Seahawks win the NFCW in 2007? Or 49ers overtake them? (1 Viewer)

[chinawildman]

Think about the reverse, though. If you're in an easy division and nothing crazy happens, should you get an inflated rating?Strength of schedule is very important. And I've got absolutely no problem saying the 2006 Dolphins, on average, were better than the 2006 Seahawks. (Note: this doesn't allow Seattle to use Shaun Alexander and Matt Hasselbeck in a game between the two; it just lets them use Alexander for 5/8 of the game and Hasselbeck for 3/4 of the game). The Seahawks were average on offense and defense; the Dolphins were great on defense and terrible on offense. That evens out. But when you consider Miami did this while playing an easier schedule, Miami deserves a bump for that. Note: Against common opponents, Miami went 4-1 and Seattle went 2-3. Against uncommon opponents, Miami went 2-9 and Seattle went 7-4. Think the difficulty of Miami's schedule and the relative ease of Seattle's schedule was meaningless? No chance the 2006 Seahawks reach .500 playing the Dolphins schedule last year.

I don't suggest that there should be an inflated rating of any kind. I'm suggesting that whenever strength of schedule comes into play, teams that are in better divisions simply get a boost in rating, regardless of how well they performed.According to the pure points, the niners are almost ranked dead last, yet they went 3-7 against top 16 teams. You also supported your argument for their mediocrity in that they had the 26th ranked defense and offense.Now look at the 2006 Bills. They went 4-8 against top 16 teams, were 30th in offense and 18th in defense. Not exactly impressive, and not really leaps and bounds better than the niners.... But because they were in the stronger AFC East, pure points considers them a top 10 team (9th) while the niners are almost dead last (30th)?IMO the amount of skewing as a result of the SOS here is somewhat exaggerated.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

The opinions about the Seahawks seem to wildly vary.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do well argue that the team suffered an incredible amount of injuries a year ago. They argue the club will be healthier this season, thus raising their statistical totals. Plus they like the defensive picks of a CB and run-stuffer.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do worse in 2007 for the most part seem to argue from the position that they like what some other team in the division did this offseason, but don't mention the Seahawks much. Also some criticism of Hasselbeck.

What is to mention....all they did was replace people they lost. I don't think they improved at all, if anything they took a step back.

They "lost" those guys on purpose and were adding by subtraction. The Hawks let Wistrom, Hamlin, Jackson and Stevens leave, its not like they were hot commodities in the free agent market and decided to sign elsewhere. The Hawks basically traded Jackson to the 49ers because they were the only suitor. Only guy they really lost was Tobeck who retired but have Spencer waiting in the wings.IMO Deon Grant is an upgrade over Hamlin, especially in coverage. Kerney is an upgrade over Wistrom and Pollard is just a stop gap to find a replacement TE.

You are forgetting that they will be healthy again, which was a big problem last year.

nice spin

Nice spin??-The Hawks cut Wistrom - they never "lost " him.

-The Hawks had the chance to sign Hamlin and Stevens and opted not too. The hawks came out and even addressed that they would be taking another direction and not signing either of these players. If you look at how much attention Hamlin and Stevens got in free agency, it seems like it was the right play as well. Hamin couldn't find anywhere and ended up signing a 1 year deal.

-The Hawks traded away Darrell Jackson for a 4th rounder, you don't think the Hawks coud have just not traded him instead?

All of these were Seahawks decisions, not the players leaving on their own terms.

 

[derek19]

Question for you Care-Bear.Which RB SHOULD have more ypc?RB A who runs against 8 or more defenders in the box?ORRB B who runs against less than 8 defenders in the box?

Socratic question for youo you think Frank Gore is the best running back, in the best situation in the history of the NFL? If not, why would you expect him to accomplish something that Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, and Jim Brown never did? He may still have a good season, but the probability that he gains less than 5 yards per carry I would put at at least 80%.

Still waiting for an answer to my question....

 

[ImTheScientist]

The opinions about the Seahawks seem to wildly vary.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do well argue that the team suffered an incredible amount of injuries a year ago. They argue the club will be healthier this season, thus raising their statistical totals. Plus they like the defensive picks of a CB and run-stuffer.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do worse in 2007 for the most part seem to argue from the position that they like what some other team in the division did this offseason, but don't mention the Seahawks much. Also some criticism of Hasselbeck.

What is to mention....all they did was replace people they lost. I don't think they improved at all, if anything they took a step back.

