2016 power ranks. (Way too early edition)

#3 is our spot.

I can't put much on this but it's mildly comforting to see that the talking heads haven't forgotten about us.

Losing #24 is a kick to my emotional "ball sack" but I'm optimistic that we won't be in any trouble at his position. I'm hoping that the money freed up might save a guy or two that we may have lost otherwise.
It's gunna' be a long off season with many unknowns ahead but I'm cool with #3 at this point in time.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14697 ... r-rankings

pmedic920":2kotu4hd said:

#3 is our spot.

I can't put much on this but it's mildly comforting to see that the talking heads haven't forgotten about us.

Losing #24 is a kick to my emotional "ball sack" but I'm optimistic that we won't be in any trouble at his position. I'm hoping that the money freed up might save a guy or two that we may have lost otherwise.
It's gunna' be a long off season with many unknowns ahead but I'm cool with #3 at this point in time.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14697 ... r-rankings

Click to expand...

Yes, way too early, and yes, sounds about right to me. Well, except for Panthers at #1. :34853_doh:

We have potential to be the #1 favorite if we get this off-season right. We're going to be a strong team regardless of what happens but there are some questions. Will we have an improved interior pass rush? Can we fix the Oline? Will the loss of certain players hurt us more than we think it will.

All three are legit question marks. Even though Bennett and Avril were one of the best DE duos in the league, it still seemed like we took too long to get to the QB. Mainly because of us lacking a potent interior pass rush. Will we commit to drafting a high upside pass rush DT early? Maybe but it's not certain as the Seahawks drafts are usually just taking the BPA or moving up/down to get the most out of a draft but we rarely really draft for position. This could still be a lingering issue next year.

The Oline is of course a huge question mark. We're probably going to lose Okung and possibly also Sweezy. That would leave us with a Bailey - Britt - Lewis - Glowinski - Gilliam line. Bailey is a below average LT and works best as a back up, Britt is even worse than Bailey at both guard and tackle and would be best of cut altogether, Lewis is an average at best center, Glow is pretty much an unproven commodity and Gilliam shows promise but isn't better than average yet. Will we draft multiple strong Olinemen? Unlikely due to the BPA strategy and if we only rely on the draft that would leave us with plenty of potential on the line but very little experience, which actually was a big issue last year. So FA? Sure but who can we get without screwing our cap up? Again, not sure.

The last one is the most overlooked so far. Lynch is gone already and even though we have Rawls, our entire running game is reliant on him getting back at 100%. I'm not too worried but we shouldn't look past it either. Irvin is most likely gone. So even if we fix DT, we'll be stuck with another hole in the pass rush. Not sure how we will fix this. Like said before Okung is as good as out the door already and will leave a glaring hole on Russ's blindside. Lane and Shead could both be gone and we saw what happens to our D without someone capable opposite Sherman. Will we keep Kam? Sweezy? Graham? Kearse? Ryan?

If we go into the regular season with decent pass rush components at DT and SAM, an at least average Oline and no newly created holes in the team we should be the favorites but #3 is just right at the moment. Especially considering teams like the Pats and Cards only real question is whether their star QB won't regress.

In my mind, Seattle is #1. Four straight #1 DVOA seasons and it seemed like they hit their stride at the end of 2015. But I understand why they are #3, no good team underachieved more than Seattle last year.

If our defense can start next year like they finished last year, and our OL can not start out terrible, we are #1 comfortably.

Wilson's and Baldwin's play, combined with Lockett likely getting better will be tough for teams to defend. Then throw in Rawls for an entire season and we won't need our defense to be the best in the league.

As much as I love defensive football, and as much as I love having the best defense in the league year in and year out, I'm excited to see what our offense can do next year.

kearly":20dwf0c7 said:

In my mind, Seattle is #1. Four straight #1 DVOA seasons and it seemed like they hit their stride at the end of 2015. But I understand why they are #3, no good team underachieved more than Seattle last year.

Click to expand...

I think the ranking is generous. Don't get me wrong, I'm very hopeful for '16. The ceiling for this team is very high. Especially with some improvements on the offensive line. Wilson has shown he can be absolutely dominant with even average protection. But, improving protection is a variable, even though it will certainly be a priority.

In spite of what any stats (however good they are--and I love DVOA) might say, the results have to factor. Even if they're strange. This team had stretches of atrocious play on the offensive line, and the defense ran out of gas at some inopportune times, on a number of occasions. Getting down 28-0 in a playoff game can't be looked at as an aberration when you compare it to other road playoff game starts, you know? There's certainly a long list of excuses, including the field conditions disadvantage. But performance issues like that have to factor in to any estimation. Especially in big games.

