Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

08 Sep 2005

Medi-hawk-rity: Hawks Have Proven Great at Being Average

In the last 20 years, how many times have the Seattle Seahawks had a record that did not fall between 10-6 and 6-10? Believe it or not, the answer is once: 1992, when they went 2-14. Greg Bishop of the Seattle Times asked us to do a little research for this article on the NFL's most terminally wheel-spinning franchise, and we discovered that Seattle on average finishes just 1.3 wins away from 8-8 every year, the lowest figure in the NFL. As long as we're talking Seattle, thanks to Dave Locke of the Post-Intelligencer for giving us some love yesterday as well.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 08 Sep 2005

21 comments, Last at 04 Jul 2006, 1:16am by Bryan

Comments

1
by Parker (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 5:20pm

How apathy inducing.

2
by Mike (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 5:32pm

I guess that explains why, when I was first getting into football as a kid back in the 80's, the Seahawks were the last franchise that I heard of or realized existed.

(Living in New Hampshire probably had something to do with that as well--they never played the local teams and were in the wrong division and time zone).

Cinncinati and Tampa Bay were down there on the list as well, but at least I'd HEARD of them, if only as examples of monumental badness.

3
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 6:13pm

You kidding me? I forget the Seahawks exist all the time.

4
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 6:15pm

Apparently so to thier receivers.

5
by marc (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 6:38pm

Matt Hasselback's hairline is several games under .500

6
by Mike B. (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 6:49pm

Well, you know, there's something to be said for consisten...

...What were we talking about again? I've forgotten...

7
by Rob (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 6:59pm

Yeah, the Seahawks seem to be a reflection of the weather out here: mild and inoffensive, nothing particularly hot, nothing particularly cold... their bad seasons are like Seattle's monotonous drizzly winters with temps hovering in the 50s, the better seasons like the summers, warm and sunny but never torrid. Not a blizzard or thunderstorm in sight, just nice n' bland like the team. In my 9 years in the Pacific NW I've been unable to root either for or against the Seahawks, just like the climate.

Though I'm not sure where the occasional volcano or earthquake fits in to this analogy.

8
by HLF (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 8:04pm

When I was a wee lad, the Seahawks were by far the most exciting team to watch. Jack Patera's clubs ran fake field goals (passing to the kicker running 15 yard crossing routes, for example), fake punts, and all kinds of wild, exciting plays. Then they graduated to a few years of Curt Warner, Dave Krieg, and Largent before he opened his fat trap -- again, they were thrilling to watch. They had Kenny Easley, easily one of the most entertaining defensive players (awesomely talented), and Jacob Green, and many others (like John L. Williams). It's difficult for me to understand how those Seahawks became these Seahawks.

Hopeless Lions' Fan,
Seattle

9
by Richie (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 8:07pm

Though I’m not sure where the occasional volcano or earthquake fits in to this analogy.

1983 (AFC Championship game) - Volcano
1992 (2-14) - Earthquake

10
by putnamp (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 8:20pm

The best part is that NOBODY CARES. People like winners and losers. Nobody cares about mediocre teams. Mediocrity breeds itself, whereas losers get the advantage of #1 picks and the like. It's a vicious cycle of "who the $@^% cares?", and it's the gloriously bland legacy of Seattle sports fans.

We have become the cheese pizza of sports.

11
by David S. (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 8:57pm

Mike (comment #2), you made me waste a good amount of time here at work trying to think back on what was the last team I realized existed. I'm sure it was the Cardinals. I remember how I found out they existed: My sister got invited to a Niners v Cardinals preseason game and when my Dad told me where she was going I was suprised there was a football Cardinals. That might have even been the first year the Cardinals were in AZ.

Although, I'm thinking that it might have also been the Bills. Did they lose to the Bengals in the AFC Championship game back in whatever year the Bengals lost to the Niners? I think that might have been the first time I heard of them. This is going to drive me crazy.

Anyhoo, growing up with a Dad who was a Raiders fan I always knew the Seahawks as the team that Bo Jackson completely owned. When Holmgren was hired I was completely shocked: someone who turned around a franchise like Green Bay was going to do the same with the Seahawks? This can't be! And it wasn't.

