Seattle @ Washington

[-JJ-]

Man, talk about a homer. I can't stand the Pats, and I say their defense of the early 2000s was better than Seattle's. They had ball hawks just like SEA, Ty Law the Manning killer (most interceptions of Manning, 9), Rodney Harrison, Terrell Buckley. They had a great front 7, Wilfork and Seymour...and their offense was balanced. Corey Dillon ran for over 1,600 yards in 2004. They lost two games, and beat all but 3 teams by more than a touchdown, most of them blowouts. They could get away with more physical play back then, but Seattle seems to get away with a lot of contact on D, in light of the recent emphasis on illegal contact. Especially at home. Here is the main difference. Seattle is not the same team away from home. They had a ton of trouble with a bad Redskins team Monday night. The Pats teams of the early 2000s were the same dominant team, home or away. (Throws up in mouth after praising the Pats so profusely)

I keep a bottle of mouth wash for ya

[-JJ-]

Seattle was better on D than 2001 NE for sure. 2003 NE is  close enough to be a wash. I'd take 2004 NE over Seattle in a heartbeart.

 

2000 Ravens were of course beastly as well.

They gave up 17 a game 2001 but a lot less the last few games. Thing was while there weren't many star players it was a well oiled and coached defense. Stopped the greatest show on earth.

 

2003 they gave up 14 pts. That's pretty strong. 2004 they gave up 16 a game.

 

I guess good defensive teams are lucky to give up 24 pts a game today. Thanks "NFL TD addict"

[Shane Bond]

The fact that is forgotten though is that while no team would have scored more than 20 points vs that Seattle defense, there were several AFC teams, that could have restricted the Seahawks' offense by playing a much lesser error prone game in the early 2000s to less than 20 points. So, a team like the 2003/2004 Patriots or 2005 Steelers would have definitely played good D against that Seahawks offense and manage to win a close game like 20-17, I feel. Heck, the Steelers' D went against Big Ben in practice, who moved and threw around like Wilson all the time and to me, Wilson is like a little Big Ben and Luck is like a Big Ben. The Steelers' D in 2005 gave up 17, 18, 17 and 10 pts during their SB winning run. The early 2000s was a case of a strong AFC to me with Ds like the Patriots, Steelers and Ravens traveling well on the road.

 

The 43 points in the recent SB was a compounded result of Seahawks making some plays AND several mistakes the Broncos made due to bad coaching, and errors on O, D and ST, not all of which were caused by the Seahawks, IMO. We saw how when the same Broncos did not shoot themselves in their foot the second time in Seattle like the first time, the game was closer. I would err on the side of Belichick for better coaching and on the side of Brady for lesser mistakes, to be honest. Heck, we saw Kirk Cousins, when he made it a point to not make mistakes that his Redskins stood a chance at the end this Monday on MNF. The key is not making mistakes and keeping the game close to make it a 60 minute game vs the Seahawks, then teams have a chance.

 

If other teams and fans look at and play the game on the field and not focus on the 43-8 result, everyone will realize that the margin is not huge if you cut down on your mistakes vs the Seahawks. I heard a comment about Orakpo saying that he was glad his team went toe-to-toe against the defending champs though they fell short on MNF. That kind of thinking would not be entertained by an elite team's players and coaches, IMO. Oh, they beat the Broncos 43-8, so they must be this awesome behemoth of a team that you can't compete with. That is far from the truth because the 49ers, by playing good D, despite Kaepernick crapping in his pants with those poor INTs, still stood a chance in Seattle's stadium.

Wilson is much faster and better than Big Ben.

[Shane Bond]

And that pathetic Seattle O would not have managed more than 10 vs the Ravens, Pats or Steelers those years. Remember they played the soft Denver west coast team. The east coast teams were physical and mean and nasty on both sides of the ball.

Pathetic?. Wilson, Percy Harvin, Tate and Lynch is Pathetic?.

[amfootball]

Pathetic?. Wilson, Percy Harvin, Tate and Lynch is Pathetic?.

Versus the Ravens, Pats and Steelers, they would have been lucky to score 10. Harvin would have been out of the game in the first quarter. Are you seriously putting Tate in there as a great player?

[Shane Bond]

Versus the Ravens, Pats and Steelers, they would have been lucky to score 10. Harvin would have been out of the game in the first quarter. Are you seriously putting Tate in there as a great player?

Tate is a big time clutch catcher.

You really are under estimating Wilson.

[amfootball]

Tate is a big time clutch catcher.

You really are under estimating Wilson.

Tate has averaged 41 catches per season in his career, 548 yards, and 4 TDs. He is nowhere close to a great receiver.

 

I like Wilson a lot but he benefited a ton in last year's SB from Denver playing like bafoons and giving his O short field after short field and a pick six to boot.

[chad72]

Wilson is much faster and better than Big Ben.

 

The coaches led by Belichick and the defense of Dick LeBeau, with the personnel in their prime that they had, would have matched up to Wilson as well once they had film on him. Heck, John Pagano of the Chargers played Wilson so well lately in the game that the Chargers won a few weeks ago. I am sure those coaches would too.

 

It is a "what have you done for me lately" society that we live in and people that embrace the Seahawks' awesomeness (some primarily influenced by 43-8) should not forget the fact that those Ds and teams from the AFC in the early 2000s won a lot of close games too. Heck, all 3 SBs of the Pats were won by a FG, so they knew pretty well how to close out close games.