Will the Seattle Super Bowl Win Change How Teams Draft? (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

Top 10? I think you could make the argument that he has cracked the top 5, and now sits behind the Big Four of Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, and Brady. Seriously, after those four, who is better than Wilson?

... Wilson is lucky to have the awesome D, running game and homefield built for him. One of these years he will get exposed when he has to actually win a game for the team. I hope Sea makes the mistake of paying him $200M.

Who gets $200 mil?

Clayton Kershaw?

 

[proninja]

Top 10? I think you could make the argument that he has cracked the top 5, and now sits behind the Big Four of Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, and Brady. Seriously, after those four, who is better than Wilson?

Don't confuse NFL with Fantasy

Better QB's than Wilson.....

Luck, Big Ben, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Romo.

Wilson has a ways to go. Put him on a team with a supporting cast like the Chargers and see how good he is. Wilson is getting close to the top 10 perhaps but top 5 is laughable.

Lol!

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Does anyone realize that Seattle had their first team playing in the SB? While they had injuries during the year, they got their players back in time. No team gets that lucky. Hell, next year, Seattle will not get that lucky either. Staying healthy is a HUGE part of winning the big prize in the NFL these days.

Good point. The Seahawks were actually in better shape than they had been all year because of Harvin.

 

[sho nuff]

Good pass rush with a great secondary. They didn't exactly reinvent the wheel.

It sounds like the 2007, 2011 Giants..if anything, Seattle copied these teams. it's not rocket science..get after the opposing QB and play strong in the secondary..it's something Al Davis said a long time ago..

One thing, that Dr. Detroit correctly mentioned above, is being able to get presure on the QB without blitzing. Easier said than done -- you really need elite DEs/OLBs to do it -- but that was the crux of the Giants' best recent defenses, and what made Steve Spagnuolo look so smart in N.Y. and so terrible in N.O.

Also that Thomas is the top player on their defense and the best safety in the NFL.

He might be the most indespensable player on their team (including Wilson, Lynch, Sherman... Harvin is one of the most talented, but can't call indispensable with him playing so little).

Ronnie Lott and former Seahawk Kenny Easley are two of the best safeties I've ever seen, not sure I could put Thomas in their class, but for the scheme they run, it is possible there has never been a better fit than him. Mayock before the draft called Thomas the most instinctive safety he ever evaluated (and I don't think he has said it since, so it isn't like he does that every year). I think he ran a sub-4.4* before the draft, but it is his blistering speed coupled with his instincts and Peyton Manning-like defensive counterpart film junkie penchant that enables him to play even faster, and have greater range. Like an elite LB (like Kuechly these days), he rarely takes a false step and is almost always flowing in the right direction, helped by near telepathic run/pass recognition, ability to read keys based on down and distance, formations, substitutions and personnel packages. He can come up and tackle in run support, and is the complete package, I can't really see a weakness (he isn't tall, so in theory a WR like Calvin Johnson could exploit that?).

* 4.37 at his pro day before pulling a hammy, would have been better than all DBs at the Combine by nearly a tenth of a second.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/03/31/texas-thomas-pulls-hamstring-after-4-37-second-40/

And not saying Nick Collins was on his level...but look what a great safety being lost has done to the Packers defense.

They still have not recovered from that.

 

[sho nuff]

Top 10? I think you could make the argument that he has cracked the top 5, and now sits behind the Big Four of Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, and Brady. Seriously, after those four, who is better than Wilson?

Don't confuse NFL with Fantasy

Better QB's than Wilson.....

Luck, Big Ben, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Romo.

Wilson has a ways to go. Put him on a team with a supporting cast like the Chargers and see how good he is. Wilson is getting close to the top 10 perhaps but top 5 is laughable.

I would not take Ryan, Rivers, Manning or Romo over Wilson at all.

Big Ben is even questionable at this point.

He and Luck there are arguments for either side.

 

[CapnJB]

Top 10? I think you could make the argument that he has cracked the top 5, and now sits behind the Big Four of Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, and Brady. Seriously, after those four, who is better than Wilson?

