NFL Players and Executives Call Seattle Next Dyanasty

[HawkWow]

I'm not digging any dynasty talk. Not now. Personally the only teams I make dynasty references to are the Niners and the Steelers. The Niners because they spread out their championships over a 14 season period and were in the mix every one of those years. They literally did it with 2 different regimes and players that bled over. They even had a couple more chances after the 94 season.

The Steelers for the same, but they essentially did it on the same core group.

Dallas and the Pats? The boys were a lot like the Hawks actually. But on offense they were about the triplets. Their defense was a lot like Seattle and they sputtered on offense.

The Pats should be considered. If they even win just one more with Brady they are legit because they have never been out of the conversation.

The Giants... they have literally won a Super Bowl in each of the last 4 decades. Now that is impressive. Not so much on the dynasty thing, but that would be very cool as a fan.

I just don't think that the word should be used without having 2 championships that are within 3-4 years or repeat. If the Hawks go deep in the playoffs a few years, maybe winning another I am all for it, but I am just glad they got the one the way they did. Right now I am still enjoying that.

Hey, the Hawks could very well be on their way, but I think that the Saints might have something to say about that and maybe the Niners. I am actually more concerned about NOLA than I am the digits. Brees is a guy that will use the weapons he gets, KaeperSpaz is not that guy. The Saints are trying hard to improve defensively and the Niners are aging out in places that have helped them.

No dynasty talk for me yet. Double digit wins and playoff trips? Absolutely, but I will wait. Nice to hear others sharing their views though.

Great insight and I agree on most of your points. But I think we use a different interpretation of the word dynasty. I could be wrong but I see a dynasty as a team that has won multiple SBs in the shortest span possible. Like 3 of 4, 3 of 5, etc. I wouldn't call a team that won a SB once a decade a dynasty...but again that is my interpretation and I could be wrong.

 

[loafoftatupu]

Great insight and I agree on most of your points. But I think we use a different interpretation of the word dynasty. I could be wrong but I see a dynasty as a team that has won multiple SBs in the shortest span possible. Like 3 of 4, 3 of 5, etc. I wouldn't call a team that won a SB once a decade a dynasty...but again that is my interpretation and I could be wrong.

Yeah, I didn't intend to mention the Giants as a dynasty. It was that they have 4 Super Bowl wins since the beginning of the game, but at times that didn't leave their fans hanging for too long. There was a big spread between 90-07, but a lot of fans have waited much longer.

 

[HawkWow]

Great insight and I agree on most of your points. But I think we use a different interpretation of the word dynasty. I could be wrong but I see a dynasty as a team that has won multiple SBs in the shortest span possible. Like 3 of 4, 3 of 5, etc. I wouldn't call a team that won a SB once a decade a dynasty...but again that is my interpretation and I could be wrong.

Yeah, I didn't intend to mention the Giants as a dynasty. It was that they have 4 Super Bowl wins since the beginning of the game, but at times that didn't leave their fans hanging for too long. There was a big spread between 90-07, but a lot of fans have waited much longer.

Understood...and I wasn't really pointing towards yr example of the Giants. It just worked out that way as I was more referring to teams that win several, but over many years. I wouldn't necessarily see a team like that as a dynasty. I see teams as dynasties...not franchises. This current 9er (or Dallas) team is as far removed from a dynasty as the Jags..imo.

 

[kearly]

Pats and Cowboys are definitely dynasty teams. Three titles in 10 years is generally considered to be a dynasty in the NFL. The Pats went to five SBs and counting, winning three. One of the seasons they didn't win, they were a helmet catch away from 19-0.

Regarding the Seahawks, their worst season in the Russell Wilson era still has a better DVOA than the best season Dallas had during their 90's run. Seattle is an even better team than Dallas was.

Seattle is at a dynasty level right now in terms of team performance. The only question is how long it lasts. Personally, I see no reason to think it's not going to last for as long as we have Pete, if not longer.

 

[Scottemojo]

I hate dynasty talk. In Pete's case, the word "program" feels more accurate to me anyway.

I thought Green Bay was on the verge of it 4 years ago. Young, great D, all that. Nope. The Patriots are as close as the salary cap allows, and part of me wonders if their dynasty died when Richard Seymour went to the Raiders or when the squandered a perfect record to a lesser team in the SB or when the league got pissy with them for physical secondary play because Manning said so. One thing is for sure, their annual playoff inclusion has as much to do with the just plain ineptitude of their 3 division foes as anything else.

What can the Hawks learn from the early years of the Pats? Don't let the league change the way you play? Don't lose a physical run game?

