THE WAY WE WERE: Comparing the 2009 Seahawks to the 2005 NFC Champions

by Stevo's on Jun 21, 2009 10:09 PM PDT Comment 35 comments

We all loved the 2005 Seahawks. Even those who had just jumped on the bandwagon that year knew that team was special. Coach Holmgren's west coast offense was firing on all cylinders, and the defense was playing with a tenacity rarely seen in the Emerald City back in those days.

But that was four years ago. Since then, the Seahawks have been through injuries, retirements, and losses of many of their players from that Super Bowl year. As well, the personnel department has been hard at work each off-season finding new talent for the roster.

So, is our Seahawks roster as good now as it was then? Let's do a quick comparison and see where the team has stepped ahead, and where they've fallen back.

Offense Roster Analysis: 2009 vs. 2005

Quarterback '09 vs. '05: Steady as he goes.
   2005: Matt Hasselbeck, Seneca Wallace.
   2009: Matt Hasselbeck, Seneca Wallace.

Hasselbeck had a career season in 2005. In 2009, he is more experienced, with four more playoff games under his belt. Last year, a bulging disc in his back ruined his season. Now apparently healed, Hass should enjoy another big year in his prime as long as his back behaves.

Offensive Line '09 vs. '05: Three steps back.
   2005: LT Walter Jones, LG Steve Hutchinson, C Robbie Tobeck, RG Chris Gray, Floyd Womack, RT Sean Locklear.
   2009: LT Walter Jones?, Sean Locklear, LG Max Unger? Mike Wahle?, C Chris Spencer?, Unger, RG Rob Sims?, Ray Willis, RT Locklear, Willis

Note the question marks in the 2009 lineup. These are the signs that keep coaches Mora, Knapp, and Solari up at night wondering. The 2005 line had history together, they had chemistry, and they had Steve Hutchinson playing like a man who had something to prove. He succeeded in proving he was the most intimidating LG in football, and then proved he could earn more money than the Seahawks had ever imagined paying for a Guard - by leaving them for another team. 2009 is a rebuilding year, and much depends on Walter Jones' surgically-repaired knee. Even if Walter plays, the three interior line positions are truly up for grabs. The good news is improved roster depth. This could take awhile for Coach Solari to sort out; he may not be sleeping well this season.

Receivers '09 vs. '05: A step forward.
   2005: Bobby Engram, Darrell Jackson, and Joe Jurevicious; TE Jerramy Stevens.
   2009: Deion Branch, Nate Burleson, T.J. Houshmandzada; TE John Carlson.

Looks like a step forward in 2009. Neither Jackson nor Stevens had dependable hands. Newcomer Houshmandzada and promising young John Carlson bring fresh play-making ability to the '09 squad.

Running Backs '09 vs. '05: A step back.
   2005: RB Shaun Alexander, Maurice Morris; FB Mack Strong
   2009: RB Julius Jones, T.J. Duckett ; FB Owen Schmitt, Justin Griffith

Alexander was on a tear in 2005, scoring a record 28 touch downs. Much of the credit, however, should be given to the All-Pro blocking front of Jones, Hutchinson, and Strong. 2009 will feature a multiple-RB zone-blocking approach implemented successfully by Greg Knapp in Atlanta and Oakland. But does Knapp have the horses to succeed with this attack in Seattle?

Defense Roster Analysis: 2009 vs. 2005

Defensive Line '09 vs. '05: A step forward.
   2005: RE Grant Wistrom, LE Bryce Fisher, Rodney Bailey; DT Marcus Tubbs, Rocky Bernard, Craig Terrill, NT Chuck Darby
   2009: RE Darryl Tapp, Lawrence Jackson; LE Patrick Kerney, Cory Redding, DT Brandon Mebane, Craig Terrill, Cory Redding, NT Colin Cole, Red Bryant

The 2005 defensive linemen proved themselves to be over-acheivers. Wistrom and Tubbs fought through injuries to terrorize quarterbacks, while Darby held ground in the interior line. The 2009 crew is deeper and more talented, but whether these linemen will tough it out in the trenches as successfully as their 2005 counterparts remains to be seen. The 2009 team is stocked with plenty of big athletes ready to compete.

Linbackers '09 vs. '05: A step forward.
   2005: MLB Lofa Tatupu, LOLB Leroy Hill, ROLB D.D. Lewis
   2009: MLB Lofa Tatupu, LOLB Aaron Curry, ROLB Leroy Hill

2009 brings back nearly the same crew as in '05, with two notable exceptions. First, Tatupu and Hill were mere rookies in 2005. Second, '09 super-rookie Aaron Curry should make everyone forget about journeyman D.D. Lewis.

