Two teams I would prefer to avoid in the playoffs

[kearly]

Not the Saints, who the Seahawks just blasted. Not SF, who haven't solved Seattle's defense. Not even a hot Panthers team on a huge winning streak, as Cam Newton consistently struggles against athletic defenses.

The two teams I would prefer to not face this postseason are the Philadelphia Eagles and Detroit Lions. Hear me out on this.

Before I talk about the Eagles or Lions, I first need to spell out the kind of situations where Seattle has lost the past couple seasons. Seattle's seven losses the last two seasons: Arizona, SF, St. Louis, Detroit, Miami, Falcons, Indy.

Arizona had a young risk taker at QB and a good defense. SF had Alex Smith and pretty much won purely with defense and some help from Seattle's receivers. St. Louis won with defense and coaching. Detroit won purely because of Matt Stafford, a young, risk taker at QB. Miami won because of a young risk taker at QB, and also a stellar run D. The Falcons won with a risk taker at QB, despite throwing two picks. The Colts win because of big plays from a young risk taker QB coupled with big breaks on special teams and from the officiating.

The oldest QB to beat Seattle was then 28 year old Alex Smith, and the 49ers didn't win because of anything Smith did.

The 49ers and Rams loss kind of stand out as outliers, as Seattle found ways to piss away points in those games and barely lost. In the remaining five games, the common thread is obvious: big plays.

Seattle has dominated future HoF QBs in the Russell Wilson era. Seattle is a combined 3-0 against Brees, Brady, and Rodgers and is also 3-0 against Manning and Rodgers in the preseason, for what that's worth. The commonality in those wins? Those QBs turn into check down Charlies, their instincts tell them not to challenge Seattle's secondary so they don't. Those instincts serve them well against many other defenses, but most defenses on Seattle's level aren't supported by offenses that can score 30 while shortening the game in the process. It's extremely hard to win a shootout with nothing but 18 play drives, espeicially when you might only get 7 drives instead of 10.

Back to the young QBs. Guys like Tannehill and Stafford roasted us because they weren't afraid to make scary throws. Obviously, if they played Seattle every week they would probably lose more than they win, but Seattle is such a good team right now that your only real hope of winning is to land a few big blows and hope it's just enough. Wanna beat Seattle? Your going to need to win the toxic differential, and since Seattle doesn't turn the ball over much, that means you'll need to make plays.

Enter Philly. If the season ended today, they would not be in the playoffs. Yet they are 5-2 in their last seven games, and according to football outsiders they have one of the leagues highest DVOAs over the past four weeks, with an offense that rivals Denver's during those four games and a defense that (for that four game stretch) is in the black.

On top of that, the Eagles have been one of the NFL's best road teams over the past two seasons. They are currently tied with Seattle for the best road record (5-1) in the NFL this season. Their only road loss was to an early season Denver team that had the best September offense of any team in NFL history.

But probably more significant than that, the Eagles are dominating the league in explosive plays. Brian Billick's toxic differential chart from November 13th had the Eagles down for 61 plays of 20+ yards, with a whopping 16 play lead on 2nd place (Seattle).

This doesn't mean that the Eagles should win, it only means that they are equipped to win. When the Saints rolled into town, I didn't feel the slightest bit nervous. If they executed the gameplan I was expecting them to (which they did) I did not think they were equipped to beat Seattle. I'd feel pretty nervous about the Eagles, even though on paper they are not as good a team as the Saints, Niners, or Panthers. The Eagles also have Chip Kelly on their sideline, a master of adaptation and thoroughly experienced in hurry-up schemes that minimize the impact of crowd noise.

