Stick a fork in the Seahawks, they're done

RW92

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
I just hope that the front office puts principle aside and realizes that you must have your best talent on the field to win. Right now that isn't apparent without #31. But if principle takes precedence over winning then our year will be mediocre at best with no playoff appearance let alone a return to the Super Bowl . We our now in a must win situation these next two weeks. Lose one and the pressure will become even greater.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,974
Reaction score
0
The headline of the article was a lot more sensationalist than the content. Seems like an attempt to grab attention for a low traffic blog, IMO.
 

johnnyfever

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
91
Location
Spokane
In 4 weeks we will be 4-2, at worst 3-3. How many teams make the superb owl with those #'s. I know there was one last year...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kearly":ljs3spbk said:
The headline of the article was a lot more sensationalist than the content. Seems like an attempt to grab attention for a low traffic blog, IMO.

FWIW, I got that too.

Stuff like this gets Vegas all in a tussle. Stats vs. historicals vs. probabilities...

It was a particularly tough road game and I'm glad we came home relatively unscathed. Personally, I fully expected the 0-2 and am really not freaking out about it at all.

Too much time left.
 

RW92

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
One last note about starting 0-2 and the percentage of those teams that didn't go to the playoffs or the Super Bowl. Of those teams how many had their first two games away? I always said that if you can go undefeated at home (8 Wins), and .500 on the road, that makes for a 12-4 season.

O.K. so we lost one (to the Rams) that we should have won, and lost one that most of us had conceded to Green Bay. This ship can be up righted and sail into the high seas. Yes we have to get Kam back, re-organize our play calling and that includes getting Jimmy Graham involved. And have faith as well, that the O-line will continue to mature. There's no other plausible answer. If you have one share it with me, or tell me that you have thrown in the towel.

John Schneider hopefully will demonstrate how much he enjoys a winning team, rather than a team solely built upon principle and convention. Those last two entities won't always lead you to the promised land.
 

Paschtorian

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
In Pete and John do we trust.

Really?????????

The "sky is falling" already???

We got to the Superbowl with what,...3 losses?

I think it's adjustment time, and our 'Hawks will dominate. Mark my words.
 

Hawks46

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,498
Reaction score
0
I don't go off of historic stats that don't take into account specifics.

Specifically, we're a good team. Specifically, how many of those 0-2 teams were on the road the first two games ? Now that those are filtered out, how many were against a team like the Packers, who are the best in the NFC at home during Rodgers tenure (and historically good there)? Now, factor in the Rams game, which we've lost 2 of the last 3 years and still gone to the SB twice.

Historically, many pundits wrote us off last year, saying "it's just too tough to go back to back SB's". There was no given reason other than historically, it's been hard. The same pundits even acknowledged we were the most talented team in the league, but "it hasn't been done since the Patriots" so we couldn't do it.
 

Siouxhawk

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
3,776
Reaction score
0
I think seahawk12man was one of those poor souls who left early and were locked out of the NFC Championship Game just when things were getting good.
 
OP
OP
seahawk12thman

seahawk12thman

New member
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
1,083
Reaction score
0
Siouxhawk":2cpw3tqu said:
I think seahawk12man was one of those poor souls who left early and were locked out of the NFC Championship Game just when things were getting good.


I was sharing the article, I didn't write this LOL. The last game I went to was in the Kingdome against the Raiders on Sunday night football.
 

Gametime

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
460
Reaction score
86
I'm not a professional mathematician but I'm not totally dumb.

That stat of 0-2 teams not making it is misleading to me. What is the probability that BAD teams start off 0-2? I would say high. That means that the How many of those BAD teams don't reach the playoffs or Superbowl? It stands to reason that if you are bad team you have a high probability of starting off 0-2 that year.

Now.... it is somewhat rare that a GOOD team (good meaning they have a very high probability of making the playoffs before the season starts) actually goes 0-2 out of the gate. This means that there is statistical certainty that a small number of 0-2 teams that play in January. Because teams capable of doing it in the first place don't go 0-2 often.

To say that going 0-2 reduces the playoff "chances" of a quality team like the Seahawks doesn't worry me.

We were 3-3 last year losing the first game on the road to the Chargers, Beating Denver but in OT, and then losing back to back to the Boys at home and at St. Louis.

We were 4-0 in 2013 BUT.... remember the Panthers and Texans games? Those could be considered pretty epic wins that could have gone either way. 2-2 was just about as realistic but the ball bounced our way unlike this year (Rams game especially.) Remember being down 21-0 to the Bucs at HOME!!! Or the goal-line stand in St. Louis? Could have been loses with 1 different bounce or call.

The bottom line is that we always get better and gel as the season progresses and will turn heads IMO with the game at Cincinnati. This year it's even more pronounced because our stars played less of the preseason than ever. They have far fewer reps than in 2013 and 2014. If we can win in SF and Dallas (with their injuries) then we could realistically be 6-2 at the BYE and have 3 straight home games after the break. That's an entire month at home.

I still see big things this year and we all know the Packers will drop a few on the road. :th2thumbs:

I'm not worried a bit. I think the only thing that's changed is our expectations and our patience. :thirishdrinkers:
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
kearly":3frj7n6m said:
Hasselbeck":3frj7n6m said:
Forget this.. did you see Danny Amendola? I mean.. hello!