Defensive Backs '09 vs. '05: A step forward.
   2005: RCB Marcus Trufant, LCB Andre Dyson, Nickel CB Kelly Herndon, FS Ken Hamlin (inj.), Marquand Manuel, SS Michael Boulware, Jordan Babineaux
   2009: RCB Marcus Trufant, LCB Ken Lucas, Nickel CB Josh Wilson, FS Brian Russell, SS Deon Grant, Jordan Babineaux

When remembering the successful '05 season, we might forget the challenges that defensive backfield faced. SS Hamlin was on injured reserve, CB Dyson was nearing the end of his career, Herndon had not proven himself a dependable starter, and Boulware suffered lapses in coverage. The 2009 crew features more dependable players, including solid SS Grant, CB Lucas, and young ball-hawk Josh Wilson.

Special Teams '09 vs. '05: Still special enough.
   2005: K Josh Brown, P Tom Rouen, KR Peter Warrick, PR Bobby Engram
   2006: K Olindo Mare/Brandon Coutu, P Jon Ryan, KR Josh Wilson, PR Nate Burleson, Deon Butler

Brown had a big year in '05. Olindo Mare revived his career in Seattle in '08 and has strong competition from young Brandon Coutu for '09. The return game could be improved in '09 with speedsters Wilson and Butler contributing.

On balance: four steps back and four steps ahead.

Call it even. On paper, that is. But on the field?

On paper this roster is as talented as the team that played in Super Bowl XL. That said, the offense will need to execute a major turn-around from 2008, when injuries reduced this squad to XFL look-alikes. This offense will not be the machine that Holmgren built, but there is plenty of talent and experience to execute Knapp's scheme.

Even so, the offensive line could be the undoing of this team. If key players including Jones and Spencer cannot stay healthy, the team's fortunes could fade in a hurry.

On defense, the 2009 roster is a bit deeper than the 2005 crew, particularly on the bolstered defensive line. This unit, along with the linebackers, should be the strength of this team. An improved pass rush from the front-seven should help the pass defense enough to once again make the Seahawks a tough team to score on.

As always, three elusive keys are essential for any team to rocket to the Super Bowl the way the Seahawks did in 2005. Without these, the 2009 Seahawks will be also-rans.
   1) Tenacious, Never-Say-Die Attitude on Defense. Championship teams have this; but the current Seahawks crew hasn't proven they do.
   2) Offensive Line Chemistry. Also known as "five men reading each others' minds as they steam-roll opponents." Champion offensive lines have this, but it is doubtful the Seahawks linemen can solidify their roles and build chemistry quickly in 2009 after the disaster they suffered through in 2008.
   3) Avoid key injuries. Even great teams become average when their starting QB, LOT, DE or other key players aren't on the field. After 2008, all Seahawks fans can do is keep their fingers crossed.

A place to bury strangers.

4 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nice job. I'll comment more after I get some shut-eye.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jun 21, 2009 10:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm most worried about our offensive line.

Even if we do find a nice starting set of studs to pass the time by this season, we are going to have a major overhaul possibly as soon as next season. Our 2005 line was awesome but people tend to forget they were gellin’ like a felon (you can tar and feather me later) because they had played together for years, the only exception being a young and hungry Sean Locklear.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jun 21, 2009 10:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, line cohesiveness is key.

Hopefully Solari and co. can work wonders getting these guys to have a symbiotic relationship together. Nothing like a good orchestra of punishment or protection. However, as you said, that usually takes seasons of playing together to function at an elite level. Let’s hope we’re on our way with a good portion of the line. I can’t help but think, though, that the line will look much different at this time next year…

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jun 22, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

While there may be too many variables to prove it,

this year may be a decent litmus test for the importance of a top-ranked offense line. The biggest variable, in my opinion, being the lack of an elite rusher, such as Alexander. The other being the complete overhaul of the coaching staff and scheme. Still, it will be interesting to watch.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Jun 30, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Solari began implementing the his blocking-scheme last season

so it’s not as new as your second variable suggests. I’m with you on the first, though. Will mediocre RBs cause our line to look worse that it is? If that’s what you’re saying I think the opposite could also be true. If we run well as a team with average backs, that will speak highly of our line in that case.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jul 1, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually it's moreso

Some zone concepts were used, but ZBS is actually one component that Knapp’s building his playbook and offense around. They say they’ll use a mix of man and zone, but unless it’s simply not as effective as they anticipated, I’d wager the lion’s share will be zone. Last year encountered some change with Solari and Deboard, but this year will be more pronounced.

by jacobstevens on Jul 2, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the linebackers should be favored in 2009 by two steps back

If the line is gonna lose three steps, the linebackers definately gain two. Hill didnt start until right before mid season if I remember correctly, and Curry could be ridiculously better than Lewis, even as a rookie.