 

[onanygivensunday]

The way I see it the team is poised to be in a discussion about potentially being a dynasty.

Much has to fall into place for that to come to fruition.... much.

Bur, what the hell... we can talk about it, right?

 

[drdiags]

Seems like pundits are quick to pull the dynasty card out. It doesn't hurt to set expectations high but as another poster pointed out, it looked like the Packers were primed back in 2010 but it faltered. The Patriots were able to leverage Tom Brady's early career and costs to put a strong run together, but around the time Tom started to get paid, they lost a lot on defense. They should have been able to use their offense to get them to 19-0 but I think they got complacent, thinking they would roll the Giants.

Seattle missed out on a great chance to make this dynasty talk a reality when the defense couldn't hold the Falcons for 30+ seconds. Maybe Wilson and co gets to the Superbowl a year earlier and they still would have this final low cost year to see if they could hold most of the core together.

There is nothing that says the team has to re-do Wilson's contract next year, though the prevailing thoughts are they will. They could just let him play out his rookie contract and tag him, but I doubt that happens. Once Wilson gets his deal, some mid-to-high price vets on both sides of the ball will be moving on. Avril, Lynch, Mebane (?) and others. That would dampen the idea of a dynasty but doesn't make it impossible to achieve. Just darn tough. Bring it on.

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

 

[RolandDeschain]

What can the Hawks learn from the early years of the Pats? Don't let the league change the way you play? Don't lose a physical run game?

I think it comes down to "don't become a one-dimensional team"; and I mean that in the sense of don't just start passing all the time, but also, don't let yourselves get caught up in trying to make a stud offense. Keep that defense running like the smooth well-oiled machine it is now and deserves to continue being.

Balance.

 

[Hawks46]

I think a lot of people hit on correct factors: Brady costing good defensive pieces when he got paid, league parity, etc.

The GB team does surprise me as that division is competitive, but they've never fielded another consistently good team. One year Chicago kicks ass, next year Detriot makes a surprising run, then Minny gets some steam, but I really thought that team would win the SB the next year. It's what makes the playoffs so interesting; no matter how good oen team is, one bad game sits you down.

The Patriots are going to be hard to compare to the Seahawks, as so many things are different. Their division has never really been that great; the Dolphins and Bills can never get on track and the Jets can't seem to hold any momentum after a 3 year decent stretch. Comically enough, we're talking about keeping the defense going and not going too far offensively like the Pats did, but that is exactly what the Jets did....but they didn't do enough on offense. It's a fine balance.

Seattle's division might be the only thing keeping us from being a dynasty, and a very successful one. Going back to NE, their division never beat them up enough to keep them from the playoffs annually. Dallas and SF the same thing. Our division not only has very quality teams, but they're all great defensive teams, teams that beat you up and cause some injuries.

Since it's so competitive in our division, we have a very small margin of error. A couple of key injuries and we're in trouble. That could be said of any team, but we all know there are divisions that aren't competitive. The only thing good we have going for us is that SF and AZ are both aging on defense. That means the window for those elite players is closing, and the older they get, the more injury prone they get....so they miss games as well as suffer from dimishing physical talent.

 

[HawkWow]

I see no harm in talking about us as a potential dynasty. I sacrifice a (Costco) chicken once a week and that seems to ward off any bad juju (won us a SB), so feel good about that.

Certainly "many things have to happen"...like winning an assload of games and a couple more SBs, but I think the point here is that we are better positioned for a run than anyone else...unless Baltimore or NYG plan on taking the next couple, and reality will probably get in the way of that.

One thing that will have to happen, imo, is we need to get more out of our early rd draft picks. We need Richardson and Britt to break the cycle. Not giving up on a few of our recent early picks just yet, but sooner or later, despite our great late rd picks, we have to get more production from these guys that are actually making decent money. 2010 was our last solid, early rd draft (with the lone exception of Bobby Wagner in 2012). 2010!

I love and respect our coaches and the miracles they've worked, but sooner or later, I have to think this will haunt us. And I could be wrong, too. But in the end, the formula is rather simple: Just win the NFCW. Gulp.

 

[bigtrain21]

One thing that will have to happen, imo, is we need to get more out of our early rd draft picks. We need Richardson and Britt to break the cycle. Not giving up on a few of our recent early picks just yet, but sooner or later, despite our great late rd picks, we have to get more production from these guys that are actually making decent money. 2010 was our last solid, early rd draft (with the lone exception of Bobby Wagner in 2012). 2010!

Basically you chose a negative way of saying you didn't like the early rounds of the 2011 draft.

