'86 Seahawks

[74_75_78_79_]

Some here have put them in high-esteem. Thinking about it a bit recently, I'm not so sure. You still have to 'count' those four-consecutive defeats that dropped them to 5-6 (final three of those losses each being lopsided).

Yes, they beat the Giants early on. Indeed its a quality-win, but against a team that barely avoided getting swept by a just 'good'/soon-to-be-bad Dallas team. G-men were pretty good at that point, but not yet the steamrolling championship-caliber team they'd become down the stretch. They play each other later in the season, even during Seattle's closing 5-0 run, Giants very likely win it and especially the case if they actually met in the Super Bowl itself. Couldn't see Knox/Krieg outdoing Parcells/Simms on the biggest of stages, especially against that Giants' D.

And as for that 5-0 finish, yes better than Chicago's finish, but not the greatest of competition either. First they beat a bad Eagles team in Buddy's first year there. Then go back-to-back against now-bad/freefalling Dallas and Raider teams, San Diego was real bad, and Denver already had their division wrapped-up going into the final week.

A good team, I think they were better than KC who did get in, but I like to think that those four-straight defeats are hard to ignore.

[CSKreager]

They weren’t even the best 10-6 AFC team to miss the 1986 playoffs. How easily we forget Cincinnati, who not only beat Seattle (34-7!) but had a better resume of wins

In December alone they beat the Patriots and Jets- who unlike Denver did NOT have their division wrapped up- not to mention earlier wins against Minnesota and Cleveland

If you remember that MNF Orange Bowl finale between NE/MIA, the Seahawks were NOT the team watching that game with a playoff spot hanging in the balance….. it was Cincinnati

If you’re going to mention Seattle’s 4 game skid, the Bengals never lost consecutive games that year

(On the flip side, they had inexplicable losses to the 10+ loss Oilers/Steelers while none of Seattle’s losses were to teams below .500)

[7DnBrnc53]

(On the flip side, they had inexplicable losses to the 10+ loss Oilers/Steelers while none of Seattle’s losses were to teams below .500)

That year, I thought the Oilers were on the up and up (after they massacred GB in Week 1), but their turnaround would have to wait a year. As for their 30-9 loss to the Steelers (in week 8), that was a surprise, but the Steelers were coming off of a 34-0 blowout loss at home to the Pats, so they were probably way more ready to play.

That win led to a 5-4 finish in the Steel City. And, those four losses were all by seven points or less (including two straight OT losses @Cleveland and @Chicago, the defending champs).

[CSKreager]

(On the flip side, they had inexplicable losses to the 10+ loss Oilers/Steelers while none of Seattle’s losses were to teams below .500)

That year, I thought the Oilers were on the up and up (after they massacred GB in Week 1), but their turnaround would have to wait a year. As for their 30-9 loss to the Steelers (in week 8), that was a surprise, but the Steelers were coming off of a 34-0 blowout loss at home to the Pats, so they were probably way more ready to play.

That win led to a 5-4 finish in the Steel City. And, those four losses were all by seven points or less (including two straight OT losses @Cleveland and @Chicago, the defending champs).

One of them they outgained KC like crazy but lost thanks to a special teams Chernobyl