The other team that worries me, slightly, is Detroit. From the aforementioned Billick chart, they had 41 explosive plays, just 5 behind 2nd place Seattle. They have undoubtedly the best run after catch RB in the NFL in Reggie Bush. Both Bush and Stafford have won games against Russell Wilson and had very good performances in those wins. And though few people know this, Detroit's run defense is having a hell of a season, historically good according to football outsiders. We already know how much Seattle hates facing elite run defenses, that coupled with an explosive RB and a ballsy QB makes Detroit a relatively dangerous matchup. Of course, it will be a cold and possibly wet road game for a dome team, but Detroit could be a sobering test for Wilson's "revenge game" win streak.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Interesting thoughts, kearly, but I have to disagree on the Eagles. Not because they don't act as you describe, but because Chip Kelly is far from adaptive. For instance, during the NC game in 2010, he let Nick Fairley go unblocked for 3.5 quarters. Not a single adjustment to what was an incredibly stupid idea. Moreover, Foles should have multiple interceptions this year. It'd be a challenge, but if Kelly's scheme doesn't work, the Eagles are screwed because Kelly's a fan of square peg, round hole, and hammer.

 

[knownone]

The Eagles beat one decent team on their 4 game winning streak, the Cardinals.

I honestly think we'd blow the Eagles out.

I agree on Detroit, although I don't think last years games hold much weight.

 

[rsm650]

I kind of agree. We've had a lot of close calls in games that many of us expected -not wanted - a complete blowout. More recent examples, see: Rams, Bucs under Clemens and Glennon. However, with less injuries, I don't think we should be worrying more about one team over another. If the Saints can't get it done, then I think all NFC teams in contention have more or less the same chance of beating us at home.

 

[kearly]

Interesting thoughts, kearly, but I have to disagree on the Eagles. Not because they don't act as you describe, but because Chip Kelly is far from adaptive. For instance, during the NC game in 2010, he let Nick Fairley go unblocked for 3.5 quarters. Not a single adjustment to what was an incredibly stupid idea. Moreover, Foles should have multiple interceptions this year. It'd be a challenge, but if Kelly's scheme doesn't work, the Eagles are screwed because Kelly's a fan of square peg, round hole, and hammer.

Fairley's dominance in one game means Kelly isn't adaptive? This isn't Kelly getting out schemed, it's about the players executing. Does that mean Pete isn't adaptive? Because I've lost count of the number of times a single ace pass rusher killed us the last couple seasons. If you prefer, you can replace adaptive with innovative. The guy is a problem solver.

I never thought for a second that Nick Foles fit Chip Kelly. IIRC, there was some talk about the Eagles shopping Foles when Kelly first came on. Vick fit the Kelly profile, Foles did not. Very impressed with Kelly's ability to mold his game plan around QBs with drastically different skill sets. Kelly was all about mobility and speed at Oregon, but he's getting it done in style with a guy that was once as pure a pocket passer as they come.

I agree that Foles should have thrown an interception by now but that's really only because of the simple fact that you can't throw 200 perfect passes without some luck being involved. Foles has played extremely well, even with a more sustainable INT rate he's be among the leagues best passers this season.

Only 1 out of the 7 QBs who beat Seattle in the Wilson era did so while throwing 0 interceptions (Luck). Seattle will get a turnover or two, but that's nothing new for us. What is new is getting burned for 14 to 21 extra points that teams normally don't get. When the Colts beat us earlier this year, they needed most of their 34 points to pull it off.

Again, not saying the Eagles should win, just saying they have the right ingredients to pull the upset.

 

[kearly]

I honestly think we'd blow the Eagles out.

I think if you simulated 100 games, you'd have a lot of Seahawks blowouts in there. But you'd also have a lot of Eagles wins, IMO more than what the Saints or Panthers or 49ers would produce. The only teams that can beat Seattle are home run hitters, and those teams are not home run hitters against Seattle's defense.

 

[Vpk0718]

Guys like Tannehill, Stafford, etc., roasted us in the 4th quarter last year because of Gus Bradley. Nothing more. It won't happen again.

 

[kearly]

Guys like Tannehill, Stafford, etc., roasted us in the 4th quarter last year because of Gus Bradley. Nothing more. It won't happen again.

