Good teams win the games they are supposed to, great teams win the ones they aren't.

[Inxsive]

Seattle is not a great teams. They deserve to be in the Superbowl, they are a good team, every team who makes it to the Superbowl ,no matter how easy a path they face, is a good team. Maybe it's just me but I think good teams win the games they are supposed to, great teams win the ones they arn't. If you look back at the great teams in history, they have beaten somebody good on the road, Seattle hasn't done this since 2002. I think some people have been offended at people like me who say that Seattle is not a great team and that they had one of the easiest pathes to reach the Superbowl ever. I have yet to hear someone show different. Personally I base that opionion of the following things;

1) Easiest schedule- 32nd most difficult schedule out of 32 teams.
2) They only had to play 2 winning teams on the road this year and lost them both.
3) They are in the worse division in football this year.(even if you take out the 6 games they played against Seattle the rest of the division are still 15-27 combined)
4) Didn't have to play anyone higher than a 5 seed.(the easiest path possible in the playoffs is to play a 6,5,6 seed)
5) I'm obviously not alone, as a 1 seed against a 6 seed they are more than a FG underdog

Please, please please, if I wrong on any of the 5 issues please show me.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Regardless...

They've won the games they've needed to in order to get to the Super Bowl. That's all they need to do.

[Drex]

I am not going to diminish the significance of the Seahawks making the Superbowl. Regardless of their schedule, the team persevered and attained homefield advantage and was able to reach the superbowl.

The team should be commended for that accomplishment, not criticized.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I am not going to diminish the significance of the Seahawks making the Superbowl. Regardless of their schedule, the team persevered and attained homefield advantage and was able to reach the superbowl.

The team should be commended for that accomplishment, not criticized.

Exactly.

You shouldn't even have to delve into details to give a Super Bowl participant credit, but I will.

They played the majority of the season without their best WR. We saw what losing our #2 WR did to our offense...

Anyway, I don't understand the rationale of threads like this trying to diminish what Seattle did. It doesn't make our loss to them any less painful if we criticize them.

Most Super Bowl teams benefit in some way or another. Either with very few injuries, favorable matchups, easy schedules...whatever. It's tough to make it to the Super Bowl without those advantages.

[dockeryfan]

It doesn't matter how they got there, they're still a better team.
For Pittsburgh to win they will have to play like they did last week; flawlessly.
Regardless, Seattle will be getting the 32nd pick in next years draft. Pittsburgh will be picking 31st.

[Inxsive]

I am not going to diminish the significance of the Seahawks making the Superbowl. Regardless of their schedule, the team persevered and attained homefield advantage and was able to reach the superbowl.

The team should be commended for that accomplishment, not criticized.

I comend them for making it to the Superbowl, I said they deserved to be there. My point was that there are good teams that go to the Superbowl and their are great teams. Do you think Seattle is a great team? Do you think great teams win against good teams on the road? Where do you rank Seattle among the 80 teams who have made it?

[Drex]

I comend them for making it to the Superbowl, I said they deserved to be there. My point was that there are good teams that go to the Superbowl and their are great teams. Do you think Seattle is a great team? Do you think great teams win against good teams on the road? Where do you rank Seattle among the 80 teams who have made it?

Seattle doesn't have to play against the Steel Curtain Steelers, the Walsh-led 49ers, the Gibbs Redskins or the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys. Their opponent will be the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers.

There is no all time contest to determine the best Superbowl team of all-time. All that really matters is whether or not your team has the opportunity to compete for the championship for that given season.

Seattle, along with Pittsburgh, has earned the right to compete for the title and again, I commend them for that.

[Inxsive]

Exactly.

You shouldn't even have to delve into details to give a Super Bowl participant credit, but I will.

They played the majority of the season without their best WR. We saw what losing our #2 WR did to our offense...

Anyway, I don't understand the rationale of threads like this trying to diminish what Seattle did. It doesn't make our loss to them any less painful if we criticize them.

Most Super Bowl teams benefit in some way or another. Either with very few injuries, favorable matchups, easy schedules...whatever. It's tough to make it to the Super Bowl without those advantages.

I know this is new to Hawks fans, but when you make it to a Superbowl, discussion follows as to their place in history even before they win or lose. Whould you prefer we wait to judge where they rank as Superbowl winner or Superbowl loser? We'll have that discussion after the Supperbowl as well, I promise. One thing I do find funny is how many Hawks fans are still on the Skins boards. Havn't they played someone since us and don't they have a big game ahead of them. I think its great they are here, it gives us some coolaid opinion or in this case Latte opinion. Instead of addressing my questions, they just respond it doesn't matter how they got there, I'm sure there is a thread set up to say "you bad, we good" but I'm honestly looking for any dispute to any on those 5 issues? As always, all response are welcome but try add something. If you don't like what someone has written, you don't have to read it or you can dispute it, show some facts or something, don't just complain.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I know this is new to Hawks fans, but when you make it to a Superbowl, discussion follows as to their place in history even before they win or lose. Whould you prefer we wait to judge where they rank as Superbowl winner or Superbowl loser? We'll have that discussion after the Supperbowl as well, I promise. One thing I do find funny is how many Hawks fans are still on the Skins boards. Havn't they played someone since us and don't they have a big game ahead of them. I think its great they are here, it gives us some coolaid opinion or in this case Latte opinion. Instead of addressing my questions, they just respond it doesn't matter how they got there, I'm sure there is a thread set up to say "you bad, we good" but I'm honestly looking for any dispute to any on those 5 issues? As always, all response are welcome but try add something. If you don't like what someone has written, you don't have to read it or you can dispute it, show some facts or something, don't just complain.

Fine, I think it's ridiculously difficult to compare teams across eras. Therefore, I believe it's equally difficult to assign a label to a Super Bowl winner or loser.

It's tough to say "This team is good, but the 2003 Patriots were great."

I think that, like someone posted earlier, you're going to find that teams of this era won't stack up in terms of the "wow" factor because there is better competition. You won't see too many teams be considered great after they win the Super Bowl. But that doesn't take away from them. In my opinion, it's tougher to get there than it was before the salary cap. Every single team is a potential threat now. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

Just my take.

[Drex]

What about the 1999 St.Louis Rams? They played one of the easiest schedules of all times, attaining wins against some pathetic competition in the old AFC Central and within their own NFC West division, where there were 3 teams who lost at least 11 games.

The team attained homefield advantage throughout the playoffs, won an ugly 11-6 NFC title game against the Bucs and defeated the Titans 23-16 in the Superbowl via a game saving tackle of Kevin Dyson at the goal line.

The greatness of a team isn't determined by how they get there; its validated by whether or not they show up when it matters the most.

[Inxsive]

There is no all time contest to determine the best Superbowl team of all-time. All that really matters is whether or not your team has the opportunity to compete for the championship for that given season.

Seattle, along with Pittsburgh, has earned the right to compete for the title and again, I commend them for that.

LOL...So why discuss anything, Do you ever listen to sports talk. Sports talk shows are all about what if these teams met, who would beat who, ranking sports, teams, players. Don't you read and post on these boards to spark thought? CNNSI right now has a big article on the 10 greatest Superbowl Coaches of All Time. (Gibbs is 3rd by the way behind Noll and Belichick). Also, if you want to break it down to a what really matters statement it shouldn't be 'whether or not your team has the opportunity to compete for the championship for that given season' it should be whether or not your team won the championship.' How many people remember the last 5 Superbowl losers?

[Drex]

If Seattle does in fact win the superbowl, I would rank them somewhere along the lines of the other teams that have won a single championship. Obviously, they are not in the class of your great Steelers, 49ers, Skins, or Cowboy teams. I would view them as being in the class of a team such as the aforementioned Rams of 99, or the Chiefs of 1970, a team that had a magical single season in route to attaining a superbowl victory.

Are the Seahawks, a great team? Yes, they are a great teams in terms of the 2005 season. Are the Seahawks a truly great team for the ages? I doubt it.

[HOF44]

Fine, I think it's ridiculously difficult to compare teams across eras. Therefore, I believe it's equally difficult to assign a label to a Super Bowl winner or loser.

It's tough to say "This team is good, but the 2003 Patriots were great."

I think that, like someone posted earlier, you're going to find that teams of this era won't stack up in terms of the "wow" factor because there is better competition. You won't see too many teams be considered great after they win the Super Bowl. But that doesn't take away from them. In my opinion, it's tougher to get there than it was before the salary cap. Every single team is a potential threat now. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

Just my take.

I think now there is more competition not better competition. As you said from top to bottom of the league teams are more competitve with each other, but I believe pre salary cap the top 6-10 teams were powerhouses that played better football than you see in the salary cap era.

The reason I believe the football was better is a team could stay together for their whole carreers. You were better able to utilize complex offensive schemes that are harder to implement with the tunover of free agency.

[Inxsive]

Fine, I think it's ridiculously difficult to compare teams across eras. Therefore, I believe it's equally difficult to assign a label to a Super Bowl winner or loser.

It's tough to say "This team is good, but the 2003 Patriots were great."

I think that, like someone posted earlier, you're going to find that teams of this era won't stack up in terms of the "wow" factor because there is better competition. You won't see too many teams be considered great after they win the Super Bowl. But that doesn't take away from them. In my opinion, it's tougher to get there than it was before the salary cap. Every single team is a potential threat now. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

Just my take.

This is a good point, I think the best way is to compare a Superbowl winner or loser is; to look at how they stack up against the rest of the league in a given season and then compare then to to the other Superbowl teams. Different era's are too difficult to match up a teams directly one on one. In judging a Superbowl team in a given season I think you look at their record but you also look at how hard it was for them to get to that spot as well. This includes, who they beat and who they lost to as well as where those wins and loses occured.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think now there is more competition not better competition. As you said from top to bottom of the league teams are more competitve with each other, but I believe pre salary cap the top 6-10 teams were powerhouses that played better football than you see in the salary cap era.

The reason I believe the football was better is a team could stay together for their whole carreers. You were better able to utilize complex offensive schemes that are harder to implement with the tunover of free agency.

I agree with this!

I didn't mean to imply that the competition was better...but that almost every team posed a threat instead of just those top 6-10 teams...which posed HUGE threats.

Good clarification.