Mebane and Sweezy, gone.

[NorthHawk]

People keep talking about the Seahawks having successful seasons of late.
In my mind the only truly successful season ends with a Super Bowl win.

We've had one successful season and should have had 2. Was the OL the reason they went with the quick pass in the 2015 Super Bowl?
We'll never know, of course but it's a possibility it was a factor.
We also know that the OL was the biggest reason for us not getting HFA in the playoffs this past year.

Each year is different, but for those that rest on the past results as an example of what to expect in the future, it doesn't look good as the trend is down.
The rest of us would like to see it get better.

At the end of last season Pete talked about there being a focus on the OL this off season.
He recently said that he thought we were in good shape up front.
At this time of year nobody involved in any Front Office should be believed and maybe he was commenting that he thought there were some good prospects that they think should be available to help up front.
As with a poster above, it wouldn't surprise me if we didn't select an OL until the 3rd round, but we'll have to wait until we see how it plays out.
I suspect we will select at least 1 OL in the first 3 picks, and would be surprised if we selected 2, but who knows at this time.

In the end, up front it depends on the players being able to work together more than the talent levels of the individuals (to a point). Unfortunately, with limited time together, big changes combined with limited practice time usually means problems early - like last year.
Let's hope the combination they choose clicks early so as to get the best play from the beginning of the year.

[HumanCockroach]

Exactly HT. I have never claimed to be "happy" with the line play, that said, I do grasp the big picture, and understand also that despite fevered attempts to claim otherwise that Seattle's line issues isn't theirs and theirs only. The claim that players aren't "NFL calibre" is hilarious, and has been proven wrong year after year as these non NFL calibre lineman sign large contracts elsewhere. The truth is EVERY NFL has issues on the line and are unwilling to invest tons of money in those lines ( which is a MAJOR reason why Okung signed the contract he did)... Even teams generally considered "the best" aren't able to be successful ( example Dallas that despite that line destroyed their QBs season not once but twice because of poor pass blocking).It's foolish to claim Seattle has the "best" line but just as foolish to claim they have the "worst".

North, when you give me an example of a team that wins the SB every year, I'll agree with you, until then, whatever.

[Vegaseahawk]

Losing talent is a big concern, but the lack of continuity is just as worrisome.
Considering the very limited coaching time in TC and practice during the year, working together as a group will be the key to success.
In 3 years we have lost all 5 of the starting OL in the Super Bowl, and we have seen a lesser product up front as a result.

Welcome to the world of free agency in the modern NFL.

[Vegaseahawk]

People keep talking about the Seahawks having successful seasons of late.
In my mind the only truly successful season ends with a Super Bowl win.

How long have you been a Seahawk fan?

[NorthHawk]

You tell me the name of a team that considers not winning a Super Bowl a successful season.
Good seasons, improved seasons? Sure, and for some great seasons, but successful seasons? Not unless you win a SB.
That's what every player plays for and every coach and Front Office aspires to.
It's the only reason for playing as that's the goal and not winning it means not achieving that goal. Therefore it's an unsuccessful season.
Not achieving goals is never considered a success.
31 teams have unsuccessful seasons every year. It's the way it has to be when there is only 1 champion.

[Hawktawk]

People keep talking about the Seahawks having successful seasons of late.
In my mind the only truly successful season ends with a Super Bowl win.

How long have you been a Seahawk fan?

LOL no kidding.
Seattle had a damn successful season last year dealing with holdouts and injuries, a QB negotiation and a SB loss hangover. At one point they were 0-2, then 2-4, then 4 and 5 and they still went on a second half tear and wound up 7 points from the NFC title game. Damn fine season IMO.
Only the most delusional fan expects a Lombardi or even a SB trip every year. For all the chicken little's bemoaning our line disaster Vegas has Seattle right near the top of 2016 favorites once again. The window in Seattle is wide open for a good long while yet and its partly because of the decision to save money in certain areas to make sure the explosive positions are filled with exceptional players. Hard to quibble with 5 playoff teams all who won at least one game, a Lombardi and 2 appearances in 6 years of the PC, JS era. To think I really wasn't impressed with the PC hire.
Crow is my favorite meal though.

[RiverDog]

North Hawk is exactly right. The only truly successful season is one that ends in a Lombardi, and no coach, GM, or player worth their weight will tell you anything different. That's why coaches like Mike Reid, Marty Schotenheimer, and Norv Turner keep getting fired even though they consistently produced winning football teams. Simply winning isn't good enough. They are hired to win the big one.

I was not happy with last season's results. Not happy at all. Only when it's weighed against past Seahawks teams like those produced by Tom Flores, Dennis Erickson, or Jim Mora can I find any kind of consolation in the 2015 season. The one thing that Pete has done is that he's raised expectations, and I expect nothing less than another Lombardi next season.

[HumanCockroach]

Good Lord Now who's delusional? Yes the goal is Lombardi's, however it isn't realistic or even feasable to win a SB every year. This thought process is foolish, unrealistic and absolutely cannot be accomplished.

Explains a LOT of the thought process on the line actually, using this same theory, there should never be a sack surrendered, never an incomplete pass or turnover, never a drive that doesn't end in a touchdown, nor a touchdown or FG surrendered. Expecting perfection, when perfection doesn't exist is silly.

My expectation is SBs and I haven't been shy about expressing that, however, I'm also not delusional enough to think that unprecedented success is a "failure" because they don't win it every season.

[burrrton]

Every decent team in the NFL starts every season with a Lombardi as their goal, but there is also implicit acknowledgment that there's only one team in the league that will achieve it that year.

As such, I can see on one hand how you can say the season wasn't technically "successful" since that goal wasn't achieved, but on the other hand, being a serious contender and making a deep playoff run can hardly be considered a 'failed season' by us fans.

[obiken]

Human, Outside of Strategy of going cheap on the OL, how about the theory that shotguns, with quick release may be the new norm. Ironic huh that as a Duck Alum I would have a problem with that Strategy in the NFL. We both can agree on one thing, the jury is still out on the minor Pete strategy of giving up our #1's for veteran players.

[RiverDog]

Every decent team in the NFL starts every season with a Lombardi as their goal, but there is also implicit acknowledgment that there's only one team in the league that will achieve it that year.

As such, I can see on one hand how you can say the season wasn't technically "successful" since that goal wasn't achieved, but on the other hand, being a serious contender and making a deep playoff run can hardly be considered a 'failed season' by us fans.

We need to differentiate some terms. When I say that I was not happy with our 2015 effort, I didn't mean it to suggest that I felt that 2015 was a complete failure. It was a failure in the sense that we did not achieve our ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl.

I was extremely disappointed in the 2015 season because my hopes were high. That doesn't mean that I thought it was a complete Cleveland Browns style cluster phuck.

[burrrton]

How about the previous year, RD?

[HumanCockroach]

True, but every seasons goals are high, it's unrealistic to believe all of those goals will be accomplished every season or even most seasons, which in turn is why it "hurts" when they ( and every other team) doesn't achieve that goal. It doesn't mean it's realistic, just means that we as fans "want" more.

[HumanCockroach]

Human, Outside of Strategy of going cheap on the OL, how about the theory that shotguns, with quick release may be the new norm. Ironic huh that as a Duck Alum I would have a problem with that Strategy in the NFL. We both can agree on one thing, the jury is still out on the minor Pete strategy of giving up our #1's for veteran players.

I'm not sure that's the strategy, I feel it's more the necessity and I don't feel Seattle is in the minority in that regard, most teams have had to shift more to that philosophy out of need to mitigate the derth of talent drain on offensive lineman. Gone are the days of superior athletes manning the offensive line as they never GET to the NFL. If they are superior athletes they line up on the other side of the ball ( which certainly would explain a LOT of why Seattle continues to convert average d- lineman that won't make a living in the NFL on that side of the ball, but are good "athletes".). The insistence that a below average athlete, that has played o-line his entire life ( to be clear here I am referencing them with superior athletes that man NFL defensive lines, not regular weekend warriors or something) is "better" than a converted athlete that is superior, seems like some serious short sightedness. Yet the continued response is about "future success" to which I say BS. It's about IMMEDIATE success, the right now, not 2 years from now or 5 years from now, but THIS season and only THIS season.

As for the first round trades, yes I agree, though like with the converted or late round lineman, it only takes one or two to work out to be considered brilliant. I haven't written off Graham, though the trade made me nervous then, and out still does. The Harvin trade ended up being really bad ( though if someone had offered a single Lombardi trophy at the cost of a couple picks I would have jumped all over it. Not saying he was a major contributer to it, he wasn't, but ultimately I don't see it as a huge loss of a couple players that *might* have helped us) hopefully the Graham trade doesn't have the same downside... Again though, I believe in patience, and I don't feel that trade has played completely out... Yet...

[Vegaseahawk]

I think that this conversation boils down to real vs ideal. Of course the goal is to win a Lombardi trophy every year. Reality tells us different.

[monkey]

Exactly
I remember hearing Bill Polian after SB 48 discussing the excellent job Wilson had done with very mediocre line play in the game. Specifically of Unger he said "he's got a big name". Pot Roast abused him, Lynch was basically stuffed most of the game. That was the best line of Carroll's tenure but it wasn't like it was the hogs or something.

Max Unger played 6 games in 2014 and Seattle went to the SB. Poor short yards production in the run game all season in 2014 was a factor possibly leading to a horrible decision in the closing seconds of Super bowl 49. I was overjoyed he was traded for Graham and had Jimmy stayed healthy everyone would be.

Could the line be better? sure but what position will be neglected? As has been pointed out with the salary cap you have to pick your poison. Seattle witches brew has been pretty darn effective. With RW under center the line just doesn't have to be as dominant.

Now this is a GREAT post!
For some reason, everyone just seems to go along with this group think that says, "Unger was a great center", (and for that matter, the same is true when talking about Okung), when in truth, neither of them ever really lived up to the hype. Unger was a decent center, hurt WAY TOO OFTEN, got abused by stronger DT's far too often for a guy with a pro-bowl reputation, and wasn't anywhere near worth what we were paying him.
Okung, drafted high in the first round, projected by most to be the best LT in the draft that year, was ALWAYS hurt, and never came close to being the perennial all pro we had all hoped.

Guys who are always hurt simply aren't worth keeping, for so many reasons. Not only are they never worth their salary, but they also force the team to spend more on their backups, because they need more backups, and better backups, because they need to start so often.

[burrrton]

Guys who are always hurt simply aren't worth keeping, for so many reasons. Not only are they never worth their salary, but they also force the team to spend more on their backups, because they need more backups, and better backups, because they need to start so often.

Agree with this- injuries cancel out a disproportionate amount of a player's worth (especially when there's no reasonable way to argue he'll outperform his injury history).
Is a HOF-caliber LT* worth a damn if he's only healthy 8 games a season? I'm not sure.

*And let's be clear: Okung was nothing *approaching* that even when healthy.

[obiken]

Remember Marcus Tubbs, he was a good DT but he was always injured.

[RiverDog]

For some reason, everyone just seems to go along with this group think that says, "Unger was a great center", (and for that matter, the same is true when talking about Okung), when in truth, neither of them ever really lived up to the hype. Unger was a decent center, hurt WAY TOO OFTEN, got abused by stronger DT's far too often for a guy with a pro-bowl reputation, and wasn't anywhere near worth what we were paying him.
Okung, drafted high in the first round, projected by most to be the best LT in the draft that year, was ALWAYS hurt, and never came close to being the perennial all pro we had all hoped.

Guys who are always hurt simply aren't worth keeping, for so many reasons. Not only are they never worth their salary, but they also force the team to spend more on their backups, because they need more backups, and better backups, because they need to start so often.

Unger wasn't the best run blocking center, but there's more to playing the position than blowing DT's off the LOS. We didn't see near the jail breaks in previous seasons that we saw last season, and a good part of that was because we had a very raw rookie replacing Unger at center. Heck, he was so raw that Russell had to make the line calls for him.

Having said that, I don't mind losing guys like Unger and Okung. As you said, they were hurt a lot and didn't exactly play like Pro Bowlers (although both made the Pro Bowl earlier in their careers) when they were healthy. Nor am I under the impression that we need a top 10 OL in order to succeed. After all, the Cowboys have had the best OL over the past several seasons and look where that got them?

But we are not replacing those that we are losing with at least equal quality. Now that Okung is gone, we do not have a single starting OL from our SB winning team left, and I simply don't see the players we're bringing in are keeping pace with the quality of players that are leaving. We're backsliding. Our OL was ranked 19th in 2014, 30th last season, down there with teams like the Dolphins, Chargers, and Titans, and so far, I haven't seen any reason to hope that we're going to get back to at least an adequate OL of the types we had that helped us to two straight SB's.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... is-season/

[Hawktawk]

Last years line gets a little bit of a bad rap based on the original composition, especially with Nowak at center. Once Lewis had a couple of starts things gelled to the point the Hawks were a top offense down the stretch.
Carroll admitted that it was a mistake to have left Nowak in there as long as he did, as well as the cornerback Williams. Had those 2 personnel changes been made sooner who knows what the story on 2015 might have wound up being.

But just remember, towards the end of the season the Hawks line was far from the worst in the league. Hopefully the FO and HC learned from last seasons early mistakes.

[monkey]

Every decent team in the NFL starts every season with a Lombardi as their goal, but there is also implicit acknowledgment that there's only one team in the league that will achieve it that year.

As such, I can see on one hand how you can say the season wasn't technically "successful" since that goal wasn't achieved, but on the other hand, being a serious contender and making a deep playoff run can hardly be considered a 'failed season' by us fans.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.
Every year fans break out into arguments over whether or not a season is "successful" as determined by whether or not they won a Superbowl. The correct answer is, no, and yes, but with addendum(s).
Each year has to be looked at not just by the ultimate finish, but also by things like growth, obstacles overcome, whether or not the arrow is pointing up or down at the end of that season, etc...
So while the ultimate objective of winning a Super Bowl wasn't reached, it's awfully difficult to call last season a failure, since we saw the continued growth of our most important player at the most important position, and since we started the year with several important pieces missing due to injuries and holdout, and an offensive line that was offensive.
We came a LONG way from a 2-4 start to make the playoffs. I was proud of the way they overcame adversity, the way the o-line started to figure things out, the way that the QB and receivers really came together even after losing Graham to injury, the way the team finished top five in rushing AGAIN, despite injuries to first Lynch then Rawls, I could go on.

[monkey]

On a different note, I read this at Fansided, and just had to post it here.

Seattle is not trading for Joe Thomas and we should be perfectly happy with that. Look, Thomas is a great left tackle and all, but he’s aging and won’t improve the overall play of the offensive line enough to warrant the draft capital a trade would require. It’s not like the offensive line is one piece away from being amazing. Slight improvement across the interior of the line will go a lot further than a large improvement on one edge. I think most grading systems are overly harsh on ZBS offensive lines anyway – top 5 rushing attack 4 years in a row has to mean something.

I just really couldn't agree more with the entire sentiment.

[burrrton]

it's awfully difficult to call last season a failure

I mostly agree, but last year had enough go wrong that I think there's at least an argument it was a "failure".

If you want to argue any non-Lombardi-winning season is a "failure", the more difficult season to judge, I think, is 2014. We did a lot of winning, were pretty much the best team in the league, but didn't win the SB.

Was 2014 a failure to everyone?

[NorthHawk]

We're not like Cleveland or Tennessee where more wins than losses might be a goal.
Our goal is winning Super Bowl and nothing less as we are in a championship window.
We have been one of a handful of teams that might legitimately contend for a SB win.

Our goals as per Carroll:
Win the division - failed.
Get HFA - failed.
Win the NFC Championship - failed.
Win the Super Bowl - failed.

2014/2015
Get HFA - succeeded.
Win the division - succeeded.
Win the NFC Championship - succeeded.
Win the Super Bowl - Failed.

Neither of the last 2 years were successful seasons unless you believe you should be awarded just for participating or almost make it.

[burrrton]

Neither of the last 2 years were successful seasons unless you believe you should be awarded just for participating or almost make it.

Well, like I said, last season had so many ups and downs I can't argue it was a successful season, but 2014? I don't think you'll have a lot of company considering that a failed season except in the most technical sense.

[NorthHawk]

I just don't believe not reaching your goals is considered a success.
It's not an almost game - it's either success or failure.

[burrrton]

It's not an almost game - it's either success or failure.

Binary decisions work for many things, but I think that's too simplistic for judging the "success" of an NFL season.

YMMV and all that, though.

[mykc14]

I would imagine in 2012 Carroll and the team had the same goals, but we fell short of all of them, much like last season. I certainly would call the 2012 season a success as it gave us our quarterback of the future, further solidified the status of what was an elite defense, proved that Carroll's system could work in this league, and laid the groundwork for our Super Bowl win in 2013. The growing pains/experiences the team went through in 2012 were necessary for the run in 2013. It led to the accusations of both Bennett and Avril. I know a lot of people feel that if we would have beat the falcons we easily would have beat the niners and then the ravens in the SB, but I'm not so sure.

2014 had the same sort of feel to it, IMO. Wild card, losing In the 2nd round in the exact same fashion. I would call last season a failure though because we had the talent, injury situation, and we were playing well enough to make it back to the SB and failed. Our SB window was wide open and we missed it. The good news is it is still open and next year we will have another opportunity to win it. IMO, if we can draft a few starting caliber OLineman then the years after next year we will be even better.

[monkey]

I mostly agree, but last year had enough go wrong that I think there's at least an argument it was a "failure".

If you want to argue any non-Lombardi-winning season is a "failure", the more difficult season to judge, I think, is 2014. We did a lot of winning, were pretty much the best team in the league, but didn't win the SB.

Was 2014 a failure to everyone?

Hmmm...perhaps I should say, it wasn't a *complete* failure. You're right of course, the team had its share of failures along the way, starting a rookie project at center for too long, (and a free agent pick up at CB for that matter) which held the team back. Many of the "failures" aren't directly attributable to the front office, injuries, Kam Chancellor deciding to hold out only a couple years into a four year deal, etc... but those first two, and the inability to get the O-line on the same page as a whole, certainly is.
Overall though, I find it hard to call last year a failure. I think that last year and the way that it ended, will be used as a launching point for BIG success this year, much the way that the Falcons playoff loss three seasons ago was.
I say that because of the big successes we had, such as getting at least two very good rookies, especially Tyler Lockett, who is already one of my favorite Seahawks players EVER. If he got hurt and never played again, his rookie season will always be one I will remember. Clark too had a nice rookie year, though he was used sparingly, but he showed promise.
The way that the line came together, and once again made us a top five rushing team, in spite of the early struggles, has to be chocked up as a success more than a failure.
They also began providing more time for Wilson as the season progressed (admittedly partly due to the comparative ease of the schedule), which in turn, at least partly led to the biggest success of last season. Russell Wilson!
Russell Wilson became a top 5 QB last year, unarguably so. He took the biggest step forward as a QB he had taken to this point. That point alone makes me say that last season was a successful year overall.

2014 is probably thought of as a failure more by the players themselves than us as fans.
The players feel like they didn't finish the job when they had it in hand. As a fan I am still just amazed that they went to back to back Super Bowls. Think about what they've accomplished since Pete and John arrived, especially since Wilson took over as starting QB.
I would say that, as a whole they are the leagues most successful team in that period, probably along with the Broncos and Patriots.
We've never seen a run like this, so, it's hard for me to point to last year and get too upset by the way things turned out. You cannot always win. But the pieces are all still in place to keep this train rolling, and I believe it will be even better this year!
I fully expect to return to the Super Bowl this year.

[c_hawkbob]

The way I see it:

- A successful season is one that puts you in position to compete for a championship. There can be varying degrees of success in this case only (Wild card, Division Championship, HFA)

- A successful post season is one that has you in the Super Bowl. No varying degrees

- Successful Super Bowl is self descriptive.

[HumanCockroach]

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, how many teams can boast being to three straight SBs? Is it two in the HISTORY of the league? One of which can lay that claim coming from a pathetic conference that summarily got dismantled in the SB ( Buffalo). Anyone thinking it's common, or should be expected need to put down the pipe.

[obiken]

Great point Human! Maybe the expectations are too high now.

[Zorn76]

IMO, 2015 was a successful season for several reasons....

We start off 0-2, but finish 10-4 the rest of the way (and starting a season in Stl & then GB would've been difficult for anybody).

Kam's holdout was a distraction, but the team psyche remained strong throughout. The team also played through a SB loss hangover that could've easily Destroyed most franchises the following year.

RW had an Amazing season overall and proved, once again, that he is one of the most mentally tough QB's in the league. I'll take his mindset and determination over Any other quarterback.

Only one of our regular season losses was by double digits (@GB 27-17), with the other 5 being by a Combined 23 pts (including two in OT). Even our disappointing loss in Carolina postseason demonstrated this team's character, as we battled and fought hard in the 2nd half. Conversely, the Arizona Cardinals crapped their pants and wet the bed simultaneously in their "effort" there.

Tyler Locket...we have a star in the making, and his rookie year amounted to being a pro bowl season as a returner. The guy is only going to get better. Frank Clark showed good effort and some real upside as well. Thomas Rawls...stellar. Let's hope he can make it back healthy and pick up where he left off.

It's the cumulative effect of these things that can be built on for 2016. A 3rd straight SB appearance was a lot to ask of anybody, period. Nobody's even done it since the Bills of the early 90's.

There are many question marks, obviously, that need to be addressed. I've been a broken record about our OL, but am ok with the departures of Sweezy and Okung. Regardless, we should be right there in the running for another SB run. The core players on this team know what it takes, and last year's playoffs provided some valuable experience to those participating in it for the first time.

The future is plenty bright. We can do this.

[NorthHawk]

Here is my original statement:
People keep talking about the Seahawks having successful seasons of late.
In my mind the only truly successful season ends with a Super Bowl win.


Each year is it's own yardstick as in every year.
If you want to look at an era, then sure, look over the preceding years as goals change, but each year has to be determined whether it's a pass or failure because there are specific milestones to reach in a teams development.

Last year was definitely a failure, by any measure that this team uses. The year before had a lot of successes, but a team that challenges for the Championship, expects to win, and comes up short, fails in it's goal. Therefore, the year itself was capped off with a failure and the biggest goal not achieved. That's a failed year.

Whether or not other teams don't win consecutive Super Bowls doesn't matter to this discussion. It's about meeting goals. If every team went 8-8, would that be a great year because everyone else does it? For a team like the Browns, it could because their goal might be to compete on the same level as the best teams. But teams that legitimately expect to contend would consider it a failure.
Which is where we were last year, and the year before.

Looking at the Schneider/Carroll era, it's been pretty good so far. The goals changed from a total rebuild to a continuous championship quality team - or expectations thereof, not just from fans, but from the organization. However, there's been only 1 truly successful year.

[burrrton]

In my mind the only truly successful season ends with a Super Bowl win.

Explain how ^^that^^ is not contradicted by these:

Each year is it's own yardstick as in every year.

each year has to be determined whether it's a pass or failure because there are specific milestones to reach in a teams development.

It's about meeting goals.

So is a Lombardi the *only* measure of a truly successful NFL season, or is "success" a relative determination based on expectations?

[NorthHawk]

Meet your goals for all examples.
Our goal is to win the Super Bowl.
I recognize that the Titans or Browns for example don't have much of a chance, but that doesn't mean they don't want to win it all.
That's what happens to teams in a total rebuild, but for the teams that legitimately have a shot, the SB is a realistic goal and anything short is a failure.
We failed to reach our objective 2 of the last 3 years - so we failed those years. We did some good things then, but ultimately failed in achieving a championship.
Winning the Championship is the only true measure of success. Anything less can only be called a failure to achieve.

[burrrton]

North, you can't claim both that meeting milestones for a given team is a "successful" year *and* that anything less than a SB win is failure.

What defines "success" in the NFL is different for different teams, and can be different every season.

I can agree with you that last year could be considered a failed season, but 2012 and 2014? Tough to do.

[Vegaseahawk]

Winning the Championship is the only true measure of success. Anything less can only be called a failure to achieve.

I see things differently in that having been a Seahawks fan for 40 years, it's more about the bird for me. I can remember jumping for joy when Seattle made the playoffs in 2002. I remember the victory over the Dolphins in '83. I understand that this thread is directed at the here & now, but I, for one, am very happy to witness what my team has done over the past 5 seasons overall. I'll say it again, it's a great time to be a Seattle Seahawks fan.

[monkey]

I think that many of you guys will remember some of the hard lines I used to take on this topic, back in the PI days.
Winning a Super Bowl has softened that edge for me.
While I understand where North is coming from, I gotta say that I think fans have become both spoiled by the recent success, and unrealistic in their demands/expectations.
My own have been tempered by the recent success, I am content to watch this awesome team, led by their awesome coaching staff, and awesome QB do what they do, without getting overly concerned by short term failures, because I know it will turn around. We just have TOO MUCH talent for it not to.

[Zorn76]

I forgot to mention that my all time favorite Seahawks team is 2012.

That season (and, of course, that draft) was Crucial in allowing us to reach - and win - the SB the following year.