They "lost" those guys on purpose and were adding by subtraction. The Hawks let Wistrom, Hamlin, Jackson and Stevens leave, its not like they were hot commodities in the free agent market and decided to sign elsewhere. The Hawks basically traded Jackson to the 49ers because they were the only suitor. Only guy they really lost was Tobeck who retired but have Spencer waiting in the wings.IMO Deon Grant is an upgrade over Hamlin, especially in coverage. Kerney is an upgrade over Wistrom and Pollard is just a stop gap to find a replacement TE.

You are forgetting that they will be healthy again, which was a big problem last year.

nice spin

Nice spin??-The Hawks cut Wistrom - they never "lost " him.

-The Hawks had the chance to sign Hamlin and Stevens and opted not too. The hawks came out and even addressed that they would be taking another direction and not signing either of these players. If you look at how much attention Hamlin and Stevens got in free agency, it seems like it was the right play as well. Hamin couldn't find anywhere and ended up signing a 1 year deal.

-The Hawks traded away Darrell Jackson for a 4th rounder, you don't think the Hawks coud have just not traded him instead?

All of these were Seahawks decisions, not the players leaving on their own terms.

When I said lost I did not mean --- the players left on their own terms, I meant the word to mean...Subtraction from the team. 1) Kerney is Wistrom when he signed with the team...an overrated DL

2) They felt Deion Grant would be better than Hamlin. Grant is older, and they overpaid him. Is Grant worth that money? IMO his tallent say's he should be paid far less, and I would have prefered the Hawks to keep the younger Hamlin and further develop him. The only spot that the hawks may have improved was this...but not by far.

3) Stevens......Pollard.....both suck and pollard is 35

4) The 49ers stole DJax. Im sure the Hawks didn't want to pay him and I wouldn't either but the loss of him does hurt the team.

So how are they gaining? I think I may be one of the only seahawk fans around that is not blind.

The rest of the division had better offseasons/draft's

 

[Hooper31]

Bad news with regard to the Seattle offensive line. Spencer has not recovered from shoulder surgery, and he may need another. This pushes veteran Gray to center for now. If they're going to have some semblance of rhythm this year Spencer needs to heal, and heal quickly.

 

[CalBear]

Still waiting for an answer to my question....

Your question has far too many flawed assumptions to answer realistically. All else being equal, it may be better to not have 8 men in the box, but some of the highest YPC seasons in recent memory have come from teams without decent passing games (notably Gore and J.Lewis, also Tomlinson in 2003, his highest YPC year). Now will you answer mine?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Think about the reverse, though. If you're in an easy division and nothing crazy happens, should you get an inflated rating?Strength of schedule is very important. And I've got absolutely no problem saying the 2006 Dolphins, on average, were better than the 2006 Seahawks. (Note: this doesn't allow Seattle to use Shaun Alexander and Matt Hasselbeck in a game between the two; it just lets them use Alexander for 5/8 of the game and Hasselbeck for 3/4 of the game). The Seahawks were average on offense and defense; the Dolphins were great on defense and terrible on offense. That evens out. But when you consider Miami did this while playing an easier schedule, Miami deserves a bump for that. Note: Against common opponents, Miami went 4-1 and Seattle went 2-3. Against uncommon opponents, Miami went 2-9 and Seattle went 7-4. Think the difficulty of Miami's schedule and the relative ease of Seattle's schedule was meaningless? No chance the 2006 Seahawks reach .500 playing the Dolphins schedule last year.

I don't suggest that there should be an inflated rating of any kind. I'm suggesting that whenever strength of schedule comes into play, teams that are in better divisions simply get a boost in rating, regardless of how well they performed.According to the pure points, the niners are almost ranked dead last, yet they went 3-7 against top 16 teams. You also supported your argument for their mediocrity in that they had the 26th ranked defense and offense.Now look at the 2006 Bills. They went 4-8 against top 16 teams, were 30th in offense and 18th in defense. Not exactly impressive, and not really leaps and bounds better than the niners.... But because they were in the stronger AFC East, pure points considers them a top 10 team (9th) while the niners are almost dead last (30th)?IMO the amount of skewing as a result of the SOS here is somewhat exaggerated.

The Bills were 23rd in points scored and 10th in points allowed; that's a drastic improvement over the 49ers 24th and 32nd. Put it another way; Buffalo scored 2 more points than SF, while allowing 101 points less...while playing a significantly harder schedule.

 

[Keith Lewis]

Seahawk fans are really getting their panties in a bunch over this thread, you guys doing ok?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

The opinions about the Seahawks seem to wildly vary.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do well argue that the team suffered an incredible amount of injuries a year ago. They argue the club will be healthier this season, thus raising their statistical totals. Plus they like the defensive picks of a CB and run-stuffer.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do worse in 2007 for the most part seem to argue from the position that they like what some other team in the division did this offseason, but don't mention the Seahawks much. Also some criticism of Hasselbeck.

What is to mention....all they did was replace people they lost. I don't think they improved at all, if anything they took a step back.

They "lost" those guys on purpose and were adding by subtraction. The Hawks let Wistrom, Hamlin, Jackson and Stevens leave, its not like they were hot commodities in the free agent market and decided to sign elsewhere. The Hawks basically traded Jackson to the 49ers because they were the only suitor. Only guy they really lost was Tobeck who retired but have Spencer waiting in the wings.IMO Deon Grant is an upgrade over Hamlin, especially in coverage. Kerney is an upgrade over Wistrom and Pollard is just a stop gap to find a replacement TE.

You are forgetting that they will be healthy again, which was a big problem last year.

nice spin

Nice spin??-The Hawks cut Wistrom - they never "lost " him.

-The Hawks had the chance to sign Hamlin and Stevens and opted not too. The hawks came out and even addressed that they would be taking another direction and not signing either of these players. If you look at how much attention Hamlin and Stevens got in free agency, it seems like it was the right play as well. Hamin couldn't find anywhere and ended up signing a 1 year deal.

-The Hawks traded away Darrell Jackson for a 4th rounder, you don't think the Hawks coud have just not traded him instead?

All of these were Seahawks decisions, not the players leaving on their own terms.

When I said lost I did not mean --- the players left on their own terms, I meant the word to mean...Subtraction from the team. 1) Kerney is Wistrom when he signed with the team...an overrated DL

2) They felt Deion Grant would be better than Hamlin. Grant is older, and they overpaid him. Is Grant worth that money? IMO his tallent say's he should be paid far less, and I would have prefered the Hawks to keep the younger Hamlin and further develop him. The only spot that the hawks may have improved was this...but not by far.

3) Stevens......Pollard.....both suck and pollard is 35

4) The 49ers stole DJax. Im sure the Hawks didn't want to pay him and I wouldn't either but the loss of him does hurt the team.

So how are they gaining? I think I may be one of the only seahawk fans around that is not blind.

The rest of the division had better offseasons/draft's

1) If Kerney = Wistrom in your eyes, then there is no subtraction.2) Deon Grant is MUCH better than Hamlin in coverage and what the Seahawks need. They don't need someone looking for the big hit and getting beat. Hamlin was terrible at tackling last year, never wrapping up, and Grant should improve the secondary in that area as well. I think it speaks volumes about how little interest teams showed Hamlin in free agency and seemed like he had to settle for signing a one year deal in Dallas. If Hamlin had the skill you think he possesses, would you not think he would have been more coveted?

3) Pollard is a stop-gap at the TE position. They let Stevens walk away without a deal due to the off-field distractions.

4) D-Jax being traded isn't as huge of a deal. The WRs did BETTER without D-Jax in the lineup the past couple of seasons. His presence was becoming a nuissance and not coming to off-season workouts is B.S.

The Hawks are gaining by subtraction. I am not blind, but I am not saying the sky is falling due to the Hawks letting some problem players walk. The players that will not be on the team this year were the weak links last season, with the exception of Jackson, so I fail to see the issue.

The other NFC West teams may have had better off-seasons, but those other teams also have alot more to improve compared to the Seahawks. The Hawks can't make a huge move every year in free agency (i.e. Julian Peterson) and have to let the team gel and let the young players develop.

 

[chinawildman]

The Bills were 23rd in points scored and 10th in points allowed; that's a drastic improvement over the 49ers 24th and 32nd. Put it another way; Buffalo scored 2 more points than SF, while allowing 101 points less...while playing a significantly harder schedule.

I guess statistics mean more for some people than others, as the NFL certainly isn't science. I see your point in the strength of schedule argument, I'm just not sure how much weight I should put into it in determining how "good" a team is. Basically I wouldn't consider the Bills one of the "top 10" teams from last season, and I certainly don't consider the dolphins a better team than the broncos. Both of which the chart you provided suggests. I'm still curious why you relied solely on numbers to support your argument on why the niners won't really improve on last season's record. The reason alot of people are high on the niners this season is due to immeasureables such as the impact of free agency, the draft, and the assumed improvement of younger players. The core of the niners, Smith, Gore, and Davis are all 23 and younger, with Smith being just a few months older than Brady Quinn. Potential upside should at least be a factor, especially with a team that showed improvement during the latter part of the season. IMO dismissing these variables while making projections based purely on statistics invalidates the conclusion. David Carr had a better passer rating last season than Eli Manning, Roethlisberger, Leinart, Young... should these other guys just start packing their bags as well?

 

[Routilla]

The Bills were 23rd in points scored and 10th in points allowed; that's a drastic improvement over the 49ers 24th and 32nd. Put it another way; Buffalo scored 2 more points than SF, while allowing 101 points less...while playing a significantly harder schedule.

I guess statistics mean more for some people than others, as the NFL certainly isn't science. I see your point in the strength of schedule argument, I'm just not sure how much weight I should put into it in determining how "good" a team is. Basically I wouldn't consider the Bills one of the "top 10" teams from last season, and I certainly don't consider the dolphins a better team than the broncos. Both of which the chart you provided suggests. I'm still curious why you relied solely on numbers to support your argument on why the niners won't really improve on last season's record. The reason alot of people are high on the niners this season is due to immeasureables such as the impact of free agency, the draft, and the assumed improvement of younger players. The core of the niners, Smith, Gore, and Davis are all 23 and younger, with Smith being just a few months older than Brady Quinn. Potential upside should at least be a factor, especially with a team that showed improvement during the latter part of the season. IMO dismissing these variables while making projections based purely on statistics invalidates the conclusion. David Carr had a better passer rating last season than Eli Manning, Roethlisberger, Leinart, Young... should these other guys just start packing their bags as well?

Sometimes the younger players don't improve though. Carr is an example. What if Smith does not improve this year? Teams have film to watch and will be able to game plan better. I'm not saying SF is not better, but is it a certainty that the younger players all get better, or is it possible they struggle some? It's just not a slam dunk to say they will be better based on an assumed improvement of younger players. I've been trying that one with Dallas lately but it has not panned out the way I had hoped, atleast not yet.

 

[HoezNTrix]

This thread shows how blind many of the posters on this board are. It is rediculous to think that Seattle will finish 3rd in their division this year. Seattle is still the best team in the division for a few more years.

Last year they had one of the worst runs of injuries I have seen and still managed to make it to overtime of the NFC Divisional game.

If any team suffered as many injuries as Seattle did last year, they wouldnt have made it as far. Seattle has great depth and if they stay healthy all year, they will be the favorites to win the NFC.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

NFCW 2007

Seahawks [ 37 ] [25.69%]

49ers [ 51 ] [35.42%]

Rams [ 40 ] [27.78%]

Cardinals [ 16 ] [11.11%]

Total Votes: 151

XLots of 49er fan quotes in here for your signatures. Have fun.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

My biggest worry about SEA was how terrible Alexander looked last year. He looked REAL slow. Maybe his injuries were still nagging him. I wouldn't touch Alexander this year in fantasy drafts thats for sure.

IMHO hes the clear #2 pick this year behind LT. Even if you twisted my arm he wouldnt be worse than 3rd behind SJax.

"ouch"

I actually think the Rams are the sleeper team to go to the Super Bowl. IMO they made a ton of improvements. Im a 49ers fan and I got that division finishing like this:1 Rams2 49ers3 Seahawks4 Cardinalswith the Rams and 49ers making the playoffs.

I rarely bump threads but this one is just overflowing with stuff so I couldn't help it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I am a Seahawks fan and I voted for the 49ers. I actually think the Seahawks will either be the worst or the second worst team in the division this year. Everyone else is improved and the Seahawks are not. NFC West1. 49ers2. Rams3. Cardinals4. Seahawks

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Rams [ 12 ] [24.49%]

I can understand the love for the 49ers but the Rams? Come on.

We'll come back to this in January

How about right now?

 

[shadyridr]

My biggest worry about SEA was how terrible Alexander looked last year. He looked REAL slow. Maybe his injuries were still nagging him. I wouldn't touch Alexander this year in fantasy drafts thats for sure.

IMHO hes the clear #2 pick this year behind LT. Even if you twisted my arm he wouldnt be worse than 3rd behind SJax.

"ouch"

I actually think the Rams are the sleeper team to go to the Super Bowl. IMO they made a ton of improvements. Im a 49ers fan and I got that division finishing like this:1 Rams2 49ers3 Seahawks4 Cardinalswith the Rams and 49ers making the playoffs.

I rarely bump threads but this one is just overflowing with stuff so I couldn't help it.

My predicted Super Bowl was DEN vs STL. Oh well, its not like I bet money on it. Im sure youve never gotten a prediction wrong.

 

[TheWick]

Rams [ 12 ] [24.49%]

I can understand the love for the 49ers but the Rams? Come on.

We'll come back to this in January

How about right now?

Atleast I was right about Alexander If the Rams were healthy which they are NOT, this might be a different story. SEA wins by default

 

[Doctor Detroit]

If the Rams were healthy which they are NOT, this might be a different story. SEA wins by default

Like last year when the Seahawks were killed by injuries the whole year and they won the division? Why didn't the Rams win by default? Using injuries as an is fine, just be consistent please.

 

[TheWick]

So do you think SEA is actually a good team? Is that what your telling me? Or just that they are better than the others in the NFC West?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So do you think SEA is actually a good team? Is that what your telling me? Or just that they are better than the others in the NFC West?

Wasn't this thread about the NFC West? I'm not even saying Seattle is better than Arizona as far as I can tell. Just wanted to reminisce about what everyone thought a few months ago and you told me to bump the thread, didn't you?

 

[TheWick]

So do you think SEA is actually a good team? Is that what your telling me? Or just that they are better than the others in the NFC West?

Wasn't this thread about the NFC West? I'm not even saying Seattle is better than Arizona as far as I can tell. Just wanted to reminisce about what everyone thought a few months ago and you told me to bump the thread, didn't you?

I think we are past your brilliant prediction, if this is about this years NFC West why are you talking about injuries from the 06 season? What would the seahawks being injured in 06 have to do with the rams being injured in 07? You lost me dude

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So do you think SEA is actually a good team? Is that what your telling me? Or just that they are better than the others in the NFC West?

Wasn't this thread about the NFC West? I'm not even saying Seattle is better than Arizona as far as I can tell. Just wanted to reminisce about what everyone thought a few months ago and you told me to bump the thread, didn't you?

I think we are past your brilliant prediction, if this is about this years NFC West why are you talking about injuries from the 06 season? What would the seahawks being injured in 06 have to do with the rams being injured in 07? You lost me dude

Yeah that doesn't seem all that hard. Here ya go.

 

[TheWick]

Shall I make a timeline? If I did 2006 would be before and seperate from 2007

 

[shadyridr]

-The offensive line will be much better this year as a group as they will adjust to all the injuries and losing Hutchinson. Shaun Alexander looked good at the very end of last year, he'll be good this year.

"ouch"?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The opinions about the Seahawks seem to wildly vary.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do well argue that the team suffered an incredible amount of injuries a year ago. They argue the club will be healthier this season, thus raising their statistical totals. Plus they like the defensive picks of a CB and run-stuffer.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do worse in 2007 for the most part seem to argue from the position that they like what some other team in the division did this offseason, but don't mention the Seahawks much. Also some criticism of Hasselbeck.

What is to mention....all they did was replace people they lost. I don't think they improved at all, if anything they took a step back.

They "lost" those guys on purpose and were adding by subtraction. The Hawks let Wistrom, Hamlin, Jackson and Stevens leave, its not like they were hot commodities in the free agent market and decided to sign elsewhere. The Hawks basically traded Jackson to the 49ers because they were the only suitor. Only guy they really lost was Tobeck who retired but have Spencer waiting in the wings.IMO Deon Grant is an upgrade over Hamlin, especially in coverage. Kerney is an upgrade over Wistrom and Pollard is just a stop gap to find a replacement TE.

You are forgetting that they will be healthy again, which was a big problem last year.

nice spin

Nice spin??-The Hawks cut Wistrom - they never "lost " him.

-The Hawks had the chance to sign Hamlin and Stevens and opted not too. The hawks came out and even addressed that they would be taking another direction and not signing either of these players. If you look at how much attention Hamlin and Stevens got in free agency, it seems like it was the right play as well. Hamin couldn't find anywhere and ended up signing a 1 year deal.

-The Hawks traded away Darrell Jackson for a 4th rounder, you don't think the Hawks coud have just not traded him instead?

All of these were Seahawks decisions, not the players leaving on their own terms.

When I said lost I did not mean --- the players left on their own terms, I meant the word to mean...Subtraction from the team. 1) Kerney is Wistrom when he signed with the team...an overrated DL

2) They felt Deion Grant would be better than Hamlin. Grant is older, and they overpaid him. Is Grant worth that money? IMO his tallent say's he should be paid far less, and I would have prefered the Hawks to keep the younger Hamlin and further develop him. The only spot that the hawks may have improved was this...but not by far.

3) Stevens......Pollard.....both suck and pollard is 35

4) The 49ers stole DJax. Im sure the Hawks didn't want to pay him and I wouldn't either but the loss of him does hurt the team.

So how are they gaining? I think I may be one of the only seahawk fans around that is not blind.

The rest of the division had better offseasons/draft's

Where has this guy been?

NFCW 2007

Seahawks [ 41 ] [27.15%]

49ers [ 51 ] [33.77%]

Rams [ 40 ] [26.49%]

Cardinals [ 19 ] [12.58%]

Total Votes: 158

Update?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

After the Seahawks win the NFC West, I want all of you to return here and man up,TIA,

 

[kevjones22]

Every year same story, the media looks for any team to hype besides the Seahawks in the NFC West.

 

[rickyjgo]

Missed this back when it may have been something to talk about...Seattle has looked bad at times this season, but could make a run. Still nice to have my team having a shot going into the playoffs.

 

[mad sweeney]

I am still mad about that botched handoff to keep us from sweeping the NFCW. But damn it's nice to win again. So many years of hoping for a wildcard spot, and usually not getting it, makes these last 4 years really, really nice.

The D is peaking at the right time, they're fairly heatlhy and no one's paying attention. Exzellent.

 

[mad sweeney]

The opinions about the Seahawks seem to wildly vary.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do well argue that the team suffered an incredible amount of injuries a year ago. They argue the club will be healthier this season, thus raising their statistical totals. Plus they like the defensive picks of a CB and run-stuffer.

+ Those that think the Seahawks will do worse in 2007 for the most part seem to argue from the position that they like what some other team in the division did this offseason, but don't mention the Seahawks much. Also some criticism of Hasselbeck.

What is to mention....all they did was replace people they lost. I don't think they improved at all, if anything they took a step back.

They "lost" those guys on purpose and were adding by subtraction. The Hawks let Wistrom, Hamlin, Jackson and Stevens leave, its not like they were hot commodities in the free agent market and decided to sign elsewhere. The Hawks basically traded Jackson to the 49ers because they were the only suitor. Only guy they really lost was Tobeck who retired but have Spencer waiting in the wings.IMO Deon Grant is an upgrade over Hamlin, especially in coverage. Kerney is an upgrade over Wistrom and Pollard is just a stop gap to find a replacement TE.

You are forgetting that they will be healthy again, which was a big problem last year.

nice spin

Nice spin??-The Hawks cut Wistrom - they never "lost " him.

-The Hawks had the chance to sign Hamlin and Stevens and opted not too. The hawks came out and even addressed that they would be taking another direction and not signing either of these players. If you look at how much attention Hamlin and Stevens got in free agency, it seems like it was the right play as well. Hamin couldn't find anywhere and ended up signing a 1 year deal.

-The Hawks traded away Darrell Jackson for a 4th rounder, you don't think the Hawks coud have just not traded him instead?

All of these were Seahawks decisions, not the players leaving on their own terms.

When I said lost I did not mean --- the players left on their own terms, I meant the word to mean...Subtraction from the team. 1) Kerney is Wistrom when he signed with the team...an overrated DL

2) They felt Deion Grant would be better than Hamlin. Grant is older, and they overpaid him. Is Grant worth that money? IMO his tallent say's he should be paid far less, and I would have prefered the Hawks to keep the younger Hamlin and further develop him. The only spot that the hawks may have improved was this...but not by far.

3) Stevens......Pollard.....both suck and pollard is 35

4) The 49ers stole DJax. Im sure the Hawks didn't want to pay him and I wouldn't either but the loss of him does hurt the team.

So how are they gaining? I think I may be one of the only seahawk fans around that is not blind.

The rest of the division had better offseasons/draft's

Where has this guy been?

NFCW 2007

Seahawks [ 41 ] [27.15%]

49ers [ 51 ] [33.77%]

Rams [ 40 ] [26.49%]

Cardinals [ 19 ] [12.58%]

Total Votes: 158

Update?

I think he must've gone blind and can't type with his eyes closed.I just have to at #4. Hell, a PS OL was a steal to get in return for Djax!

As for #1 Kerney=NFL Player of Month for November, how very overrated.

#2 When's the last time they got beat deep? Those two safeties are a huge reason for the good D this year. Hamlin was and is undisciplined, Grant and Russell are players.