Seattle Rising: The Case for the Seahawks

Think of the 2007 NFC like the pre-Stalin Soviet Union.

You have the Cowboys as Vladimir Lenin, the leader who's ready to fall at any time. You have the Packers as Leon Trotsky, a big name on the verge of exile.

And then you have the Seattle Seahawks, the ruler-in-waiting, whom everbody's written off as insignificant.

History repeats itself.

Now, this isn't to say that Mike Holmgren will grow a fine moustachio and run his team into the ground—but rather that the Seahawks will rise to power and show themselves to be capable of dominating their opponents.

Consider this chart comparing the starters for each of the three teams, with advantages highlighted in green and ties marked in yellow:

I may be biased towards Seattle, but I don't see too much of a talent differential between the three teams.

And although games certainly don't always play out in real life as they do on paper (just ask the 7-6 Bills), the paper matchups do generally reveal which teams can compete and which can't.

I called the quarterback position a tie, because, for all their differences, Favre, Romo, and Hasselbeck are equally effective. Favre and Romo are both gunslingers, while Hasselbeck relies on his intelligence on the field.

Green Bay has a slight edge at cornerback, but given the way Trufant has been playing, I couldn't not give him some credit.

The biggest problem for the Seahawks is their location. Seattle is a breeding ground for underperforming sports teams.

Take, for instance, the 2001 Mariners, who won 116 games but lost the ALCS in five. And don't forget the Fiasco at Ford Field two years ago. Failure is ingrained in the city's psyche.

That said, while the 'Hawks may not be on par with the Patriots, they match up with any team in the NFC. Had it not been for a "miscommunication" in the desert or a miracle in Cleveland, Holmgren and Co. could easily be 11-2 going into Carolina.

Whether they complete their rise to power remains to be seen.