That's a fair point, but I still maintain that you won't beat Seattle without taking some wild swings, as Luck proved earlier this year.

 

[davidonmi]

Detroit, that's the last team I want to face. Carolina is the other one, everyone else I'm fine with

 

[Carmon1274]

I don't know about you guys but Green Bay with Rodgers is ugly. Even though his OL is terrible. Green Bay and Lions are for me.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Interesting thoughts, kearly, but I have to disagree on the Eagles. Not because they don't act as you describe, but because Chip Kelly is far from adaptive. For instance, during the NC game in 2010, he let Nick Fairley go unblocked for 3.5 quarters. Not a single adjustment to what was an incredibly stupid idea. Moreover, Foles should have multiple interceptions this year. It'd be a challenge, but if Kelly's scheme doesn't work, the Eagles are screwed because Kelly's a fan of square peg, round hole, and hammer.

Fairley's dominance in one game means Kelly isn't adaptive? This isn't Kelly getting out schemed, it's about the players executing. Does that mean Pete isn't adaptive? Because I've lost count of the number of times a single ace pass rusher killed us the last couple seasons. If you prefer, you can replace adaptive with innovative. The guy is a problem solver.

Kip, I assume you watched that game, right? The dude went unblocked by DESIGN because he was supposed to be the zone-read. When that idea showed itself to be really, really dumb, Kelly kept doing it. My point is that Chip does pretty well on non-game day, but if his plan goes to hell, he doesn't compensate.

Also, his record in BCS games with equal talent suggests to me that he over-thinks thing spectacularly and as such, he ends up being very poor when the pressure is on.

Ultimately, I agree with you that they could do it because of the risk-taking. I don't agree it'd be due to Kelly outcoaching Pete or Quinn.

 

[AbsolutNET]

Guys like Tannehill, Stafford, etc., roasted us in the 4th quarter last year because of Gus Bradley. Nothing more. It won't happen again.

That's a fair point, but I still maintain that you won't beat Seattle without taking some wild swings, as Luck proved earlier this year.

Don't get "wild swings" confused with "blown coverage." Luck threw for 230 yards and completed only 55%. It took more than Luck taking shots to win that game.

 

[rottweiler]

Great thread, kearly.

I wouldn't worry about the Eagles in the playoffs. It's MHO that they're just a paper tiger — er, bird of prey.

With guys like Michael Vick, Desean Jackson, Lesean McCoy, Riley Cooper, Jason Peters, Brent Celek, Nate Allen and DeMeco Ryans on their roster, the Eagles certainly aren't running low on playoff experience and locker room leadership:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/phi/2013_roster.htm

Still, they do play in the weakest division in the NFL, and both their head coach and their QB are still wet behind the ears with respect to bigtime pro games.

That means a whole bunch, given that they'll hafta win in the CLink to get to the big dance.

I still remember like it was just yesterday when QB Nick Foles was penalized as an Arizona Wildcat for catching a ball that bounced off one of his o-linemen's helmets, and then instinctively promptly threw the ball again. LOL.

It doesn't scare me at all to think the Hawks may be facing the Eagles at some point in the playoffs.

The Lions, though?

Yikes.

That's another animal, right there.

Very scary team packed with veteran savvy and an iron man who wouldn't back down from a tsunami for a QB.

I have little doubt that the Lions can win anytime, anywhere. The question is whether or not they want to.

 

[rideaducati]

Toxic differential? Look at the defenses the iggles have played. The Jags would lead the league in toxic differential with the iggles schedule.

 

[Scottemojo]

First, Toxic differential is great. Seattle leads that stat 49 to 35 for the 2nd place Eagles. They give up too many big plays to make up for their large number of big plays.

I think their offense is more noise proof than most. Calling, and even changing plays with a sideline placard means they don't have to have great communication in the noise. It is an issue.

That said, their D gives up too many big plays. ANd I think the Hawk D would be up for Nick Foles. But I completely understand why Kip worries about them.
Detroit would lose because of penalties. It is what they do.

