NFL Power Rankings Wk 1 — Seahawks underestimated at #27

[Steve2222]

For some reason Russell Wilson continues to be under appreciated. He alone is good enough for 7-9 wins.

 

[THE TABS]

24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.

Agree completely.

The powers-that-be REFUSE to address the major issues this team has had over the past two seasons (poor line play on both sides, lack of playmakers on both sides, and stale, predictable schemes). Quality organizations do NOT allow their teams to deteriorate to that point.

I’m seeing 7-9 this season, and that’s only if Russ stays healthy. If he sustains a major injury, then we’ll be in the running for the #1 pick next year, like Indianapolis without Andrew Luck. Unfortunately, that’s what it might take for the front office to finally rethink its philosophical approach.

 

[Steve2222]

24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.

Agree completely.

The powers-that-be REFUSE to address the major issues this team has had over the past two seasons (poor line play on both sides, lack of playmakers on both sides, and stale, predictable schemes). Quality organizations do NOT allow their teams to deteriorate to that point.

I’m seeing 7-9 this season, and that’s only if Russ stays healthy. If he sustains a major injury, then we’ll be in the running for the #1 pick next year, like Indianapolis without Andrew Luck. Unfortunately, that’s what it might take for the front office to finally rethink its philosophical approach.

Russ has never missed a game in his career and playing behind his best OL in a few years. What makes you think his health is a concern? And again, no matter how terrible his team is (last year they were probably more terrible), he still led them to 9 wins.

 

[AROS]

Russ has never missed a game in his career and playing behind his best OL in a few years. What makes you think his health is a concern? And again, no matter how terrible his team is (last year they were probably more terrible), he still led them to 9 wins.

Exactly. Tabs, stop swimming in the cynical pool brother. It's not as bad as you think.

 

[adeltaY]

Vegas is a better indicator.

They say #15-#18 which is very likely where we fall.

Would be ridiculous to have a QB of Wilson's caliber and then expect #27 ranking..

The Saints went 7-9 three straight years with Brees, and there are other examples of great QB's on bad teams.

- Cam went 2-14
- Ryan went 4-12

So while not unlikely with Russell because we have some talent around him, but it is possible. Personally I think like most fringe playoff teams, we're in the 7-9 to 10-6 range depending on major injuries and if Russell can pull 3-4 games out late (or not).

The worst Cam Newton's Panther's have finished is 6-10, not 2-14. And that 6-10 came his rookie season after he was chosen with the 1st overall pick.

Bree's 7-9 teams had historically bad defenses. This Seahawks team may have a bad defense, but it won't be historically bad.

Matt Ryan's 4-12 team is really an outlier and the exception that proves the rule. If you have a pro-bowl QB it's hard to finish worse than 7-9.

Hell, Pete got a 7-9 record out of that talentless over the hill led Hasselbeck team.

Rios also went 4-12 but there were some real Chargers losses thrown in there

 

[kf3339]

Let's be honest, this is a hard team to get a read on right now..........so yeah there's a reason there's such a big variance in power ranking polls.

If the defense can find some new stars and not have the depth and talent issues many think we'll have? We should be a top 15 team and vying for a playoff spot.

If the defensive depth is exposed due to that talent deficiency and/or injury, then hell man this could be a looooong season.

Yeah Russell will keep us in most games, but that doesn't mean 11-5, that means 7-9 to 9-7 territory.

Pretty much how I see it as well.

 

[Steve2222]

Ryan and Cam are a tier below Wilson. They’re not QBs who can transcend their poor supporting cast. Could you imagine Ryan going from a Dome and having a plethora of weapons at his disposal to whatever you want to call what Russell had to play with last year?

lol at that thought

 

[AgentDib]

#32 would be better but #27 is pretty good too, hope this gets posted on every locker. National pundits are sleeping on our run game. Carson and Prosise are both starting off 100% healthy, our run blocking looks improved from our starting OL, and Penny is absolutely going to contribute more and more as the season goes on.

I expect Russ's volume numbers to dip this season but his overall play to be better just based on what we've seen from him in the preseason so far. Denver's 3-4 is a great opening test of his veteran QB savvy and blitz awareness.

 

[toffee]

Best case:
10-6 if the OC and DC work out, youngsters on the defense matures quickly, and OL/running game improves as the season goes on.

Worst case:
6-10 if the OC and DC underwhelm, youngsters on defense are slow to mature, and OL/running game slow to improve.

Likely case:
8-8 offense didn't have enough to carry the defense. I can live with 8-8 if the team show improvement in key areas and come on strong in the 2nd half of the season.

 

[hawknation2018]

Meanwhile, the computers like the Seahawks.

FiveThirtyEights’s Elo model ranks the Seahawks 10th with an 8.9 win projection.

PFF’s new Elo model ranks the Seahawks 11th with 8.4 wins projected.

 

[DomeHawk]

This team is a complete mystery to me.

 

[Smellyman]

Ryan and Cam are a tier below Wilson. They’re not QBs who can transcend their poor supporting cast. Could you imagine Ryan going from a Dome and having a plethora of weapons at his disposal to whatever you want to call what Russell had to play with last year?

lol at that thought

Ryan would be dead playing on the Hawk team of last year. Most QBs would.

Cam would fall apart mentally and physically.

 

[RolandDeschain]

24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.

