This is now the 8th season in a row...

Seattle is totally going to repeat next year!

2002 Tampa Bay Bucs didn't make the playoffs the following year

2001 Patriots didn't make the playoffs

2000 Ravens did not make the playoffs

1999 Rams made the playoffs the next year but did not win (lost to the Saints this was when Warner was injured)

1998 Denver Broncos did not make playoffs the next year - Elway retired

obviously Denver repeated after winning in 97

Is how young they are.

They certainly will be back in the playoffs (barring injury decimation) next year. Maybe not the #1 seed again, but they are a very deep team with not many veteran, high priced free agents

when you have a QB on a rookie contract. Ask the Ravens what happens when you are forced to overpay for your QB...

so many things can happen in a year. Witness what happened to us with Plax, etc. Yes, Seattle looks invincible, but how will they look next season? Will the injury bug hit, will the post-SB letdown season happen, will Wilson be as sharp. Lots of variables. I could see Seattle not making the playoffs as easily as I could envision them winning the SB again.

everything changes in Seattle.

other SB teams(youth), but what seems to have generally transpired are the following:

1) Complacency among the young. They, unlike longer term vets, find it hard to believe that this won't occur, again and again. The edge can become compromised

2) Old and young have reached the pinnacle and want to get paid for it(understood) whether their contract is up, almost up or will be up down the road

3) FA

4) The young, key positions will have to be paid(Wilson) and paid a lot, sooner rather then later. Cap room can become greatly Squeezed and cuts(not necessarily wholesale) will have to be made

5) Key injuries along with the usual that may or may not affect one or more positions talent and depth-wise

6) Banquet circuits, demands on one's time, focus compromised, sometimes, perhaps oft times extending into the season(not referencing banquets here)

7) Fill in the blank(s)

Every team goes through much of what I've stated, but not to the extent, generally speaking, that the reigning champion seems to go through every year

diehard Ravens fans. When I told him about that streak at the beginning of the year, he laughed and said that Ravens have a winning organization so they would break that streak. This conversation started when he derided the Giants for being lucky to make the playoffs with a 9-7 record to win the Super Bowl. The basis of his argument was that Giants didn't deserve to make it and wouldn't have made it if they played in a tough division like the AFC North.

Fast forward to the final week of the season when his team had the chance to make it into the playoffs with a win when the Dolphins lost their game. He backpedalled like a motherf'er talking about how they lost a lot of players because of their success and blah blah blah. Yeah, he hasn't spoken about the Ravens since.

...they are likely to repeat next year. They if anybody can buck that trend.

...at bucking the trend.

But I'm sure most of us thought the same about the 2011 Packers who were 15-1 until some team in blue waltzed on into Lambeau and ended their season.

It's not even like teams just have down years after winning Super Bowls. The 2008 Giants, the 2011 Packers, the 2007 Colts.. all excellent regular season teams who earned bye weeks but then promptly layed an egg in the divisional round.

In comment 11492366 silverfox said:

Quote:

...they are likely to repeat next year. They if anybody can buck that trend.

There will be some losses-Miller, Tate for example. A first place schedule. And it may be just as likely that all those 5-7 round draft picks that contributed this year start playing like the 5-7 round picks they were.

on the verge,

8 8th season that the cowboys were the contender?

that the eagles were breaking out?

EVERYONE loses players now. It's just the nature of salary cap football (and it's a major reason why the salary cap is a crock of shit, but that's neither here nor there). Unless they can continue to procure the kind of talent they've built on this team, they'll have ups and downs just like everyone else.

are wunderkinds.....they played one great game.....they ONLY GOT THERE because a trailing linebacker caught a tipped pass.....if the pass was tipped and that linebacker was not there, SF still had 3 shots....

It wouldn't surprise me at all, if Seattle doesn't win a playoff game next year....they are a good team, not a great one....

In comment 11492695 Doomster said:

Quote:

are wunderkinds.....they played one great game.....they ONLY GOT THERE because a trailing linebacker caught a tipped pass.....if the pass was tipped and that linebacker was not there, SF still had 3 shots.... It wouldn't surprise me at all, if Seattle doesn't win a playoff game next year....they are a good team, not a great one....