Additionally, I believe the 'Hawks also have one of the highest--if not the highest--number of contracts expiring this offseason. It's really hard to justify them any higher for me.

Too much uncertainty on the offensive line to be ranked any higher than that. We'll have to wait and see how Carroll and Schneider manage to shore up that unit without weakening the rest of the team.

I don't see it as "Way Too Early" at all, because if the folks that are doing the rankings have learned nothing, they've been educated on how Pete Carroll & John Schneider have kept the Seahawks in the conversation, employing players that have come up huge for the Seahawks Franchise.
Seems like every time they tried giving the Seahawks a crap Draft grade, they wound up looking like fools.
Sure there have been a few misfires, but they've also recognized quite a few UDFA's, and lower round Drafted players that felt slighted, and have proven that they should have been Drafted a lot higher.

Panthers #1 is a joke. They had by far the easiest schedule this year and next season will have to play the NFC West and AFC West which includes 6 playoff teams, one of which just crushed them in the SB. Carolina will be fortunate to win 10 games next season.

I think its funny how the Vikings keep being overlooked by both fans and media. I mean...they DID win the NFC North and that defense is no joke and is super young. Only thing holding the Vikings back is the Vikings offense being way too predictable and setting up Bridgewater into horrible situations to succeed. Bridgewater is the same age NOW that Wilson was as a rookie though so who knows how he will look next year playing in a dome for 9 games each year now

Only thing they need on defense is a above average + safety next to smith and maybe one more interior rusher although I think they have pretty decent depth and talent on the DL. I could also see them grabbing a LB in the first round to have 3 really good LBs, assuming the rookie would pan out.

People think Bridgewater is hot trash but the only glaring weakness in his game I see is the deep ball for whatever reason. When he is throwing short and intermediate routes I think he does a great job but for whatever reason the offense is designed around the deep game instead of a more spread out Patriot style offense.

12thbrah":2ef6s2rw said:

Panthers #1 is a joke. They had by far the easiest schedule this year and next season will have to play the NFC

Click to expand...

What does that say for the the teams who lost to them twice?

Rat":1xmkpk0o said:

12thbrah":1xmkpk0o said:

Panthers #1 is a joke. They had by far the easiest schedule this year and next season will have to play the NFC

Click to expand...

What does that say for the the teams who lost to them twice?

Click to expand...

It says they caught us on bad days.

I think the Panthers will be significantly worse. Pete Carroll admitted the Super Bowl hangover was a real thing. He isn't one to make excuses, so for him to say that, I believe him. I just can't see how the Panthers, led by Cam Newton, can have the right mindset to try to come back from what should have been a once-in-a-lifetime season. We've also seen first-hand that a high turnover margin is not sustainable year to year. The Panthers were incredibly lucky with turnovers this year. That is most likely going to regress to the mean.

And as has been stated before, their schedule next year will be much tougher than 2015. Tampa Bay should be improved, and you know the Falcons can beat them. Carolina has three west coast road trips (SEA, LA, OAK) plus a game in Denver. The Rams have the pass rush to destroy them like the Broncos did. Oakland is no joke anymore either. Combine that with some tough home games against Arizona, Minnesota, and Kansas City, and I think they are looking at 10-6 at best.

sutz":120dccfl said:

Rat":120dccfl said:

12thbrah":120dccfl said:

Panthers #1 is a joke. They had by far the easiest schedule this year and next season will have to play the NFC

Click to expand...

What does that say for the the teams who lost to them twice?

Click to expand...

It says they caught us on bad days.

Click to expand...

We had the Panthers here in Seattle and let them off the hook. It won't happen again next season and I fully expect the Hawks to have home field advantage again throughout the NFC Playoffs with Russell 2.0, Rawls and Graham back in the mix.

Rat":3kv4n3u6 said:

12thbrah":3kv4n3u6 said:

Panthers #1 is a joke. They had by far the easiest schedule this year and next season will have to play the NFC

Click to expand...

What does that say for the the teams who lost to them twice?

Click to expand...

Not much.
They where a better team this year. Not a legit 15-1. they were more of a 12-4/13-3 team that got a huge boost from playing a cupcake schedule.

even with their current team as it is right now, no way they wim more than 12 games with this new schedule.

I mean just in our division they have to go again us, cardinals, and Rams. those are all three potential losses right off the bat in just one division.

