Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Does this heartbreaking loss kill the Dynasty in the womb (create a 'domino effect'), or do the '15 Seahawks become the first team ever to sandwich a SB-loss with two SB-wins (something I thought would be the case with GB going into the '98 season)? A great story/example of resiliency if the Hawks could overcome by actually going back to the Bowl and winning it (especially if it's a rematch vs NE). Coming from someone who really wanted Seattle to repeat last week and is still in pain from it, as long as it isn't at my Steelers' expense, I'll be pulling for that next year. If anyone can lead a team into staying together and overcoming in '15, Russell (who I'm a fan of) is the one to do so.

After they pay Wilson, they'll have $20 million less to stock their roster. Not sure I like their chances.

Although I'm not a Seahawks fan (especially after they beat my beloved Packers in the recent NFC Title Game), I think that they have pretty strong overall depth, especially on defense. They'll be hungry for another shot. They kind of remind me of the 1971 Dolphins, who lost Super Bowl VI, but then came back the next year to win Super Bowl VII. I hope that the Seahawks don't replicate what Miami did in '72, though. I want to see the Pack bring home another Lombardi Trophy.

Aside from the considerable piece of Marshawn Lynch whose return currently appears questionable, their biggest hurdle will be mental.

Can't help feeling that the way that game (SB) ended will shake their resolve and belief in each other. It's going to take all of Pete Carroll's positivity to wash that taste from their mouth.

I hope I'm wrong, but I say they take a step back.

We'll find out in September and beyond.

Joe Zagorski wrote:Although I'm not a Seahawks fan (especially after they beat my beloved Packers in the recent NFC Title Game), I think that they have pretty strong overall depth, especially on defense. They'll be hungry for another shot. They kind of remind me of the 1971 Dolphins, who lost Super Bowl VI, but then came back the next year to win Super Bowl VII. I hope that the Seahawks don't replicate what Miami did in '72, though. I want to see the Pack bring home another Lombardi Trophy.

I kind of feel the opposite, that it will be very difficult for them to get back. They've already won a SB. I think it's likely the players will stop listening to Carroll next year. It happens with most teams. It happened to the Seahawks this year to some extent.

Jay Z wrote:

Joe Zagorski wrote:Although I'm not a Seahawks fan (especially after they beat my beloved Packers in the recent NFC Title Game), I think that they have pretty strong overall depth, especially on defense. They'll be hungry for another shot. They kind of remind me of the 1971 Dolphins, who lost Super Bowl VI, but then came back the next year to win Super Bowl VII. I hope that the Seahawks don't replicate what Miami did in '72, though. I want to see the Pack bring home another Lombardi Trophy.

I kind of feel the opposite, that it will be very difficult for them to get back. They've already won a SB. I think it's likely the players will stop listening to Carroll next year. It happens with most teams. It happened to the Seahawks this year to some extent.

Yes, we've seen this before over the years.

Lombardi made some poor decisions in the 1960 championship game against the Eagles. The Pack bounced back.

This is the kind of question that we can't answer at this point. We'll find out how Seattle does next season and in the next few seasons after that. Roster decisions will play the biggest part in what the future holds.

Until Seattle, when was the last time a defending Super Bowl Champion had even won a playoff game?

After Super Bowl win / Before 2014 season -

"We keep seeing defending champs not make the playoffs or not win a playoff game if they do make it" = Irrelevant, Seattle essentially comes within one yard of being back-to-back champions.

"Seattle won't do good because they have to pay people now and they're going to lose all their players." = Salary Cap/FA era Fallacy. 'Lost' so many all-pro players that they essentially came within one yard of being back-to-back champions.

Now -

"They have to pay Wilson so they're going to lose all their players." = Not losing any core players.

"They threw the ball so now players will tune out Carroll, which was already happening." = Already happening so much that they essentially came within one yard of being back-to-back champions. Also ignores that the players like Pete and even if they didn't they play for eachother anyways.

The only real question is whether Lynch retires or not. If he plays, Seattle is one of the handful of preseason favorites. If he doesn't, Seattle gets knocked down to just being a favorite to win the NFC West. The defense will be the defense and the core defensive players love their new DC. Wilson will be Wilson. Plus contrary to the narrative and popular belief, just because they've won two straight NFC Championships doesn't mean that they magically have to release everyone and that all their all-pro players are leaving. Lynch situation aside they will have all their core players, will add new players through the draft and FA and I'd say the current regime has a pretty good track record in bringing in talent.

Reaser wrote:Until Seattle, when was the last time a defending Super Bowl Champion had even won a playoff game?

After Super Bowl win / Before 2014 season -

"We keep seeing defending champs not make the playoffs or not win a playoff game if they do make it" = Irrelevant, Seattle essentially comes within one yard of being back-to-back champions.

"Seattle won't do good because they have to pay people now and they're going to lose all their players." = Salary Cap/FA era Fallacy. 'Lost' so many all-pro players that they essentially came within one yard of being back-to-back champions.

Now -

"They have to pay Wilson so they're going to lose all their players." = Not losing any core players.

"They threw the ball so now players will tune out Carroll, which was already happening." = Already happening so much that they essentially came within one yard of being back-to-back champions. Also ignores that the players like Pete and even if they didn't they play for eachother anyways.

The only real question is whether Lynch retires or not. If he plays, Seattle is one of the handful of preseason favorites. If he doesn't, Seattle gets knocked down to just being a favorite to win the NFC West. The defense will be the defense and the core defensive players love their new DC. Wilson will be Wilson. Plus contrary to the narrative and popular belief, just because they've won two straight NFC Championships doesn't mean that they magically have to release everyone and that all their all-pro players are leaving. Lynch situation aside they will have all their core players, will add new players through the draft and FA and I'd say the current regime has a pretty good track record in bringing in talent.

And Reaser - aren't we underestimating the fact that Wilson can improve? The recent part of the Pats run is inconceivable without '07, '11, '14 Brady being better than the '01 version. Not saying that Carroll is Belichick - I don't think he is, but a 10% better Wilson in 2015 could make up for a 15% worse running game. Who's the last Pats back that was an impact ????