12
by Rob (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 8:59pm

Yeah, but coming from Eagles country, the indifference was a welcome change from Philly sports radio...

13
by Rob (not verified) :: Thu, 09/08/2005 - 9:01pm

re: #10

14
by Kevin Pelton (not verified) :: Fri, 09/09/2005 - 12:41am

Say what you want about Seattle, but at least we have an incredibly progressive media when it comes to this stuff.

15
by putnamp (not verified) :: Fri, 09/09/2005 - 1:24am

It's because they're feverishly looking for a glimmer of hope. Just like me.

Actually, to my knowledge, nobody knocks the city except forum trolls. It's just that nobody cares, either.

This isn't helped by the fact that it's in a corner of the nation most people don't even recognize. The Seahawks might as well play in Alaska.

16
by Theo (not verified) :: Fri, 09/09/2005 - 6:36am

I started to know football in the 1999 Kurt Warner landed his space pod on Earth (Turf).
Gus Frerotte played for the Lions and Owens bullied the 'Boys. It was that season.

I used to write a season pre-view for my friends, and when I came to the Seahawks, after explaining how good the Rams, and how bad the Bengals were, I literally wrote:

"the Seahawks:
sorry guys, I dont know a thing about how they play, how good they are or how good they're gonna be. I can find out for you what players are on this team but to be honest, you don't care. That's the Seahawks."

17
by James G (not verified) :: Fri, 09/09/2005 - 9:19am

I just moved from there and have a soft spot for the Seahawks - but it's true, no love or hatred for them. OTOH, I really didn't like Locke's radio show. I have liked a number of his PI articles, including this one, however.

18
by Billy Zoom (not verified) :: Fri, 09/09/2005 - 8:17pm

Holy Caramba! The first time I hit this site (thanks Locke) the Seahawkz
are a featured item.

Like a discussion group on an infomercial at 3:30 a.m.

Look, it is likely the Kingdome, and now Seahawks Stadium (nobody refers to it as Qwest Field), is built on a Native American graveyard.

Mediocrity has been pouring out of our pores as we have gone through the crash culture of poor, when what we need in the stadium is an explosion like Mt. St. Helens.

We have had poor owners (yeah, they could stack up money but not a football team), poor players (and plenty of them), and poor management...sometimes all three at one time.

Now the management is in transition with Tim Ruskell definitely taking control from Mike Holmgren who has shown to be swimming in water way over his head on any issues other than coaching the offense.

While nobody is jumping up and down on free agent acquisitions this area should be as good as last year (i.e. Seattle remains unaware of the concepts of a proven middle linebacker - but by going with an undersized rookie they at least have dumped the approach of rent-a-vet-mike for a year, then dump him ... and the thought of a stalwart pass rusher remains someone who leaves the game early to beat the traffic.

It could be that when you see the players on the sideline they won't all be sleepwalking or playing footsies this year as an attitude adjustment is the first goal of prez Ruskell.

I predict that this year the Seahawks will finish 10 and 6 or better or 6 and 10 or worse.

LatteLand thrives on mediocrity. But it appears the graveyard is still winning.

I'll wave to y'all from the Hawksnest in the rare tv appearances from Seattle.

The fact that NOBODY is picking the Hawks to win much (contrary to last year's Superbowl glamour girl pre-season pick) just means that in Seattle the tide might be coming in quickly.

Remember, foo foo coffeee still costs a lot more than gas!

19
by Rob (not verified) :: Sat, 09/10/2005 - 8:05pm

Hawks bashing aside, they do play in one of the purtiest cities in the country, IMO.

20
by putnamp (not verified) :: Mon, 09/12/2005 - 5:30am

True.

And while their run defense seemed passable this week, it's now their pass defense that appears to be the liability. Ken Lucas, please come back.

21
by Bryan (not verified) :: Tue, 07/04/2006 - 1:16am

I saw on another website:
'What is a Seahawk? I'm not sure, but I think it tastes like crow.'