 

[formido]

Seattle is better than Philly. But the gap isn't as big as it was and it's narrowing. Think about the fact that the Eagles have way more big plays than us even though we have at least as much offensive talent. (Much more, if you believe as I do that Wilson is light-years better than Foles in raw talent.) Of course, there's pace to consider. I'd love to know where we rank on big plays per drive. We may be ahead of the Eagles on that.

As @Scottemojo said, their play calling system renders our noise advantage moot. This is exactly the sort of thing that sets Kelly apart, and it's just one freaking aspect. Everyone should be calling plays the way he does, but they don't. His whole program is like this.

Kelly learns the best of what all the other coaches do, immediately absorbs their insights, and improves on them. He learned about USC Carroll's ruthlessly efficient up tempo practices and he did them. He blares pop music over the loudspeakers like Carroll.

Philly's first string offense embarrassed Carolina's first string offense in the preseason. Kuechly looked lost. Even before Foles Philly was near the top of the league in many offensive efficiency stats. Foles has taken them over the top.

And, oh by the way, would Foles be having this run anywhere else?

I don't want to make too much of this, but folks shouldn't be dismissive either. The Eagles are going to be a force to be reckoned with soon. It would take some pretty bad luck, but it could even be this year.

Luckily, Seattle is the SEC of the NFL right now and talent trumps scheme.

Agreed on Detroit, too. Defensively, they dominate the line of scrimmage. Because of Stafford's arm and Johnson, they can complete passes almost regardless of what we do and if we overcommit, Bush can thrive in a tilted open field. They have mismatches on us that virtually no other team enjoys. Physically they have the tools to beat Seattle, which is rare. Mentally they're a basket case, though, so it's still pretty unlikely.

 

[rottweiler]

As @Scottemojo said, (the Eagles') play calling system renders our noise advantage moot.

Does their inexperience at the QB position in mid- to late-January do that, too?

Nick Foles has never played anywhere like the CLink in mid-January.

Michael Vick has. He just can't win there.

 

[FlyingGreg]

It won't matter who we play at C Link.

All shall perish.

 

[kearly]

Don't get "wild swings" confused with "blown coverage." Luck threw for 230 yards and completed only 55%. It took more than Luck taking shots to win that game.

First, I mentioned that it took more than big plays for Indy to win (officiating help, etc). Just said they were a major factor.

Luck didn't have a great game in terms of passing yardage. But he did score 27 points with no rushing attack to speak of. How? Explosive plays. Think about all the times we've seen Wilson score buckets of points with well under 300 yards. It's because Wilson is one of the league's best big play QBs. IIRC, Seattle finished last season dead last in passing yards, but near the very top in scoring (and #1 in offensive DVOA). So I wouldn't dismiss Luck's impact on the game because of his yardage. He made those yards count much more than a typical 230 yard outing would.

The first TD was him taking advantage of a blown coverage, coupled with a nice run after the catch by Hilton. His 2nd long TD vs Browner was good coverage beaten by a perfect throw and an awesome catch. Blocked field goal was luck in lower case form, but it was still a big play that ultimately decided the game. To beat Seattle you need big plays. You need to be a big play team.

...............

Course, none of this means I'd pick the Eagles or Lions. Only saying those teams would make me more nervous than Carolina, SF, Dallas or NO, who I feel are money in the bank.

 

[aawolf]

I have a lot of respect for your opinions, Kearly. But, in my opinion, the Panthers are by far the biggest competition out there in the NFC on the way to the Superbowl. It's just their defense. When we played them earlier this year, we were fully healthy and they held us to just one TD. Their defense is hard to move the ball against and when they shut down the run, we are vulnerable. I think that we struggle more against great defenses than we do against young gun QBs. Look at the St. Louis game and the Cardinals games and the Panthers games. We came out with a win--barely--in most of those games, but struggled to move the ball. We should be more worried about those that can stop Beastmode and those that can put pressure against our QB.