Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Parallels between GSOT Rams and current Seahawks..

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Didn't know where to put this but I thought about this today..

    Rams were a playoff caliber team from 1999-2004, making the playoffs five out of six years, winning the division three times and winning one super bowl.

    Seahawks have been a playoff caliber team from 2012-2017, making the playoffs five out of six years, winning the division three times and winning one super bowl.

    The Rams won 64 games in these six seasons.

    The Seahawks won 65 games in these six seasons.

    The Rams had a historically good unit in their offense that led the way, while sporadically having a good/bad defense.

    The Seahawks had a historically good unit in their defense that led the way, while sporadically having a good/bad offense.

    The division was torn away from the Rams in 2004 by a young Seahawks team with an underrated QB, an MVP caliber RB and overall a superior roster.

    The division was torn away from the Seahawks in 2017 by a young Rams team with an underrated QB, an MVP caliber RB and overall a superior roster.


    Slowly over a painful period of time, the Rams transitioned from the offense being the identity to the defense - even though it still wasnt great.

    ***This is where the comparison will end for you guys - mercifully. Wilson will not allow the Seahawks to go so low. But with the somewhat obvious transition of the Seahawks strength being offense going forward, I thought this was an interesting comparison, and the more I dug into how similar the success was, I thought it was interesting.
    Ramfan128
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 762
    Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:46 am


  • Good place for it. and very interesting. Thanks.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8315
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • Pete Carroll builds championship level defenses, it is what he does. I doubt Pete Carroll in a lot of areas, but I don't doubt his ability to build a defense.

    So that & Russell Wilson makes it different. The Seahawks aren't going away.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1962
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • We have Russell Wilson. You had.....Marc Bulger.

    I'm not worried.
    RIP Paul Allen, 1953-2018

    The greatest owner in Seattle sports history.

    189-152-1
    User avatar
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4515
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


  • A better parallel, I think, is the late 90s early 2000 Bucs, except those Bucs had a better defense and the recent Seahawks had a better offense (2002 Bucs yards/play allowed: 4.2; 2013 Sea: 4.4; 2002 Bucs offense: 4.9; 2013 Sea: 5.6.) Pretty much all statistics support this claim. However, the difference between the Seahawk offense and the Bucs offense is greater than the difference between the Bucs defense and Seahawks defense. In other words the Seahawks were an overall better team.


    As for the comparison to the GSOT, I don’t think it’s close. Did Seattle ever have the worst offense in the league? Because the 2000 Rams were dead last in points allowed (but first and by a lot at points scored).
    Sports Hernia wrote:Mayfield has grown on me a bit, but I disagree with him here.

    If an employer fires/terminates me, why do I owe them any sort of “loyalty”?

    &@$# that!

    That's what Sherman said
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1397
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


  • An addendum to the last post about the 2012-2014 Seahawks. Statistically speaking, they didn't have a top five defense all time, but they did have probably a top 12-5, and their offense was top ten in the league for each of those years. Thus, while I will not put them in the category of the 85 Bears, 00 Ravens, or 2002 Bucs as a DEFENSE, as a TEAM they are up there with the some of the best ever. Which really makes it a shame they didn't fully capitalize.

    I think that DVOA backs me up on this. They had a very, very strong team overall those three years. Actually, DVOA had them first from 2012 through 2015, so four years of overall dominance. Of course 2015 the Panthers were 15-1 and were dominant, and had Cam Newton not been so soft, and had the Denver Broncos not also had an incredible defense (about on par with the 2013 Seahawks, actually; ranked right behind them in all time DVOA, allowing 4.4 yards per play, like the 2013 Hawks, but having a much more mediocre offense), the Panthers would have been champions.

    But again, that Denver defense was special.


    Anyway, point is, you Seahawk fans ought to be very thankful for four very dominant seasons. You even got to see a Lombardi out of it, which is rare enough. Just ask Browns and Lions fans.
    Sports Hernia wrote:Mayfield has grown on me a bit, but I disagree with him here.

    If an employer fires/terminates me, why do I owe them any sort of “loyalty”?

    &@$# that!

