Any argument that the '12 Seahawks are better than their '05 predecessors should be neither made nor heard until this team equals (and hopefully exceeds) the latter's postseason accomplishments.
But as they try and do just that a couple of items to keep in mind.
THE 2012 SEAHAWKS ARE COMPLETE IN ALL THREE PHASES:
In total offensive production there is scarcely a comparison between the two. The '05 NFC Champions led the NFL all year on the strength of MVP Shaun Alexander racking up yards and touchdowns with Matt Hasselbeck making defenses pay with cruel efficiency when they sold out to stop Alexander.
This year's offense has not come close to matching the volume of that output. They weren't built to. Where they have compared to '05, especially in the 2nd half of the season, is in efficiency. Football Outsiders gives them a weighted DVOA of 31.2%, #1 in the NFL. The '05 offense finished with a 26.2% weighted DVOA, good for 4th in the NFL.
There is scarcely any comparison between the respective defenses. The '05 squad ranged from average to opportunistic, reflected in their dead-in-the-middle 16th defensive DVOA ranking. This year's team ranged from dominant to very good, ranking 4th in defensive DVOA. They also finish the season tops in the NFL and in franchise history in scoring defense.
The '05 teams special teams unit was satisfactory, ranking 20th with a DVOA of -.08%. This year's special teams unit is elite, ranking 3rd with a DVOA of 5.7%. Their respective coverage units rank in the top half of the league, Jon Ryan pins opposing offenses deep within their territory as a matter of course, and Leon Washington is a threat to turn every punt and kickoff into six points.
The 2012 Seahawks surpass the 2005 team in everything but total offensive proficiency, a chasm bridged by both unit's comparable efficiency ratings. On defense and special teams there is no comparison -- '12 clearly surpasses '05. All three units of this year's team rank among the top five in the NFL. The '05 offense is the only unit on that year's team that could make the same claim.
The 2012 Seahawks finished the season with a DVOA of 38.3% and a weighted DVOA of 46.6%, good not only for the top ranking in the NFL but the sixth best DVOA rating ever. The 2005 Seahawks finished with a meager-by-comparison team DVOA of 28.4% and weighted DVOA of 26.2%, the third and fourth best finishes that year respectively.
THE 2012 SEAHAWKS PLAYED A TOUGHER SCHEDULE:
Aside from the usual disrespect given to the Seahawks, the '05 squad's seamless run through the regular season was almost universally discounted because of the ease of their schedule. Their opponents had a .457 winning percentage. The 'Hawks beat the 11-5 Giants thanks in no small part to three missed game-winning field goals. They beat a 14-2 Colts squad that rested some of their starters (most importantly Peyton Manning) for a majority of the game.
The Seahawks' opponents this year had a winning percentage of .500 with wins against the 12-4 Patriots, the 11-5 Packers, the 10-6 Vikings, the 10-6 Bears (on the road), and the 11-4-1 49ers. They went 5-1 against teams that finished the season with a winning record and they owned the highest strength of victory in the NFL.
The main disparity between the two strength of schedules is the strength of the NFC West. None of the three other NFC West teams in 2005 finished with more than six wins. The 'Hawks basically picked on the handicapped, going 6-0 against divisional opponents.
In 2012 the NFC West was arguably the toughest division in football. The 49ers, a preseason favorite to make the Super Bowl, went 11-4-1 a year after going 13-3 on their way to the NFC Championship game. The 8-7-1 Rams showed exponential improvement under Jeff Fisher and finished with a 4-1-1 record against the division. The 5-11 Cardinals jumped out to a 4-0 start on the strength of a Top-10 defense before succumbing to historically porous quarterback play.
The difficulty in playing the NFC West was reflected in the Seahawks' 3-3 record, splitting the home-and-home season series with all three of their divisional opponents.
The 2012 Seahawks finished with a worse record than in '05, but they played a markedly tougher schedule and performed better against teams that finished with a winning record.
THE '05 SEAHAWKS WERE A VETERAN TEAM:
In 2005 the Seahawks entered their seventh year under Mike Holmgren and were at the very top of their win curve. Matt Hasselbeck entered the year as the teams' starting quarterback for the third consecutive season. Steve Hutchinson was entering his prime, offensive veterans Walter Jones, Shaun Alexander, Robbie Tobeck, Chris Gray, Mack Strong, Darrell Jackson, Joe Jurevicius, and Bobby Engram were on the outer fringes of theirs. Ditto Grant Wistrom, Chartric Darby, Bryce Fisher, Andre Dyson, Kelly Herndon, Marcus Trufant, Marquand Manuel and Michael Boulware on defense. Linebackers Lofa Tatupu and Leroy Hill would never again match the success they enjoyed that year in their rookie seasons.
The 2012 Seahawks were among the league's youngest. Obviously there was Russell Wilson, a rookie 3rd Round pick that started all sixteen games at quarterback. They ended the year with a third-year left tackle, fourth-year center, rookie right guard (a converted defensive tackle out of the seventh round), and a third year split-end.
Youth was especially prevalent on defense. Starting safeties Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor were in their third years; starting cornerbacks Brandon Browner and Richard Sherman their second. At linebacker a rookie started 16 games at middle-linebacker, a second year player started fifteen games at strong-side linebacker, and sophomore Malcolm Smith earned a preponderance of the reps at weak-side linebacker by season's end. Rookies Bruce Irvin, Gregg Scruggs, and Jeremy Lane played meaningful roles as well.
The youth of this roster is surpassed only by its talent, reflected in the fact that they went 4-4 in the first-half of the season, 7-1 in the second. Struggling to find consistency in September and October, a young Seahawks team led by a rookie wunderkind at quarterback began impressing its will upon opponents in November and December. They now enter the playoffs having posted the third best regular season record in franchise history and are winners of five straight. Given no choice but to acknowledge what is happening, national analysts are universally declaring the Seahawks to be "the hottest team in football" and "the team nobody wants to play in the playoffs".
In comparing regular season performances, the 2012 'Hawks compare very favorably to '05, especially when considering their youth and strength of schedule. The regular season is not where legacies are made though.
The post-season is.
Seven years ago the 'Hawks proved their doubters wrong by besting the Redskins (that year's "hottest team" entering the playoffs) in the divisional round and by dominating the previously iron-hot Panthers in the NFC Championship. (I won't put any 12 through reoccurring pain by mentioning subsequent events.) In so doing they immortalized themselves in franchise history and in the hearts and minds of every 12th Man.
To reach equal and hopefully greater heights this Seahawks team will have a much steeper climb. They won't enjoy the benefit of a first-round bye or home-field advantage. They will have to win at least two, most likely three games on the road. They will ultimately have to beat teams with elite quarterbacks and rosters at the top of their win curves. Essentially, to surpass the 2005 Seahawks they will have to beat teams that fit the same profile of the 2005 Seahawks: Elite, veteran, in-their-prime rosters at the top of their win curves.
A daunting task, but this team has the talent and determination to not only earn the recognition they deserve, but seize it from the unwilling clutches of everyone across the country that has discounted them when they haven't been ignoring them altogether.
Do that and they surpass the '05 team without question.
Do that and they leave the football world sputtering and stumbling as they try to explain what they never took the time to foresee.
Do that and they become immortal.
GO 'HAWKS.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Friday, December 28, 2012
Against STL
Sunday against St. Louis presents another opportunity to demonstrate we have become the elite kind of team that prepares and plays at the same level week in, week out. As Hawkblogger points out, there are many potential traps set out this week that could very easily ensnare a lesser, talented-but-inconsistent team.
Avoid them. Prepare this week for the Rams like this week and this opponent are the only ones that matter -- because they are. Tune out the good feeling from spanking the 49ers. Ignore the national plaudits that have begun to come. Disregard any concern for who has to beat who, playoff seedings, and potential match-ups next week.
We are the only opponents the Rams have left. Relevant for the first time in years, they would love nothing more than to knock the "hottest team in football" down a peg. They would love to be the only opponent to knock the Seahawks off at CenturyLink Field. They would love to go undefeated against the NFC West, a division putatively owned by the 49ers and Seahawks.
This is their shot. The only game left. The only game that matters.
Treat them the same way, Seahawks. The one thing better than three consecutive dominating performances is four consecutive dominating performances. Avoid the traps. There is no one else but the St. Louis Rams. Beat them.
Sunday is another chance to excel. Take it. Be elite.
Go 1-0.
GO 'HAWKS.
Avoid them. Prepare this week for the Rams like this week and this opponent are the only ones that matter -- because they are. Tune out the good feeling from spanking the 49ers. Ignore the national plaudits that have begun to come. Disregard any concern for who has to beat who, playoff seedings, and potential match-ups next week.
We are the only opponents the Rams have left. Relevant for the first time in years, they would love nothing more than to knock the "hottest team in football" down a peg. They would love to be the only opponent to knock the Seahawks off at CenturyLink Field. They would love to go undefeated against the NFC West, a division putatively owned by the 49ers and Seahawks.
This is their shot. The only game left. The only game that matters.
Treat them the same way, Seahawks. The one thing better than three consecutive dominating performances is four consecutive dominating performances. Avoid the traps. There is no one else but the St. Louis Rams. Beat them.
Sunday is another chance to excel. Take it. Be elite.
Go 1-0.
GO 'HAWKS.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
This Fiscal Cliff & That Fiscal Cliff
The largest issue confronting the United States in the immediate and long-term is debt. The largest drivers of that debt are entitlements, especially Medicare, whose growth outpaces both that of the economy and of government revenues.
This is the "fiscal cliff" the republic faces, not the putative one being discussed currently.
The president is ignoring this. His proposal to raise taxes four percentage points on a minuscule segment of the tax-base will tackle our debt level in the same way a fat guy tackles his weight problem by getting a haircut. It is not an attempt to reduce the debt crisis. It is either political posturing, an attempt to impose some abstract notion of redistributive fairness on the wealthy, or some sort of amalgamation of the two.
Speaker Boehner is not going to get any meaningful reform of entitlements here because President Obama is making clear -- in deed, not word -- that he has no interest in pursuing meaningful reform. He and the Left will continue to "defend" entitlements until they collapse under their own weight.
The best the House GOP can do is to trade some insignificant hikes on an even smaller portion of the tax base than the president originally proposed in exchange for minor spending reductions and minor adjustments to the growth of Social Security and Medicare. These may not be a lot, but unlike the president's tax proposals, they are not nothing either. As Avik Roy argues, it is well past time that Republicans start "making small changes to entitlements today that pay big dividends in future decades."
Get some important concessions, make a little progress, and do not diminish your ability to make some more progress on another day.
This is the "fiscal cliff" the republic faces, not the putative one being discussed currently.
The president is ignoring this. His proposal to raise taxes four percentage points on a minuscule segment of the tax-base will tackle our debt level in the same way a fat guy tackles his weight problem by getting a haircut. It is not an attempt to reduce the debt crisis. It is either political posturing, an attempt to impose some abstract notion of redistributive fairness on the wealthy, or some sort of amalgamation of the two.
Speaker Boehner is not going to get any meaningful reform of entitlements here because President Obama is making clear -- in deed, not word -- that he has no interest in pursuing meaningful reform. He and the Left will continue to "defend" entitlements until they collapse under their own weight.
The best the House GOP can do is to trade some insignificant hikes on an even smaller portion of the tax base than the president originally proposed in exchange for minor spending reductions and minor adjustments to the growth of Social Security and Medicare. These may not be a lot, but unlike the president's tax proposals, they are not nothing either. As Avik Roy argues, it is well past time that Republicans start "making small changes to entitlements today that pay big dividends in future decades."
Get some important concessions, make a little progress, and do not diminish your ability to make some more progress on another day.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
"Not Really" Black
Rob Parker's comment today on ESPN's "First Take" that Robert Griffin III is "not really" black logically implies that the color of an individual's skin defines certain ways that person is supposed to think and act.
Not only does this kind of perspective exacerbate gratuitous stereotypes but it reflects the same kind of racial determinism (albeit from a different direction) that the abolitionist and civil rights movements strived decades to eradicate.
If America is to be a place where each is judged by their character and not their skin color, then Mr. Parker's view that someone must behave a certain way to be authentically black is no more permissible than the belief that blacks or anyone else are inferior because -- and only because -- of the color of their skin.
Not only does this kind of perspective exacerbate gratuitous stereotypes but it reflects the same kind of racial determinism (albeit from a different direction) that the abolitionist and civil rights movements strived decades to eradicate.
If America is to be a place where each is judged by their character and not their skin color, then Mr. Parker's view that someone must behave a certain way to be authentically black is no more permissible than the belief that blacks or anyone else are inferior because -- and only because -- of the color of their skin.
Monday, December 10, 2012
The Next Step
Elite teams go 1-0 week in, week out. Regardless of opponent, venue and the extraneous, they remain consistent. They tune out the noise, they focus on the task at hand, they win as a matter of course.
The Seahawks have not attained that level of consistency -- they have only begun to hint at it. Consecutive victories at Chicago and at home against Arizona are significant, especially the former. But this team has yet to string together three wins in a row. At best it has been two steps forward, one step back.
No more of that. No steps back. Keep making steps forward. You do that by winning on a neutral field in Toronto this Sunday against Buffalo. Lose that eminently winnable game and much, if not all of the good feeling and accomplishment from the last two weeks is erased. Win it and you have a three game winning streak (two on the road), a guaranteed winning season, a stranglehold on a playoff spot, and possibly a chance to play San Francisco for the division championship the following week on your home field.
We've proven that we can take care of the best and worst the NFL has to offer at home. We've proven that we can take the field on the road and beat one of the league's better teams against a plethora of adversity in Chicago.
What we need to prove -- and can prove on Sunday -- is that we are able to consistently win on the road against inferior opponents. That is a different beast altogether. The NFL's elite do it as a matter or course. Young, talented and inconsistent teams routinely struggle with it.
Sunday at Buffalo is our next, possibly last chance in 2012 to abdicate the latter characterization and assume the former.
It is the next step.
It is the hardest step.
GO 'HAWKS.
The Seahawks have not attained that level of consistency -- they have only begun to hint at it. Consecutive victories at Chicago and at home against Arizona are significant, especially the former. But this team has yet to string together three wins in a row. At best it has been two steps forward, one step back.
No more of that. No steps back. Keep making steps forward. You do that by winning on a neutral field in Toronto this Sunday against Buffalo. Lose that eminently winnable game and much, if not all of the good feeling and accomplishment from the last two weeks is erased. Win it and you have a three game winning streak (two on the road), a guaranteed winning season, a stranglehold on a playoff spot, and possibly a chance to play San Francisco for the division championship the following week on your home field.
We've proven that we can take care of the best and worst the NFL has to offer at home. We've proven that we can take the field on the road and beat one of the league's better teams against a plethora of adversity in Chicago.
What we need to prove -- and can prove on Sunday -- is that we are able to consistently win on the road against inferior opponents. That is a different beast altogether. The NFL's elite do it as a matter or course. Young, talented and inconsistent teams routinely struggle with it.
Sunday at Buffalo is our next, possibly last chance in 2012 to abdicate the latter characterization and assume the former.
It is the next step.
It is the hardest step.
GO 'HAWKS.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
After the Indian Summer
It has become common, if not cliche for people to lament the partisanship in Washington and ask heaven and everything under it why both parties cannot just come together and find common ground. (It is gratifying, after all, for one to cloak themselves in moderation and maturity and to cast poxes on everyone else.)
As lamentable as this cacophony may be, it is the inevitable byproduct of being broke, and we are very broke.