17 teams went 9-7 or better last year, and exactly one team was 8-8, with the rest being 7-9 or worse; so if you think we're an 8-8 team, that would place us 18th or 19th; kind of a far cry from 24th-27th.

Just sayin'.

 

[Seymour]

24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.

17 teams went 9-7 or better last year, and exactly one team was 8-8, with the rest being 7-9 or worse; so if you think we're an 8-8 team, that would place us 18th or 19th; kind of a far cry from 24th-27th.

Just sayin'.

Well my main point that +/- 2 games from 8-8 taking us to 6-10 would likely fall in that range. So I do believe we should be a bit above that yes, but this is nothing to get excited about and it's within reasonable range for a team that least coasters want to see fail and will gladly predict it. Pretty much saying I expect (and actually welcome) the disrespect, and we haven't done enough to dispel it IMO.

 

[pmedic920]

24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.

17 teams went 9-7 or better last year, and exactly one team was 8-8, with the rest being 7-9 or worse; so if you think we're an 8-8 team, that would place us 18th or 19th; kind of a far cry from 24th-27th.

Just sayin'.

Well my main point that +/- 2 games from 8-8 taking us to 6-10 would likely fall in that range. So I do believe we should be a bit above that yes, but this is nothing to get excited about and it's within reasonable range for a team that least coasters want to see fail and will gladly predict it. Pretty much saying I expect (and actually welcome) the disrespect, and we haven't done enough to dispel it IMO.

All a matter of perspective, and manipulation of #s.

I look at 27 as only 5 teams being worse that the Seahawks.

That my friend is utter BS, I don’t care who you are , or where you went to School:{)

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This team is a complete mystery to me.

This is kinda where I'm at.

I can see 7-9, and I can see 10-6 if the offensive coordinator changes are a success, we get the run game going and the young defense plays well.

I do know one thing, this is going to be a fun group of players to root for. No more negative energy (hopefully) that's been hanging over the team for the past couple of years with veteran players no long wanting to hear what Pete's preaching.

I like the energy and attitude.

 

[12thbrah]

the Seahawks have the media right where they want them

Agree with the some of the last few posts. Changing of the guard and this team is definitely one to root for. Outside of Earl ,no big egos and with RW3 we have a shot every week. What more can a fanbase ask for?

This team will be competitive and still has some championship pedigree left. If anything special teams with Big Leg Dickson will be must-see tv for me.

 

[Seymour]

24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.

17 teams went 9-7 or better last year, and exactly one team was 8-8, with the rest being 7-9 or worse; so if you think we're an 8-8 team, that would place us 18th or 19th; kind of a far cry from 24th-27th.

Just sayin'.

Well my main point that +/- 2 games from 8-8 taking us to 6-10 would likely fall in that range. So I do believe we should be a bit above that yes, but this is nothing to get excited about and it's within reasonable range for a team that least coasters want to see fail and will gladly predict it. Pretty much saying I expect (and actually welcome) the disrespect, and we haven't done enough to dispel it IMO.

All a matter of perspective, and manipulation of #s.

I look at 27 as only 5 teams being worse that the Seahawks.

That my friend is utter BS, I don’t care who you are , or where you went to School:{)

Is it though? I don't expect outsiders to believe that. Look at what they have to look at. 0-4 in pre-season with issues on both sides of the ball still and many unproven starters, and 42-7 loss at home to the Rams late last year. Not exactly ground breaking data to dispute their ranking.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Is it though? I don't expect outsiders to believe that. Look at what they have to look at. 0-4 in pre-season with issues on both sides of the ball still and many unproven starters, and 42-7 loss at home to the Rams late last year. Not exactly ground breaking data to dispute their ranking.

Our preseason record is laughable if you're putting any merit into that as an indicator to our success this season.

Other than the Chargers starting offense when our defense was just playing base and Rivers carved us up?.........both sides of the ball hung with other starting groups, and in fact looked better than the Vikings, Colts and Raiders 75% of the time when it was starters vs. starters. After that when our depth was exposed? Err, not so much.

Which IMO is our problem this year, depth. It's downright scary on the defensive side of the ball. But certainly not 4-12 or 5-13 27th ranked team in the league range.

That's just ignorance from someone who only looked at rosters to compile his list, and not actual game tape of this young group of players.

 

[Seymour]

Is it though? I don't expect outsiders to believe that. Look at what they have to look at. 0-4 in pre-season with issues on both sides of the ball still and many unproven starters, and 42-7 loss at home to the Rams late last year. Not exactly ground breaking data to dispute their ranking.

Our preseason record is laughable if you're putting any merit into that as an indicator to our success this season.

Other than the Chargers starting offense when our defense was just playing base and Rivers carved us up?.........both sides of the ball hung with other starting groups, and in fact looked better than the Vikings, Colts and Raiders 75% of the time when it was starters vs. starters. After that when our depth was exposed? Err, not so much.

Which IMO is our problem this year, depth. It's downright scary on the defensive side of the ball. But certainly not 4-12 or 5-13 27th ranked team in the league range.

That's just ignorance from someone who only looked at rosters to compile his list, and not actual game tape of this young group of players.

What else do we have to go on....non contact practice? I put merit on what I have to see. Thats really all we have. Or would you prefer to possibly use Pete's outlook to predict our strength??