    That's what Sherman said
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1397
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:An addendum to the last post about the 2012-2014 Seahawks. Statistically speaking, they didn't have a top five defense all time, but they did have probably a top 12-5, and their offense was top ten in the league for each of those years. Thus, while I will not put them in the category of the 85 Bears, 00 Ravens, or 2002 Bucs as a DEFENSE, as a TEAM they are up there with the some of the best ever. Which really makes it a shame they didn't fully capitalize.

    I think that DVOA backs me up on this. They had a very, very strong team overall those three years. Actually, DVOA had them first from 2012 through 2015, so four years of overall dominance. Of course 2015 the Panthers were 15-1 and were dominant, and had Cam Newton not been so soft, and had the Denver Broncos not also had an incredible defense (about on par with the 2013 Seahawks, actually; ranked right behind them in all time DVOA, allowing 4.4 yards per play, like the 2013 Hawks, but having a much more mediocre offense), the Panthers would have been champions.

    But again, that Denver defense was special.


    Anyway, point is, you Seahawk fans ought to be very thankful for four very dominant seasons. You even got to see a Lombardi out of it, which is rare enough. Just ask Browns and Lions fans.


    Statistically, no our defense is not a top 5 defense.

    But if you consider eras, and the pass friendly rules in play today, then yes, I say they're top 5 all time.
    RIP Paul Allen, 1953-2018

    The greatest owner in Seattle sports history.

    189-152-1
    User avatar
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4515
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


  • ^^^^ Yeah, you gotta do differentials for each year between the team's defense and the NFL average for that year (not including the team you're measuring, so that they're not on both sides of the equation).

    To be VERY CLEAR I'm not going to do that, but that's the way someone who wanted to do it should do it. :lol:

    Nice post OP. I like it.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4947
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:A better parallel, I think, is the late 90s early 2000 Bucs, except those Bucs had a better defense and the recent Seahawks had a better offense (2002 Bucs yards/play allowed: 4.2; 2013 Sea: 4.4; 2002 Bucs offense: 4.9; 2013 Sea: 5.6.) Pretty much all statistics support this claim. However, the difference between the Seahawk offense and the Bucs offense is greater than the difference between the Bucs defense and Seahawks defense. In other words the Seahawks were an overall better team.


    As for the comparison to the GSOT, I don’t think it’s close. Did Seattle ever have the worst offense in the league? Because the 2000 Rams were dead last in points allowed (but first and by a lot at points scored).




    While it's true the 2000 Rams were dead last, in 99 we were 5th and in 01 we were 3rd. I don't think that the Seahawks offense was quite that high. Our defense was mostly bad after that, but the general point was that the Rams inconsistent defense season to season is (sort of) paralleled by the Seahawks inconsistent offense game to game over the past six years.

    The total number of wins is almost identical, and both got one super bowl win (so far) during this time period.

    What I left out and I can't believe that I did - is that both teams lost to the Patriots in heart breaking fashion - for the Rams after we stormed back to tie the game and were heavy favorites - for Seattle, well, obviously. And in both cases the Patriots derailed what might have been dynasties.
    Ramfan128
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 762
    Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:46 am


  • Hawkblogger a while back did the differentials for the seahawks defense. Over a 3 year period of time they were arguably the best defenses of all time.

    They led the league in points allowed for 4 straight seasons which hadn't been done in over 50 years.

    http://www.hawkblogger.com/2015/07/seahawks-boast-best-defense-in-history.html

    Pete could only win 1 Superbowl with the best D, Marshawn Lynch, and Russell Wilson. So sad.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1962
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:Pete won a Superbowl with the best D, Marshawn Lynch, and Russell Wilson.


    You're so right! What a great day that was! It's hard to do, even when you have some great players on your team.
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1979
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


  • Ad Hawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:Pete won a Superbowl with the best D, Marshawn Lynch, and Russell Wilson.


    You're so right! What a great day that was! It's hard to do, even when you have some great players on your team.


    Image

    Unfortunately that is not what the documentary will be about.

    The Dynasty that Never Was.


    The Rams got off easy won a Superbowl, lost another, then went into the toilet. The Seahawks are choosing Chinese water torture. With an elite QB in the prime of his career, far more painful.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1962
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:
    Ad Hawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:Pete won a Superbowl with the best D, Marshawn Lynch, and Russell Wilson.


    You're so right! What a great day that was! It's hard to do, even when you have some great players on your team.


