For a moment there you literally convinced me that the Redskins beat the Seahawks in Washington, and that I would have some work to do to explain why the Seahawks weren't overrated...
But then I remembered that the fucking Seahawks won by 10, holding the Redskins to 0 points in all 3 quarters following the first and 202 total yards of Offense. I remembered that they went to Atlanta after that and lost to the Falcons, not making the NFC championship, in literally the last 30 seconds of the game. I also remembered PFF did not have the Seahawks as the best team in Football, they had the 49ers, Patriots, and Broncos as the far and away top dogs. And even then I remembered PFF isn't in the business of rating teams, but rating individual players, and the "highest rated teams" are really just raw aggregates of the players that they have, and nothing else (A team with 5 very good players and average everywhere else is not a good team, but will be rated highly by the nature fo PFF's individual bias to the rating).
And news flash for you: Putting him higher in the top 101 of 2012 means they think he was better in 2012 (Which you honestly could've picked either Russell Wilson or RGIII and had a solid argument for why they were better). The good thing about PFF's position is they're looking with hindsight, they aren't trying to predict who is ultimately going to be better, just who they think was better this season. They also don't look at "Who is better head to head" as meaning anything significant in the long run ("RGIII on one leg was beating the Seattle Defense for one quarter, clearly they aren't as good as everyone thinks because of this one quarter").
PLEASE NOTE: I'm not even necessarily saying that I agree with PFF that Russell Wilson was better than RGIII so I won't get into this "Which is better debate", I'm disagreeing with you saying that the Seahawks were vastly overrated by PFF because they're "homers".
