Arizona and Seattle

[ringless]

I understand, however the schedules even out over time. So Arizona in the last half when we inevitably drop some games should be able to use the same excuse without anything being said. Otherwise it will be a double standard.

6 Games in NFC West
4 Games AFC North
4 Games NFC North

2 Games against completely different teams. Philly/Dallas and Saints/Panthers

That's a completely different argument, i.e. a straw man.

The question posed is, what would the Seahawks' record be today if they had Arizona's schedule? What would Arizona's record be if they had Seattle's schedule? Do you truly believe Arizona would be No. 1 in the division right now under those circumstances?

IMO, the Seahawks would be no worse than 7-1 with Arizona's opening schedule, and Arizona would be no better than 4-4.

You are right that it will eventually balance out to an extent. Though Arizona plays Cincinnati, Minnesota, and Green Bay at home, I still think there is a good chance they lose those games.

I don't know if Arizona would be in first place but I don't think Seattle would be 7-1 either. Seattle doesn't look like the team from 2012-2014 when they had a top 5-10 offense to go with their defense. Arizona had better performances against Detroit, SF, Chi, with Stl being the exception. If you guys came to within 6" of losing to Detroit at home do you think you beat them on the Road? Do you Seattle beats the Cowboys if Romo plays, or do you think Romo could have accounted for 2 more points?

This is the first time in years I have felt like we can win in Seattle. Arizona is playing great, and Seattle has regressed in regards to offense. Going from a top 5-10 offense to a bottom 5 offense. Seeing what Detroit and Carolina were able to do in Seattle gives me hope. Seattle does perform better in big games, or against better opponents until proven otherwise so I guess this is AZ's shot. But if AZ comes in and wins in Seattle than I think it makes everything else moot in regards to this year unless you guys beat us at home and vice versa.

 

[idahawks]

What made you choose 10 as opposed to 11 or 9? I'll tell you. Its the same reason I choose to say Carson Palmer is 12-2 in his last 14 games.

Well, actually, your whole post seems like cherry picking, but this is just silly. Take 9 points or 11 points, the stat is still the same.

Not true at all. Seahawks streak of not losing by 10 or 9 becomes this season as opposed to 73 games. They lost to GB by 10. So it then becomes a few weeks. Huge difference. That's why I asked about why 11 points was chosen.

I said we both lost to good teams, and both beat the bad. DVOA shows that. Standings reflect it, etc. Neither of us has beaten anybody of note.

I said the Cardinals defense is severely overrated. That's not cherry picking and in fact my own opinion and I have felt this way since pre-season. We have Woodley and Freeney out there who are both in their 30s playing a kids game. I'm not fond of either one. Woodley has played around 200-250 snaps this season and accomplished nothing. We do not have the speed to contain Wilson at that position. Okafor will help, but how much

I also said that a good defense should beat a good offense and used some notable examples that actually favored Seattle. But I see that only certain things are being picked out of my posts. That's fine. I'm on a rivals board.

It's a divisional game as the above poster said and thats a great point. Trends, stats, etc can easily go out the window in that type of situation. There really is no clear advantage at this point at least to me.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

fly hawks fly is right. The point of the stat is to illustrate we have been competitive in games over a long period of time and have not been blown out in 3 years. 10 was chosen because it the most points we've lost by in 3 years. 9 was not chose because the span would only be a couple months, 11 could be chosen and the stat would still be true be would not extend the streak significantly. 10 was chosen because it has been our worse loss in 3 years and that's the point he was trying to make. And by the way its not like during that streak we lost a lot of games by 10 points which would make the stat misleading. We lost two games by 10 pts, we lost one game by 9 pts and that's because san diego kicked a meaningless field goal at the end of the game, the rest of the losses were by 7 pts or less. When looking at any streak over a long period of time this is the way anyone would choose the stat and its not cherry picking its common sense. You sound a little like my friend who is also a cards fan and didn't understand the concept of "control you own destiny". He seemed the think it was some psychological will to win and not a mathematical certainty.

 

[TwistedHusky]

This conversation about how the Cardinals just have an easy schedule and the Seahawks would have a better record but their schedule was just incredible would probably make more sense if we had not already escaped one loss to the Mighty Lions but for a bad call, and scratched to beat a Cowboys team that was on its 3rd string QB.

Not to say that AZ has faced a murder's row, since the Ravens and Browns are almost like getting a Bye this year. But then again, If we had played the Ravens, I could see our patented Prevent Offense (TM) keeping us from scoring in the 2nd half and the Ravens tossing a moonshot to march down the field in the 4th for the win. It isn't like we haven't seen stuff like that all year.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This conversation about how the Cardinals just have an easy schedule and the Seahawks would have a better record but their schedule was just incredible would probably make more sense if we had not already escaped one loss to the Mighty Lions but for a bad call, and scratched to beat a Cowboys team that was on its 3rd string QB.

Not to say that AZ has faced a murder's row, since the Ravens and Browns are almost like getting a Bye this year. But then again, If we had played the Ravens, I could see our patented Prevent Offense (TM) keeping us from scoring in the 2nd half and the Ravens tossing a moonshot to march down the field in the 4th for the win. It isn't like we haven't seen stuff like that all year.

Yeah other than the Packers on the road, it's not like we've had super tough schedule.

AZ is a good team, period. I think our D will continue to be stout, and keep the Cards to around 21.

So that begs the question, can our offense break out a little and put up 24-28 points? Idk, that's a tall order with how inconsistent and flat our offense has played 80% of the time so far this season.

 

[hawknation2015]

This conversation about how the Cardinals just have an easy schedule and the Seahawks would have a better record but their schedule was just incredible would probably make more sense if we had not already escaped one loss to the Mighty Lions but for a bad call, and scratched to beat a Cowboys team that was on its 3rd string QB.

Not to say that AZ has faced a murder's row, since the Ravens and Browns are almost like getting a Bye this year. But then again, If we had played the Ravens, I could see our patented Prevent Offense (TM) keeping us from scoring in the 2nd half and the Ravens tossing a moonshot to march down the field in the 4th for the win. It isn't like we haven't seen stuff like that all year.

Yeah other than the Packers on the road, it's not like we've had super tough schedule.

AZ is a good team, period. I think our D will continue to be stout, and keep the Cards to around 21.

So that begs the question, can our offense break out a little and put up 24-28 points? Idk, that's a tall order with how inconsistent and flat our offense has played 80% of the time so far this season.

Yeah, it's not like we played two other undefeated teams and the Rams on the road in the season opener.

:34853_doh:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This conversation about how the Cardinals just have an easy schedule and the Seahawks would have a better record but their schedule was just incredible would probably make more sense if we had not already escaped one loss to the Mighty Lions but for a bad call, and scratched to beat a Cowboys team that was on its 3rd string QB.

Not to say that AZ has faced a murder's row, since the Ravens and Browns are almost like getting a Bye this year. But then again, If we had played the Ravens, I could see our patented Prevent Offense (TM) keeping us from scoring in the 2nd half and the Ravens tossing a moonshot to march down the field in the 4th for the win. It isn't like we haven't seen stuff like that all year.

Yeah other than the Packers on the road, it's not like we've had super tough schedule.

AZ is a good team, period. I think our D will continue to be stout, and keep the Cards to around 21.

So that begs the question, can our offense break out a little and put up 24-28 points? Idk, that's a tall order with how inconsistent and flat our offense has played 80% of the time so far this season.

Yeah, it's not like we played two other undefeated teams and the Rams on the road in the season opener.

:34853_doh:

Right now most sites have us at the #10-#12 toughest schedule, no exactly earth shattering difficulty.

Remember this is what we did with the Carolina fans when they came in here, crapped on their easy schedule? Same thing you guys are doing with Arizona.

They're a flat out good team, so why get into the schedule pissing match? Is that just easier than getting into what really matters?

 

[Hawkpower]

I understand, however the schedules even out over time. So Arizona in the last half when we inevitably drop some games should be able to use the same excuse without anything being said. Otherwise it will be a double standard.

6 Games in NFC West
4 Games AFC North
4 Games NFC North

2 Games against completely different teams. Philly/Dallas and Saints/Panthers

That's a completely different argument, i.e. a straw man.

The question posed is, what would the Seahawks' record be today if they had Arizona's schedule? What would Arizona's record be if they had Seattle's schedule? Do you truly believe Arizona would be No. 1 in the division right now under those circumstances?

IMO, the Seahawks would be no worse than 7-1 with Arizona's opening schedule, and Arizona would be no better than 4-4.

You are right that it will eventually balance out to an extent. Though Arizona plays Cincinnati, Minnesota, and Green Bay at home, I still think there is a good chance they lose those games.

I don't know if Arizona would be in first place but I don't think Seattle would be 7-1 either. Seattle doesn't look like the team from 2012-2014 when they had a top 5-10 offense to go with their defense. Arizona had better performances against Detroit, SF, Chi, with Stl being the exception. If you guys came to within 6" of losing to Detroit at home do you think you beat them on the Road? Do you Seattle beats the Cowboys if Romo plays, or do you think Romo could have accounted for 2 more points?

This is the first time in years I have felt like we can win in Seattle. Arizona is playing great, and Seattle has regressed in regards to offense. Going from a top 5-10 offense to a bottom 5 offense. Seeing what Detroit and Carolina were able to do in Seattle gives me hope. Seattle does perform better in big games, or against better opponents until proven otherwise so I guess this is AZ's shot. But if AZ comes in and wins in Seattle than I think it makes everything else moot in regards to this year unless you guys beat us at home and vice versa.

If you are going to claim we were 6 inches from losing against detroit, then you have to acknowledge that we should have beat Cincinnati, Carolina, and St. Louis, along with (to a lesser extent due to only a one point lead late) Green Bay. Can't have it both ways.

True, we still blew those games, and late defensive collapses are concerning, but this is a team that DESPITE its offensive struggles, DESPITE its tough opening 8 games, could still easily be 7-1.

Your growing confidence over the week (you werent this confident in weeks prior) is based on too much unwarranted giddiness and overanalysis of the "stats" from the media, especially the Phoenix media. Seattle could still prove you and others right, however this team is still the NFC champ until proven otherwise. 2014 should teach all hawk opponents to keep their excitement in check and proceed with caution, at least for the time being.

 

[Hawkpower]

This conversation about how the Cardinals just have an easy schedule and the Seahawks would have a better record but their schedule was just incredible would probably make more sense if we had not already escaped one loss to the Mighty Lions but for a bad call, and scratched to beat a Cowboys team that was on its 3rd string QB.

Not to say that AZ has faced a murder's row, since the Ravens and Browns are almost like getting a Bye this year. But then again, If we had played the Ravens, I could see our patented Prevent Offense (TM) keeping us from scoring in the 2nd half and the Ravens tossing a moonshot to march down the field in the 4th for the win. It isn't like we haven't seen stuff like that all year.

Yeah other than the Packers on the road, it's not like we've had super tough schedule.

AZ is a good team, period. I think our D will continue to be stout, and keep the Cards to around 21.

So that begs the question, can our offense break out a little and put up 24-28 points? Idk, that's a tall order with how inconsistent and flat our offense has played 80% of the time so far this season.

Yeah, it's not like we played two other undefeated teams and the Rams on the road in the season opener.

:34853_doh:

Right now most sites have us at the #10-#12 toughest schedule, no exactly earth shattering difficulty.

Remember this is what we did with the Carolina fans when they came in here, crapped on their easy schedule? Same thing you guys are doing with Arizona.

They're a flat out good team, so why get into the schedule pissing match? Is that just easier than getting into what really matters?

Its not a pissing match so much as an equalizer for all of the "Arizona is a better team than Seattle" talk.

They may be, and the Cards are indeed good, but the evidence at hand is incomplete at this point considering the data we have. Record comparing is useless at this point considering how different the two schedules have been to date.

We will know much more in the very near future, won't we

 

[ringless]

Yes that's a fair statement ^

 

[xgeoff]

Let's face it, neither of these teams has proved anything this year. The Hawks could be undefeated right now with wins against good teams like the packers and panthers. And they should have won those games but didn't. The cardinals have beaten up on bad teams, like they should, while the Hawks have not. The results of this game will be a reality check for the losing team. We'll see...

 

[Hawkpower]

Let's face it, neither of these teams has proved anything this year. The Hawks could be undefeated right now with wins against good teams like the packers and panthers. And they should have won those games but didn't. The cardinals have beaten up on bad teams, like they should, while the Hawks have not. The results of this game will be a reality check for the losing team. We'll see...

Good points.

As to the "The Cardinals have beaten up the bad teams" mantra.....true, and good for them, but that's hardly a talking point when Seattle is involved as your comparison.

Seattle rarely blows teams out, (although they did blow out the Bears) they just don't play that kind of game. We had this same conversation last year too...and the year before that......

As back to back Superbowl appearances have shown, it doesn't matter.

Style points may matter to Arians, but Pete just wants to win and get out, no matter how ugly it may look.

 

[hawknation2015]

This conversation about how the Cardinals just have an easy schedule and the Seahawks would have a better record but their schedule was just incredible would probably make more sense if we had not already escaped one loss to the Mighty Lions but for a bad call, and scratched to beat a Cowboys team that was on its 3rd string QB.

Not to say that AZ has faced a murder's row, since the Ravens and Browns are almost like getting a Bye this year. But then again, If we had played the Ravens, I could see our patented Prevent Offense (TM) keeping us from scoring in the 2nd half and the Ravens tossing a moonshot to march down the field in the 4th for the win. It isn't like we haven't seen stuff like that all year.

Yeah other than the Packers on the road, it's not like we've had super tough schedule.

AZ is a good team, period. I think our D will continue to be stout, and keep the Cards to around 21.

So that begs the question, can our offense break out a little and put up 24-28 points? Idk, that's a tall order with how inconsistent and flat our offense has played 80% of the time so far this season.

Yeah, it's not like we played two other undefeated teams and the Rams on the road in the season opener.

:34853_doh:

Right now most sites have us at the #10-#12 toughest schedule, no exactly earth shattering difficulty.

Looking at the combined record of opponents tells you almost nothing about how "tough" a schedule is. What I look at is, how many quality opponents have they faced? Arizona has played NONE. They have played exactly one team with a winning record, but that was a Steelers team led by an injured Mike Vick and Landry Jones -- a game they lost decidedly by 12 points.

The Seahawks have four close loses to teams that are .500 or better, including two 8-0 teams, in addition to at Lambeau Field for the second consecutive road game to open the season, two sets of back to back road games in total, and at undefeated Cincinnati on a short week. That is as "tough" as it gets.

 

[12thbrah]

Seattle lost decent 4th quarter leads in all of those losses.

 

[ringless]

Looking at the combined record of opponents tells you almost nothing about how "tough" a schedule is. What I look at is, how many quality opponents have they faced? Arizona has played NONE. They have played exactly one team with a winning record, but that was a Steelers team led by an injured Mike Vick and Landry Jones -- a game they lost decidedly by 12 points.

The Seahawks have four close loses to teams that are .500 or better, including two 8-0 teams, in addition to at Lambeau Field for the second consecutive road game to open the season, two sets of back to back road games in total, and at undefeated Cincinnati on a short week. That is as "tough" as it gets.You don't think how you win matters? AZ blowing out the games in common in comparison doesnt account for anything?

And what does it say about Seattle than if Seattle can't beat the good teams? Then struggle against the bad (Detroit, Dallas without Romo) If A+B= C

It's really not clear cut yet for either team. I think we are still lacking the other half of the equation (last 8 games)

 

[hawknation2015]

Looking at the combined record of opponents tells you almost nothing about how "tough" a schedule is. What I look at is, how many quality opponents have they faced? Arizona has played NONE. They have played exactly one team with a winning record, but that was a Steelers team led by an injured Mike Vick and Landry Jones -- a game they lost decidedly by 12 points.

The Seahawks have four close loses to teams that are .500 or better, including two 8-0 teams, in addition to at Lambeau Field for the second consecutive road game to open the season, two sets of back to back road games in total, and at undefeated Cincinnati on a short week. That is as "tough" as it gets.You don't think how you win matters? AZ blowing out the games in common in comparison doesnt account for anything?

And what does it say about Seattle than if Seattle can't beat the good teams? Then struggle against the bad (Detroit, Dallas without Romo) If A+B= C

It's really not clear cut yet for either team. I think we are still lacking the other half of the equation (last 8 games)

All I am talking about above is the quality of competition, i.e. Arizona has not faced anyone of real quality. If they had played the Seahawks' schedule, they would be 4-4 or worse. That has more to do with the difficulty of the Seahawks' opening schedule that it does with Arizona's strength.

 

[Uncle Si]

It's really not clear cut yet for either team. I think we are still lacking the other half of the equation (last 8 games)

You started the thread, but discount any and all commentary on it with the same logic. The whole thing is an exercise in futility if all points will simply be negated by "but we really won't know until its over."

No kidding? Then why have the conversation?

 

[bigtrain21]

The Seahawks and Cardinals have played 4 common opponents. They are both 3-1 against those teams.

The 4 uncommon games are where the schedule really differs. The 4 teams the Cardinals have played that the Seahawks haven't are 13-22. The 4 teams the Seahawks have played that the Cardinals haven't are 24-8 including 2 of the remaining 8-0 teams. The Seahawks 4 uncommon opponents have 24 wins in 32 games and the Cardinals entire schedule of opponents has 23 wins in 67 games.

 

[ringless]

It's really not clear cut yet for either team. I think we are still lacking the other half of the equation (last 8 games)

You started the thread, but discount any and all commentary on it with the same logic. The whole thing is an exercise in futility if all points will simply be negated by "but we really won't know until its over."

No kidding? Then why have the conversation?

NM

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

........our patented Prevent Offense (TM)............

:th2thumbs: I may use that myself but promise if I do you'll get full credit. Funny if it weren't so sad but true.

 

[Hawkpower]

Looking at the combined record of opponents tells you almost nothing about how "tough" a schedule is. What I look at is, how many quality opponents have they faced? Arizona has played NONE. They have played exactly one team with a winning record, but that was a Steelers team led by an injured Mike Vick and Landry Jones -- a game they lost decidedly by 12 points.

The Seahawks have four close loses to teams that are .500 or better, including two 8-0 teams, in addition to at Lambeau Field for the second consecutive road game to open the season, two sets of back to back road games in total, and at undefeated Cincinnati on a short week. That is as "tough" as it gets.You don't think how you win matters? AZ blowing out the games in common in comparison doesnt account for anything?

And what does it say about Seattle than if Seattle can't beat the good teams? Then struggle against the bad (Detroit, Dallas without Romo) If A+B= C

It's really not clear cut yet for either team. I think we are still lacking the other half of the equation (last 8 games)

What did those struggles "say about Seattle" last year? We barely beat Oakland. Struggled with the niners. Nearly lost to Carolina, back before Carolina got good. Struggled horribly against Tampa the year before that, down big at halftime.

No its nice that AZ blew those teams out. Shows that Arians values that kind of thing.

It just doesn't mean that Seattle is less of a team because they don't. The hawks didn't really blow out teams, good or bad. Pete is too conservative, and quite frankly, with our defense, we don't usually have to. Back to back SuperBowls despite all of our close games validate this.

So in other words, looking at common scores and deducing that AZ is the better team because they "won by more" is fools gold.