Is this the best Seahawks Defense Ever ?

[Seattlehawk94]

To me this defense is good but to pass 1992 and 1998 they have to mix them together...They have to both shut down offenses like 1992 and become sack and defensive scoring happy like 1998..

This defense is a great defense but the 1992 defense was selfless...They didn't take stupid penalties and no one outside of Tez was nationally known..That's why they are hard to surpass, they turned the team into defense vs offense and were basically their own team on the field coached by Catlin...

 

[sprhawk]

We have 2 sacks. Green Bay has 11.

If we I see a game or two this season with 4 pick 6's and the D outscores the opponents, I'll think about reconsidering.

 

[#ONE]

^ Exactly!! Everyone is talking about how great this defense is but they can't generate a pass rush for shit. With the kind of time the QB is getting, Rogers, Brady, Stafford and the like will carve them up. Even the best secondary can't cover if the QB has all day to throw.

 

[JustDoug]

Having grown up on a diet of Chuck Knox, who was a three-four guy, and me being partial to the four-three, I'm breaking this defense into three parts when making my decision and admitting it's the best i've seen in Seattle:
Secondary tied for first with the John Harris & Kenny Easley duo.
Lineman tied for first with the Jacob Green, Joe Nash, & Jeff Bryant.
Backers are normally my favorite position, and this group is good enough, but lacks a dominate player.
Taken with all the panzy-assed rule changes that outlaw good hard hitting football (often taking away qb sacks), it's hard for me to say that i've seen any better. At least I don't fear third and long conversions quite so much anymore.

 

[Idahawk]

Gotta have sacks that really measure's how good your team defense is ?​

​

" Contrary to what it may have appeared, Seattle didn’t send excessive blitzes after Romo. I tracked the Seahawks as sending five or more rushers on only 10 plays all game (17.5 percent). In comparison, the Giants blitzed the ‘Boys on nearly one-quarter of their Week 1 snaps.​

What Seattle did extremely well that the Giants didn’t even attempt, however, was disguising their blitzes. The Seahawks showed blitz on only three of the 10 plays that they sent extra rushers. Romo was 3-for-7 for 15 yards on those plays. Further, the Seahawks frequently showed blitz but then backed out, tricking Romo into throwing hot when he didn’t need to do so.​

Romo has consistently thrived when defenses show their intentions but struggled when they disguise their calls—even more so than the average NFL quarterback. Since 2009, Romo has a similar passer rating whether teams blitz him or not. When they show blitz and indeed come, however, his passer rating (120.9) is 41.5 points higher than when they blitz after not showing it. Similarly, his passer rating is 40.1 points higher when defenses line up conservatively and don’t blitz as compared to showing blitz and then backing out."​

 

[#ONE]

You have to be able to get to the QB. 2 sacks in 2 games is a joke. Letting Kevin Kolb and John Skelton work you is a joke. Are they good at stopping the run? Hell yes! Do they have a great secondary? certainly. But, you need to get to the QB. Because, guys like Rodgers, Brady, Brees can beat you without a great running game. They've all won SBs without great running games. You need to be able to apply pressure to be a complete defense, to be a great defense.

 

[JustDoug]

Skelton, Kolb, and the disCardinals were an abberation because PC didn't have the testicle fortitude to make a professional coaching decision on a quarterback early on & get the Seahawk passing game ready for game one of the real season. The Seahawks dominated that game (see time of possession) in running & defense, but they could not make up for the lack of an effective passing attack, which is what we saw the year before. The whole game had nothing to do with sacks or turnovers, just a complete lack of a passing attack by Mr. Plastic.

Offenses will always want to rush for better than 3.3 yards per carry. Three yards on average is a failure. Three point five yards in a passing league isn't even good enough to survive. Four yards per carry is respectable. A season long five yards per carry would likely win the SB, but there isn't any franchise out there going for that goal. In summary, allowing only two yards per carry is depriving the other team of being able to manage time/down/distance, and third and three yard scenarios become pretty hairy.

It's an adaptation to the anti-football rules we old timers are used too, but it's currently working.