I do like our depth at LB though.

Guyz, I need ur help. Im txting from my iphone. I'm at a girls house i like, & i had 2 go 2 the bthroom. It was #2, & i clogged the toilet, water is everywhere. What should I do?

by MontpikeMike on Jun 22, 2009 3:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Two steps ahead I meant. I was re-reading your post as I was writing my own, not a good idea.

Guyz, I need ur help. Im txting from my iphone. I'm at a girls house i like, & i had 2 go 2 the bthroom. It was #2, & i clogged the toilet, water is everywhere. What should I do?

by MontpikeMike on Jun 22, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, as a fan I'm impressed with your thoughts, but I have to quibble with a few points.

Quarterback needs to be listed as a step back. The 2009 version of Matt Hasselbeck is very likely not as good as the 2005 version of Matt Hasselbeck. Matt has to deal with very real injury concerns combined with the new offensive system and a worse offensive line.

Running back needs to be listed as two steps back. The 2005 edition of Shaun Alexander was one for the ages. Sure, he was helped by the offensive line, but he was the perfect type of runner to take advantage of that offensive line.

Finally, it’s difficult for me to see any situation involving Brian Russell as a step forward from 2005. Manuel might not have been that great, but good Lord, was he ever better than B-Rus.

Just like 2005, we enter the season with some giant question marks. In 2005, those question marks were the defensive line, linebackers…. hell, pretty much the entire defense. Those questions were answered. In 2005 the question marks include the quarterback, the offensive line, the running backs, the defensive line, and the deep secondary. Can those questions again be answered? Absolutely, there is a good deal of talent at each one of those positions. But saying that this is as talented a team as the 2005 team is premature at best.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Jun 22, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

Bleacher Report

I don’t like most of the writing I’ve seen over there, but this is not horrible.

by cashless on Jun 22, 2009 5:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ha

I agree. Somebody sent me a link to this on my Facebook. I ignored it because Bleacher Report is like a JV National Inquirer.

Having read it… I must say I liked it. Posting it on Bleacher Report is questionable. Just seems like posting there and here is an oxymoron of some sort.

I'd like to kick Josh Brown in the privates!

by The Manchild on Jun 22, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just contributing some content to bleacher rpt

A moderator at bleacher report sent me a very nice letter soliciting content and when I looked at their stuff I thought they desperately needed some decent content. So I sent this over. BR will never compete with Field Gulls. If BR is the bleachers, Field Gulls is a full season suite.

by Stevo's on Jun 23, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BleacherReport is a bit of a joke website altogether.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jun 23, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is one guy I found that writes decent Seahawks stuff.

Rob Stanton. But the horrible writing that most have keeps me from there. Aaron Curry is like Tim Duncan, because both are from WF, have good knowledge of their games….blah blah blah.

The logic is horrible, the writing is horrible.

by cashless on Jun 23, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can't just list names on a roster and provide a meaningful analysis.

Among other problems, it presents players in a binary way. Ie Either/or. Ie:

Offensive Line ’09 vs. ’05: Three steps back.
2005: LT Walter Jones, LG Steve Hutchinson, C Robbie Tobeck, RG Chris Gray, Floyd Womack, RT Sean Locklear.
2009: LT Walter Jones?, Sean Locklear, LG Max Unger? Mike Wahle?, C Chris Spencer?, Unger, RG Rob Sims?, Ray Willis, RT Locklear, Willis

Steve Hutchinson is not just better than Max Unger or Mike Wahle. He’s orders of magnitude better. Huchinson is a legitimate Hall of Famer. Wahle is at best league average and even then still injury prone. Unger has not played guard in a meaningful way in years.

Line positions lack a quantitative value. But just for kicks, and I won’t say this is even ballpark just a qualitative approximation, let’s say Wahle/Unger/Field is league average, and Steve Hutchinson at his absolute peak is 2003 Albert Pujols. Pujols was worth 9 games over replacement. That would make Wahle/Unger like 2003 Jeff Conine.

