SacHawk2.0":3g79mst5 said:http://badmanbureau.com/2014/08/04/the-seahawks-arent-just-gunning-for-a-repeat-theyre-on-the-heels-of-a-much-rarer-three-peat/
Anthony!":1tlg9b6e said:SacHawk2.0":1tlg9b6e said:http://badmanbureau.com/2014/08/04/the-seahawks-arent-just-gunning-for-a-repeat-theyre-on-the-heels-of-a-much-rarer-three-peat/
Interesting however as usual there is some falsehoods in the write up. Specifically our offensive starting position which was 3rd in the league at 31.28 however the worst in the league was 25.35 not even a 6 yard difference and not that big a deal really. As a comparison Sf was 2nd at 31.56, GB was 15th at 27.83 barely 3 yards. Denver was 17th at 27.70 again a little over 3 yards difference. Some how I doubt that 3 yards makes that big a difference. The whole starting field position excuse is crap.
First, a 6-yard difference is an enormous deal. Second, the article is actually agreeing with you that the offense was good despite the great field position they were given. And finally, you didn't actually point out any falsehoods in the article.Anthony!":29e36wu8 said:SacHawk2.0":29e36wu8 said:http://badmanbureau.com/2014/08/04/the-seahawks-arent-just-gunning-for-a-repeat-theyre-on-the-heels-of-a-much-rarer-three-peat/
Interesting however as usual there is some falsehoods in the write up. Specifically our offensive starting position which was 3rd in the league at 31.28 however the worst in the league was 25.35 not even a 6 yard difference and not that big a deal really. As a comparison Sf was 2nd at 31.56, GB was 15th at 27.83 barely 3 yards. Denver was 17th at 27.70 again a little over 3 yards difference. Some how I doubt that 3 yards makes that big a difference. The whole starting field position excuse is crap.
Anthony!":iuegcjlp said:SacHawk2.0":iuegcjlp said:http://badmanbureau.com/2014/08/04/the-seahawks-arent-just-gunning-for-a-repeat-theyre-on-the-heels-of-a-much-rarer-three-peat/
Interesting however as usual there is some falsehoods in the write up. Specifically our offensive starting position which was 3rd in the league at 31.28 however the worst in the league was 25.35 not even a 6 yard difference and not that big a deal really. As a comparison Sf was 2nd at 31.56, GB was 15th at 27.83 barely 3 yards. Denver was 17th at 27.70 again a little over 3 yards difference. Some how I doubt that 3 yards makes that big a difference. The whole starting field position excuse is crap.
LawlessHawk":2327cz04 said:It's a game of inches...
Perfundle":3j3fbosk said:First, a 6-yard difference is an enormous deal. Second, the article is actually agreeing with you that the offense was good despite the great field position they were given. And finally, you didn't actually point out any falsehoods in the article.Anthony!":3j3fbosk said:SacHawk2.0":3j3fbosk said:http://badmanbureau.com/2014/08/04/the-seahawks-arent-just-gunning-for-a-repeat-theyre-on-the-heels-of-a-much-rarer-three-peat/
Interesting however as usual there is some falsehoods in the write up. Specifically our offensive starting position which was 3rd in the league at 31.28 however the worst in the league was 25.35 not even a 6 yard difference and not that big a deal really. As a comparison Sf was 2nd at 31.56, GB was 15th at 27.83 barely 3 yards. Denver was 17th at 27.70 again a little over 3 yards difference. Some how I doubt that 3 yards makes that big a difference. The whole starting field position excuse is crap.
Anthony!":l37mk1q5 said:Perfundle":l37mk1q5 said:First, a 6-yard difference is an enormous deal. Second, the article is actually agreeing with you that the offense was good despite the great field position they were given. And finally, you didn't actually point out any falsehoods in the article.Anthony!":l37mk1q5 said:SacHawk2.0":l37mk1q5 said:http://badmanbureau.com/2014/08/04/the-seahawks-arent-just-gunning-for-a-repeat-theyre-on-the-heels-of-a-much-rarer-three-peat/
Interesting however as usual there is some falsehoods in the write up. Specifically our offensive starting position which was 3rd in the league at 31.28 however the worst in the league was 25.35 not even a 6 yard difference and not that big a deal really. As a comparison Sf was 2nd at 31.56, GB was 15th at 27.83 barely 3 yards. Denver was 17th at 27.70 again a little over 3 yards difference. Some how I doubt that 3 yards makes that big a difference. The whole starting field position excuse is crap.
In the big scheme of things 6 yards is not the huge advantage that some make it out to be and again the difference between the better teams and us is barely 3 yards., again not that big of a difference and if it was the big a deal than SF would have made the SB last year, and KC was first over 1.5 yards better than us. So while I get the whole game of inches in the big scheme of things 6 yards on avg over the course of the season is not much, especially when we are talking about starting field position. As to the falsehoods I did indeed misread that part.
So only stats that have the Super Bowl number one are worthy of attention? Field position is simply one part of what needs to be considered when comparing teams. It's an underrated part, because most people just look at offensive and defensive stats, but no one said it was the be-all and end-all.Anthony!":oc8k5s20 said:In the big scheme of things 6 yards is not the huge advantage that some make it out to be and again the difference between the better teams and us is barely 3 yards., again not that big of a difference and if it was the big a deal than SF would have made the SB last year, and KC was first over 1.5 yards better than us. So while I get the whole game of inches in the big scheme of things 6 yards on avg over the course of the season is not much, especially when we are talking about starting field position. As to the falsehoods I did indeed misread that part.
Perfundle":2niy8hpq said:So only stats that have the Super Bowl number one are worthy of attention? Field position is simply one part of what needs to be considered when comparing teams. It's an underrated part, because most people just look at offensive and defensive stats, but no one said it was the be-all and end-all.Anthony!":2niy8hpq said:In the big scheme of things 6 yards is not the huge advantage that some make it out to be and again the difference between the better teams and us is barely 3 yards., again not that big of a difference and if it was the big a deal than SF would have made the SB last year, and KC was first over 1.5 yards better than us. So while I get the whole game of inches in the big scheme of things 6 yards on avg over the course of the season is not much, especially when we are talking about starting field position. As to the falsehoods I did indeed misread that part.
What does your data say about how we were affected by our starting field position?Anthony!":2sd404od said:Perfundle":2sd404od said:So only stats that have the Super Bowl number one are worthy of attention? Field position is simply one part of what needs to be considered when comparing teams. It's an underrated part, because most people just look at offensive and defensive stats, but no one said it was the be-all and end-all.Anthony!":2sd404od said:In the big scheme of things 6 yards is not the huge advantage that some make it out to be and again the difference between the better teams and us is barely 3 yards., again not that big of a difference and if it was the big a deal than SF would have made the SB last year, and KC was first over 1.5 yards better than us. So while I get the whole game of inches in the big scheme of things 6 yards on avg over the course of the season is not much, especially when we are talking about starting field position. As to the falsehoods I did indeed misread that part.
HUh? I never said that all I said was that it was over rated and in the big scheme of things 6 yards is not that big a deal. Starting form the 30 as opposed to the 36 is not that big a deal. Sorry and again if you look at most of the top teams, ie in the playoffs the difference is barely 3. Most make it sound like we are always starting from the 40 while everyone else is starting form the 20, it is not true. Add tot hat they equate this supposed advantage to the Defense when in fact the special teams also has a lot to do with it. To me it is an excuse that some use to down play our offense and it is crap the difference is not big enough to even be an excuse.
kearly":kkuayxs7 said:Last year the median yards per drive for NFL teams was 28. Seattle was at 30 if we round to the nearest integer. Denver was at 38.
The worst offense and the best offense in the NFL by yards per drive are only separated by 14 yards per drive, and the worst team is only separated from the NFL median by 4 yards.
Considering these numbers, it's easy to see how a small number like 6 yards per drive from special teams is actually pretty significant. A net 6 yard advantage in this category would be enough to boost a terrible offense over the NFL median for overall effectiveness, and it would be enough for a barely above median level team like Seattle to sniff the Broncos.
It also helps explain why Seattle has been significantly better at scoring vs. yardage over the last few seasons.
You misunderstand how a 6-yard difference can come about. It's not because the offense has exactly 6 yards more field position on every drive. It's because the offense has roughly the same field position on most of their drives but incredibly good field position on some of them because of turnovers, of which Seattle forced the most, and long punt returns.Anthony!":10924gvk said:HUh? I never said that all I said was that it was over rated and in the big scheme of things 6 yards is not that big a deal.
Not one single person is doing that. Try again.Most make it sound like we are always starting from the 40 while everyone else is starting form the 20, it is not true.
Again, who has been saying that? I don't see anyone saying that. Stop punching at strawmen.To me it is an excuse that some use to down play our offense and it is crap the difference is not big enough to even be an excuse.