The post-war surpluses that permitted the oft-elegized age of bipartisan comity are gone. In fact, the genesis of our present predicament is that much of that "surplus" was illusory -- it was borrowed. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other manner of federal spending were not paid for with surplus revenue but with the national credit card. Under this arrangement Democrats got their government spending and Republicans preserved their (relatively) low tax rates. Everyone was happy, the unsustainability of the equation a problem for another generation.
Alas, that generation is our generation. The Indian Summer of high spending and low taxing has come to an end and reality, along with the tab, has come. We have to pick one path or the other, a choice that brings to the fore the fundamentally different philosophies of both parties.
With such stakes at issue, no wonder consensus is hard to find. Someone must win and someone must lose. Both sides have dug into their respective trenches, hunkered down for a long, earth-scorching, zero-sum battle.
You may not like the disagreement in Washington, but you may as well get used to it.
As lamentable as this cacophony may be, it is the inevitable byproduct of being broke, and we are very broke.
The post-war surpluses that permitted the oft-elegized age of bipartisan comity are gone. In fact, the genesis of our present predicament is that much of that "surplus" was illusory -- it was borrowed. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other manner of federal spending were not paid for with surplus revenue but with the national credit card. Under this arrangement Democrats got their government spending and Republicans preserved their (relatively) low tax rates. Everyone was happy, the unsustainability of the equation a problem for another generation.
Alas, that generation is our generation. The Indian Summer of high spending and low taxing has come to an end and reality, along with the tab, has come. We have to pick one path or the other, a choice that brings to the fore the fundamentally different philosophies of both parties.
With such stakes at issue, no wonder consensus is hard to find. Someone must win and someone must lose. Both sides have dug into their respective trenches, hunkered down for a long, earth-scorching, zero-sum battle.
You may not like the disagreement in Washington, but you may as well get used to it.
Monday, December 03, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff
If House Republicans agree to President Obama's proposal -- tax hikes on the wealthy, no spending reductions -- the economy will slow. If they do not agree and the country careens off of the "fiscal cliff", the economy will slow. There is no incentive, in other words, to accede to the president's imperious dictation. It will neither improve economic growth nor put more than a modest dent in the federal deficit.
Neither is there a political incentive. Republicans have already signaled their willingness to increase revenue through eliminating loopholes and deductions in exchange for spending reductions and entitlement reform. The White House has refused to discuss anything other than rate increases and promises to only consider minor spending reductions after the new year. In effect it is asking Republicans to sacrifice their brand as the low tax party on the basis of fear that they will be blamed for the economic downturn that follows if we do go over the cliff.
There is good reason to believe that fear is unfounded. The House leadership has not only offered to negotiate but even indicated the grounds upon which they would be willing to make concessions. The president refuses to countenance anything but gratuitous tax hikes that will accomplish nothing beyond satisfying some stupefying sense of "fairness".
Should the paychecks and well-being of every single American be sacrificed on such an absurd, ideological altar there is every reason to believe they will assign the blame appropriately, not upon the head of John Boehner.
There is absolutely no compelling reason for House Republicans to allow the president to trample over them.
Neither is there a political incentive. Republicans have already signaled their willingness to increase revenue through eliminating loopholes and deductions in exchange for spending reductions and entitlement reform. The White House has refused to discuss anything other than rate increases and promises to only consider minor spending reductions after the new year. In effect it is asking Republicans to sacrifice their brand as the low tax party on the basis of fear that they will be blamed for the economic downturn that follows if we do go over the cliff.
There is good reason to believe that fear is unfounded. The House leadership has not only offered to negotiate but even indicated the grounds upon which they would be willing to make concessions. The president refuses to countenance anything but gratuitous tax hikes that will accomplish nothing beyond satisfying some stupefying sense of "fairness".
Should the paychecks and well-being of every single American be sacrificed on such an absurd, ideological altar there is every reason to believe they will assign the blame appropriately, not upon the head of John Boehner.
There is absolutely no compelling reason for House Republicans to allow the president to trample over them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)