I don’t think football is so clean. I do think the above fairly represents the kind of swing in value Seattle can expect at the left guard position.

by John Morgan on Jun 22, 2009 5:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

yes, I wouldn't pretend it is a perfect analysis

The beauty of it is we’ll never know how good Unger can be unti lhe plays for a year or two. And we’ll never know how good Spencer can be unless he plays healthy for awhile. I’ll leave the serious analysis to you, John. This was really just for fun, to while away some time in the looong off-season. Field Gulls is a Great place to kill some time. Cheers!

by Stevo's on Jun 22, 2009 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent article

I think this squad will be 10-6 and win a playoff game. If the offensive line gels better then expected maybe 12-4 and two wins in the playoffs. The future is bright if Hasselbeck can stay healthy for the next year. The thing this team has over 2005 is depth which is huge in football. I like the general direction of the Seahawks and they seem to have a good sense of when to replace aging players and do a good job of filling holes.

Baseball is God's sport! All Truth Goes Through Three Stages 1.It is ridiculed 2.It is violently opposed 3.Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. kinesiologist

by E5 on Jun 22, 2009 9:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My opinion.

Even with all those “steps” forward and back, that does not equal a team out. Lets say the WRs are three steps forward on a team, but a QB is the same and the OL(specifically the OTs) take three steps back. In this example you might say the talent has equaled out, but the OL will sink the passing game and it will definitely not be equal.

Football is an interconnected sport, one relies on different skills from different units to mesh together well. Same problem with last year’s team, three LBs that can stuff a run game, but are undersized. If they had the DL we have this year, the run stuffing would have looked FAR different, and although a lot of the change this year will be attributed to Aaron Curry, the extra size on the line(sacrificing some speed) will give our run defense a big boost, and the same would have happened last year with this line.

by cashless on Jun 23, 2009 12:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

The reason that 2005 team was so dominant was two massive factors:

1) the offensive line was ridiculous, and was the perfect match for Shaun’s little dipsies and doodles.

2) the schedule was absolutely patty-cake.

Talent wise “overall”, I think our current team is a little more well-rounded, but it does have any particular ability that makes it potentially dominant. I do think the potential is there for the defensive front seven to be a wrecking crew, and if this happens I see a long playoff run.

Of course, nothing happens without both Matt and Walter being healthy.

by djafrot on Jun 23, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Of course, the article was not arguing whether the team or outcomes will be equal. The post was only addressing the question “is our Seahawks roster as good now as it was then?” Truthfully, the more I think about the question the less sense it makes. Still, I notice it got a few people thinking and responding.

I think asking the question ‘are the personnel better’ is still a good question. The most interesting revelation, for me, is that the 2005 roster had many weaknesses, yet they still produced a great team.

Ok… Talk amongst yourselves….

by Stevo's on Jun 23, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know you're sticking to the roster

But I think Coaching should be thrown in. Head, O, D, ST…

A step back?

by Groundhog on Jun 25, 2009 12:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes

by jacobstevens on Jun 25, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

interesting point

but I think I might like the new coaching lineup better than the old coaches. They seem to have energized the players. We’ll see. Do you think maybe Holmy would come back as offensive coordinator? just kidding…

by Stevo's on Jun 25, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Upside

is not being set in ways that aren’t completely, statically applicable to the game now, and more agility in contextually adapting to circumstances. But, a step back, they’re unproven, and some things Holmgren brought, unquestioned leadership, encouragement, discipline, are hard to establish.

by jacobstevens on Jun 26, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Despite the weaknesses in some areas recently, the coaching staff in 2005 was above average at the very least.

We have high hopes for the current coaches, but until we actually see some play on the field, it is not fair to count on any better than average. A step back is a fair assumption until we know more. Could be two steps back or worse, or could be at that level or better. There is no way for us to know now.

by cashless on Jun 26, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your coaching staff may be your downfall

I think you have the best LB corp in our division, but your secondary is as bad as ours. Forget about 2005. Niners will emerge!!

aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)

by rlott#42 on Jun 29, 2009 4:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Both secondaries aren't anything to hit home about,

but I’d give the Seahawks a slight edge. Trufant is better than Nate Clements. Ken Lucas/Josh Wilson should, theoretically, far better than Dre Bly. Michael Lewis is probably a better SS than Deon Grant, but both teams have a black hole at FS. However, if the coaching staff plays Grant to his strengths and keep him in deep coverage more often than he was last season, the secondary should stand to make a reasonable improvement, especially if our recently nightmarish pass-rush returns.

What is it about the coaching staff you do not like?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jun 29, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to beat a dead horse,

but if Jamar Adams is made SS and Grant is moved back to FS, I think our secondary could surprise a lot of people. Especially if Lucas plays like he did 2 years ago, and Wilson shows some of the flash he did last year.

by LantermanC on Jun 30, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs