With eight divisions in the NFL, there’s no way that the projected winner of the worst division can be among the league’s top eight teams at the start of the season.
And with that careful and in-depth reasoning and analysis (hey, we’ve gotta do nine of these in four hours), we unveil team No. 9.
The Seattle Seahawks.
This season will look a lot like so many others for the ‘Hawks. Division championship? Check. One or more home playoff games? Check. Lose first postseason game away from home? Check.
The question is whether they can fatten up on the other three teams of the NFC West, whom they play twice each, and the three AFC East teams that don’t play their home games in Massachusetts to secure one of the top two seeds in the conference. With the top seed, they’d have to leave their home stadium only for the Super Bowl, which they then would lose.
At this point, we wouldn’t bet on it. The running game is in flux, with Julius Jones and T.J. Duckett trying to play the role of Shaun Alexander, pre-2006. The receiving corps is banged up, and the team’s young wideouts need to step up.
The defense is still fairly solid, but any Mike Holmgren-coached team is about offense, and this team will go only as far as Matt Hasselbeck and company can take them.
Division championship? Check. One or more home playoff games? Check. Lose first postseason game away from home? Check.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Westcoastin, a Cheerleader, on 9/4/08 at 3:33 pm
Obviously, this is another example of east coast bias,
that any team west of the Mississippi has grown accustom to.
We have struggled away from home in the post season, but who
doesn’t, besides the giants.
Anyone that watches football, and understands the concept
of “home cooking” realizes that any home team in the playoffs, already has an advantage before the visiting team even
walks into the place.
Bottom line, its Mikes last year coaching, and the running
game will be multi-dimensional this year, which already gives us an advantage over last year.
As far as the weakest division, maybe weak, but not weakest,
lets look at all the divisions that have one dominating team,
and 3 perennial mediocre teams in the division (AFC east,
AFC west, NFC north, NFC south)
But most those have east coast teams on them, so we
wouldn’t hear that side of it normally.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.75 / 5 with 11 rating(s)
Pea Tear Griffin, a Hall of Famer, on 9/4/08 at 3:39 pm
Well put. Couldn’t agree more.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
saturn11, a Passionate Fan, on 9/4/08 at 5:01 pm
You can argue that ‘hawks are not clearly better than the Vikes, Saints, or Eagles, who are all ranked below them.
If the Hawks finish with a better record than these teams it will only be because they play in such a soft division.
More than any other team besides the Eagles from the first half of this decade, the Seahakws have benefitted from having six games versus patsies every year. They haven’t done much to improve themselves since then.
Their wideouts are hobbled. Julius Jones is a stiff for whom they overpaid. The O-line is solid but the D is mediocre at best.
They will get slammed in the playoffs if they make it there.
And Seahawks fans call this ranking biased? If anything, it’s generous.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
Footballin, a Cheerleader, on 9/4/08 at 5:26 pm
I agree with Westcoastin whole heartedly. It just goes to show the depth of quality this site is looking to produce. The Seahawks are in the weakest division in the league? Did you turds on the Eastcoast forget that the Patriots were in a division with the Dolphins(1-15), Bills(7-9) and Jets(4-12)? Or that the Chargers are sharing a division with the Broncos(7-9), Chiefs(4-12) and Raiders(4-12)?
It’s whatever, put the Hawks at 9 if it helps you sleep better. I mean if your staff is having trouble producing nine, three paragraph “analysis articles” in four hours you either need to hire more people or stop acting like your word has any weight behind it.
If this passes as legitimate I’m going to start a website explaining why the entire Bengals franchise is victim of an Obama led conspiracy. Maybe I’ll make some money off sponsors like you guys.
If the Hawks can stay healthy they will contend with any top tier team in the league and it will be proven when the Patriots visit Qwest. Our running game will be better than most, and if Hasselbeck’s track record says anything it’s that he can take some young talent and show ‘em how to play NFL football. Remember when Burleson and Hackett were “young and inexperienced”? Now they’re touted as some of the NFL’s better receivers.
If we were talking about a division that was clearly in the basement or even marginally in the basement I’d let it go but come on, get your pen on track. I will admit the division is hardly the strongest but don’t downplay the always underrated Seahawks b/c the company they hold. Kevin Durant is on a team full of losers but that doesn’t make him a bad player.
Obviously I’m a Seattlite and have a biased opinion but if you’re going to make
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.6 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
saturn11, a Passionate Fan, on 9/4/08 at 6:01 pm
Footballin, you make a good point regarding the AFC East and the AFC West, as far as last year is concerned. But those rivalries have traditionally been much tighter than the NFC west contests, and you know it. Are you really trying to suggest that the Cards, Lambs, and 9ers are tougher opponents? Did you really go there?