#3 is because we have RW and a good defense. There are just too many unknowns with the offensive line, can Rawls come back from injury and was his play an anomaly, AND then there is Graham. People seem confident he's coming back but no one has ever came back from that injury at full strength. This is not to say that they don't return but very few have ever been really productive. I am no expert at this but I have heard several sport's announcers say as much.
http://www.newellstrength.com/hierarchy-knee-injuries/

dogorama":37ul0w4u said:

#3 is because we have RW and a good defense. There are just too many unknowns with the offensive line, can Rawls come back from injury and was his play an anomaly, AND then there is Graham. People seem confident he's coming back but no one has ever came back from that injury at full strength. This is not to say that they don't return but very few have ever been really productive. I am no expert at this but I have heard several sport's announcers say as much.
http://www.newellstrength.com/hierarchy-knee-injuries/

Click to expand...

First mistake is listening to the Mediots, they will spin things for hits and views, better to look at similar players and how they came back, then give a plus or minus based on their work ethic shown and desire.

nanomoz":j93yu0k6 said:

kearly":j93yu0k6 said:

In my mind, Seattle is #1. Four straight #1 DVOA seasons and it seemed like they hit their stride at the end of 2015. But I understand why they are #3, no good team underachieved more than Seattle last year.

Click to expand...

I think the ranking is generous. Don't get me wrong, I'm very hopeful for '16. The ceiling for this team is very high. Especially with some improvements on the offensive line. Wilson has shown he can be absolutely dominant with even average protection. But, improving protection is a variable, even though it will certainly be a priority.

In spite of what any stats (however good they are--and I love DVOA) might say, the results have to factor. Even if they're strange. This team had stretches of atrocious play on the offensive line, and the defense ran out of gas at some inopportune times, on a number of occasions. Getting down 28-0 in a playoff game can't be looked at as an aberration when you compare it to other road playoff game starts, you know? There's certainly a long list of excuses, including the field conditions disadvantage. But performance issues like that have to factor in to any estimation. Especially in big games.

Additionally, I believe the 'Hawks also have one of the highest--if not the highest--number of contracts expiring this offseason. It's really hard to justify them any higher for me.

Click to expand...

I agree. #3 is generous at this point. Many questions still need answered on both sides of the ball. By the end of the season, no fewer than three teams (Rams, Vikings and Panthers) had our gadget offense figured out to the point were it was brought to a virtual standstill. Then comes a D that couldn't deliver against above-average offenses, and very uncharacteristically lost considerable second-half leads. Nothing says they will start next year they same way they finished this year (not sure I even want that, considering how the playoffs went), and nothing says they won't repeat the same, slow start. Pete has shown a tendency to go back to what he feels is the teams 'identity,' so unless something earth-shattering happens personnel wise, we could be in for Ground Hog Day.

chris98251":2r9ufi5v said:

dogorama":2r9ufi5v said:

#3 is because we have RW and a good defense. There are just too many unknowns with the offensive line, can Rawls come back from injury and was his play an anomaly, AND then there is Graham. People seem confident he's coming back but no one has ever came back from that injury at full strength. This is not to say that they don't return but very few have ever been really productive. I am no expert at this but I have heard several sport's announcers say as much.
http://www.newellstrength.com/hierarchy-knee-injuries/

Click to expand...

First mistake is listening to the Mediots, they will spin things for hits and views, better to look at similar players and how they came back, then give a plus or minus based on their work ethic shown and desire.

Click to expand...

I might tend to agree w/you on the mediots but there were several and one was an actual sport's doctor. Aside from that, it is a well established fact that this injury is at the top of the hierarchy of knee injuries. Of course I wish him well for him and us, but a definite conclusion that he will return to full form is pretty speculative given the "mediots" or not.

kearly":19xqbim0 said:

In my mind, Seattle is #1. Four straight #1 DVOA seasons and it seemed like they hit their stride at the end of 2015. But I understand why they are #3, no good team underachieved more than Seattle last year.

Click to expand...

Did they really underachieve?

Sherman has most likely already peaked. So that is a decline from the Hawk's best D ever.

Thomas has most likely already peaked. That is another decline.

Chancellor has most likely already peaked. That's a 3rd decline.

Wagner MAY have already peaked but could've just been a down year.

Mebane already peaked.

Avril has already peaked.


When a team keep trying to hold onto almost all their players they run into salary cap issues (which we have) and the players often times aren't as good as they USED TO BE.

Hawk fans need to understand that our defense has gotten worse and will continue to get worse. We lose good players AND the ones we keep aren't as good as they used to be. It's simply a question of HOW MUCH WORSE we will be (hopefully only a little).