And the Giants ONLY GOT THERE in 2011 because Romo overthrew Austin.

Who cares?

They were fantastic this year, and they're a very young team.

is the second best team in football this year and was your best shot at beating Seattle, which of course looks like hindsight being 20/20.

I think this was a big win for defense in the NFL. You can still beat the best offense with a damn good defense, and as much as I can't stand Seattle, that is a great feeling. I don't hope they repeat because I think they are an arrogant bunch of a holes, but I'd love to see teams headed in that great defensive direction.

to see some teams do very well on that side of the ball, but as long as the rules strongly favor the Offenses, D proficiency will only rear its head from time to time as Seattle proved

plays in their division.

Based on how the playoff format is, it is likely the 49ers play the Seahawks next year whether it is in Seattle or in San Francisco as early as the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Those two are about as evenly matched as you can get when you look back now.

Would it really be that crazy if they played each other again and SF came out on top? Not really.

SF is right there. I actually thought the 49ers were going to beat Seattle.. and they almost did.

I think the difference between those two teams is very small. But that could change going into next year. We'll see.

And the wild card in the whole thing is the Saints getting the #1 seed in the playoffs, because it's unlikely anyone comes into the Superdome and beats them. If they played the Seahawks at home this year, I'm pretty sure they would have won.

Seattle miss the playoffs next year, or get bounced early on.

As BB'56 noted, a young team sometimes works against them as you have to wonder if they will have the hunger and edge needed to win it again. These guys are going to be partying it up and enjoying their title, as they should and deserve to. However, the famed "Super Bowl hangover" tends to hit teams when they are forced to dig deep and get ready to fight out of tough situations. In most cases they came out of despiration. At some point, the team will hit the wall physically and emotionally, and look down and see that ring on their finger, it's just human nature to take a breath and not fight as hard. I absolutely happened to the Giants in 2012, particularly after Sandy hit and they had that stretch in Atlanta and Baltimore.

But for me, the ticking time bomb is Marshawn Lynch. He makes that offense go, period. Lynch will be 28 years old next year, and he's had back to back 300+ carry seasons (and 285 carries the year before that). He's a physical runner who looks for contact. Those backs tend to fall off a cliff quickly, and usually are done by age 30. Lynch's body will break down at some point, it happens to almost all backs, but particularly the battering ram types. An injured/less productive Lynch will start to expose more of Wilson's weaknesses.

Lastly, they happen to play in the best division in the NFL. The second best team in the NFL last year was the 49ers. The Cardinals won 11 games. And the Rams are no slouch and have the Redskins top pick. The Seahawks very well could end up 3-3 in their division alone next year. And every team will have a bullseye on them.

And every year they don't. Once Wilson gets paid that defense isn't going to look as fast.

Which is why if I'm the Seattle GM I'm thinking about who my next QB is. Time to change the model and start treating QBs like every other position.

Terps.. the problem with that is you can't really treat it like every other position because the talent pool is much smaller. QB is the most difficult position to play in football. There's more of a learning curve and they're less of a sure thing.

I recall you being a big proponent of investing heavily in a QB and willing to pay a premium. Is your recent comment a change in thinking or just Seattle-specific?

Those are fair points, but there are a couple factors that counter that:

1. Offensive football (particularly passing) is the trend due to rules changes, coaching styles, etc.

2. College QBs are entering the NFL more prepared for the pro game than ever before. If anything, we're seeing pro offenses trend towards the college style, possibly in an effort to smooth the transition for the QBs.

Russell Wilson just won the Super Bowl in his second year. He beat a third year QB in the NFCC (who himself almost won the SB in his second year). Nick Roles had a phenomenal year. Andrew Luck has made two playoff visits in two years with a lousy team. Carolina had a big year with Newton. The Bengals keep making the playoffs with Dalton. Tannehill, Pryor, Glennon...all showed some promise. Don't forget what the Redskins did in 2012 with a rookie QB.

All the guys I mentioned there are in their first contract. Sure Peyton, Rodgers, Brady...their teams are successful too, but I think we are in an era where their teams aren't appreciably more successful than those with young QBs.

It may be the easiest and most advantageous time ever not to have your eggs in one basket.

In comment 11493256 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

I recall you being a big proponent of investing heavily in a QB and willing to pay a premium. Is your recent comment a change in thinking or just Seattle-specific?

That's not quite right. I'm a proponent in paying for quality, but when it comes to the QB position I think we may be entering a time when it could be viewed as more fungible than ever. The slant towards offensive football combined with the outrageous costs of the top QBs would make it so, I think, from a perspective of pure economic efficiency.

I think it's a major advantage having a QB making far less money but I think you have to be careful there. It's not quite as plug and play as it might seem right now. For the Russell Wilson's, there are still Geno Smiths, Case Keenum's, etc.. guys who show a little ability but wouldn't be good enough to win you a championship.

And beyond that, it's only a small part of the equation. The Seahawks had to find numerous diamonds in the rough and draft well in order to have a team with so many impact players making less than 1M.

I think the key is to keep pipe lining young, cost controlled talent through as many of the other positions as possible. I would still invest in the QB if you feel like you've got the right guy.

are uou saying, intimating or implying that we should NOT invest heavily(whatever that means nowadays) in Eli, given he's 33?

The Niners have made 3 straight NFC Champ games and don't look like they're going anywhere. The Cards were a much improved team who looks to be improving. The Rams are a team with the arrow pointing up who will be able to reap the benefits of the RG3 trade during this year's draft. Seattle could win 9/10 games and miss the playoffs.

There's also guys like Schaub, Stafford, Romo, Ryan, and others that make a lot of money and aren't any more or less likely to get you to a title than Wilson or Kaepernick. I think it's likely we'll be able to say the same about Bridgewater, Manziel, or others in a couple years.

BB56...I'm never going to be objective about Eli on that front. My hope is that he is the QB for a long time because I want to see him join Aikman or even Montana as a champion.

But after he goes, I hope the Giants take a different view of the QB position because I think that is the future.

and agree

It's an interesting approach and I could see things trending that way. I'd just be careful throwing away known quantities at the most important position in the sport. You could find yourself stuck looking for an adequate replacement for a while and you could wind up really setting the franchise back.

There's definitely a risk. Unfortunately there are also the marketing considerations of changing QBs every four years...many fewer Wilson jerseys being sold.

But we're now on the second straight QB to win a SB in his rookie contract. And I'd argue that these Seahawks are the best team to win the Super Bowl in quite a few years...probably since the Pats had Brady in his rookie deal.

In comment 11493277 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 11493256 BrettNYG10 said: Quote: I recall you being a big proponent of investing heavily in a QB and willing to pay a premium. Is your recent comment a change in thinking or just Seattle-specific? That's not quite right. I'm a proponent in paying for quality, but when it comes to the QB position I think we may be entering a time when it could be viewed as more fungible than ever. The slant towards offensive football combined with the outrageous costs of the top QBs would make it so, I think, from a perspective of pure economic efficiency.

Thanks. I've harbored similar thoughts recently as well.

There is a new era of QBs in the NFL and there's no going back. Teams now want a QB that can throw and be more mobile. There will be a handful of pocket passers left in a couple of years but more and more QBs will bring that element of mobility to the position.

MJD

James Jones
RIley Cooper
Danario Alexander
McCluster

Pitta
Finley
Pettigrew
Graham
Chandler

There are others I did not list because they will likely be signed by their teams, and some of theses guys will be resigned as well. Also, the price they might get any of these guys also has to be right. I would say they would have to be had at a value, I don't think any of these guys are must have FAs who will be the missing piece that will put the Giants over the top, they aren't really close IMO. They need to build through the draft, but they have so many holes they will need to fill that they will have to be smart in free agency. I don't think the Giants have any FAs that they must sign, meaning they need to outbid anyone for their return.

In comment 11494007 Geeman said:

Quote:

There is a new era of QBs in the NFL and there's no going back. Teams now want a QB that can throw and be more mobile. There will be a handful of pocket passers left in a couple of years but more and more QBs will bring that element of mobility to the position.

This really has very little to do with why Seattle won the Super Bowl, though. Any of the good pocket passers in this league could have won with Seattle's defense and Marshawn Lynch this year. The Seahawks didn't win the Super Bowl because Russell Wilson is a mobile QB.

has bad knees