Talk:Seattle Seahawks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Links added

Contraversy Johnny-Who? <superscript>Johnny-B</superscript> 05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Round Bye

Should someone add that the Seahawks have clinched a first round bye in the playoffs this season? -alakazam9891

Good idea, but I was going to wait to see how the Bears faired before adding it. A Chicago loss gives the Seahawks home field throughout the playoffs. -Coz

Sad to say (for me at least), the Bears won so for now the Seahawks have clinched just a first round bye. -alakazam9891

Uhh, at the risk of raining on somebody's game, who cares? It's news, maybe, but not fit for an encyclopedia. Perspective!

Something else maybe not fit for an encyclopedia: Seahawks Stad features Ivar's chowder. Trekphiler 11:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It actually does fit in the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to keep track of events, and this happens to be an event. -alakazam9891

[edit] More detailed information for playoffs

What do you all think about being more detailed on each years playoff run by instead of just saying who the last team they played was, have each round's opponent and whether they won or lost.-crd721

I like this idea but it would probably have to be done on every team's page. Not that I'm against that, just saying it would have to be done. KramarDanIkabu 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That is true and im wondering how we can ask people to make those changes for all 32 teams' pages.

I think it should be noted that this Seahawk team not only received a first round bye, but also had the leading rusher, leading scorer and the MVP of the entire league along with having four starters on the NFC offense in the Pro Bowl-has to be a first! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.121.15 (talk • contribs).

All of those are mentioned in the section The 2005 Season. KramarDanIkabu 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture help Zzyzx11, I was appearently too retarded to figure that out. --Insancipitory 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Super Bowl appearance revision

Given their recent (awesome!) win, the following needs to be heavily revised if not removed entirely: "Prior to their appearance in Super Bowl XL, the Seahawks were one of seven franchises, along with New Orleans, Jacksonville, Arizona, Cleveland, Detroit and Houston, to have never played in a Super Bowl. Their 1976 expansion partners, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, won Super Bowl XXXVII in 2003." Now that they're (finally) going I think mention of the franchise-long drought until this season is in order, but mentioning the quantity and names of the other teams w/o appearances seems out of place now that they're officially off that list, despite Super Bowl XL having yet to take place (it'd take something catastrophic to change the fact they are going.) Dannybu2001 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Go Seahawks!Cdn92 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note on the "all" issue: It is correct to use the term "all" because ALL the calls that WERE made that are the subject of controversy went against the Seahawks. The example of the Stevens fumble is flawed because it does a "what if" other things had happened rather then what actually did happen and how it was supposed to be handled.

He is what DID happen: - Stevens catches ball - Stevens makes a "football move" turning up field. - Stevens fumbles ball - Official whistles play dead - Ball rolls out of bounds

Where the system failed was that there should have been a review of the play because of the question if it was a fumble or not. If there was not then the play was called correctly. If there was then you have to take the rest of what DID happen to determine how you handle spotting the ball. Since the official blew the whistle while the ball was loose (thinking it was an incomplete pass) that makes it an inadvertant whistle. This means that the team last in possesion (the Seahawks) have two options. They can take the result of the play at the point where the whistle was blown or they can replay the down. Since the ball was loose at the whistle it must be spotted at the point last in player possession before the whistle was blown. In this case it would be the point where Stevens fumbled it making it Seahawks ball and a first down since he was past the line to gain.

This error in game management went against the Seahawks. We can go on all day about what MIGHT have happened had the whistle not been blown, or if the ball had bounced differently, etc, but that isn't in the scope of controversial calls. -- Coz

[edit] Seahawks Roster (Rookies?)

Silly question, but when do you all think players aren't considered rookies anymore? Just looking at the player list and the players still listed as rookies. Maybe after the draft? First game? A very important matter indeed :) Headquarters 08:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like the list has not been updated since the Super Bowl, and probably will not until the first game :) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Updated July 16th, 2006. Obviously it'll be pared down as the season approaches. There are a number of formatting things that perhaps could be discussed. Template_talk:Seattle_Seahawks_roster.--Insancipitory 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Something to consider with the Roster template. How do people feel about adding the number of years a veteran has been playing, or R for rookies after a player's name? Gets rid of the asterisk, adds more information, of some merit, on everyone. When I do the next update, probably the 53 man roster, I was thinking about adding that. Height and weight could also be added. --Insancipitory 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures: I've loaded a fair number of pictures from the August 5th, Seahawks team scrimmage in Cheney into the commons. [1] I've done my best to sort out the categorization, but alas I suck. So if something looks like a retard did it, well that's my excuse. I've got perhaps 40 more pictures to load in, hopefully some solid shots of faces from the autograph signing chute. Then I'll begin the slow process of cropping them down, making them more specific and adding them to the appropriate player stubs and articles. Should anyone else find them useful, for anything, the link is above. --Insancipitory 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged for NPOV

While there is debate regarding the number of bad calls there is little disagreement they greatly impacted the outcome of the game. Is someone really going to try to claim that this meets neutrality standards? -- Northenglish 01:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the numerous discussions on Talk:Super Bowl XL. The Super Bowl XL article has had the same POV problems, and currently may not comply with all of the neutrality standards. Your best bet is to pad the section with cited sources. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"While there is debate regarding the number of bad calls there is little disagreement they greatly impacted the outcome of the game." -- This is pure conjecture. The level of disagreement can not be discrenably attained without scientific polling. In addition, during a football game, there are many variables that can affect the outcome of the game. While one could argue that calls may or may not have had an impact on the outcome of the game, one can not certainly know if for instance the Steelers score a touchdown on an ensuing kickoff. The quoted statement clearly is not neutral, or can at the least, be interpretted as lacking neutrality. This should be arbitrated by an admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.207.84 (talk • contribs) .

  • I just rewrote the entire section by basically restating some of the cited content currently on Super Bowl XL. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condensing 2005 Season Summary, adding a Greatest Seahawks Teams/Seasons or 2005 page

The 2005 season is taking up a lot of space, and it's time to start writing about 2006. Odd nuggets like the "poison pill", Chris Berman throwing a flag when the Seahawks made their first pick of the draft, and the games to be played deserve their room too. Folding a lot of the detail into a Greatest Seasons (1983 & 1984 too) page, or just into a 2005 page, with perhaps even more detail, makes sense at this point. --Insancipitory 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • what's the status of the 2005 page? i added some edits to the offseason part of the 2005 section but it could still use a lot of work, imo.--Tschroeder 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The 2005 page is made, go to the link under 2005 to help write and fix it.

[edit] Logo

It is claimed on the Osprey page that the logo represents that species of bird. I know that logos are highly stylised, but to me it looks like a Bald Eagle or a large hawk. Anyone know? jimfbleak 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seahawk is another word for Osprey. Seahawk at Seattle Audubon. --Insancipitory 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks, jimfbleak 13:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


  • WRT The logo and uniforms update Aug 12th, 2006.

The neon green jersey was an alternate Shaun Alexander jersey for fans (which I think might have been from 2004). There was also a Trufant Shadow jersey with colorshift numbers (I've seen them for other teams too). And in '99 the Seahawks had a silver "heavy metal" alternate jersey, again for fans, that I myself have. Incidentally, it's about the coolest thing I own, better than my HD tv. Never fails to draw comments and compliments.--Insancipitory 22:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other notable alumni

  • who's responsible for putting that list together? lamar king but no cortez kennedy? willie williams but no eugene robinson? jim jodat???--Tschroeder 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • notable alumni has been cleaned up some, could still use some work to remove some marginal players and some guys need pages created. --Tschroeder 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China Bowl

Should the fact that the Hawks are playing in the China Bowl be added to the page? An for that matter the Patriots... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.35.207 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/a/Talk%7ESeattle_Seahawks_95a4.html"