Sorry, Seattle, dynasty not in forecast


By Clark Judge

Talk of Fame Network

 

Say it ain’t so, Joe … because it isn’t.

Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Montana made headlines last month when he said the Seattle Seahawks — the defending Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks — may be the next dynasty, and people paid attention because A) It’s Joe Montana, B) he knows something about Super Bowls and C) there really are no such things as dynasties anymore … unless, of course, you count the Robertsons on A&E.

Which is why what Montana said … well, it just ain’t so.

Yes, the Seahawks are — as Montana pointed out — young, talented and coached by someone who is “aggressive and upbeat,” and that’s great. But Joe seems to have forgotten that while the Seahawks pulverized Denver in Super Bowl XLVIII, they barely escaped San Francisco in the NFC championship game and survived a fourth-quarter rally the preceding week vs. New Orleans. In fact, oddsmakers were so unimpressed they made Denver a three-point favorite in Super Bowl XLVIII, and we know what happened there.

But one blowout doesn’t make a dynasty. San Francisco crushed Denver in Super Bowl XXIV but lost to the Giants in the conference championship game the following year. The 49ers torched San Diego in Super Bowl XXIX, and that club didn’t win a playoff game in 1995. The New York Giants felt so good about themselves after upsetting New England in Super Bowl XLVI they started talking Big D at their 2012 training camp.

“Our thing now,” defensive end Justin Tuck said then, “is that we want to make it a dynasty.”

Terrific. It’s a free country. Only they didn’t make the playoffs.

I think you get the idea. History is against the Seahawks. The last time a Super Bowl champion repeated was 2004 when New England won its third NFL title in four years. That’s as close to a dynasty as anything we’ve seen this millennium, and if you don’t believe me look at how many teams reached consecutive Super Bowls the past 19 years. Try two — New England and Denver — with none in the past nine seasons.

Bottom line: Dynasties are deader than the San Diego Padres’ bats, and you don’t have to look far for an explanation. With the advent of free agency the ability of clubs to stockpile talent diminished. Where the 49ers had Joe Montana, Steve Young and Steve Bono as quarterbacks for their 1989 Super Bowl team, Seattle had Russell Wilson and Tarvaris Jackson last season. The 49ers could produce a run of 16 straight seasons with 10 or more victories because they had more talent — particularly at the most important position — than their opponents.

But once Montana, Young and Jerry Rice were gone, so were the dynasties.

I know, the Seahawks could be different. The Browns could win the Super Bowl, too. I’m just saying there’s a better chance it snows in Dallas next week than Seattle launching a dynasty. I mean, look what happened to Green Bay three years ago. The Packers won Super Bowl XLV, had the best young quarterback anywhere and a core of such superb young players that they were designated a dynasty waiting happen.

Except it never happened.

Yes, they went 15-1 the following season and were the best team in the NFL, but they didn’t win a playoff game. And while they reached the playoffs each of the next three seasons they’re 1-3 there … which doesn’t exactly qualify as a dynasty.

Joe Montana was right when he pointed out everything Seattle has going for it, but he forgot to mention what it doesn’t: History. There are too many trap doors out there to make talk of dynasties meaningful, so let’s just call the Seahawks what they are.

The defending Super Bowl champs. Period.

Follow Clark Judge on Twitter at @clarkjudgeTOF

 

Century-Link-Field-Seahawks

Previous Forgotten in the Crush of Statistics
Next Tom's the Man

6 Comments

  1. MRizvi
    July 15, 2014
    Reply

    “But one blowout doesn’t make a dynasty. San Francisco crushed Denver in Super Bowl XXIV and didn’t make it to the playoffs the following season.”

    yes, they did. they were gunning for a 3peat. they missed the playoffs in 1991 when Young was hurt.

    • July 15, 2014
      Reply

      You are correct, sir. You get to edit the next story.

  2. […] Read Complete Article […]

  3. Anund
    July 20, 2014
    Reply

    Hello Sir,

    I’m glad to be reading your articles again. Was a big fan of yours when Pete Prisco and you used to “wrestle it out” week in, week out, on the NFL, be it draft, training camps, trades and the NFL season (pre-season and all).

    Keep up the great job.

  4. Dave Goldberg
    July 30, 2014
    Reply

    The problem is ESPN, which, unfortunately, sets the agenda for a lot of the major sports media. I covered the NFL for 25 years for the AP and for the last 15, the TV set in our office was tuned 24/7 to ESPN. I can’t count the times I was told “ESPN says ….” “So do I,” I replied. “I just haven’t written it because it isn’t news.”

    Thus with the Seattle “dynasty.” ESPN decided there will be one, thus there will be one until there isn’t, which is when they start losing players after paying the best. They’ve already started (Lynch’s holdout/unhappiness) and Wilson’s contract will force the issue. But if ESPN says it (I think I heard them used the number “six” when talking about Seahawks SBs) Good luck folks.

    • August 3, 2014
      Reply

      Object today, Dave, seems to be to provoke as much as it is to inform. Miss talking to you before and after games. Keep writing us. Love to get your take on subjects.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.