Don't confuse NFL with Fantasy

Better QB's than Wilson.....

Luck, Big Ben, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Romo.

Wilson has a ways to go. Put him on a team with a supporting cast like the Chargers and see how good he is. Wilson is getting close to the top 10 perhaps but top 5 is laughable.

I think it would be more accurate to say, 'Put him on a team with a supporting cast like the Chargers and see how good they get.'

 

[Ghost Rider]

Top 10? I think you could make the argument that he has cracked the top 5, and now sits behind the Big Four of Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, and Brady. Seriously, after those four, who is better than Wilson?

Don't confuse NFL with Fantasy

Better QB's than Wilson.....

Luck, Big Ben, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Romo.

Wilson has a ways to go. Put him on a team with a supporting cast like the Chargers and see how good he is. Wilson is getting close to the top 10 perhaps but top 5 is laughable.

Eli? And you think I am confused?

Those other guys would all be top 10 as well, right below Wilson in my book, but what Wilson has done in two years is enough for me to put him at 5. He threw 26 touchdowns and only 9 interceptions this past season, with a top 5 YPA, throwing to a group of receivers that is collectively pretty mediocre. And, as for support from the running game, yes, Seattle had a top 5 rushing attack, but Wilson's 539 yards were a big part of that. Take that away and Seattle has only the 21st best rushing attack. So, his support from his RBs this year wasn't that great (cause Lynch had a lot of subpar games).

 

[Tau837]

Top 10? I think you could make the argument that he has cracked the top 5, and now sits behind the Big Four of Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, and Brady. Seriously, after those four, who is better than Wilson?

Don't confuse NFL with Fantasy

Better QB's than Wilson.....

Luck, Big Ben, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Romo.

Wilson has a ways to go. Put him on a team with a supporting cast like the Chargers and see how good he is. Wilson is getting close to the top 10 perhaps but top 5 is laughable.

Eli? And you think I am confused?

Those other guys would all be top 10 as well, right below Wilson in my book, but what Wilson has done in two years is enough for me to put him at 5. He threw 26 touchdowns and only 9 interceptions this past season, with a top 5 YPA, throwing to a group of receivers that is collectively pretty mediocre. And, as for support from the running game, yes, Seattle had a top 5 rushing attack, but Wilson's 539 yards were a big part of that. Take that away and Seattle has only the 21st best rushing attack. So, his support from his RBs this year wasn't that great (cause Lynch had a lot of subpar games).

 

[Doug B]

I deleted your fluff because your first statement is incorrect. They do have a model. Bigger, stronger, faster....and they will coach you up. They also have a "type" for each position they try to look for.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-analysis/2013/5/16/4338100/sparq-a-fire-measuring-the-type-of-athlete-the-seahawks-hunt-for/in/4125461

Very interesting, thanks for the link.

Seconded, strong contribution, ITS.

Succinctly, the Seahawks apparently are using a new-school player evaluation scheme. It's got a name - SPARQ. The linked article contains a brief overview, and is worth posting here. I have to beleive, however, that SPARQ will go league-wide quickly, and the Seahawks won't be seeing too many of their highly-rated players falling three rounds too low anymore.

Nike, seeking to extend their brand, and add value to athletes and coaches, designed the SPARQ rating to measure athleticism. Think of it as an SAT score for Football Players. This "SAT" score, or SPARQ rating, does not trump the evaluation of game tape, a person's character and competitiveness, interviews with coaches, and medicals. It is just another tool for coaches to use, and perhaps a tool for a player to measure his chances of becoming a "Division I" football player.Every year, Nike holds SPARQ Combines across America in various cities, inviting high school athletes to come out and "get tested". About 1,000-1,500 athletes visit these events per city, and the highest rated athletes attend a final combine in Beaverton, Oregon (deep in Nike territory). The highest SPARQ scores per year, after tens of thousands of athletes are measured, are in the 130 to 150 range. At some camps, only a handful of players score above 100.

The SPARQ score is calculated using five inputs. There is no height or arm length component involved. The five components are:

(1) A Player's Weight (this "normalizes" the score, giving credit to a bigger player who displays similar movement skills to a smaller, quicker player)

(2) Forty Time

(3) 5-10-5 agility drill (some call this the 20 yard shuttle or short shuttle)

(4) Kneeling Powerball Toss (more on this later, but this replaces the bench press)

(5) Vertical Jump

SPARQ intends to blend an athlete's size, speed, explosive power, and agility into one metric.

Most interesting to me is the exchange of the upper-body brute strength metric (the 225-lb bench press) for upper-body-and-core "explosive" strength metric.

Also, I didn't really know Nike was quite into this kind of stuff. I guess it's a natural extension of their core businesses, though.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Interesting that SPARQ dispensed with height, which is counterintuitive for QB and WR, but it worked out well for them.

Russell Wilson is about 5'10", and with Rice injured, by the time of the Super Bowl the top three SEA WRs might have been 5'11" Harvin and the 5'10" Golden Tate and Doug Baldwin.

I disagree that some teams aren't consistently better than others at drafting.

Why have the Ravens been consistently good in the past 15 years. Luck?

And the Browns consistently bad in the same time frame. Bad Luck?

 

[ScottyDog]

Top 10? I think you could make the argument that he has cracked the top 5, and now sits behind the Big Four of Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, and Brady. Seriously, after those four, who is better than Wilson?

... Wilson is lucky to have the awesome D, running game and homefield built for him. One of these years he will get exposed when he has to actually win a game for the team. I hope Sea makes the mistake of paying him $200M.

You seem to be a very unbiased objective person.

 

[KellysHeroes]

honestly they got some good breaks in their past couple of drafts and FA signings, real nothing game changing just good management and coaching. I mean drafting talents like Wilson and Sherman in the middle of your drafts gives a team such a huge advantage to begin with and add on top of it getting FAs like Avril & Bennett to come in and click is great. Pretty 90% of the league tries to do this but Seattle just had a perfect storm.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I disagree that some teams aren't consistently better than others at drafting.

Why have the Ravens been consistently good in the past 15 years. Luck?

And the Browns consistently bad in the same time frame. Bad Luck?

There are plenty of BIll Walsh principles that still hold true and are valuable for team building today.

There are also plenty of Bill Walsh principles that are no longer relevant to the current NFL climate.

But Walsh couldn't predict the phasing out of the full back, the nominal 2 TE base set, the nickel corner and 3rd down COP back who are quasi starters, the devaluation of the RB position, the pro passing rules, the increased training cycles for drafted QB1 prospects.

The teams that have a strong history of drafting fairly well like the Steelers and Ravens, while there might be some core philosophies in play, are still subject to adaptation.

As Cecil Lammey says, you never know what the Patriots are really going to do next. One year, they gun for trades. Another, they reach and spend in free agency. Another year, they trade back, in another, they trade up. The only constant is change.

The league is a copycat league, for sure, by most of those copycats fail. Even the originators in new digs later often fail to copycat their own initial success.

The franchises that consistently win are those that have organizational stability. Doesn't help so much if you find the next Richard Sherman if your GM and head coach are constantly warring for power, or the owner sticks his fingers in too much, or there's a witchhunt for every single failure or miss.

But it's not some secret elixir, it's not some random gimmick, it's not some coded metric angled one way that makes the rest of the league look like dummies.

Like I said before, if there folks who believe SPARQ is some kind of secret weapon, that Frodo and Sam wlll need to carry it up Mount Doom and throw it down the volcano mouth to bring parity back to the league and stop the Seattle train of dominance, have at it.

Why can't adaptation be part of team's philosophy, and account for rule changes?

Agree with stability. But what does a team do if they have a bad hire? You kind of have to fire them and start over (not saying this was the case with Chud, but it does happen). Teams that continue to make bad HC hires, probably have a front office problem. Ross was slow to fire Ireland. What if your GM is the owner, and he isn't very good, like in DAL?

I realize (and so does everybody else) it is rhetorical fluorish to invoke Frodo or Harry Potter or Dorothy. SPARQ, FARK, whatever you want to call it, what could be wrong with bigger, stronger, faster? Do you think the league will shift to smaller, weaker, slower.

It is true that just because a CB has the same size as Sherman doesn't mean he will move like him or play like him or be as smart, so not sure other teams will be able to replicate SEAs success, or even if SEA will be able to replicate SEAs success.

You mentioned Jimmy Johnson (and Walsh) upthread, a big issue for him was that the team was built pre-salary cap, and inevitably it was hard to keep the band together. But Jones foolishly fired him for ego reasons, so we don't really know what he could have done in DAL if he had stayed. Walsh was able to have Montana and Young at the same time.

SEA currently has the advantage of a cheap QB to build more expensive parts around him (Harvin paid like top 5 WR), but that will go away in a few years. I agree they may not have some top secret algortithm (ITS knows about it, so probably a few million other people do, too) that cranks out super stars like sausages. And they do make mistakes (like the since cut 2013 fourth round WR Harper from Kansas State?), but they have made a lot more good decisions, and at impact positions (QB, LT, DE, CB, FS, WR, MLB). They turned over a moribund franchise in about three years (maybe about 2-3 players from 2010 or before?), so they are doing something right. They are well stocked enough now to overcome a bungled draft (they gave up a first in 2013, but IMO got a super star WR that is 25, extremely smart play that could be paying dividends for years).

But as long as they keep drafting well, they are young, so the window is wide open for years. They made smart trades with Lynch (fifth rounder?) as well as Harvin. And with the team being the favorite for the Super Bowl, they can have their pick of many free agents that will want to come there for reasonable contracts (Tate already said he would take a home town discount). They have a strong OL, outstanding young QB, RB and WR, the best FS and CB in the league and a great young MLB in Wagner, a great system for their DL. Yes, they were healthy at a lot of positions, but Harvin and Rice went down, so Harvin could make them a lot more explosive in 2014. They are the best equipped team in the league to be a dynasty right now based on talent, and one of the youngest (much like PIT and SF right before going on their respective runs).

Like Belichick, Carroll failed at the NFL level before succeeding, and he obviously learned some things. One thing I like about their chances to repeat, is the makeup of leaders Carroll, Wilson, Thomas and Sherman. They don't seem like the complacent types.

 

[Tau837]

I agree with the notion that it isn't feasible for the rest of the league to copy Seattle as if Seattle has done something new. Seattle's success is fundamentally based on successfully identifying talent, whether in the draft or elsewhere, bringing that talent in, and coaching it up.

IMO based on recent track record, Seattle is better than average at identifying talent. Every team tries to do that, and the teams that aren't better than average at it can't just say, let's just copy Seattle and get better at that. If they could be better at it, they would be already.

But a big part that is underrated IMO is what Seattle does with its talent. The coaching staff is also better than average at getting the most out of their talent. You can see this in many ways -- on defense, the strong tackling, the discipline to eliminate explosive plays, the training to generate turnovers; on offense, not turning the ball over, being patient, generating explosive plays. Again, other teams would already be doing these things better if they could; it's not so easy as to say let's copy Seattle and do these things better.

And these things are why I expect Seattle to be a consistent contender for the next several years. They have a talent advantage over the rest of the league right now, and there is reason to believe they can largely maintain that through continued good talent evaluation and continued good coaching.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Agree with stability. But what does a team do if they have a bad hire? You kind of have to fire them and start over (not saying this was the case with Chud, but it does happen). Teams that continue to make bad HC hires, probably have a front office problem. Ross was slow to fire Ireland. What if your GM is the owner, and he isn't very good, like in DAL?

It is true that just because a CB has the same size as Sherman doesn't mean he will move like him or play like him or be as smart, so not sure other teams will be able to replicate SEAs success, or even if SEA will be able to replicate SEAs success.

On the issue of cornerbacks and "bigger, stronger and faster"

I'm not arguing against a trend towards bigger players in the secondary, particularly hybrid types, esp considering the success Green Bay had with Charles Woodson winning DPOY operating as a corner, safety and quasi linebacker moving all over the field in that scheme.

I'm just curious why some folks here make it seem like Seattle is the only one doing it or trying it. These are first round corners taken the last three years plus Aaron Williams, who was a high 2nd rounder.

Patrick Peterson 6'1 220

Prince Amukara 6'0 207

Jimmy Smith 6'2 205

Aaron Williams 6'0 200

Morris Claiborne 5'11 190

Dre Kilpatrick 6'2 185

Dee Milliner 6'0 200

Desmond Trufant 6'0 190

Xavier Rhodes 6'1 210

Richard Sherman 6'3 195

Byron Maxwell 6'1 207

Brandon Browner 6'4 220

Malcolm Smith 6'0 220

Over the past couple of years, I've consistently said that cornerbacks will push into the first half of the first round of the draft consistently, that nickel corner is essentially a starter position on most teams since most offenses use a base 11 or 12 package, and that no team can ever really have enough quality cornerbacks. I've often also cited over the years, the Patriots failures within their secondary as a weakness that has hurt them as contenders for years.

Bigger. Stronger. Faster.

I mean what do people think other teams are drafting? Darrelle Revis looks nothing like a cornerback in the 80s or even 90s. Guys like Rod Woodson, who were anomalies at cornerback for his size, speed and power, in his era, are the rule now, not the exception.

The pro passing rules and the current 2 TE base set or three WR base set has a lot of teams focusing on big physical corners who can execute solid press coverage and often the 5th DB, as in Rob Ryan's system, is asked to work as a hybrid CB/S.

Seattle didn't reinvent the wheel. They worked hard and were fortunate enough to get value selections and have massive depth in their secondary and faced a passing offense in the Super Bowl that couldn't adjust to that type of depth. Very few teams have dime backs who can probably start for a third of the league. They had three consecutive quality drafts, which is the bed rock of most ascending teams who become contenders, many are only able to get two strong drafts in a row. Again, this concept wasn't new to Seattle, Thomas Dimitrioff of the Falcons has been talking about it for years, but originally it was a Walsh concept.

Bob, what I'm disagreeing with is the concept of a "model" that can be copied, a blueprint that can be emulated as if it was that simple in the NFL to win a championship.

People in the NBA talk about the "OKC Model" of team building. Except David Stern and the rest of the owners essentially tried to extort the city of Seattle, and then Seattle told them to ESAD, Stern took the team away from them and sent them to OKC. If the team failed in OKC, it would hurt Stern's legacy and ultimately shadow the decision to move the team, so the team in OKC had to be a success. So Stern gave them the 2nd pick in the draft because Stern controls the first three picks in any draft under his regime. The next few years OKC lost enough to get high picks and got complementary players for Kevin Durant. One of the top picks they got was acquired by trading Ray Allen.

This is not a "model" This isn't something you can emulate.

But the NBA also talked about the "San Antonio Model" Which is what? Get the first pick in the draft, get a HOF big man, then during one year of injury, happen to luck into the first pick again, with another HOF big man there to headline that draft? All going to an owner, Peter Holt, who was one of the most instrumental in getting those massive TV deals for the NBA negotiated.

What's the Seattle model? Try to get big in your secondary and have a powerful size/speed/power combo? Like other teams aren't trying? Have massive depth there? Like other teams aren't trying? Get a quality QB1 on the 2nd day of the draft? Like other teams haven't tried this ( Dalton and Kaepernick)?

As for teams who are dysfunctional, generally it starts at the top. The Atlanta Braves were a hell of a lot better when Ted Turner just stepped back and let John Scherholtz run things, but for a long long time, he meddled and ruined that team. Same with Steinbrenner. For a team like Dallas, it's like Oakland, sadly those fans will have to wait for an owner to die. But double sadly, around the league, Stephen Jones isn't seen as a great executive and isn't very well respected either.

Some people have the right temperament to be an NFL owner, some do not. And it all starts from there.

But there is no "model" You have a very very basic concept of how you want to try to win, you try to get the right people in place, you step back as an owner, hopefully everyone is moving in the same direction as a front office, you work hard, and then you just hope a little luck is on your side. That's all there is, that's all you can do.

Seattle is not reinventing a wheel.

One of the most amusing parts of Orson Scott Card's Enders Game is when Ender Wiggin can no longer learn anything from the battles with other commanders, so he goes in the the film room and goes through the archive to watch old battle footage against the bugs. Internally, he knows he sees a few things, but he has no real idea of what's going on. The other commanders, desperate to emulate his success, start watching film too, then ask him what he sees. He says, "What do you see?" And then many go off and come up with complex theories on what they see in the footage, much to Ender's amusement.

While it's a bit cruel to consider so much blood and sweat and tears are spilled by people working the NFL, that story above encompasses a lot more truth about the NFL than most people on the outside want to really accept.

If Pete Carroll had all the answers, he'd win the championship every year. I assure you he doesn't. No one does.

What do you see?

I see that Sherman and Browner are taller than any of your other examples you used, so while you are trying hard there, and it was a valiant effort, you came up short (rim shot) of making the point you were trying to. SEA does have a model, and they are doing it better. Also, you listed a few recent players, but they may not be representative of the league average. SEA has done a good job of identifying underappreciated assets (Sherman a fifth rounder, Browner from CFL, Chancellor a fifth rounder, Lynch a traded firth rounder)... does that count as part of the pattern? Just because others may have difficulty emulating it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I may not understand the theories of Relativilty or Quantum Physics very well, but I wouldn't dispute that they exist, or that some physicists may have been more brilliant than some of their predecessors and contemporaries (see Einstein and Bohr).

Peterson was on your list, and I love him as a player, he is a freak and a mutant. But when I look at the Rams, they started the year with feisty but undersized Finnegan and Jenkins. So not every team is going by that kind of template, and are unsurprisingly enjoying varying levels of success (and I'm not saying it is the only way). One thing height does in an athletic DB is disrupt angles, which was somewhat of an equalizer against all the rules changes that favor offense in general, and the passing game specifically (and there were times it seemed like SEA held on every play, they should keep doing it if they can get away with it, I thought NE had a lot of uncalled penalties on defense in the 2001 Super Bowl).

I don't think anybody but you has talked about winning a championship being easy, so that may not be a position you need to defend against. Though I do think, in the exterior world, some players like Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Willie Mays, Michael Jordan, were so gifted they made it look easy. Would it be a surprise if in the interior world, some front offices and coaching staffs have better "software", like BAL. Why STL would take Brian Quick instead of Alshon Jeffery when the latter was higher rated and had a far higher level of competition I'll never understand, but BAL typically doesn't make mistakes on projects like that with high picks. That is what I am talking about with software. Organizations that chronically make positional reaches? Don't prioritize QB? Overemphasize a single lower level trait that may not be highly correlated with higher level OVERALL success (4.3 40 times???). All examples of bad software. It isn't enough to say of course every team wants to get a QB. Some teams try a little harder and are more successful, I don't necessarily chalk that up to randomness. Do you? Whether you call it a system, IMO there is a "hierarchy" of organizational knowledge, where some types of knoweldge are more important than others. You could say everybody has the same playbook, but most teams don't trade up from 1.4 to 1.3 to draft a RB, even a really good one (even Peterson didn't go that high, though probably he should have, but he was better).

Are other teams trying to amass great DBs? Some are, some aren't. For years DET has had trouble getting even one good CB. Some would say they haven't prioritized it enough (they did draft Slay in the second, though he didn't look so great, and they did sign Quin in free agency, who is solid).

Quality day 2 QB? You mentioned Dalton and Kaep. With Brees, that might be it from the second round, so 3 out of 32 teams (I might be forgetting somebody?). Being able to name a couple examples is not the same as a identifying a league-wide trend (and Dalton is looking kind of iffy if he doesn't win a playoff game soon). We should give credit where credit is do. Most teams would not have drafted a 5'10" QB. That kind of flexibility is part of their software, I would not be so cavalier about dismissing that and assuming everybody does that. Some are much more rigid than others, to their detriment.

Carroll and his front office are doing a better job than most. I don't agree it is random or luck, if that is your point. While he may not win a championship every year, for the near future, he has now enabled the team to be in a position to compete for a championship every year, which is a commendable job, and something most teams can't say.

 

[Bob Magaw]

A timely article germane to this discussion from former NFL exec Pat Kirwan.

He identifies some elements of the SEA Super Bowl season that may be replicated, others not.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pat-kirwan/24431662/seahawks-a-model-for-the-rest-of-the-nfl-dont-get-carried-away

 

[ScottyDog]

I agree with the notion that it isn't feasible for the rest of the league to copy Seattle as if Seattle has done something new. Seattle's success is fundamentally based on successfully identifying talent, whether in the draft or elsewhere, bringing that talent in, and coaching it up.

IMO based on recent track record, Seattle is better than average at identifying talent. Every team tries to do that, and the teams that aren't better than average at it can't just say, let's just copy Seattle and get better at that. If they could be better at it, they would be already.

But a big part that is underrated IMO is what Seattle does with its talent. The coaching staff is also better than average at getting the most out of their talent. You can see this in many ways -- on defense, the strong tackling, the discipline to eliminate explosive plays, the training to generate turnovers; on offense, not turning the ball over, being patient, generating explosive plays. Again, other teams would already be doing these things better if they could; it's not so easy as to say let's copy Seattle and do these things better.

And these things are why I expect Seattle to be a consistent contender for the next several years. They have a talent advantage over the rest of the league right now, and there is reason to believe they can largely maintain that through continued good talent evaluation and continued good coaching.

 

[ScottyDog]

A timely article germane to this discussion from former NFL exec Pat Kirwan.

He identifies some elements of the SEA Super Bowl season that may be replicated, others not.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pat-kirwan/24431662/seahawks-a-model-for-the-rest-of-the-nfl-dont-get-carried-away

Great article, thank you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is NFL planning to get tighter on defensive holding and illegal contact?Some interesting Tweets tonight from Mike Pereira, former vice president of officiating for the National Football League and now a rules analyst for FOX Sports, indicating that the league plans to get harder this season on defensive holding and illegal contact.

Here are some of his Tweets:

Mike PereiraVerified account ‏@MikePereira

Interesting day at NFL officiating clinic. Biggest point of emphasis for 2014..Illegal contact and defensive holding. More offense!

Last time the NFL had this as a major emphasis was 2004 and the number of illegal contact fouls went from 79 to 191.

NFL says they are offsetting this emphasis with an emphasis on calling offensive pass interference. Not an even trade in my opinion.

Bart Hubbuch ✔ @HubbuchNYP

Per @MikePereira, it sounds like DBs will now be flagged for so much as breathing heavy on a receiver. NFL's version of the juiced-ball era.

Mike Pereira ✔ @MikePereira Follow

@HubbuchNYP >>Not that far from the truth, Mr. Hubbuch.

While there aren’t a lot of details here to know for sure what it means, it’s obviously hard not to read those and think of the Seahawks and the physical play of the Legion of Boom secondary.

Seattle led the league last year in defensive pass interference penalties with 15 (which I realize is not the same thing but which you’d think there might be an increase of if they are really emphasizing those other two penalties) and was tied for first in defensive holding with 11. Conversely, the Seahawks were not called once last season for illegal contact.

At quick glance, it’s hard not to think that even more of an emphasis on defensive holding and illegal contact might mean to more penalties for the Seahawks, or possibly having to adjust a little how the team plays.

If the Seahawks were a reason for any of this, though, Pereira says there wasn’t any evidence of it:

Mike Pereira ✔ @MikePereira Follow

Btw, officials were shown many plays regarding illegal contact and defensive holding. How many Seahawk plays???. None.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/2014/07/18/is-nfl-planning-to-get-tighter-on-defensive-holding-and-illegal-contact/

 

[Riversco]

Seattle's success this year reinforces that the two most important things to have to win in the NFL is:

1. A franchise QB

2. The ability to hit the other team's QB.

The Seahawks have Russell Wilson and they were able to repeatedly hit Peyton Manning. That's why they won the Super Bowl.

 

[ghostguy123]

Seattle's success this year reinforces that the two most important things to have to win in the NFL is:

1. A franchise QB

2. The ability to hit the other team's QB.

The Seahawks have Russell Wilson and they were able to repeatedly hit Peyton Manning. That's why they won the Super Bowl.

That and a top notch RB, special teams, and secondary.

Lot of things came together for them this past season to be able to dominate like they did. When they have to re-sign/cut a bunch of guys, say bye bye to that. They should still be pretty good though.

 

[rdrouyn]

Having quality depth is something that people don't bring up enough. Pete Carroll has been great at finding and developing players in his tenure in Seattle. It is easy to say he gets lucky in the draft but I think the teams coaching and philosophy also brings out the best in players. They are just as deep this year as last year. 2015 will be the year that will be tricky with the cap, but with the talent pipeline set up as it is, I think the team will be competitive for a while.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Seattle's success this year reinforces that the two most important things to have to win in the NFL is:

1. A franchise QB

2. The ability to hit the other team's QB.

The Seahawks have Russell Wilson and they were able to repeatedly hit Peyton Manning. That's why they won the Super Bowl.

That and a top notch RB, special teams, and secondary.

Lot of things came together for them this past season to be able to dominate like they did. When they have to re-sign/cut a bunch of guys, say bye bye to that. They should still be pretty good though.

I think the RB aspect is over-rated. As someone posted earlier in the thread, we think of Seattle as a ball-control, ground-based offense that protects Wilson. But how much of that running game is Wilson? Once you take his contribution out of the equation, the running game is actually not that special and is very much capable of being contained.

I think that highlights the value that Wilson brings to the table. It's not just that he runs well, it's that he runs smart and extends drives with his legs. Even though his numbers were modest for most of the Super Bowl, many of his runs very clutch and came at the perfect time. So while he isn't the runner that Vick was or that RG3 can be, he's very adept at picking his spots and playing smart football.

I think that his ability to both protect the ball AND extend drives is a pretty unique combination that does not get the credit it deserves. The guy protecting the ball is often throwing it away or even taking a sack. And the guy trying to extend the drive ends can end up take too many risks. But Wilson manages to tread that fine line.

 

[SelenaCat]

Seattle's success this year reinforces that the two most important things to have to win in the NFL is:

1. A franchise QB

2. The ability to hit the other team's QB.

The Seahawks have Russell Wilson and they were able to repeatedly hit Peyton Manning. That's why they won the Super Bowl.

I'd actually amend the first to a rookie franchise QB. The new rookie salaries are a major boon to the team if they can come right out of the gate and perform at a high level because it gives them a lot more money to spend on the rest of the team. Whereas teams with the likes of Peyton or Brees, while obviously at an advantage from their QB play, have a significant monetary investment in the QB that can't then be used on depth or marquee defensive players.

The financial advantage of having a rookie starter and the cap relief it brings makes me rather surprised by all the talk of sitting the current crop of rookies for a year. It's just in their team's interest to have those rookies playing as soon as possible so that they can invest in other areas.

 

[Hooper31]

Not sure how I missed this first time around.

To answer the question, no. There isn't a single formula for winning in the NFL. I think history proves this, and I see no overwhelming reason to believe that the league is so different now. Changed? Yes, but much more the same than it is different.

I believe the real key to Superbowl victories revolves mostly around getting varying personalities to rally around a single team concept. Everyone on the team (coaches, admin, players) have to be willing to put the success of the team ahead of themselves.

 

[bucsbaby]

One thing the Superbowl seems to always remind us is that you need a dominant defense to win it all, even in today's Madden-offense NFL