Talk:Seattle Seahawks

Links added

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

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)

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

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! —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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

• You might want to all join the heated discussion at Talk:Super Bowl XL#Officiating controversy. where all the debate is taking place. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

This is not a place for general discussion on the Seahawks. Please leave comments to only those that are used as discussion on improving the article. If you read this article, you'll see that the logo was based more on the tribal art of the northwestern native tribes as opposed to a specific type of bird.HillChris1234 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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)
    • Franco Harris should also be on that list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.48.200 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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).

Fair use rationale for Image:Royal blue script.png

Image:Royal blue script.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

Why are fansite links deleted? We are the only team that does that. Shouldn't the biggest fansites be listed so people uh.....I dunno....Can find them? Some seem to use this to find info (some people, meaning MOST) shouldn't they at least see some of the best fansites so they can follow links there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.19.239 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL. Pats1 ^T/C 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Franco Harris

Wow, Franco is listed as one of the 4 HOF'ers. He didn't even play a full season as a Seahawk... That's kinda sad, really. User:lawrence142002 —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Carl Eller (1 washed up season at the end of a HOF career with the Vikings) and Warren Moon (2 seasons, 1 productive and the other injury riddled, at the tail end of a HOF career) either. Now that makes this even sadder! I heard that Joe Montana once took a dump at halftime during a game he played at the Kingdome, maybe you should put him on the Seahawks HOF list also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.45.40 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No one goes into the HOF as a "fill in team name here" they get a bust of their head and a plaque. If you want to be that way I suggest you read media guides of every NFL team. The Chargers have Johnny Unitas listed in the "former Chargers in the HOF", the Lambs list Joe Namath as well. This isn't baseball where you wear a hat on your plaque. You go into the HOF as a football player, not a memeber of a certain team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Upper template color change

I propose changing the primary color from navy blue to Seahawks blue, as I have matched the appropriate shade. I went ahead to change the other boxes. Here's the code: #335487. I originally matched the color for the Seattle Seahawks user box:

SEA	This user is a fan of the Seattle Seahawks

Please discusses your changes before implementing at WP:NFL, or talk to User:Chrisjnelson, who maintains the primary and secondary NFL color templates, which affect team and player userboxes. Pats1 ^T/C 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the primary color should be the lighter blue instead of navy. Here's the change I made to the template that got reverted:

The problem is, there seems to be no way of changing the color on the infobox at the very top of the page. Does anyone know how to change it?Richiekim (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As User:Pats1 alluded to in his comment, the colors of the team and player userboxes – and also the infoboxes – are controlled by several primary and secondary NFL color templates. Again, you may want to discuss your changes at WP:NFL, or talk to User:Chrisjnelson who maintains those color templates. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the team's primary color from dark navy to Seahawks blue and the secondary color from bright green to white, to address issues of readability in infoboxes. Feel free to discuss here.--Deejayk (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seattle's possible relocation to Los Angeles in the late 90s

I was hoping to read something about it on this page, does anybody have information on this as to why it didn't go through? Thank you. --Reezy (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As I recall they still had a lease. King County and Gary Locke sued to keep them in Seattle. The move wasn't approved by the other owners and the league threatened to fine him 500,000 a DAY. Behring wasn't ridiculously wealthy like Paul Allen and had suffered a lot for his choices. The Nordstroms had really gone out of their way to introduce Behring to the local community as well as the other NFL owners and connect him. When you consider all the major companies founded in and around the Puget Sound region that's something substantial. Behring squandered all that, to the point of costing Seattle a chance to host a superbowl in the 90s. Basically, it got to the point that moving the team to LA required money he didn't have. So the Seahawks were sold to Paul Allen. I could look on the intarwebs, but I'm betting I might actually have to go to a library to get a more complete version of events. That said LA can't/won't support a NFL team, the Raiders won a superbowl there and still left. So it was a stupid idea anyway.--Insancipitory (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Very informative and I actually learned something here, but this isn't a place for general discussion on the Hawks. I would love however, for this response to be cleaned up, cited and possibly included in the article.HillChris1234 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the name

The name of the sportsteams in Seattle have always related to either the native american history (seahawks, thunderbirds) or the relationship with Boeing (supersonics).

Although I may be wrong but I seem to remember that the name Seattle Seahawks was first used by one of the local Ice Hockey teams. It was not until later that it was used bij the football team.

83.160.198.125 JHvW (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seahawks' "alternate" uniform

Since I'm getting conflicting reports that the 'Hawks may not reveal these uniforms until the 2010 season, I think it is better that the 3rd lime green uniform is removed until the Seahawks release an official statement. Thank you. Johnny "Seoul" Factor 16:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Chris Berman from ESPN is reporting that the Seahawks will wear the green uniforms for the 2009 season. He stated this during the Week 3 predictions of his 2-Minute Drill portion of SportsCenter. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• And just think: Uni Watch had a role in this. Funky on Flames (user;talk;edits) 15:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• • UniWatch had ZERO role in this. The alternate uniform leaked out after the 2008 season and somehow UniWatch got a hold of it but thought it was fake. They went on to post the uniform as an April Fools Joke. Ironically, the uniform was 100% legit. The joke was on UniWatch afterall. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Info requested

I'm just trying to find out what the Seahawks did during the season when Qwest Field was being built and the Kingdome was gone. Did they go on a longer road trip or was Qwest built that fast? I haven't seen this info in the history article, or the kingdome or qwest articles. Redwolf24 (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The information, which was moved to here, states: "For the 2000-2001 seasons the Seahawks moved to Husky Stadium while their new stadium was being built." Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's right. 67.160.11.244 (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

SEAHAWKS FIRST APPEARANCE IN NFC NOT LISTED IN League/conference affiliations RIGHT HAND BOX

SEAHAWKS FIRST APPEARANCE IN NFC NOT LISTED IN League/conference affiliations RIGHT HAND BOX

I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS COULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT. IT IS DISCUSSED IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF:

The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West. This realignment was dictated by the league as part of the 1976 expansion plan, so that both expansion teams could play each other twice and every other NFL franchise once during their first two seasons.

WILL GO AHEAD AND FIX IT NOW. PLEASE DISCUSS WHY THIS WAS NOT CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.227 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

NEVER MIND GUYS. MY BAD. LOOKS LIKE IT WAS THERE, BUT WAS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER BUT BY CONFERENCE INSTEAD, WHICH MAKES IT TOUGH TO FOLLOW AND DETERMINE THE HISTORY OF THE TEAM. I WENT AHEAD AND LEFT MY CHANGES IN PLACE AND THE OPERATORS CAN GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THEM BACK IF NEED BE, BUT I RECOMMEND CHORNOLOGICAL ORDER, PLEASE! THANK YOU AND SORRY FOR MY ERROR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.227 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)