Interesting poll, wanted your take

[NorthHawk]

This team was quite downtrodden after the Mora year and last year under Holmgren/Ruskell.
To me, the change in attitude of the team is more important in the development process than player additions.
Saying that, the Beastquake run is my choice for changing the attitude. The team realized that we can be competitive and beat quality teams.
What it takes is 100% effort and everyone working towards the same goal and believing in the coaches, the system, and themselves.
Without that change in attitude at that time, we might very well still be looking forward to our first Super Bowl win.

[RiverDog]

I think that when Pete emptied the roster of around 50% of what was left over from Mora/Ruskell it did as much if not more for the 'attitude' of our team as did the Beast Quake run. Pete set the tone early on that he was going to win by means of a solid defense and a strong running game, and if the Beast Quake run exemplified Pete's philosophy, then you might get me to agree about a very general, intangible, psychological effect that Beast Quake was one component of a much larger equation.

But it was not a turning point and it did not get us over the hump. Sure, the media and the fans ate it up, and it started something on the order of a cult following. But there is no tangible evidence that it resulted in a difference in the W/L column. It's like saying that the British won the war because they beat the Germans in the Battle of Dunkirk.

[NorthHawk]

I think that when Pete emptied the roster of around 50% of what was left over from Mora/Ruskell it did as much if not more for the 'attitude' of our team as did the Beast Quake run. Pete set the tone early on that he was going to win by means of a solid defense and a strong running game, and if the Beast Quake run exemplified Pete's philosophy, then you might get me to agree about a very general, intangible, psychological effect that Beast Quake was one component of a much larger equation.

But it was not a turning point and it did not get us over the hump. Sure, the media and the fans ate it up, and it started something on the order of a cult following. But there is no tangible evidence that it resulted in a difference in the W/L column. It's like saying that the British won the war because they beat the Germans in the Battle of Dunkirk.

I think if I were to continue with a WWII analogy, it would be Churchill's speech (and apply it to the Beastquake run) when he said: (not exact quote) This isn't the end, maybe not even the beginning of the end, rather it's the end of the beginning.
As that was a turning point in WWII from an morale point of view, so was the Beastquake run. It offered hope and promise for a better future and the team began to feel it - even if they lost the next game. The tide was beginning to turn.

That's just the way I see it, but I can see why others don't as they aren't as deep thinkers as us 'Beastquake Believers'.

[kalibane]

Without any results a philosophy is just words on paper and empy rhetoric. There are a lot of coaches that have come through the NFL and cleaned out locker rooms. Remind me again how that worked out for Josh McDaniels or Mike Shanahan in Washington? How's it working for Dennis Allen in Oakland right now? There are tons of guys who have come in with a big statement trying to change lockerroom culture and unless it can be shown that it works people just end up tuning you out.

Using the British winning an arbitrary battle in WWII is a straw man stop it. The British won nothing in WWII it was won by the United States. You love to always use apples to oranges to invalidate other people's metaphors but you're going to throw that out there?

[Hawktawk]

Beast quake legitimized MARSHAWN LYNCH. Carroll was still seen as a befuddled dunce after that game for another year by certain fans myself included. I got on board a few weeks into the 2012 season. The Tip was the biggest play ever, of course accompanied by the incredibly heady decision by Malcolm Smith to be there to pick it off. I'm not convinced Seattle holds on without that play.All the other great playoff plays were awesome in their own way but those seasons still ended in a loss.

[FolkCrusader]

*sigh* Eagle.. you're in such a rush to think you have an ally in this discussion and beat me down that you aren't reading. The reference to 2012 was in response to River who cited midway through the season when they took the reins off Russell Wilson. That was the 2012 season. Now according to you the change came the second Pete Carroll became the head coach which is ludicrous so just go sit down and believe what you want to believe and let River and I have an actual discussion.

Now River,

Your mistake as far as I'm concerned is you think progress is respresented on a graph where the line shows a steady incline. That's not how it works, especially not when you're charting something that has so many moving parts. Most of the time you take a step or two forward then a half step or two back before moving forward again. Once you're wildly successful the graph may more closely resemble what you think it should but that isn't how it looks at the start. Take Apple (the computer company) for instance, they first made an impact with the Apple II series, but they followed that up with the Apple Lisa (look it up) which was an unmitigated disaster, until the Macintosh came out but took more steps back after that with stuff like Mac Portable. They made a comeback with the powerPC chip (kind of) but again couldn't keep up with PC's, things like Newton were unmitigated failures, then they came back and got a real hold with the first IMacs, but followed that up with the disaster called the Cube. Then they released the Ipod and the Intell based IMacs and it's been uphill ever since.

Similarly I consider the Saints win the Apple IIe of the Pete Carroll Seahawks. Now maybe the Bears game was the Apple Lisa and the next season was a lot of corporate restructuring as the roster was turned over by nearly 50%. But that win against the Saints gave the players, the fans, the media and most importantly Paul Allen faith, or at least leeway to allow Pete to keep doing things his way, that his vision had credibility. Russell Wilson may be the Ipod in this scenario and I wouldn't argue that. You're exactly right that was when the Seahawks became contenders. But there is no Ipod without the Apple IIe laying the ground work.

Now you may have a philisophical difference where you think the Ipod (Russell Wilson) is still a bigger deal than the Apple IIe (Saints win) then that's fine. We just disagree on a philisophical level. But if you think that Saints win meant nothing regarding the eventual success of the Pete Carroll Seahawks then I don't think you're being very realistic. Who's to say Caroll isn't fired after a second 7-9 season in 2011 if they are drubbed by the Saints in the playoffs? Beating the Saints allowed people to trust the process when Carroll and Schneider were building a roster in a completely unconventional way.

Well written Kal. I was going to point out that at least one player, Michael Robinson, said that buy in from the team in to Pete's program really came after the 2010 Ram's victory. He said they had lost like 5 out of the last 7 and it just seemed like they couldn't make it work. Then they went in to a must win game with no Hasselbeck and PC promised them they would win that game to get in to the playoffs. He said that win had a ton to do with Pete's coaching and after that the players actually believed in his philosophy.

Personally I don't know what the most significant play was, but a play that guarantees you are going to the SB is an awfully big play

[HumanCockroach]

Seems silly to me to point to a singular moment as "the moment" that the Seahawks became a SB contender, almost as silly as the thought that "one player" did it. Lynch's run was instrumental, Wilson being selected was as well, as was his freedom later in his rookie season, but neither was anymore important, than the selection, plays called and run, age and experience gained moving forward, the players signed and drafted across the board on that team.

It's like saying the "roof" was the moment that we had a house, however without the other important aspects of that house, the roof is pointless. The foundation must be laid, the walls must be framed, the plumbing completed as well as the wiring, drywall, paint etc, etc, etc. Wilson for all his brilliance does not win a SB without Lynch, or Earl, or Sherman, or Bennett or etc,etc and vice versa teams win because they have the better "team" not because they have a great QB, or a great coaching staff, or a great RB or a great receiver. Honestly it surprises that people continue to insist that "one" guy "won" the Lombardi, no "one" player ever has or ever will, nor is it "one" play that does it, it is a series of plays, thousands of them, both big and small that accomplishes that.

It "builds" to it, making the thought that a play, or a series simply silly IMHO.

A play can be great on it's own, and can be more visible, people can place "importance" on it all they want, but it really IS a "building" that is done over time.

[Hawktawk]

Seems silly to me to point to a singular moment as "the moment" that the Seahawks became a SB contender, almost as silly as the thought that "one player" did it. Lynch's run was instrumental, Wilson being selected was as well, as was his freedom later in his rookie season, but neither was anymore important, than the selection, plays called and run, age and experience gained moving forward, the players signed and drafted across the board on that team.

It's like saying the "roof" was the moment that we had a house, however without the other important aspects of that house, the roof is pointless. The foundation must be laid, the walls must be framed, the plumbing completed as well as the wiring, drywall, paint etc, etc, etc. Wilson for all his brilliance does not win a SB without Lynch, or Earl, or Sherman, or Bennett or etc,etc and vice versa teams win because they have the better "team" not because they have a great QB, or a great coaching staff, or a great RB or a great receiver. Honestly it surprises that people continue to insist that "one" guy "won" the Lombardi, no "one" player ever has or ever will, nor is it "one" play that does it, it is a series of plays, thousands of them, both big and small that accomplishes that.

It "builds" to it, making the thought that a play, or a series simply silly IMHO.

A play can be great on it's own, and can be more visible, people can place "importance" on it all they want, but it really IS a "building" that is done over time.

Very very good.

[Eaglehawk]

Seems silly to me to point to a singular moment as "the moment" that the Seahawks became a SB contender, almost as silly as the thought that "one player" did it. Lynch's run was instrumental, Wilson being selected was as well, as was his freedom later in his rookie season, but neither was anymore important, than the selection, plays called and run, age and experience gained moving forward, the players signed and drafted across the board on that team.

It's like saying the "roof" was the moment that we had a house, however without the other important aspects of that house, the roof is pointless. The foundation must be laid, the walls must be framed, the plumbing completed as well as the wiring, drywall, paint etc, etc, etc. Wilson for all his brilliance does not win a SB without Lynch, or Earl, or Sherman, or Bennett or etc,etc and vice versa teams win because they have the better "team" not because they have a great QB, or a great coaching staff, or a great RB or a great receiver. Honestly it surprises that people continue to insist that "one" guy "won" the Lombardi, no "one" player ever has or ever will, nor is it "one" play that does it, it is a series of plays, thousands of them, both big and small that accomplishes that.

It "builds" to it, making the thought that a play, or a series simply silly IMHO.

A play can be great on it's own, and can be more visible, people can place "importance" on it all they want, but it really IS a "building" that is done over time.

Very very good.

Your words concur with my previous statements. This was PC's team from jump street, he had certain milestones, but it was him adding and taking away pieces of that puzzle as I called it, that made the difference. No one play or player according to some people's prose on this thread was responsible. AGREED.

[RiverDog]

Without any results a philosophy is just words on paper and empy rhetoric. There are a lot of coaches that have come through the NFL and cleaned out locker rooms. Remind me again how that worked out for Josh McDaniels or Mike Shanahan in Washington? How's it working for Dennis Allen in Oakland right now? There are tons of guys who have come in with a big statement trying to change lockerroom culture and unless it can be shown that it works people just end up tuning you out.

Using the British winning an arbitrary battle in WWII is a straw man stop it. The British won nothing in WWII it was won by the United States. You love to always use apples to oranges to invalidate other people's metaphors but you're going to throw that out there?

Actually the British contributed heavily to the winning of WWII, in more ways than one, but let's not go there in this forum.

Don't like that one? How about an analogy saying that the United States won the war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor(Beast Quake) when the real turning point was the Battle of Midway (Russell Wilson).

Better?

I'm just taunting you a little, Kal. I understand what you're saying and I don't completely disagree. I just don't see Beast Quake as having a "Let's go out and win one for the Gipper" effect.

[kalibane]

That would make no sense either Riv since Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack by the Japanese that drew America into the war not really a battle and technically a defeat for America. I would see more as something like Normandy. Did it win the war directly? Nope. But it gave America a major foothold to continue the campaign.

[FolkCrusader]

You guys are both forgetting the eastern front. Although what the US and Britain did in Europe were certainly important, the Russians defeated two entire army groups. If you are handing out belts for the war in Europe, you have to include the Russians in that discussion.

[RiverDog]

You guys are both forgetting the eastern front. Although what the US and Britain did in Europe were certainly important, the Russians defeated two entire army groups. If you are handing out belts for the war in Europe, you have to include the Russians in that discussion.

Yea, and the Russians benefited enormously from materials supplied by Uncle Sam. But why stop with the Russians, British, and Americans? The Canadians, the Poles, French underground...there were a whole lot of contributors to the Great Crusade, the lack of any one of which would have severely complicated matters.

Pearl Harbor is analogous to Beast Quake because we 'lost' the 2010 season, ie didn't win the SB. All it did was give the folks back home a battle cry and a motivation. The Battle of Midway was the turning point in the Pacific theatre (Russell Wilson's arrival in 2012) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki is analogous with us winning SB XLVIII. How's that?

To say that this thread has gone off on a tangent is an understatement.

[kalibane]

Nah Riv .... The saints game was a win. Pearl Harbor was a loss. There is no parallel to draw. Know you recognize this doesn't fit because you chose a victory as your first comparison.

[monkey]

Beast quake legitimized MARSHAWN LYNCH. Carroll was still seen as a befuddled dunce after that game for another year by certain fans myself included. I got on board a few weeks into the 2012 season. The Tip was the biggest play ever, of course accompanied by the incredibly heady decision by Malcolm Smith to be there to pick it off. I'm not convinced Seattle holds on without that play.All the other great playoff plays were awesome in their own way but those seasons still ended in a loss.

This pretty nearly sums it up for me.

Beastquake was an awesome play though at the time I felt that it meant little towards the big picture, especially since the following year, we were using Jackson instead of Hasselbeck at QB which was a step back in the wrong direction.
To me anyway, Beastquake was more about one players will to score than any grandiose statements about where we were headed, because until we got a franchise QB, we were headed nowhere, fast.

Until Pete's announcement that he would start Wilson, I was too busy wondering why in the world Pete and John had traded for Whitehurst (overpaid too) and then started Tarvaris Jackson, someone I KNEW FOR A FACT could not ever be a winner, then overpaid for Matt Flynn, who I was convinced was also a bum.
Jackson in particular, was a dead end street from day one, and anyone who had watched the Vikings play football knew why.
Yet here we were with the Vikings former OC actually claiming we could win with a guy I KNEW we couldn't win with.
It told me that either we were being lied to or the coaches had no clue.

At that point, the only thing Beastquake had changed my mind about, was Marshawn Lynch.
It wasn't until Wilson became the starter that I knew we had arrived at the point where we could win, and sustain success.

I give Pete and John all the credit in the world for Wilson, not just for his acquisition, but for having the guts to start him over a guy they were paying too much for, a guy they had JUST picked up that same offseason.
THAT for me was when I finally truly believed Pete was serious about always compete...he let them compete and the best man won. That's a statement to the world right there...the players heard that statement as well. Loud and clear.

[kalibane]

But Monkey it's often moments/decisions that seem unimportant at the time that have a much greater effect. I can take it back to Steve Young the year he finally won the Super Bowl. When he blew up on the sidelines most people if they thought it had any significance believed that it signaled the 49ers were headed in a negative direction. The truth is it helped galvanize the team.

People always undersell the small steps.

[RiverDog]

Nah Riv .... The saints game was a win. Pearl Harbor was a loss. There is no parallel to draw. Know you recognize this doesn't fit because you chose a victory as your first comparison.

We shot down a few planes at Pearl (Saints game) and spent the first half of 1942 on the defensive and building up our strength (2011 season), turned the tide by whipping their asses at Midway in June of '42 (2012 season), but the ultimate achievement wasn't realized until we dropped the two A-bombs (SB XLVII) then sailed the USS Missouri into Tokyo Bay (Hawks downtown victory parade) to accept the Japanese surrender.

I'm not saying the Saints playoff win was a negative event, nor was I saying the 2010 season was a negative event. I'm trying to describe to you that I do not view the Beast Quake run as a watershed event that led to our SB championship season as you appear to be doing. It was one small moment, overshadowed by several others, in a long procession that culminated in our SB victory 2 months ago. Had Beast Mode not occurred, IMO it would not have affected the outcome of the 2013 season.

[kalibane]

Not a chance Riv. No one looked at Pearl Harbor as a positive event. No one looked at the Saints game as a Negative event. It doesn't work on any level. You're stretching way to far to try and make this work. And like I said I know you know there is a difference otherwise you wouldn't have chosen a victory as your first example.

You're trying to change the structure of your metaphor after the fact to make Pearl Harbor fit youre conclusion.

[NorthHawk]

Great Britain looked at Pearl Harbor as a positive.
It brought America into the war.
It was just a matter of time after that.

[kalibane]

Seriously? This is getting ridiculous. Can you be more literal? The analogy that was set up was comparing a "battle" to a football game. There are two parties engaged in conflict the United States/Seahawks vs. Japan/New Orleans. No one in the United States thought the outcome of Pearl Harbor was positive. The indirect benefit to a third party (Britain) who isn't involved in the battled in any way is completely and totally beside the point.

What's next? You going to start in about the political debate behind the scenes and say some people were secretly happy about Pearl Harbor because they wanted to go to war just to make a point that someone was "happy about it"? If you have to go to these lengths to give something legitimacy it only underscores that this is a very bad analogy.

The idea for the analogy is sound. But comparing a military defeat to a football victory fails on the most fundamental level. He should have picked a different battle.

The funny thing is that River is one of the people who was adamantly opposed to tanking for a better draft slot when people were debating that topic. His stance was that it's ALWAYS better for the franchise to make the playoffs for the culture of the team. Now he's claiming that a playoff win over the defending Superbowl Champs meant nothing. The two points of view are incongruous.

[NorthHawk]

Seriously? This is getting ridiculous. Can you be more literal? The analogy that was set up was comparing a "battle" to a football game. There are two parties engaged in conflict the United States/Seahawks vs. Japan/New Orleans. No one in the United States thought the outcome of Pearl Harbor was positive. The indirect benefit to a third party (Britain) who isn't involved in the battled in any way is completely and totally beside the point.

What's next? You going to start in about the political debate behind the scenes and say some people were secretly happy about Pearl Harbor because they wanted to go to war just to make a point that someone was "happy about it"? If you have to go to these lengths to give something legitimacy it only underscores that this is a very bad analogy.

The idea for the analogy is sound. But comparing a military defeat to a football victory fails on the most fundamental level. He should have picked a different battle.

The funny thing is that River is one of the people who was adamantly opposed to tanking for a better draft slot when people were debating that topic. His stance was that it's ALWAYS better for the franchise to make the playoffs for the culture of the team. Now he's claiming that a playoff win over the defending Superbowl Champs meant nothing. The two points of view are incongruous.

Sorry, were you responding to my post?
If so, I was just adding an historical viewpoint, not commenting about RD's point of view which I don't share.

[monkey]

But Monkey it's often moments/decisions that seem unimportant at the time that have a much greater effect. I can take it back to Steve Young the year he finally won the Super Bowl. When he blew up on the sidelines most people if they thought it had any significance believed that it signaled the 49ers were headed in a negative direction. The truth is it helped galvanize the team.

People always undersell the small steps.

Not underselling or dismissing your take, that play may have been more of a step in the right direction than I gave it credit for at the time, or am crediting now. Thing is, it's speculative, with no way to know for certain one way or another.
That's why I thought this would be such an interesting topic, because people's perspectives on this topic were bound to be fairly wide ranging.

I'll just say that from MY perspective, the tip was easily the biggest moment in Seahawks history, BUT (as I said before) the Beastquake is second, and while I don't share your opinion that the Beastquake was a big stepping stone towards the Super Bowl, I do concede that it may very well have been one, or at least more of one than I am crediting.

I recognize the subjective quality of this debate, and am glad to know that everyone doesn't think the same as I do. (What a frightening world this would be if that were the case!)

[RiverDog]

Not a chance Riv. No one looked at Pearl Harbor as a positive event. No one looked at the Saints game as a Negative event. It doesn't work on any level. You're stretching way to far to try and make this work. And like I said I know you know there is a difference otherwise you wouldn't have chosen a victory as your first example.

You're trying to change the structure of your metaphor after the fact to make Pearl Harbor fit youre conclusion.

I am not saying that the playoff victory vs. the Saints was a negative, nor was I saying that the 2010 season was a negative, and I'm surprised that you tried to put that kind of spin on my remarks.

What I am trying to do is to explain to you that I do not view the Beast Quake run, as great as it was, as a watershed event that helped propel our team to victory in SB XLVIII. As a matter of fact, I feel that any effect was very minimal at best.

BTW, in retrospect, Pearl Harbor could, indeed, be viewed in some ways as a positive. Had the US not entered the war when they did, who knows what the world would have looked like today.

[kalibane]

Well in fairness the win was the most important thing. That run was just the most important play in the win. Same principle as the tip if you view it as the most imporant play of the game. Although I am more likely to agree the fourth down conversion was the most imporant play of that game.

[monkey]

Although I am more likely to agree the fourth down conversion was the most imporant play of that game.

You know why I think we can safely say that the fourth down play was the more important? Because we probably don't win if we don't convert that play there.
Conversely, if Sherman just knocked the ball down, or Malcolm wasn't there to pick it off, and the Niners got more shots at the end zone, we STILL would have won that game. There's no way I will EVER be convinced that our defense was going to give up a touchdown there...wasn't going to happen!

The tip is going to be long remembered, like the catch or the immaculate reception, but that doesn't make it the most important to the win...important to the franchise's history maybe, certainly the most famous. The tip is just so memorable, so marketable, so visually interesting because one picture of it tells such a big story. The Tip is going to be a part of NFL lore, it's very possible that twenty years from now, that play will still be talked about and shown on NFL films etc...
I doubt the 4th and 7 play will be, THOUGH IT SHOULD!!! That play was HUGE and IMO at least equally if not more of a factor in the final score/outcome of the game.

Having said all of that, it's an image of "the Tip" that is the screensaver on my computer. It's on my computer because, that one play tells you everything you need to know about the entire 2013 season.
It's an indelible image that perfectly shows that it is just a matter of inches, which separated winning from losing, and the Seahawks from the Niners.
Few images can convey an entire story the way that one image can. It's an image that perfectly encapsulates, perfectly punctuates, the entire season.

[RiverDog]

Well in fairness the win was the most important thing. That run was just the most important play in the win. Same principle as the tip if you view it as the most imporant play of the game. Although I am more likely to agree the fourth down conversion was the most imporant play of that game.

Agreed. The 4th and 7 play was the biggest play when you look at the game as a whole. No doubt about it.

[EntiatHawk]

Actually Largent's catch that broke the consecutive game streak with 1 or more receptions was a much more heralded event than was his 100th TD IMO.

The most significant in terms of the impact it had on our team has to be Sherman's Immaculate Deflection (great name for it, but the way). None of the others came close to sending us to the SB like Sherman's play did.

RD, I was at that game when Largent made that catch for his 128 game in a row along with Joiner breaking the yardage record. The Hawks kicked bottom that game. That was a good memory.

[SalmonBB]

I was torn between "The Tip" and "Beastquake."

The Tip:
It was the play that took us to victory over what would be our toughest match-up in the 2013/14 postseason. It was the play that sent us to the superbowl. It was the play where we knew we were going back ... this time to win. With that said, one could argue that it was just one of many spectacular plays in that game (how about the 4th and 7 call to go for it where we drew an offsides and RW threw to Kearse in the Endzone?).

Beast Quake:
This set the tone for the Schneider/Caroll era Seahawks. One could argue this marked the real beginning of our run towards a championship. It, like no other play, placed Seattle on the NFL map. Here in Singapore, I had fans of other teams approaching me about the play. Years later, we still analyze it. Even the crotch grab at the end of it was a thing of beauty, capping a pure masterpiece. It symbolized talent at the individual level for Marshawn Lynch. It symbolized team effort with O-Linemen, WRs, and even the QB running downfield to make (or attempt to make) blocks. It symbolized the 12th Man in the crowd reaction - setting off a seismic event. This play captured all of that, and it signified the birth of new and refreshed excitement about the Seattle Seahawks which ultimately helped us make the run we did as a team of players, coaches, media, and fans.

The others were great. I'm a huge Curt Warner and Steve Largent fan. With this said, if we are talking plays that were significant and impacting, I think it comes down to the two above. My vote in the end...

Beast Quake.

GO SEAHAWKS!!! WORLD CHAMPIONS!!!

[c_hawkbob]

As a play in and of itself with no other criteria you'll never see better than Beastquake, but for it's impact and importance to the team and the things it lead to/made possible I gotta to the The Tip.