New DVOA ratings, Seahawks #9 O, #2 D, #9 ST

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • hawksfan515 wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:Weighted are the numbers that really matter, where we're #11 for special teams; but still, this is great. Obviously, we all know our offense has improved by leaps and bounds the past few games, but I didn't realize our overall ranking had climbed quite so much. This is awesome.


    ABANDON SHIP! WE FELL TO #11 ON SPECIAL TEAMS RANKINGS!

    :sarcasm_off: ;)


    Fire Brian Schneider! (He's probably the brother of John, so it only makes sense to get rid of the nepotism, amirite?)
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 14634
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Superbowl futures odds are still 30-1 for the Hawks

    Minnesota 80-1.. I like this one, Value bet
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm


  • falcongoggles wrote:
    SacHawk2.0 wrote:I just wet myself, championship style.


    I would like to hear more about this and how it is different than normal wetting of oneself.

    Got to be all about quantity man. At least that's my guess. What say you Sac?
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10829
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • hawksfan515 wrote:ABANDON SHIP! WE FELL TO #11 ON SPECIAL TEAMS RANKINGS!

    :sarcasm_off: ;)


    Lol, don't get on my case about it, I'm just saying that the weighted (i.e., more recent) ST rankings have us dropping the figurative ball on special teams, compared to earlier in the season.
    Rams bet status: honored. Bradford still sucks.
    RedAlice is right.
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 24627
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • Would the #3/#4 WR go on tru's & LB's lack of defense?
    User avatar
    vance_jetzt
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 81
    Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:26 pm


  • kobebryant wrote:What is DVOA?


    Well, it's either the name of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's band, or it's a Football Outsiders stat that I think stands for Defense-adjusted Value Over Average.
    Rzzzzz...
    User avatar
    peachesenregalia
    * NET Starfish *
     
    Posts: 10581
    Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
    Location: Helm's Deep


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    hawksfan515 wrote:ABANDON SHIP! WE FELL TO #11 ON SPECIAL TEAMS RANKINGS!

    :sarcasm_off: ;)


    Lol, don't get on my case about it, I'm just saying that the weighted (i.e., more recent) ST rankings have us dropping the figurative ball on special teams, compared to earlier in the season.


    Yeah, I'm alright with it as long as we don't see that in our offense (Weighted is a higher) and defense (when you are ranked that high it's hard to get too much higher when weighted, and we only drop .1% in weighted defense. Not much at all).
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5215
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • hawksfansinceday1 wrote:
    falcongoggles wrote:
    SacHawk2.0 wrote:I just wet myself, championship style.


    I would like to hear more about this and how it is different than normal wetting of oneself.

    Got to be all about quantity man. At least that's my guess. What say you Sac?


    Pretty much. The amount of moisture is much higher when wetting ones self championship style.
    "Pete Carroll brings in great elves...and they make the best presents."
    User avatar
    SacHawk2.0
    .NOT a Moderator
     
    Posts: 9836
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
    Location: With a white girl


  • SmokinHawk wrote:Those statistics state what I have suspected all season long. Our corners are so good they literally delete the #1 and #2 WRs from the stat sheet. They are so good, in fact, that QBs rarely test them, instead opting to throw over the middle of the field on short/intermediate distance passes, or hitting RBs in the flat on screens and swing routes. Nothing else is open for them.

    What impresses me most is that we do this primarily with man coverage. Man cover corners are a dying breed in the modern NFL (though they may be coming back thanks to us), making good ones very rare and difficult to find in the draft. Thanks to our simply amazing scouting efforts, we have two elite man cover corners, which lets us play cover 1 and even cover 0 looks without it being too risky to attempt.

    Compare this to the days when Trufant and Jennings were our starting corners. Trufant was never bad, but even during his Pro Bowl year, he was no Brandon Browner or Richard Sherman.

    Very well said!
    Image
    User avatar
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 10901
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Pasco, WA


  • Seattle is now #4 in overall DVOA, behind just Denver, New England, and SF. SF is #1 at 41%, which is pretty amazing considering that most of that was with Alex Smith at QB.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10543
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Twisted wrote:Superbowl futures odds are still 30-1 for the Hawks


    BFS had something like $1000 on the Seahawks back when they were 75-1 earlier this year. I can't remember exactly but it was something like that.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10543
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • vance_jetzt wrote:Would the #3/#4 WR go on tru's & LB's lack of defense?


    I think "inexperience" is a better term for our linebackers. Another part of it, like Smokin pointed out, is QB's throwing over the middle so much because there's nowhere else for them to go. Very few QB's can string together repeated long drives with that.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11245
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • kearly wrote:Seattle is now #4 in overall DVOA, behind just Denver, New England, and SF. SF is #1 at 41%, which is pretty amazing considering that most of that was with Alex Smith at QB.

    The 49ers were ranked #6 last week. They got a huge bump for the way they manhandled a Bears team that was top-5 by DVOA, but I'm pretty sure the numbers don't account for Cutler being unavailable for that game.
    jewhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:39 pm


  • jewhawk wrote:
    kearly wrote:Seattle is now #4 in overall DVOA, behind just Denver, New England, and SF. SF is #1 at 41%, which is pretty amazing considering that most of that was with Alex Smith at QB.

    The 49ers were ranked #6 last week. They got a huge bump for the way they manhandled a Bears team that was top-5 by DVOA, but I'm pretty sure the numbers don't account for Cutler being unavailable for that game.



    They also don't account for Colin Kaepernick having a better game than Smith has had all season...against a top 5 DVOA bears D that didn't show up to play.
    President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013
    User avatar
    JesterHawk
    * Smackmeister *
     
    Posts: 7004
    Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:56 pm


  • Alex smith had 211 yards 2 td's week 1 , 226 yards 2 td's week 2, 303 yards 3 td's week 5, 232 yards 3 td's week 8.

    Now I hate the 9ers with a passion but I can't watch as a blatantly incorrect stat is thrown around.
    "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories." - Sun Tzu
    User avatar
    BigMeach
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 352
    Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:11 am





It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:11 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information