Listening to a Seahawks fan complain that other teams play in easier divisions is like listening to the rich complain about taxes. It’s absurd. I have no sympathy for either.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.8 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
Footballin, a Cheerleader, on 9/4/08 at 6:21 pm
Saturn, I understand your sentiment but I guarantee the Cards could beat the Jets, Dolphins, Bills, Raiders, Chiefs and most likely Denver. The Rams I’m not so sure about. But that was the best show on turf up until about 5 or six years ago (when the Hawks took the reigns). As for the 49′ers… They’re a wildcard. They have great players just not a great team. I’m not complaining that we are in a hard division but to pawn us off at nine because “the hawks are in the easiest division in the nfl” is B.S.
And as far as your earlier argument for the Vikes, Saints and Eagles… COME ON NOW! First of all the Eagles fell off years ago when TO decided he didn’t wanna play with Donovan while Donovan’s knees simeoutaneously went out. Their defense is becoming weaker and weaker as the days continue. Lito Sheppard is a prime example of team chemistry there.
Second, I can’t believe you would even compare the Saints to the Hawks. So they have a good offensive core, what about their defense? You need both sides playin well to be a great team and just b/c they got Deuce “Injured Reserve” McAllister, Reggie “Un-Proven” Bush, and Marcus “Greenthumb” Colston does not make them an all around good team. They’ll put up numbers but as you saw at the beginning of last season, if Brees isn’t doin well, neither is the team.
And for the Vikings, this is the only team I can agree with you on. They have a good run game (assuming AP and Hutch stay healthy), their d-line is arguably the best in the league and their QB is finally learning how to use his skills… HOWEVER, they don’t have ANY leaders on the team. It’s definitely not Tarvaris. It could be Jared Allen now and until AP gets another season or two under his belt he’s just another ’superstar’. These are only my reviews on those you mentioned, don’t get me started on those ranked above the Hawks.
And finally you said that the Hawks defense is suspect? You must be watching another team. B/c first and foremost all 11 starters are back this season on defense. We got pro bowl linebacker in Tatupu and Peterson (Hill would be a Pbowler too if the other two starting LB’s weren’t on his team already). We have Kerney who was a half a sack away from the sack title last season. We have Marcus Trufant who catches the ball more than everyone on the Dolphins. And safeties that came in as free agents this year that are finally comfortable with their schemes and coaching staff…. They’ll be fine… BUT AGAIN. This is assuming we all stay healthy. So f you h8ers all very much
Good luck this season.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
Westcoastin, a Cheerleader, on 9/4/08 at 6:42 pm
Saturn,
Is the division easy, yes, has it always been? Debatable.
over the past 5 years, the hawks have owned it.
I think the point was, that there are other divisions that
are the same when it comes to lack of competition among teams
in the division.
I think your statement of not making improvements over the
beginning
of the decade is what has me scratching my head.
At the beginning of the decade, the hawks were scratching
to get
a playoff win, against the rams, when the rams were in
super bowl
form (’00 winners, ‘02 runners up) But with the acquisitions of
Lofa, Leroy Hill, Julian Peterson, Marcus Trufant, and a few
others, i dont understand how that isnt improving.
We went from no playoff wins first 2 years of decade, to
defending division champs, and a super bowl appearance in 05,
please tell me how that isn’t an improvement.
The past two years, yes, have been a let down, but we still
won one playoff game each of those years. (only 6 other teams can do that
or better in a year)
And with the moves we have made to improve our running game.
This year the one and out slump, looks less probable than it has
with Alexander back there.
Not to mention, our D is mediocre? Please show me 3 linebackers
on one team that has better avg stats than the combo of Peterson,
Lofa, and Hill? The point is, seattle gets over looked every year
Because of its location, and media coverage, but truth be told.
The team is legit, and has a lot of potential this year.
Sleeper role is fine with us. But saying we haven’t improved over the
Decade, and have an average D, doesn’t make much sense.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
EvilDeadPigskin, a Cheerleader, on 9/4/08 at 8:42 pm
The Cardinals will win the NFC West.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
Blueblood, a Cheerleader, on 9/5/08 at 1:14 am
Westcoastin….You might be the biggest idiot who blogs on this site. Your hawks have the luxury of playing in the worst division in NFL history. How you can compare the NFC West to the NFC North (who sent the Bears to the S.B. two years ago and the Pack one game away) or the NFC South (who have the Bucs, Saints and Panthers) is a joke. No other teams compete for post season play. You are basically guaranteed 6 wins a year. You won in the post season 2 years ago on a botched snap and barely beat the skins last year. Your signed 2 rbs this offseason and bc they are so awfu,l Morris is your starter. You have no WRs and your defense is old. Holmgren is the most overrated coach still in the NFL. Your team has been in the worst division and yet cant take advantage. You had your shot and lost to Pitt. Hawks are garbage and wont win a playoff game…AGAIN!!!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
DaMayan, a Passionate Fan, on 9/5/08 at 3:51 am
[quote]one dominating team,
and 3 perennial mediocre teams in the division (AFC east,
AFC west, NFC north, [b]NFC south[/b])[/quote]
Wierd (or just ignorant) to mention the NFC south in this quote. As no team has ever won 2 straight titles and the worst team went to first every year.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
robbbov, a Cheerleader, on 9/5/08 at 8:52 am
Guys,
Sure the NFC West has not been up to standard of most divisions but in essence which of the other NFC favourites (excluding the “lousy” west) have a good record againts the Seahawks since 2000. If you look closely to some facts:
1. Seahawks record againts NFC teams since 2000: 28-21, where the only teams that has a winning record againts the Hawks is GB, Phi and Was, most of the wins, except GB wins, coming in 2001-2002. This number grows even more impressive if you compare the last 3 years. Speaking about NFC South …the Hawks have a record of: 12-4 since 2000.
Not very impressive is it…
2. Seahawks record againts AFC teams is somewhat less impressive 25-26. Most of the losses coming in 2000 when they still were in AFC West.
Conclusion, the Hawks might not be the best team in the NFL but they are underrated compared to a lot of high profile teams. A ranking of 5-7 would have been much more fair but at the same time Florio raises fair questions regarding their passing game and as a Hawks fan I can’t really argue against it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
albaNY Hawker, a Passionate Fan, on 9/5/08 at 10:51 am
When are the Patriots going to get the same “credit” for building their success in the weakest division in the AFC?
Granted, they’ve got more SB iron in their trophy case, and have won some tough road playoff games, but I’m sick of Seattle always getting knocked for the ineptitude of the 9ers, Cards and Rams.
You only can play the teams they schedule you for, and along the way to our four straight division crowns, we’ve beaten some of the best that the NFC and AFC have to offer.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
Westcoastin, a Cheerleader, on 9/5/08 at 1:52 pm
Blueblood,
Are you a Dallas fan by any chance?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
kmedic, a Cheerleader, on 9/5/08 at 3:02 pm
Both to Saturn and Blueblood, or any other person that believes in the faulty argument that because the Hawks play in a weak division, they therefore themselves must be weak.
Please look back at the records since 2005, essentially the modern Hasselbeck and Holmgren era, and ask yourselves what is the record of Seattle against the “mighty vaunted NFC East” from 2005 to current (nine games were played)??
2-7?
4-5?
Maybe even 5-4?
No, wrong again….9-1. Yeah, that’s right, Seattle is 9-1 against the NFC East. We’ve beaten Dallas twice, Philly twice, Washington three times, and the Giants twice (five of these games were on national TV and we won ALL of them). We only lost to the Skins in week 4 of 2005. Since then, we’ve swept. Read it and weep dungheads. 9-1. Tell me who’s the better team now?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
saturn11, a Passionate Fan, on 9/5/08 at 5:37 pm
just a quick response to those I’ve irked (wish I could go into more detail than what i’m about to write, but the wife and baby are waiting);
1. first and foremost, i’m not a seahawks hater (that lombardi trophy should be yours. it’s got zebra stripes all over it).
2. Footballin’ and kmedic: your mighty hawks beat the Eagles once with Mike McMahon at QB, and once with AJ Feely at QB. I can’t speak for the Cowboys games, but if you’re going to use that as evidence, make sure you tell the whole story. That last game, where Feely was QB…all he could do was throw the ball to Lofa, and the Eagles STILL almost beat the Hawks. That’s nothing to crow about. You should be embarrassed about that game. I’d still argue that if the hawks of 06 / 07 were in the NFC East, they wouldn’t be able to handle the dogfight.
3. Finally, Westcoastin’, your comments on the Saints, Eagles, and Vikings show VERY little understanding those teams are at right now. I was only saying that the Hawks are not CLEARLY better than any of them. I stand by that statement. They’re not clearly head and shoulders above them.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated