2015 Seahawks: Our offense doesnt need Lynch, Graham or Rawls

[wibi]

 
This.
 
I'm still crushed.  I don't know when I'll get over this.  I've avoided coming back in here for 2 days and it helped a little.

 
Yup.
 
People can say this was easier to take because of last years win but it sure isnt feeling that way yet.  This had all the emotional rollercoaster feelings of 2003 for me.  Such an emotional high on the Kearse catch followed by an earth shattering low on that amazing play by Butler.
 
I've been trying to start the 2015 thread for almost 24 hours now and just cant figure out how/what I want to say. 

 

[wibi]

The Hawks also have to deal with poached Coaches as well.  You win.....people take your talent.
 
That as much as anything makes repeating difficult.
 
Isnt Pete Carroll regarded as a great motivator.....but not really an Xs and Os guy?  Taking a guy like Quinn (who is a really good Xs and Os guy) out out of the equation may hurt more then many realize.

 
Anyone who follow's Seattle football knows how big a loss Quinn is going to be.  There isnt some big surprise letdown coming because Quinn was leaving.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

This.
 
I'm still crushed.  I don't know when I'll get over this.  I've avoided coming back in here for 2 days and it helped a little.

We know your pain. It passes with time, but is only erased after the next Lombardi is won.

 

[Carmine Hose]

The salary cap will begin working against them now in terms of team building, not that they need much of it.  They got by on low round rookie deals for Sherman, Chancellor, and Wilson.  The first two already got paid - Sherman's cap number is $12 m, Chancellor's is $6m.  The third is getting a Flacco deal (from a cap hit of $1m to $15m plus - there goes most of the space).  Then you have Lynch.  He's got a year left at $8.5m, and they are talking over $10m for his next one.  Soon enough they will be in the Pats position of having to make decisions on key guys and limited adds outside the draft.

 

[bakahump]

 
Anyone who follow's Seattle football knows how big a loss Quinn is going to be.  There isnt some big surprise letdown coming because Quinn was leaving.

No saying it would be a surprise.
 
Saying it will be a letdown...and make repeating success that much more difficult.  A point, no one else had made.

 

[Stitch01]

Its hard to get over SB losses, but that team is going to be just fine next year.  Thought they were the toughest Patriots opponent in a long time.

 

[wibi]

No saying it would be a surprise.
 
Saying it will be a letdown...and make repeating success that much more difficult.  A point, no one else had made.

 
I took your may hurt more than expected reference to mean it would be a surprise.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Its hard to get over SB losses, but that team is going to be just fine next year.  Thought they were the toughest Patriots opponent in a long time.

I agree on both these counts. They'll have some salary cap maneuvering to do with the Wilson contract and obviously there is uncertainty with the Lynch situation. On the other side of the ledger, they had a huge amount of player attrition this year (Harvin plus a huge number of guys on IR) and it shouldn't be that hard to improve their WR/TE group in the offseason. Take the team that played the Super Bowl, add injured players like Mebane and Hill and improve the WR group a bit through FA/draft and you've got a fantastic team.

I also wouldn't be surprised if over time the offensive identity of this team shifts a bit, with less reliance on a power running game and a more developed passing offense as Wilson matures and they acquire more weapons.

 

[Shelterdog]

The salary cap will begin working against them now in terms of team building, not that they need much of it.  They got by on low round rookie deals for Sherman, Chancellor, and Wilson.  The first two already got paid - Sherman's cap number is $12 m, Chancellor's is $6m.  The third is getting a Flacco deal (from a cap hit of $1m to $15m plus - there goes most of the space).  Then you have Lynch.  He's got a year left at $8.5m, and they are talking over $10m for his next one.  Soon enough they will be in the Pats position of having to make decisions on key guys and limited adds outside the draft.

 
Depending on how they structure deals they are in very good shape for next year.  The problem is that Okung/Wilson/Wagner/Lynch/Irvin/Mebane/McDaniel/Turbin/Lane/Sweezy are all in contract years so 2016 is when things might start getting tight, especially since they have about $62 million wrapped up in 8 guys (Sherman/Thomas/Baldwin/Avril/Bennett/Chancellor/KJ Wright/Unger). 

 

[TomTerrific]

Its hard to get over SB losses, but that team is going to be just fine next year.  Thought they were the toughest Patriots opponent in a long time.

 
Certainly the best team the Pats played in the SB during the BB/TB era. The teams were a pick 'em before the game, and that's what a pick 'em game looks like.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

 
Certainly the best team the Pats played in the SB during the BB/TB era. The teams were a pick 'em before the game, and that's what a pick 'em game looks like.

 
Except when they were 14 point dogs against the Greatest Show on Turf.
 
But keeping this on Seattle, they're actually in pretty decent shape for next year in terms of the cap. I'll echo above that 2016 is the real problem. But according to Over the Cap, they've got  $25mm for next year, which is a ton of space and it includes Lynch at a $8.5mm cap hit and Sherman at 12.2.
 
On the other hand, Wilson's cap # of $953k is probably going to go up a lot.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Except when they were 14 point dogs against the Greatest Show on Turf.
 
But keeping this on Seattle, they're actually in pretty decent shape for next year in terms of the cap. I'll echo above that 2016 is the real problem. But according to Over the Cap, they've got  $25mm for next year, which is a ton of space and it includes Lynch at a $8.5mm cap hit and Sherman at 12.2.
 
On the other hand, Wilson's cap # of $953k is probably going to go up a lot.

Speculation is Wilson is getting a deal near $20M a year. Add in signing or replacing starters at G and DT, and most of the WR core and they like the Patriots are probably looking more to retain than looking at impact FA signings.

 

[Devizier]

Then you have Lynch.  He's got a year left at $8.5m, and they are talking over $10m for his next one.  Soon enough they will be in the Pats position of having to make decisions on key guys and limited adds outside the draft.

 
Lynch has to be gone. The Hawks stand to save 7m by cutting him.

 

[Shelterdog]

 
Lynch has to be gone. The Hawks stand to save 7m by cutting him.

 
But he's really, really good--you're not going to replace his productivity on that team next year for $7 million.  I assume they keep him.

The really interesting choice they face is whether they try to keep one, both, or neither of Maxwell and Wagner (free agent in 2016).  Both are going to be expensive to re-sign because they're good, young, and from superbowl teams.  I think you could draft ok replacements for both of them.  They're already paying pretty big money to 7 defensive players so you're going to start to really cut into your depth and make it hard to build the team up on the offensive side (and at DL) if you resign them.

 

[DanoooME]

 
But he's really, really good--you're not going to replace his productivity on that team next year for $7 million.  I assume they keep him.
The really interesting choice they face is whether they try to keep one, both, or neither of Maxwell and Wagner (free agent in 2016).  Both are going to be expensive to re-sign because they're good, young, and from superbowl teams.  I think you could draft ok replacements for both of them.  They're already paying pretty big money to 7 defensive players so you're going to start to really cut into your depth and make it hard to build the team up on the offensive side (and at DL) if you resign them.

 
I think they restructure his contract again like they did originally, 4 years, signing bonus and still make him cuttable after two years.
 
Maxwell is gone.  Wagner they will play out the deal and see.  Wagner is much more important to the defense than Maxwell is.  He's arguably #2 in importance behind Thomas.

 

[wibi]

Nicholas Shoemaker‏@WeightRoomShoe

QBs in the playoffs when targeting T.Simon: 15/19, 9.5 YPA, 4 TD, 0 INT, 156.5 QB Rtg Anyone else: 64/101, 5.7 YPA, 3 TD, 6 INT, 80.4 QB Rtg

 

[wibi]

Rich Hill ‏@PP_Rich_Hill
From ESPN stats, only two Super Bowl teams have won the turnover and yardage battle, and still lost. Both were the Seahawks (05, 14).

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

Rich Hill ‏@PP_Rich_Hill
From ESPN stats, only two Super Bowl teams have won the turnover and yardage battle, and still lost. Both were the Seahawks (05, 14).

Let's postulate that this is not just SSS weirdness (although it probably is).  I think the interpretation would then be that their offense has a low scoring efficiency.  They are given more possessions, and gain more yards, but nonetheless have trouble getting more points on the board than their opponents.
 
As posted elsewhere, Lynch (who has nothing to do with SEA in 2005) was not effective on the goal line this year, which would support the notion that their scoring efficiency needs work.
 
Perhaps this is an area to consider improving.

 

[TomTerrific]

Except when they were 14 point dogs against the Greatest Show on Turf.

 
Well, I made my initial statement based on the eye test--2014 Seattle just looked a lot better than my recollection of St Louis back in 2001.
 
Let's look at something a little more quantitative:
 
a) Football Outsiders has 2014 Seattle at 31.3% Total DVOA, and 32.8% weighted DVOA
 
b) Football Outsiders has 2001 St Louis at 25.9% Total DVOA, and 21.9% weighted DVOA
 
I'll stand by my statement--best team the BB NE team ever faced in the SB.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Let's postulate that this is not just SSS weirdness (although it probably is).  I think the interpretation would then be that their offense has a low scoring efficiency.  They are given more possessions, and gain more yards, but nonetheless have trouble getting more points on the board than their opponents.

 
I think combining the yardage thing with turnovers is a bit of a red herring for analyzing the importance of the two stats in Super Bowls.  That's especially true on Sunday's game, where the difference between yardage was virtually negligible, especially considering the Patriots had slightly better kicks and returns.
 
You really can't deny the importance of turnovers.  In 49 games, there has been a non-zero turnover differential 41 times, and the team on the plus side is 37-4.  And one of those 4 was just a completely crazy game -- super bow 5, where there were 11 turnovers and the Colts were able to overcome 4 by forcing 7.  There have only been, if I'm counting right, 9 super bowls where the turnover differential was +1, and the team with the better differential won 7 and lost 2.  Both of the losses were the Seahawks.  But looking at those 9 games, I'm not sure it means anything about anything.  Some of those games were blowouts.  Others were very close, where the turnover differential made a difference, like the Steelers/Cards or one of the Giants/Patriots games.  
 
If you look at the close super bowls where there was a +1, the games were really toss ups right to the end, and most of them could have turned out different.  I think the fact that the Patriots won with a -1 really doesn't mean anything other than what anyone watching that game already appreciated with their eyeballs.  The Patriots had the edge in time of possession and third down efficiency, which allowed them to make up for the two turnovers.  They gave the Seahawks an extra drive.  The Seahawks had 11 real drives in the game-- that is drives where they were truly attempting to score) to the Patriots 10, and the Patriots ability to make more of their drives by the better first down efficiency overcame the turnover differential.  By one yard.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

Let's postulate that this is not just SSS weirdness (although it probably is).  I think the interpretation would then be that their offense has a low scoring efficiency.  They are given more possessions, and gain more yards, but nonetheless have trouble getting more points on the board than their opponents.
 
As posted elsewhere, Lynch (who has nothing to do with SEA in 2005) was not effective on the goal line this year, which would support the notion that their scoring efficiency needs work.
 
Perhaps this is an area to consider improving.

 
 
Let's also not forget that Seattle did not fairly lose the 2005 Superbowl, the refs handed that game to Pittsburgh, because the bus. 
 
The Raiders are interviewing Ken Norton Jr to be their DC, who will have a choice of going to Oakland or potentially taking over for Quinn in Seattle. He has a relationship with Jack DelRio in the past, so I could see it going either way. I don't think Quinn will be any greater loss to Pete and the coaching staff than Gus Bradley was. 
 
The Hawks also should give Wagner an extension this year, he is the second best ILB in football and I don't think they want to see Tony Dungy's MVP hit free agency next year. Also, the best ILB, Luke Kuechly, is certainly going to get his extension this summer, so it probably makes sense for Seattle to try to get Wagner done first, before Kuechly re-sets the market. Linebacker franchise tags do not differentiate between OLB / ILB, so you can't really tag Wagner in 2016 unless you are comfortable paying him Justin Houston / Clay Matthews type money ($12M +)
 
Assuming they do new deals for Wilson and Wagner, they have a choice between giving Lynch $8-10M (I imagine less than 50% is guaranteed and it is front loaded) and letting him go and having room to add a receiver, running back or pass rusher in FA. This draft is fat on running backs and receivers, so I could see a scenario like the Hawks throwing 1 yr / $10M at a Greg Hardy and letting Lynch go after they draft Gurley or Gordon. 

 

[DanoooME]

Let's postulate that this is not just SSS weirdness (although it probably is).  I think the interpretation would then be that their offense has a low scoring efficiency.  They are given more possessions, and gain more yards, but nonetheless have trouble getting more points on the board than their opponents.
 
As posted elsewhere, Lynch (who has nothing to do with SEA in 2005) was not effective on the goal line this year, which would support the notion that their scoring efficiency needs work.
 
Perhaps this is an area to consider improving.

 
Maybe one way would be to stick with the general philosophy to be led by a NEW OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR!!!!!111!!
 
No, I'm not bitter.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Torn MCL for chancellor. I believe DRS called it on game day. Pay that man his $10

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12281217/kam-chancellor-seattle-seahawks-played-super-bowl-torn-mcl

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Torn MCL for chancellor. I believe DRS called it on game day. Pay that man his $10

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12281217/kam-chancellor-seattle-seahawks-played-super-bowl-torn-mcl

Wow. Respect to him for playing through that and playing pretty well too. Other than one big play on the final drive, I can't remember Gronk doing much damage when covered by Chancellor.

 

[Hagios]

Let's postulate that this is not just SSS weirdness (although it probably is).  I think the interpretation would then be that their offense has a low scoring efficiency.  They are given more possessions, and gain more yards, but nonetheless have trouble getting more points on the board than their opponents.

 
I'd be curious to know what the analytics say, but I think that's absolutely correct, and it's all because of Wilson. You can't rush him aggressively because his legs are so dangerous. So he's going to have time to throw the ball. Couple that with his beautiful touch on the deep ball and it's easy to see how he can rack up the yards. But that doesn't work in the red zone. I know the smart take on Carroll's call is now shifting towards a play action or a bootleg, but those are also high-risk high-reward plays. I'd be curious to see how Wilson would do if he had a beastly tight-end like Gronk. Luke Wilson doesn't even remotely cut it.

 

[wibi]

Wow. Respect to him for playing through that and playing pretty well too. Other than one big play on the final drive, I can't remember Gronk doing much damage when covered by Chancellor.

 
Eventually this thread title is going to change to something about healing given the only secondary member that isnt hurt (at least not being reported on) is Maxwell.  Between the massively dinged up Secondary and the interior D-line running on third and fourth stringers because if injury I'm becoming more and more okay with how Seattle performed on Sunday.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Torn MCL for chancellor. I believe DRS called it on game day. Pay that man his $10

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12281217/kam-chancellor-seattle-seahawks-played-super-bowl-torn-mcl

I believe DRS said it was Grade 1.  An ATC friend of mine said it was torn.

 

[MalzoneExpress]

"The MCL tear, however, may have been a previous injury, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll said."
 
"The Seahawks haven't said if Chancellor will need surgery, but Carroll indicated Monday it is a possibility."
 
He had a bone bruise and a torn MCL. He put a brace on and went out and played a very good game. We knew he was a beast before the game. This information only reinforces that.

 

[ivanvamp]

Seattle is a great team.  Too bad for them they had guys really banged up.  Oh well.  Nobody was crying for the Patriots when Mankins played (horribly) on an ACL tear or when Gronk played with a bad ankle injury.  
 
Interestingly, while I think Seattle is very tough, look at what the Patriots' offense has been able to do with them the past two times they've played.  
 
2012:  Scored 23 points (the most any Sea opponent scored against them in Seattle that year), gained 475 yards (the most Seattle gave up against anyone, anywhere that year, by a mile).
 
2014:  Scored 28 points (13 more than Sea gave up on average), gained 377 yards (only Dallas gained more yards, and that was when Sea was missing Chancellor and Wagner).
 
So in the two games, they've averaged 25.5 points and 426 yards of offense against one of the greatest defenses of all time.  Suffice it to say that the Patriots have both the scheme and the personnel to give Seattle all kinds of fits.  

 

[jsinger121]

 

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter  8m8 minutes ago
Seahawks S Earl Thomas undergoing surgery for fully torn labrum he played with in SB and NFC Champ game, per source. Will be 100% by camp.
 

 

[ThePrideofShiner]

I read earlier tonight on Twitter that defensive backs coach Kris Richard declined a job offer to join Quinn in Atlanta. I wonder if he is going to be the new defensive coordinator? He's pretty young, but he has obviously molded a fantastic group of players.
 
Sports Illustrated had a fantastic profile on him recently: http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/01/25/seattle-seahawks-kris-richard-legion-of-boom

 

[nattysez]

Home: Arizona, San Francisco, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Carolina
Away:  Arizona, San Francisco, St. Louis, Green Bay, Minnesota, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Dallas
 
Given the schedule above, Seattle should go undefeated at home, which means they only need to beat Minnesota and St. Louis on the road for a 10-win season.  Throw in the fact that the Niners could be terrible (and thus beatable at home) next season, and Seattle is up to 11 wins without beating anyone really good other than Arizona at home.

 

[Marciano490]

Should go undefeated at home? Not saying they won't, but there are enough good teams there that it's no sure thing. Not even close, nevermind the normal variance NFL teams experience.

 

[RhaegarTharen]

I have to say, I do enjoy watching this SEA team play.  I wouldn't go so far as to jump on any wagons, but I have a soft spot for aggressive defensive schemes.  I appreciate the "they can't call 'em all" attitude and the physicality they bring on every play.  I know it's gotta be tough to have lost that game, especially with 3/4 of their star secondary players banged up pretty good.  
 
But this is an incredibly fun team to watch, and just remember how many other fan bases out there would gladly take a crushing SB loss if it meant having the core of players to build around for the future that you guys do.  
 
Now, excuse me while I scour the internet trying to find enough fluff pieces on Bridgewater to talk myself into believing the Vikings will be relevant anytime soon......

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Jose, what do you f'ing "aggresive" about their schemes?

 

[RhaegarTharen]

Jose, what do you f'ing "aggresive" about their schemes?

 
Sorry - probably not the best phrasing, I more accurately should have replaced scheme with style.  Never having played football, I'm not qualified enough to judge whether their "schemes" qualify as "aggressive"; but I would certainly label their playing "style" such - would you not?  With the NFL moving increasingly towards rules that hamper defenses and increase offensive numbers; the Seahawks seem to be one of the few teams willing to flaunt the general trend by openly embracing fouling as a net positive defensively.  Combine that with the hard hitting styles of players like Thomas and Chancellor and I think (without regard to actual schemes) the average person watching one of their games would call them an "aggressive" defense.   
 
Personally I find that entertaining to watch from the standpoint of a neutral fan.  

 

[nattysez]

Wow. Maybe I'm just being a hater, but that is not a home slate I would look at and think my team 'should' go undefeated. Especially losing my DC and not knowing what rosters moves will be made by any team involved or how the schedule breaks down.

 
I just don't see any of those teams giving the Seahawks an abundance of trouble, but I concede that that may be overly optimistic.
 
I assume it's bad news that the Seahawks lost Ken Norton to the Raiders.  Losing Quinn and Norton seems like two significant losses for the D.

 

[wibi]

User Actions
  Follow

Alex RozierVerified account‏@AlexRozier

NEW: Sources close to the team confirm Kris Richard will be the new #Seahawks Defensive Coordinator.

 

[dylanmarsh]

One thing I haven't seen discussed is the clock mismanagement on the Seahawks' final drive. Twice they burned timeouts - the Lynch catch at 1:50 and the Kearse circus catch at 1:06 - after getting two huge plays. If they have all three timeouts, I doubt Butler is a folk hero right now and eventually Lynch runs it in.

 

[bankshot1]

Seahawk fans
 
NFL network showing SB 48

 

[loshjott]

One thing I haven't seen discussed is the clock mismanagement on the Seahawks' final drive. Twice they burned timeouts - the Lynch catch at 1:50 and the Kearse circus catch at 1:06 - after getting two huge plays. If they have all three timeouts, I doubt Butler is a folk hero right now and eventually Lynch runs it in.

This belongs in a different thread. Let the Seahawks fans have a place here where they can talk about next season.

 

[dylanmarsh]

This belongs in a different thread. Let the Seahawks fans have a place here where they can talk about next season.

I was going off of the thread title. My bad.

 

[ThePrideofShiner]

Seahawks name Kris Richard as the new defensive coordinator, hired Michael Barrow as linebacker coach away from the University of Miami, added Lofa Tatupu as assistant linebackers coach and hired Brennan Carroll as assistant offensive line coach.
 
The team also announced Richard Sherman won't have surgery for now and will try the rest and rehab approach.

 

[wibi]

Noise out of Seattle is that Marshawn Lynch is expected to retire unless he gets more guaranteed money in a contract restructure.  Lynch is scheduled to make $8.5M in 2015 but would only count for $1.5M in dead money should he be cut.
 
Additionally Seattle is reportedly looking at a contract offer for Russell Wilson in the $15-17M per year (for 5 or 6 years) range but making the full contract guaranteed instead a larger contract but with a shorter guarantee window.  This comes on the heels of reports that Wilson is willing to entertain a team friendly deal that allows Seattle to add the necessary pieces (OL and WR) while keeping the core together for the next 2 years. 

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Here is the oft-cited history, in the salary-cap era, of how the losing team in the super bowl fares the next season:
 
1994: 49ers over Chargers (11-5, 3.6) -> 1995 Chargers: 9-7, 1.5 (#5 seed, lost WC)
1995: Cowboys over Steelers (11-5, 4.6) -> 1996 Steelers: 10-6, 5.2 (won AFCC, won WC, lost DIV)
1996: Packers over Patriots (11-5, 5.1) -> 1997 Patriots: 10-6, 5.3 (won AFCE, won WC, lost DIV 7-6)
1997: Broncos over Packers (13-3, 7.7) -> 1998 Packers: 11-5, 5.0 (#5 seed, lost WC)
1998: Broncos over Falcons (14-2, 10.0) -> 1999 Falcons: 5-11, -7.1
1999: Rams over Titans (13-3, 1.0) -> 2000 Titans: 13-3, 8.3 (won AFCC, lost DIV)
2000: Ravens over Giants (12-4, 2.4) -> 2001 Giants: 7-9, -1.8
2001: Patriots over Rams (14-2, 13.4) -> 2002 Rams: 7-9, -3.3
2002: Buccaneers over Raiders (11-5, 10.6) -> 2003 Raiders: 4-12, -5.5
2003: Patriots over Panthers (11-5, -0.9!) -> 2004 Panthers: 7-9, -0.7
2004: Patriots over Eagles (13-3, 5.6) -> 2005 Eagles: 6-10, -2.3
2005: Steelers over Seahawks (13-3, 9.1) -> 2006 Seahawks: 9-7, -3.6 (won NFCW, won WC, lost DIV)
2006: Colts over Bears (13-3, 7.9) -> 2007 Bears: 7-9, 1.2
2007: Giants over Patriots (16-0, 20.1) -> 2008 Patriots: 11-5, 3.9
2008: Steelers over Cardinals (9-7, -1.9!!) -> 2009 Cardinals: 10-6, -0.3 (won NFCW, won WC, lost DIV)
2009: Saints over Colts (14-2, 5.9) -> 2010 Colts: 10-6, 2.9 (won AFCS, lost WC)
2010: Packers over Steelers (12-4, 10.2) -> 2011 Steelers: 12-4, 5.3 (#5 seed, lost WC)
2011: Giants over Patriots (13-3, 9.3) -> 2012 Patriots: 12-4, 12.8 (won AFCE, won DIV, lost AFCCG)
2012: Ravens over 49ers (11-4-1, 10.2) -> 2013 49ers: 12-4, 10.1 (#5 seed, won WC, won DIV, lost NFCCG)
2013: Seahawks over Broncos (13-3, 11.4) -> 2014 Broncos: 12-4, 9.6 (won AFCW, lost DIV)
2014: Patriots over Seahawks (12-4, 9.5) -> 2015 Seahawks: TBD
 
To dive into each team's situation and how players moved around, under- or over-performed the next year, etc would require a full article.  But a couple things jump out at me just from this:
 

• Of the last 20 super bowl-losing teams, 12 (60%) made the playoffs.  8 times (40%) as division winner (3 of whom got byes), 4 times (20% as wild card)
• There was a stretch of 10 years (1998-2008) where the SB-losing team only made the playoffs twice the next year (2000 Titans, 2006 Seahawks).  On average, they had 5.4 fewer wins (!) and 9.0 less SRS (point differential per game, with an SoS adjustment) that following year.
• But in the last 6 years (2008-2014), that team has made the playoffs every year.  Those 6 teams have only averaged 2/3s less of a win per year than in their SB year, and 4.7 less SRS.
• Of the last 20 super bowl-losing teams, only 2 have made it as far as the Conference Championship games.  But those two have occurred in the last 3 years (2012 Patriots, 2013 49ers).  Those 2 were also the only ones to have a double-digit SRS in their follow-up year.
• Of those teams, only 2 have improved their win total over the previous year (2009 Cardinals, 2013 49ers), and only 2 others have stayed even in wins (2000 Titans, 2011 Steelers).
• Of those teams, only 2 meaningfully improved their team the next year: the 2000 Titans improved by more than a touchdown per game (+7.3), and the 2012 Patriots by more than a field goal (+3.5).  4 others improved by under 2 points, 7 of them declined by less than 5 points, but 5 saw double-digit declines.
• Of the teams who improved their SRS, or who declined by a field goal or less, ALL of them made the playoffs except the 2004 Panthers (who went from being an 11-5 team with a -0.9 to a 7-9 team with a -0.7).  The other 10 made the playoffs, averaging no change in SRS and 1 less win.

 
What I interpret from this is that the era of super-parity, where teams can't sustain big success all that long, probably ended in 2008.  The last 6 seasons have seen some of the biggest success for teams good enough to reach (but lose) the Super Bowl the previous year.  But no team since the 1993 Buffalo Bills has returned to the Super Bowl after losing it.  So I'd say the most likely outcome for the Seahawks next year is to narrowly make the playoffs but not make a big run.  That's still a year most NFL fans would gladly take.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

How much of those results reflect regression to the mean by teams that over performed to get to the Super Bowl in the first place?

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I think you'd need to dig to the next level and see what players departed for contractual reasons, or declined in their performance, before you assessed whether a conference title was their true talent level or just a lucky streak.
 
Generally, I think any team that makes the SB with an SRS under 7.0 (at least, in the conference-parity era post 1996) probably got lucky in a few games.  But I mean, if you watched the 2011 Giants' playoff run, they had an SRS of 1.6 throughout the year (point differential: -6), but were a completely different team in the playoffs.  Everything that had previously been just potential was clicking.  A detractor might call that overperforming, but a fan would call that peaking at the right time.
 
In the last 25 years, the Super Bowl champion has had the best record in their conference 13 times (52%).  The champs have also had the best SRS in their conference 13 times (52%), although not quite the same 13 times.  The worst regular-season teams to win the title were the 2011 Giants (9-7, 1.6), 2012 Ravens (10-6, 2.9), 2007 Giants (10-6, 3.3), and 2001 Patriots (11-5, 4.3).
 
In the last 25 years, the Super Bowl runners-up had the best record in their conference 16 times (64%), and the best SRS 12 times (48%).  Worst teams to lose a super bowl in that period were the 2008 Cardinals (9-7, -1.9), 2003 Panthers (11-5, -0.9), and then probably the 1994 Chargers (11-5, 3.6).
 
All three times the Seahawks have won the NFC, they were the best team in the NFC that year by both record and SRS.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Additionally Seattle is reportedly looking at a contract offer for Russell Wilson in the $15-17M per year (for 5 or 6 years) range but making the full contract guaranteed instead a larger contract but with a shorter guarantee window.  This comes on the heels of reports that Wilson is willing to entertain a team friendly deal that allows Seattle to add the necessary pieces (OL and WR) while keeping the core together for the next 2 years.

That would be a really fascinating (and highly unusual) contract structure. But if there's one type of player that might make sense to guarantee money over 5-6 years, its a QB that is young enough that he's unlikely to enter his decline phase by the end of the contract but experienced enough that you're very, very sure he's "the guy" going forward.

 

[j-man]

Home: Arizona, San Francisco, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Carolina
Away:  Arizona, San Francisco, St. Louis, Green Bay, Minnesota, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Dallas
 
Given the schedule above, Seattle should go undefeated at home, which means they only need to beat Minnesota and St. Louis on the road for a 10-win season.  Throw in the fact that the Niners could be terrible (and thus beatable at home) next season, and Seattle is up to 11 wins without beating anyone really good other than Arizona at home.

its never that easy   zona and stl can beat u at home so can det pitt car    carroll is a top 2 coach   but  unless wilson improver throwing the ball in the pocket      more teams will do what NE GB did   and seattle could have a 6-2 home record and 3-5 or 2-6 on the road   right now  i see seattle as a 9-7 team right now    

 

[Super Nomario]

Can someone with better understanding of cap nuances than I explain the upside of guaranteeing someone 6/$17 per as opposed to doing the usual cap hijinks and giving him a few million more per year? I understand what you are saying here, but it just seems the risk is not worth it.

Risk / reward is part of it. I think the other thing is that teams can leverage changing non-guaranteed money to guaranteed money to clear cap space. Under the terms of the contract Brady signed in 2010, he was supposed to have a cap figure of $18.2 MM this year. They renegotiated in 2013, guaranteeing him $46 MM over the next five seasons, but lowering his cap figures over those years to between 13 - 15 MM. That's typical; teams clear cap space by renegotiating with the QB (usually the highest-paid player): the team gets short-term cap space, and the player gets more guarantees. If Wilson's deal is all guaranteed, the team effectively is shooting their bullets up front; it's not going to be as straight-forward to clear cap space later (if it's even legal) by modifying the contract.
 
(all numbers from http://patscap.com/brady.html#brady)