2010 Fantastic
2011 You hated
2012 (awesome with Irvin, Wagner, and Wilson)
2013 & 2014 are way too early to tell but there is a lot of talent that was redshirted or might be redshirted.

I really fail to see where can say with a straight face that 2010 was our last solid draft in the early rounds. Even if Britt and Richardson don't play we still don't know. Richardson may not beat out Kearse, Harvin, and Baldwin and Justin Britt might not beat out Bailey or Bowie. That doesn't mean they would suck, that would just mean they aren't ready to crack a Super Bowl winning lineup.

 

[HawkWow]

One thing that will have to happen, imo, is we need to get more out of our early rd draft picks. We need Richardson and Britt to break the cycle. Not giving up on a few of our recent early picks just yet, but sooner or later, despite our great late rd picks, we have to get more production from these guys that are actually making decent money. 2010 was our last solid, early rd draft (with the lone exception of Bobby Wagner in 2012). 2010!

Basically you chose a negative way of saying you didn't like the early rounds of the 2011 draft.

2010 Fantastic
2011 You hated
2012 (awesome with Irvin, Wagner, and Wilson)
2013 & 2014 are way too early to tell but there is a lot of talent that was redshirted or might be redshirted.

I really fail to see where can say with a straight face that 2010 was our last solid draft in the early rounds. Even if Britt and Richardson don't play we still don't know. Richardson may not beat out Kearse, Harvin, and Baldwin and Justin Britt might not beat out Bailey or Bowie. That doesn't mean they would suck, that would just mean they aren't ready to crack a Super Bowl winning lineup.

Huh? I was referring to our first 2 picks in each draft since 2010. Wilson would obviously be excluded from that and I sure the hell am not calling the Irvin pick "awesome".

Michael
Hill
Irvin
Wags
Carpenter
Moffitt

The above is what you are left with to dispute my point.

 

[bigtrain21]

Wait, so you get to include Hill because he was one of our first two picks in that draft but you can't include wilson because he was our 3rd pick even though both were 3rd rounders? That makes no sense.

 

[HawkWow]

OK.

 

[bigtrain21]

One thing that will have to happen, imo, is we need to get more out of our early rd draft picks. We need Richardson and Britt to break the cycle. Not giving up on a few of our recent early picks just yet, but sooner or later, despite our great late rd picks, we have to get more production from these guys that are actually making decent money. 2010 was our last solid, early rd draft (with the lone exception of Bobby Wagner in 2012). 2010!

Basically you chose a negative way of saying you didn't like the early rounds of the 2011 draft.

2010 Fantastic
2011 You hated
2012 (awesome with Irvin, Wagner, and Wilson)
2013 & 2014 are way too early to tell but there is a lot of talent that was redshirted or might be redshirted.

I really fail to see where can say with a straight face that 2010 was our last solid draft in the early rounds. Even if Britt and Richardson don't play we still don't know. Richardson may not beat out Kearse, Harvin, and Baldwin and Justin Britt might not beat out Bailey or Bowie. That doesn't mean they would suck, that would just mean they aren't ready to crack a Super Bowl winning lineup.

Huh? I was referring to our first 2 picks in each draft since 2010. Wilson would obviously be excluded from that and I sure the hell am not calling the Irvin pick "awesome".

Michael
Hill
Irvin
Wags
Carpenter
Moffitt

The above is what you are left with to dispute my point.

I didn't call the Irvin pick awesome. I was saying ending up with Wilson, Wagner, and Irvin in the first 3 rounds was awesome. I didn't realize Wilson didn't fit your criteria of an early round pick. Almost everyone includes the 3rd round as an early round pick.

Hill and Michael were obviously redshirted. They didn't need to play for us to win the Super Bowl. I think anyone would be thrilled with Wagner and Irvin in the first two rounds. 2014 is too early to tell. Like I said, you basically just took a long and really negative way to say that our 2011 early rounds sucked.

 

[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".

 

[Sac]

I would have rather had Chandler Jones in '12

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

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".

While they aren't making rookie minimums, they aren't making all that much. Britt's cap number peaks at $1.1m, Richardson at $1.5m, Wagner, $1.4m, Carp at $2.4m, Irvin at $2.9m, Michael at $1.1m. That's less than $11m combined, and those hits are spread out over various seasons. I do get what you are saying, but I don't think it matters if a 7th rd pick becomes a pro bowl caliber player while the 1st rd pick is merely average vs the 1st rd pick becoming a pro bowler and the 7th rd pick being merely average.

 

[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.

 

[Tech Worlds]

Dynasty was a reality hit during the 80's.