    Image

    Unfortunately that is not what the documentary will be about.

    The Dynasty that Never Was.


    The Rams got off easy won a Superbowl, lost another, then went into the toilet. The Seahawks are choosing Chinese water torture. With an elite QB in the prime of his career, far more painful.



    Man, quit acting like Pete stole your girlfriend. It is embarrassing.
    Milehighhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 732
    Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:33 pm


  • Milehighhawk wrote:Man, quit acting like Pete stole your girlfriend. It is embarrassing.


    Yeah, I think the only narrative Fade cares about is the one that casts Pete as the anti-christ.

    The truth is that Pete created and led the team that gave this city it's only Super Bowl. To demand more is like saying your parents suck after only getting you a motorcycle for Christmas and not a Jet-ski, too.
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1979
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


  • Well, Rams fans also didn’t have internet message boards where we could all debate the torture of sucking again over and over with each other and debate each tiny reason why.
    When you get to Helllll, John. Tel em Daisy sentcha.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3218
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • Both teams were good enough to establish a dynasty but it didn't happen in either case.
    1-1 in championship games equals a fart in the wind in terms of Super Bowl dynasties.
    User avatar
    Rams_eat_QB's
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 15
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:05 am


  • Maulbert wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:An addendum to the last post about the 2012-2014 Seahawks. Statistically speaking, they didn't have a top five defense all time, but they did have probably a top 12-5, and their offense was top ten in the league for each of those years. Thus, while I will not put them in the category of the 85 Bears, 00 Ravens, or 2002 Bucs as a DEFENSE, as a TEAM they are up there with the some of the best ever. Which really makes it a shame they didn't fully capitalize.

    I think that DVOA backs me up on this. They had a very, very strong team overall those three years. Actually, DVOA had them first from 2012 through 2015, so four years of overall dominance. Of course 2015 the Panthers were 15-1 and were dominant, and had Cam Newton not been so soft, and had the Denver Broncos not also had an incredible defense (about on par with the 2013 Seahawks, actually; ranked right behind them in all time DVOA, allowing 4.4 yards per play, like the 2013 Hawks, but having a much more mediocre offense), the Panthers would have been champions.

    But again, that Denver defense was special.


    Anyway, point is, you Seahawk fans ought to be very thankful for four very dominant seasons. You even got to see a Lombardi out of it, which is rare enough. Just ask Browns and Lions fans.


    Statistically, no our defense is not a top 5 defense.

    But if you consider eras, and the pass friendly rules in play today, then yes, I say they're top 5 all time.


    Actually no. If you compare to eras, I can quickly find ten teams better in terms of point per game in comparison to the average allowed points per game of each particular year. Starting with the 2013 Seahawks, then ten teams with a better percentage in terms of points allowed per game compared to the average of that year:

    2013 Hawks: 14.4 points per game
    2013 Average: 23.4
    Percentage better than average: 162.5%

    1975 Rams: 9.64
    1975 Average: 20.6
    Percentage better than average: 213.69%

    2000 Ravens: 10.3
    2000 Avg: 20.7
    Percent better than average: 200.97%

    1971 Vikings: 9.93
    1971 Average: 19.4
    Percentage better than average: 195.37%

    1976 Steelers: 9.9
    1976 Average: 19.2
    Percentage better than average: 193.94%

    1977 Falcons: 9.21
    1977 Average: 17.2
    Percentage better than average: 186.75%

    2002 Bucs: 12.25 points per game
    2002 Average: 21.7
    Percentage better than average: 177.14%

    1986 Bears: 11.7
    1986 Average: 20.5
    Percentage better than average: 175.21%

    1985 Bears: 12.4
    1985 Average: 21.5
    Percentage better than average: 173.39%

    2006 Ravens: 12.5
    2006 Average: 20.7
    Percentage better than average: 165.6%

    2005 Bears: 12.6
    2005 Average: 20.6
    Percentage better than average: 163.49%




    And some of these teams didn't benefit from having a top tier rushing attack.

    Rushing attack rankings:

    2013 Seahawks: 4th

    1971 Vikings: 17th (of 26 teams)

    1977 Falcons: 17th (of 28)

    2002 Bucs: 27th (of 32)

    2006 Ravens: 25th (of 32)



    I bold the last two, because they are the most impressive to me. Defenses that dominated despite not having a powerful running game to keep the defense fresh. That is impressive.




    Bottom line: A lot of new football fans have short memories. The 2013 Seahawks were dominant, but there were more than 4 better defenses. Comparing the 2013 Hawks to the 2000 Ravens is comparing two different tiers. They are closer to the 2005 Bears, 2006 Ravens, 2008 Steelers and 2015 Broncos.



    But that's just a relative comparison to eras for each of these defenses in points per game. Still, it shows that in that statistic, taking into account rule changes that favor offense doesn't change the RELATIVE dominance of teams to their era, and I believe this shows the opposite of what you'd think you'd see if other great defenses were compared to their peers.







    But maybe the OP was right about the comparison: When looking at the Rams offense compared to the rest of the league, their 2000's dominance over the rest of the league's offenses of 2000 is only a little bit better than the 2013 Seahawks dominance over the rest of the league's defense of 2013.
    Sports Hernia wrote:Mayfield has grown on me a bit, but I disagree with him here.

    If an employer fires/terminates me, why do I owe them any sort of “loyalty”?

    &@$# that!

    That's what Sherman said
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1397
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


  • Fade wrote:Hawkblogger a while back did the differentials for the seahawks defense. Over a 3 year period of time they were arguably the best defenses of all time.

    They led the league in points allowed for 4 straight seasons which hadn't been done in over 50 years.

    http://www.hawkblogger.com/2015/07/seahawks-boast-best-defense-in-history.html

    Pete could only win 1 Superbowl with the best D, Marshawn Lynch, and Russell Wilson. So sad.


    I'd point out they also were 3rd, 4th, 1st and 3rd in rushing those four years, which significantly helps the defense.

    The Bucs from 1999-2004 (with defensive points per game in parentheses): 15th (3rd), 9th (7th), 30th (8th), 27th (1st), 24th (4th), and 29th (9th).



    It's a lot easier to lead the NFL in points allowed per game when you're averaging being ranked 2.75th in rushing offense than when you're ranked 22.333...th on average in offensive rushing.
    Sports Hernia wrote:Mayfield has grown on me a bit, but I disagree with him here.

    If an employer fires/terminates me, why do I owe them any sort of “loyalty”?

    &@$# that!

    That's what Sherman said
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1397
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    Fade wrote:Hawkblogger a while back did the differentials for the seahawks defense. Over a 3 year period of time they were arguably the best defenses of all time.

    They led the league in points allowed for 4 straight seasons which hadn't been done in over 50 years.

    http://www.hawkblogger.com/2015/07/seahawks-boast-best-defense-in-history.html

    Pete could only win 1 Superbowl with the best D, Marshawn Lynch, and Russell Wilson. So sad.


    I'd point out they also were 3rd, 4th, 1st and 3rd in rushing those four years, which significantly helps the defense.

    The Bucs from 1999-2004 (with defensive points per game in parentheses): 15th (3rd), 9th (7th), 30th (8th), 27th (1st), 24th (4th), and 29th (9th).



    It's a lot easier to lead the NFL in points allowed per game when you're averaging being ranked 2.75th in rushing offense than when you're ranked 22.333...th on average in offensive rushing.


    And yet, Seattle is the only team in the Super Bowl era to lead the league in points allowed in 4 straight seasons. The '80s Bears didn't do that with Walter Frickin' Payton at running back. The only team to do better was the Cleveland Browns of the 1950s. A superlative is still a superlative.
    RIP Paul Allen, 1953-2018

    The greatest owner in Seattle sports history.

    189-152-1
    User avatar
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4515
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


  • Maulbert wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    Fade wrote:Hawkblogger a while back did the differentials for the seahawks defense. Over a 3 year period of time they were arguably the best defenses of all time.

    They led the league in points allowed for 4 straight seasons which hadn't been done in over 50 years.

    http://www.hawkblogger.com/2015/07/seahawks-boast-best-defense-in-history.html

    Pete could only win 1 Superbowl with the best D, Marshawn Lynch, and Russell Wilson. So sad.


    I'd point out they also were 3rd, 4th, 1st and 3rd in rushing those four years, which significantly helps the defense.

