to come back.

Just stop. Seriously. You dont get this and are obviously afraid of the Seahawks based on your posting history. Remember what happened the last time someone posted the Seahawks were going to get killed in a game? I do. It was last years Superbowl and we all remember how that turned out.

ThePrideofShiner · Dec 28, 2014

Man, oh man, I'm pretty damn excited the Seahawks got the No. 1 seed. When they lost to Dallas at home I was nervous, when they then shit the bed in St. Louis and were 3-3 I started thinking the playoffs might be difficult to attain. When they were 6-4 after the loss to the Chiefs, I figured 10-6 was a good thing to hope for as they had a brutal schedule. Instead, they went 6-0 and dominated everyone in their path - I know some on this board chalk that up to the quarterbacks they were facing, but the defense was flat out amazing this season.

I'm not sure their offense can lead them to a repeat - though getting Unger back in two weeks would certainly help - but this has still been an amazing team to watch. The defense is as good as any I've seen in my lifetime.

Silverdude2167 · Dec 28, 2014

wibi said:
Just stop. Seriously. You dont get this and are obviously afraid of the Seahawks based on your posting history. Remember what happened the last time someone posted the Seahawks were going to get killed in a game? I do. It was last years Superbowl and we all remember how that turned out.

You Seahawks fans are touchy. I critiqued a statement made to make them look good that when phrased in a different manor was less impressive but saying the same thing (but they still are the best (week 2)).

And of course I think the Seahawks are good and could very easily win the superbowl again. I am just curious as to how they will handle good offenses.

TimNJsoxfan · Dec 28, 2014

Silverdude2167 said:
You Seahawks fans are touchy. I critiqued a statement made to make them look good that when phrased in a different manor was less impressive but saying the same thing (but they still are the best (week 2)).

And of course I think the Seahawks are good and could very easily win the superbowl again. I am just curious as to how they will handle good offenses.

Reverend · Dec 28, 2014

Silverdude2167 said:
You Seahawks fans are touchy. I critiqued a statement made to make them look good that when phrased in a different manor was less impressive but saying the same thing (but they still are the best (week 2)).

And of course I think the Seahawks are good and could very easily win the superbowl again. I am just curious as to how they will handle good offenses.

Humans use the counting system of base 10. That is literally all this is about.

soxfan121 · Dec 28, 2014

There is no Rev said:
Humans use the counting system of base 10. That is literally all this is about.

Silverdude2167 is obviously from the future where they use a different math system.

So we've got that to look forward to.

Silverdude2167 · Dec 29, 2014

soxfan121 said:
Silverdude2167 is obviously from the future where they use a different math system.

So we've got that to look forward to.

I have been found out. I am from 9 years in the future where after winning his 9th straight Superbowl Carroll became the president and signed an executive order to move the US to a base-9 numeral system.

MalzoneExpress · Dec 29, 2014

Silverdude2167 said:
I have been found out. I am from 9 years in the future where after winning his 9th straight Superbowl Carroll became the president and signed an executive order to move the US to a base-9 numeral system.

Just say nein.

Ed Hillel · Dec 29, 2014

Silverdude2167. Can't you see it? Switch the second and third digits, throw in the requisite sign and we have Silverdude (26-17) = Silverdude9!?

It's been there the whole time, right in front of our eyes.

wibi · Dec 30, 2014

Some crazy stats

Marshawn Lynch averaged 2.95 yards per carry AFTER contact this year. Trent Richardson averaged 3.1 yards per carry period.

Wilson and Lynch combined to rush for more yards than all but four teams. If you add the rest of the Seattle rushing (Turbin, Michael, Harvin...) then Seattle lead the league in rushing by 408 yards over the second ranked Dallas Cowboys. Lynch alone out rushed the Oakland Raiders

Seattle was the only team to give up less than 300 yards per game in the NFL (Detroit missed by less than a yard at 300.9)

Tony C · Dec 30, 2014

Is Lynch the exception to the rule that you let an RB go sooner rather than later? Sure follows the book to let him walk, they have other good options, but he is at a different level.

This year's team is pretty damn impressive: lost players to injuries, free agency, and in Harvin's case just as a dump....and came through stronger on the other side. That Harvin move, in particular, was something one can imagine BB pulling off -- takes some cojones, but a sign of strong coaching/management.

And, speaking of which, how much of a joke is it that BB and Carroll don't get mentioned as HC of the year candidates? I think Arians has been great, too, but when you set the bar high you don't get credit.

wibi · Dec 30, 2014

Tony C said:
Is Lynch the exception to the rule that you let an RB go sooner rather than later? Sure follows the book to let him walk, they have other good options, but he is at a different level.

Lynch is going to be looking for a five year deal and I cant see Seattle giving him that. I could see offering him a two or three year deal but I cant see how he would accept that. Lynch is gone at the end of this year unless something major changes in the next few weeks

Kenny F'ing Powers · Dec 30, 2014

Kenny F'ing Powers said:
I haven't watched a lot of Seahawks games, but Jesus does this sound like a team just teetering on the edge in the locker room.

It's great that "they came together like a family", but what happens in the locker room if they had lost this game? Usually locker room dynamics are overblown, but there is clearly some rifts on the team, and winning a mid-season game doesn't fix those problems. I'm interested to see how they deal with adversity going forward, because I don't think this is the last we hear about a broken locker room out of Seattle.

Wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Wrong.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Dec 30, 2014

wibi said:
Lynch is going to be looking for a five year deal and I cant see Seattle giving him that. I could see offering him a two or three year deal but I cant see how he would accept that. Lynch is gone at the end of this year unless something major changes in the next few weeks

I guess the question is whether he'll accept a five year deal that makes headlines and massages his ego (ie, nominally in the same 5/40ish range as LeSean McCoy and Arian Foster) but is designed to make him easily cuttable after two years.

Honestly, I don't see any team giving him a big deal that locks them in for 4+ years. Lynch may think that's what he deserves but most teams around the league understand at this point that investing big dollars/years into a 28-year-old running back is a stupid idea. He probably has more value to the Hawks than to anybody else.

TimNJsoxfan · Jan 6, 2015

DanoooME said:
I hope to hell the coordinators have had time to work on the game plans for Carolina. They seem to be interviewing for every HC job on the planet.

Quinn - 49ers, Jets, Falcons, Bears, Bills
Bevell - Raiders, Bills (Plus University of Wisconsin allegedly)
Cable - Jets

Hopefully they interviewed last week on the couple days off I assume they had.

wibi · Jan 6, 2015

Couple of small news points

Scot McCloughan (from this ESPN article a couple of weeks ago http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12014699/scot-mccloughan-nfl-best-talent-scout-self-employed-living-farm ) is now the new GM of the Washington Football Team.

Jordan Hill (DT) tore his calf muscle over the weekend and was placed on IR. Hill has a nickle pass rusher and ended the season with 5.5 sacks.

Max Unger and Jermane Kearse look healthy enough to play on Saturday evening vs CAR. Unger coming back is huge for Russell Wilson's pass protection

Ed Hillel · Jan 11, 2015

Big loss, given what he was bringing the last 6 weeks. Hopefully it's not career-altering, the kid has talent.

Mike Garafolo ‏@MikeGarafolo 10m10 minutes ago

Bad news for the Seahawks as they begin prep for the Packers: WR Paul Richardson tore his ACL last night, source says.

j-man · Jan 12, 2015

Seattle will be fine

i dont see any way they dont repeat their whole 11 tackles so well russell is money on 3rd down and lynch is playing for a big money deal the only hope ne has is maxwell still is feeling shortness of breath Seattle is Avenge on off but in today NFL if u only allow 13 pts a game u win if Seattle wins 2 more games they are the 92-93 Cowboys

ivanvamp · Jan 13, 2015

I'm thinking about this Seahawks defense and wondering just how good they are, historically-speaking. It's gotta be more than a one-year sample (though there's nothing wrong with having a one-year, all-time great defense). Over the past three seasons, here's what the Seahawks' defense has done:

Seattle Seahawks, 2012-2014
- NFL rank in points allowed: #1, #1, #1
- NFL rank in yards allowed: #4, #1, #1
- Points allowed: 15.3, 14.4, 15.9
- Average NFL team per-game scoring: 22.8, 23.4, 22.5
- Points allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -7.5, -9.0, -6.6
- Yards allowed: 306.2, 273.6, 267.1
- Average NFL team per-game yardage: 347.2, 348.5, 347.5
- Yards allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -41.0, -74.9, -80.4

Those are some pretty incredible numbers. Let's compare them to some other all-time great defenses.

Chicago Bears, 1984-1986
- NFL rank in points allowed: #3, #1, #1
- NFL rank in yards allowed: #1, #1, #1
- Points allowed: 15.5, 12.4, 11.7
- Average NFL team per-game scoring: 21.2, 21.5, 20.5
- Points allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -5.7, -9.1, -8.8
- Yards allowed: 241.4, 258.4, 258.1
- Average NFL team per-game yardage: 329.8, 329.4, 324.2
- Yards allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -88.4, -71.0, -66.1

Baltimore Ravens, 1999-2001
- NFL rank in points allowed: #6, #1, #4
- NFL rank in yards allowed: #2, #2, #2
- Points allowed: 17.3, 10.3, 16.6
- Average NFL team per-game scoring: 20.8, 20.7, 20.2
- Points allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -3.5, -10.4, -3.6
- Yards allowed: 263.9, 247.9, 277.9
- Average NFL team per-game yardage: 318.8, 319.4, 317.6
- Yards allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -54.9, -71.5, -39.7

Pittsburgh Steelers, 1974-1976
- NFL rank in points allowed: #2, #2, #1
- NFL rank in yards allowed: #1, #4, #1
- Points allowed: 13.5, 11.6, 9.9
- Average NFL team per-game scoring: 18.2, 20.6, 19.2
- Points allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -4.7, -9.0, -9.3
- Yards allowed: 219.6, 261.5, 237.4
- Average NFL team per-game yardage: 286.5, 308.3, 302.7
- Yards allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -66.9, -46.8, -65.3

Miami Dolphins, 1971-1973
- NFL rank in points allowed: #3, #1, #1
- NFL rank in yards allowed: #5, #1, #3
- Points allowed: 12.4, 12.4, 12.2
- Average NFL team per-game scoring: 19.4, 20.3, 19.5
- Points allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -7.0, -7.9, -7.3
- Yards allowed: 261.5, 235.5, 234.4
- Average NFL team per-game yardage: 285.8, 291.4, 285.3
- Yards allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -24.3, -55.9, -50.9

Minnesota Vikings, 1969-1971
- NFL rank in points allowed: #1, #1, #2
- NFL rank in yards allowed: #3, #4, #4
- Points allowed: 9.5, 10.2, 9.9
- Average NFL team per-game scoring: 20.9, 19.3, 19.4
- Points allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -11.4, -9.1, -9.5
- Yards allowed: 194.3, 200.2, 243.3
- Average NFL team per-game yardage: 299.4, 281.8, 285.8
- Yards allowed +/- relative to NFL average: -105.1, -81.6, -42.5

It's a little hard to determine which of these units, over a three-year period, is the "best". Minnesota's defensive numbers, relative to league-average, are absurd. But those teams never won a Super Bowl, and they had the #1 and #3 scoring offenses in the NFL in 1969 and 1970, respectively. So they SHOULD have won a Super Bowl in there somewhere. They gave up 23 points to the Chiefs in SB4, then got beat 17-14 by the 49ers in the Divisional Round the next year, and then lost to Dallas 20-12 the following year in the Divisional Round. So in the big spots, their defense, which gave up 9.5, 10.2, and 9.9 points per game, allowed 23, 17, and 20, respectively, in their playoff losses. In other words, they were WORSE in the big game.

Pittsburgh's defenses were incredible all the way around. The Bears? Their 1986 playoff run was off the charts. In those three games, here's what they allowed:

Divisional Round vs. Giants: 0 points, 181 yds, 10 first downs
NFCCG vs. Rams: 0 points, 130 yards, 9 first downs
Super Bowl vs. Patriots: 10 points, 123 yards, 12 first downs (yay, NE played them the hardest!!!)

I mean, that's just ridiculous. 10 total points, 434 total yards allowed. IN THREE PLAYOFF GAMES!!!

Even Seattle's defense, as incredible as it's been the past three years, cannot come close to that. But I'd still say that Seattle's three-year run on D puts them right there with the greatest defensive units in the Super Bowl era (I confess I didn't look at the NFL in the 1940s or so).

They are going to be VERY tough to beat.

coremiller · Jan 13, 2015

Seattle's defensive DVOAs the last three years:

2012: [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]-14.5[/SIZE]
2013:, -25.9,
2014: -16.3.

But not as good as the Tampa defenses with Sapp/Brooks/Lynch/Barber/Rice.

1999: -19.4
2000: -13.6
2001: -15.4
2002: -31.8
2003: -17.6

Don't forget about the early 90s Eagles with Reggie White and Buddy Ryan, who had magnificent defenses:

1989: -18.9
1990: -15.9
1991: -42.4 (IIRC the best ever defensive DVOA)
1992: -18.1

Baltimore was great for two years:

1999: -20.8
2000: -23.8
2001: -12.5

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Jan 13, 2015

coremiller said:
Don't forget about the early 90s Eagles with Reggie White and Buddy Ryan, who had magnificent defenses:

1989: -18.9
1990: -15.9
1991: -42.4 (IIRC the best ever defensive DVOA)
1992: -18.1

That eye-popper got me looking further at that team, which I only hazily remember from my youth.

That team must have played insane games. Their defense forced 48 turnovers (in comparison, the most team takeaways this year was 34), but their offense had an almost-as-crazy 43 giveaways (most this year was 36). Their opponents fumbled 43 times and they recovered 22. They fumbled 34 times and lost 16. They threw 27 interceptions and picked off 26. They only played four games in which there was three or fewer total turnovers and they played five in which there were at least eight takeaways.

coremiller · Jan 13, 2015

Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
That eye-popper got me looking further at that team, which I only hazily remember from my youth.

That team must have played insane games. Their defense forced 48 turnovers (in comparison, the most team takeaways this year was 34), but their offense had an almost-as-crazy 43 giveaways (most this year was 36). Their opponents fumbled 43 times and they recovered 22. They fumbled 34 times and lost 16. They threw 27 interceptions and picked off 26. They only played four games in which there was three or fewer total turnovers and they played five in which there were at least eight takeaways.

Tthe NFC East was also brutal in 1991; it included the defending champion (NYG), the eventual champion and one of the best teams of all time (Washington), one of the best defenses of all time (Philly), and a rising superpower that was one year away (Dallas). The Eagles were poised for big things but Randal Cunningham tore his knee the first week of the season and they trotted out the replacement level QB dumpster fire of a washed-up Jim McMahon, Jeff Kemp, and Brad Goebel (53.6% compl, 0 TDs, 6INTs) for the rest of the season. They also couldn't run the ball at all -- 26th out of 28 for offense DVOA, 25th in passing, 27th in rushing. One of the most unbalanced teams of all time, up there with that late 90s Chargers team that had prime Junior Seau and Rodney Harrison on defense but were saddled with Ryan Leaf at QB.

Edit: looking through their game logs, they had 11(!) sacks against Dallas in a 24-0 Week 2 road victory. Troy Aikman was 11-25 for 112 yards, 0 TDs and 3INTs in that game.

Tony C · Jan 13, 2015

Do these stats account for having a run-heavy vs a pass-heavy offense? Seattle's defense is great, but having Lynch and Wilson et al on the other side of the ball effectively running -- and thereby shortening the clock -- means Seattle's defense faces fewer series/fewer plays. Hence citing yards against and points against doesn't tell the whole story. This has been noted a lot in re Dallas' "improved" D this year (i.e, DeMarco Murray improved them) but -- taking nothing away from the Seahawks' awesome defense, any historic accounting of their greatness should try to take into account a big factor like average time of possession per series for that team's offense, no?

Soxy · Jan 13, 2015

Total plays per game would be a better stat to look at. Seattle's defense faced an average of 58.4 plays per game this season, fewest in the league. They also gave up the fewest yards per play (4.7). So it's that combination of giving you very few plays, and then limiting what you accomplish with them, that makes their defense great.

That said, you look at the teams Seattle has played this season and it ain't murderer's row by any stretch. The three best offenses they've faced were all home games and all in the first five weeks of the season (Green Bay, Denver, Dallas). Granted, those were probably three of the best offenses in the league this season. And you can only beat the team you're lining up against, which they've done. But they haven't really been tested against a top tier offense in three months.

I'm not saying this to discredit them but simply to add context to the discussion. You can't simply look at yards allowed and points allowed. I understand DVOA tries to boil it down to per-play efficiency, while also controlling for strength of opposition, but it's still a black box. And even then they don't rank this defense all that much higher than Buffalo's. And no one is calling Buffalo's defense historically great. (I'm talking simply about 2014 here, not the 3-year run that coremiller sparked this discussion with).

The 2014 Seattle defense is very good, probably the best in the league. But I'm not convinced they are a historically great or dominant unit. Even with a hobbled Rodgers, I expect Green Bay will give them all they can handle this Sunday.

2014 Seattle Seahawks: Bittersweet Symphony

Wants to be startin somethin

posts way less than 18% useful shit

New Member

Member

Member

Wants to be startin somethin

Member

above replacement level

New Member

Member

captain obvious

Member

Bounced back

above replacement level

Member

above replacement level

Member

Dorito Dawg

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Crests prematurely

Member

Member

for king and country

JAG

Member

Thanks, gramps.

Wants to be startin somethin

Member

above replacement level

Moderator

Member

posts way less than 18% useful shit

Member

above replacement level

Member

Member

above replacement level

Wants to be startin somethin

above replacement level

Member

captain obvious

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

above replacement level

Member