Seattle wasn't just all Defense though; it's not like they sat around and hoped someone would score for them. That offense ranked in the top quarter of the League in points scored, averaged over five yards per play overall, and were the sixth ranked team in terms of time of possession.

 

When you add that to the #1 overall scoring Defense and turnover creating Defense, you get a really nice combination that compliments one another very well. Granted, they weren't Denver-esque in their offensive production but they weren't exactly slouches either.

Yeah, I don't think Wilson gets the credit he deserves from a lot of people either.  The kid broke Peyton Manning's rookie touchdown record with about half as many interceptions. 

Wilson didn't need to do a whole lot in a number of games last year, but he could turn it on if he needed to.

---

Pot calling the kettle black huh?


You just told TMD that he knows nothing about football yet you claim the Seahawks dont have ball hawks?!!


And you want to have an intelligent conversation, yet you insult him my asking him to super size your fries?? Yup... sounds real intelligent on your end.

 

when did i say seattle doesnt have ball hawks? i talked about how earl thomas is a ball hawk right in the post youre referring. so.....idk if you just choose which parts you want to read or what? but also TMD says that sherman sucks and isnt a ball hawk. it was an argument with TMD involving his back and forth all over the fence and how he justifies things. his logic is if a player doesnt have good turnover numbers in college, they will never change and get a lot of interceptions in the nfl. i think sherman is top 2 cb in the nfl and is plenty of a ball hawk and also a great cover corner. but according to TMD logic, sherman didnt have the INT numbers in college, so he would never change.

 

edit: in terms of our secondary now, i think gratz and cyprien are going to pan out very well, i see INT numbers going up. but our pass rush was abysmal so we will see how they improve this year with what we already signed, and id like to see mack added to make that defense dynamic. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

when did i say seattle doesnt have ball hawks? i talked about how earl thomas is a ball hawk right in the post youre referring. so.....idk if you just choose which parts you want to read or what? but also TMD says that sherman sucks and isnt a ball hawk. it was an argument with TMD involving his back and forth all over the fence and how he justifies things. his logic is if a player doesnt have good turnover numbers in college, they will never change and get a lot of interceptions in the nfl. i think sherman is top 2 cb in the nfl and is plenty of a ball hawk and also a great cover corner. but according to TMD logic, sherman didnt have the INT numbers in college, so he would never change.


edit: in terms of our secondary now, i think gratz and cyprien are going to pan out very well, i see INT numbers going up. but our pass rush was abysmal so we will see how they improve this year with what we already signed, and id like to see mack added to make that defense dynamic.

Didn't you say they won without corners who are ballhawks? Now you're saying Sherman is one?


Also, you tried to insult him by saying he should super size your fries yet I have a tough time reading your posts when your grammar is all over the place.


Dont say you want to have an intelligent conversation when you start by insulting someone and then have a tough time putting together a grammatically correct sentence.

---

Yeah, I don't think Wilson gets the credit he deserves from a lot of people either.  The kid broke Peyton Manning's rookie touchdown record with about half as many interceptions. 

Wilson didn't need to do a whole lot in a number of games last year, but he could turn it on if he needed to.

 

That's the thing, and I wonder if players like Wilson are going to be more attractive to teams moving forward. Wilson doesn't need to be fed the ball / opportunities to be effective; he fits in by simply doing his part and not trying to dominate everything. It would seem that this approach makes it easier for each part of the team to feel as if it is making a credible contribution towards team success.

 

Yes, Wilson turned it on when he had to, but it must have been very nice to have Lynch and that Defense around to help him out as well.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Didn't you say they won without corners who are ballhawks? Now you're saying Sherman is one?


Also, you tried to insult him by saying he should super size your fries yet I have a tough time reading your posts when your grammar is all over the place.


Dont say you want to have an intelligent conversation when you start by insulting someone and then have a tough time putting together a grammatically correct sentence.

 

the grammar is all correct. some of it is shorthand because this is the internet, if i wanted to write you a formal letter i would. show me where i said seattle doesnt have ball hawks. what i said was their corners who arent considered ball hawks, to TMD, who does not consider richard sherman a ball hawk. the message was directed at him, not you or the general public. but if you could take a moment to ascertain what i actually said, and let go of TMDs hand, you will realize that nothing you are accusing me of is correct. 

 

yes i did say he should super size my fries. if you can please show me the Intelligent Conversation Handbook where it says you can't start an intelligent convo with an insult, I will gladly remove that from my repertoire. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

 

but also TMD says that sherman sucks and isnt a ball hawk.

 

 

I said Sherman "sucks"?

---

Didn't you say they won without corners who are ballhawks? Now you're saying Sherman is one?

 

 

LOL, I thought he said that too.  

---

Seattle wasn't just all Defense though; it's not like they sat around and hoped someone would score for them. That offense ranked in the top quarter of the League in points scored, averaged over five yards per play overall, and were the sixth ranked team in terms of time of possession.

 

When you add that to the #1 overall scoring Defense and turnover creating Defense, you get a really nice combination that compliments one another very well. Granted, they weren't Denver-esque in their offensive production but they weren't exactly slouches either.

 

Exactly. And that was my point about them being "balanced" 

 

 

The 2000 Ravens, the Seahawks were not. 

---

2000 Ravens offense:

 

14th in points, 15th passing tds, 5th rushing yards, 5th rushing attempts, 8th rushing yards per attempt, 10th in % drives ending in a score, 3rd average time per drive, 8th average number plays per drive, 14th avg points scored per drive

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

2000 Ravens offense:

 

14th in points, 15th passing tds, 5th rushing yards, 5th rushing attempts, 8th rushing yards per attempt, 10th in % drives ending in a score, 3rd average time per drive, 8th average number plays per drive, 14th avg points scored per drive

 

Do those "points" include defensive scores I wonder?

---

Do those "points" include defensive scores I wonder?

 

Chris McAllister scored exactly one pick six.

 

Michael McCrary was credited with exactly one safety.

 

8pts for the defense, which I don't believe were included in the offensive stats.  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...v/2000.htm

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Chris McAllister scored exactly one pick six.

 

Michael McCrary was credited with exactly one safety.

 

8pts for the defense, which I don't believe were included in the offensive stats.  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...v/2000.htm

 

How about ST returns?

---

How about ST returns?

 

What kills me the most is that I gave you the link, and you still couldn't do your own homework.  That's not a question I would have asked, since it defeated your argument.

 

14 points on merely two punt returns.  Zero kickoff returns.

 

Their offense, like Seattle, very much did their fair share.  Still, it's defense that wins championships.  Otherwise, Denver would have ran away with it.

 

You need balance for sure (you can't win without scoring,) but more often than not the better defense wins.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

What kills me the most is that I gave you the link, and you still couldn't do your own homework.  That's not a question I would have asked, since it defeated your argument.

 

14 points on merely two punt returns.  Zero kickoff returns.

 

Their offense, like Seattle, very much did their fair share.  Still, it's defense that wins championships.  Otherwise, Denver would have ran away with it.

 

You need balance for sure (you can't win without scoring,) but more often than not the better defense wins.

 

I 'll agree that defense is very important. I'm just saying that Seattle wasn't much of a slouch on offense, either. 

---

More fluff:

 

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/29/nfl-draft-...t-buffalo/

---