    The Bucs from 1999-2004 (with defensive points per game in parentheses): 15th (3rd), 9th (7th), 30th (8th), 27th (1st), 24th (4th), and 29th (9th).



    It's a lot easier to lead the NFL in points allowed per game when you're averaging being ranked 2.75th in rushing offense than when you're ranked 22.333...th on average in offensive rushing.


    And yet, Seattle is the only team in the Super Bowl era to lead the league in points allowed in 4 straight seasons. The '80s Bears didn't do that with Walter Frickin' Payton at running back. The only team to do better was the Cleveland Browns of the 1950s. A superlative is still a superlative.

    Yeah but looking at it in a vacuum is foolish. Great running games help defenses tremendously. That's why I think the 2002 Bucs defense was better than the 1985 Bears. As was the 1991 Eagles.


    Furthermore, if you're going to make the argument that raw stats matter more without context, then why would you argue that era matters? Seems inconsistent.
    Sports Hernia wrote:Mayfield has grown on me a bit, but I disagree with him here.

    If an employer fires/terminates me, why do I owe them any sort of “loyalty”?

    &@$# that!

    That's what Sherman said
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1397
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    Fade wrote:Hawkblogger a while back did the differentials for the seahawks defense. Over a 3 year period of time they were arguably the best defenses of all time.

    They led the league in points allowed for 4 straight seasons which hadn't been done in over 50 years.

    http://www.hawkblogger.com/2015/07/seahawks-boast-best-defense-in-history.html

    Pete could only win 1 Superbowl with the best D, Marshawn Lynch, and Russell Wilson. So sad.


    I'd point out they also were 3rd, 4th, 1st and 3rd in rushing those four years, which significantly helps the defense.

    The Bucs from 1999-2004 (with defensive points per game in parentheses): 15th (3rd), 9th (7th), 30th (8th), 27th (1st), 24th (4th), and 29th (9th).



    It's a lot easier to lead the NFL in points allowed per game when you're averaging being ranked 2.75th in rushing offense than when you're ranked 22.333...th on average in offensive rushing.


    And yet, Seattle is the only team in the Super Bowl era to lead the league in points allowed in 4 straight seasons. The '80s Bears didn't do that with Walter Frickin' Payton at running back. The only team to do better was the Cleveland Browns of the 1950s. A superlative is still a superlative.

    Yeah but looking at it in a vacuum is foolish. Great running games help defenses tremendously. That's why I think the 2002 Bucs defense was better than the 1985 Bears. As was the 1991 Eagles.


    Furthermore, if you're going to make the argument that raw stats matter more without context, then why would you argue that era matters? Seems inconsistent.


    Those were 1 hit wonders. Seattle did it over an extended period of time. In the Salary Cap era. 4 straight seasons.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1962
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    I'd point out they also were 3rd, 4th, 1st and 3rd in rushing those four years, which significantly helps the defense.

    The Bucs from 1999-2004 (with defensive points per game in parentheses): 15th (3rd), 9th (7th), 30th (8th), 27th (1st), 24th (4th), and 29th (9th).



    It's a lot easier to lead the NFL in points allowed per game when you're averaging being ranked 2.75th in rushing offense than when you're ranked 22.333...th on average in offensive rushing.


    And yet, Seattle is the only team in the Super Bowl era to lead the league in points allowed in 4 straight seasons. The '80s Bears didn't do that with Walter Frickin' Payton at running back. The only team to do better was the Cleveland Browns of the 1950s. A superlative is still a superlative.

    Yeah but looking at it in a vacuum is foolish. Great running games help defenses tremendously. That's why I think the 2002 Bucs defense was better than the 1985 Bears. As was the 1991 Eagles.


    Furthermore, if you're going to make the argument that raw stats matter more without context, then why would you argue that era matters? Seems inconsistent.


    Those were 1 hit wonders. Seattle did it over an extended period of time. In the Salary Cap era. 4 straight seasons.



    This. Same with the Rams GSOT offense from 99-01.

    You constantly see teams that have outrageously good offensive seasons that come crashing back down to reality. The Rams doing it over three years (and Seattle over four) is why those are all time great accomplishments.
    Ramfan128
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 762
    Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:46 am




It is currently Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:05 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online