Are the Seattle Seahawks the Most Dominant Team in the Last 70 Years?
The Seattle Seahawks are riding a big wave of momentum into their huge NFC West matchup with the San Francisco 49ers this week. Last week, the Seahawks became the first NFL team in over half a century to score 50 or more points in successive games.
However, as the headline of this article suggests, the hype surrounding the Seahawks over the past few weeks may have gotten just a little out of hand.
Are the Seahawks the most dominant team of the last 70 years? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
This isn't to take anything away from what the team has accomplished during a three-game winning streak that has thrust it to the forefront of the wild-card chase in the NFC.
Those two outbursts aside, the Seahawks remain a team that ranks 16th in the NFL in total offense and 27th in passing, relying on their third-ranked defense and running game to carry the load.
A good football team? Yes. Dominant? No.
Who Would Win a Hypothetical Game Between the 2005 Seahawks and This Year's Team?
This Seahawks team would be destroyed by the truly dominant teams from days gone by. They'd be lucky to score against the 1985 Chicago Bears, and the 2007 New England Patriots would probably drop 45 points on them eight times out of 10.
In fact, this isn't even the best Seattle team of the past decade. With all due respect to the 2012 club led by rookie quarterback Russell Wilson and running back Marshawn Lynch, the 13-3 2005 team led by current Tennessee Titans backup quarterback Matt Hasselbeck and retired running back Shaun Alexander was a better squad that was jobbed out of a Lombardi Trophy.
As I said, this isn't to take anything away from this year's team, which is both very good and, more importantly, very young.
However, two games do not make a season. So while it's great that Sunday night's matchup is inspiring such excitement, let's just slow down for a second.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?