The article wants to stick something in the Seahawks. I choose to take that as a compliment.

It was a fair article. Nothing the guy said was incorrect. That said, I do think it's kind of dumb for writers to cite the history of 0-2 starts when Seattle is a virtual lock to be 2-2 in two weeks.

Just piggy backing on this post a little because it hints at what I'm about to say...

For anybody that doesn't want to bother with the link, it's a list of playoff teams and how many games they lost through week 3 since 2009. Yeah, the OP and the author are correct that there are only two that have gone to the playoffs after going 0-2 since 2009 but the list that have been 1-2 in week three is a lot bigger at 16 (15 of which are 2011 to 2014).

http://pfref.com/tiny/X6Dgy

So if we go 1-2 (as they did through 3 weeks), we're less likely to make the playoffs and/or win the super bowl because we went L, L, W rather than W, L, L for example?

Pretty thin.

By the way, in 8 of those 16 occurrences, both losses were to eventual playoff teams.

http://pfref.com/tiny/4cZzO

Just sayin...
 

two dog

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
1,162
Reaction score
0
Location
Doin' time in Yakima
The Seahawks are battling math?? I sympathize completely. I battled math
through both high school and college. Sad to say I lost, unlike the 'Hawks
who are a math battlin' bunch of b.....guys.
 

RiverDog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
5,898
Reaction score
3,637
Location
Kennewick, WA
There are liars, damn liars, and then there are statisticians.

Take into consideration that both of our losses were on the road, our past history of starting slow, and the quality of our first two opponents and the odds will start to look quite different.
 

AgentDib

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
5,511
Reaction score
1,305
Location
Bothell
fenderbender123":10zer03s said:
FearTheBeak":10zer03s said:
The math may be correct but the analysis is flawed when your sampling pool has no criteria. How many of those 96% were bad teams to begin with? Made the playoffs the prior year? Had a winning record the prior year? Were considered contenders?

And on top of that, how many of those teams played their first 2 games on the road against 2 of their toughest matchups?
This is exactly right and the problem with people who throw statistics around but are careless with causation. If these first four weeks occurred in reverse order we would likely have two strong wins at this point and that article would be completely opposite. The conclusions after week 2 are completely driven by the order of the schedule which should be a warning sign that they have no merit.
 

byau

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
22
Location
Los Angeles
What I love about stats is that the Seahawks are historically breaking them.

What's the stat about how many of our 53-man roster are undrafted players?

What's the stat about how long it's been since a SB champion *won* a playoff game next year?

What's the stat about even making it to back to back SB?

The Seahawks are always defying historical stats.
 

byau

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
22
Location
Los Angeles
Here's an interesting number. Vegas Odds of winning the SB

If I'm going to give a lot of credence to any single number, I'll think Vegas odds. They tend to do their research because, you know, actual money rests on them putting out a line for people to bet. It doesn't care so much the actual record, it cares whether they think you will win or lose the game you're betting on.

What better number to talk about because there is a lot of talk about that the small percentage of 0-2 teams that make the playoffs is swayed by the fact that most 0-2 teams just really suck and they probably wouldn't make the playoffs regardless if they were 0-2 and 1-1.

Well let's look. I noticed that the triple odds teams (100-1 of winning the SB) tend to always be in the bottom 20% to 25% of the league while the 10-1 odds or better tend to be only the top 3 or 4 teams.

Here we go:

2013-2014 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB:

Only two teams are better than 100-1 odds which lends credence to the fact that the 0-2 teams sucked.

PANTHERS 66-1
GIANTS 75-1
REDSKINS 100-1
STEELERS 125-1
BROWNS 150-1
BUCANEERS 250-1
JAGUARS 1000-1

2014-2015 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB

Again, only two teams are better than 100-1 odds which lends credence to the fact that the 0-2 teams sucked

SAINTS 20-1
COLTS 40-1
GIANTS 150-1
BUCANEERS 200-1
CHIEFS 200-1
RAIDERS 500-1
JAGUARS 500-1

2015-2016 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB

Look who is still a 8-1 bet for winning the SB (in the top three or four). That's something no matter if you're 0-2, 1-1,. or 2-0.

And if you like parity, what about the fact this year only one team is 100-1 or worse.

Seahawks 8-1
Colts 16-1
Eagles 20-1
Ravens 30-1
Lions 60-1
Saints 80-1
Giants 80-1
Texans 80-1
Bears 300-1

Also, if it helps,

2013-2014 Season after week 2
Broncos: 4-1 odds of winning (#1)
Seahawks: 6-1 odds of winning (#2)
49ers: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)

2014-2015 Season after week 2
Broncos: 9-2 odds of winning (#1)
Seahawks: 9-2 odds of winning (#2)
Patriots: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)

2015-2016 Season after week 2
Packers: 3-1 odds of winning (#1)
Patriots: 5-1 odds of winning (#2)
Seahawks: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)

That's right, at 0-2, we are still the third best odds of winning the SB this year. And still under 10-1 at an 8-1. I'll take that as a pretty accurate indication of our team

Not saying there aren't things that worry me. For sure. I'm taking this more as credbility that we don't need to hit any panick button yet.
 
Top