Our road record is a fluke

Erebus

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
4
Location
San Antonio, TX
The Seahawks on the road are better than a 1-4 team. Lets take a closer look at each of the losses:

@ Arizona: This was RW's first NFL game, and we had JR Sweezy playing guard in his first NFL game (with no experience at guard) against one of the best pass rushing DTs in the league. He was overmatched, and RW was unprepared for that kind of pressure. And he still nearly led a game-winning TD drive. Since then, RW has improved dramatically and we have Carpenter and Moffitt back to shore up the interior OL.

@ St. Louis: We had terrible luck with bounces. RW had two or three interceptions that were flukes. We held STL to no offensive TDs. They scored a TD on a fake field goal, and the only reason it worked was because the officials didn't see Pete Carroll call timeout. Their kicker also had 58 and 60 yard field goals. How often is that going to happen? Fluke loss IMO.

@ San Francisco: Its very tough winning on the road on short rest, especially against a high quality team. And they even kept it within a TD. Football Outsiders has an article about the effects of rest on a short week, and it pretty much says what everyone would expect. Teams don't play well on the road on short rest. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2012/fo-mailbag-effect-rest-game-dvoa Its not a fluke loss, but not one you should reasonably expect them to win.

@ Detroit: The offense improved a lot. As for the defense, allowing 12 of 16 third down conversions is a fluke, especially when you're dominating the opponent on first and second down. Yes the defense had a bit of a down day, but you can't blame the defense for our road woes. They have the #2 defensive DVOA at home and the #4 defensive DVOA on the road. Jason Jones missed this game, and his absence really hurt the pass rush, which would've helped the third down conversion rate. Another fluke loss, IMO.

With better health after the bye and their luck regressing toward the mean, I think we'll see the team finish out these last three road games strong, and possibly even up our road record at 4-4.
 

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,923
Reaction score
2,696
Location
Anchorage, AK
Another thing to Note going into Miami is that this will be the first road game we've gone into as the team with the superior ranking on OFFENSE.
 

SeaWolv

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
484
Not to mention critical dropped passes by Edwards in the desert and Turbin at Candlestick.
 

rideaducati

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
5,414
Reaction score
0
"Flukie" things happen to young teams more often than they do to experienced teams. This team is getting experience and fewer "flukie" things are happening. I think we'll see a lot fewer "flukes" happening from here on out.
 

Hawks46

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,498
Reaction score
0
I have a hard time with this line of thinking.

First of all, saying ARI was Wilson's first game is not an excuse. Our coaching staff chose to go with a rookie; you also choose to live with rookie growing pains. A lot of us expected to lose a few close games due to Wilson not quite being there, or to lose a couple of games due to rookie mistakes. Saying it's a fluke seems disengenuous.

STL was an offensive team let down. Lots of drops, a few misses by Wilson, etc. and there you go. "The ball bounced the wrong way" is just the way the game is, saying it's a fluke or we "had bad luck" also is just a cop out. If you don't want the ball to bounce the wrong way, don't put it on the ground or throw it to the other team.

Detroit was a defensive team let down. Period.

SF we just got beat. That and a few drops, but once again, drops aren't a fluke. If you want to win games, your playmakers have to make plays in those situations.

So far, we are what are record says we are: a poor road team. You can say we've improved, you can say we've come up just short, but the honest truth is that we didn't do enough to win those games.
 

JKent82

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,041
Reaction score
0
Plus Miami not only sucks at home but they also have a quiet Floridian filled crowd.

It'll be a good road pre-run for the team to get going in Chicago. Not that the game itself should be taken as anything but a tough road game, but the normal road effects will be a little less in Miami.
 
OP
OP
E

Erebus

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
4
Location
San Antonio, TX
Hawks46":1uqc7awu said:
I have a hard time with this line of thinking.

First of all, saying ARI was Wilson's first game is not an excuse. Our coaching staff chose to go with a rookie; you also choose to live with rookie growing pains. A lot of us expected to lose a few close games due to Wilson not quite being there, or to lose a couple of games due to rookie mistakes. Saying it's a fluke seems disengenuous.

STL was an offensive team let down. Lots of drops, a few misses by Wilson, etc. and there you go. "The ball bounced the wrong way" is just the way the game is, saying it's a fluke or we "had bad luck" also is just a cop out. If you don't want the ball to bounce the wrong way, don't put it on the ground or throw it to the other team.

Detroit was a defensive team let down. Period.

SF we just got beat. That and a few drops, but once again, drops aren't a fluke. If you want to win games, your playmakers have to make plays in those situations.

So far, we are what are record says we are: a poor road team. You can say we've improved, you can say we've come up just short, but the honest truth is that we didn't do enough to win those games.

I never said the Arizona game was a fluke. I should've said we shouldn't have expected to win that game, because it was RW's first game. And it being his first game absolutely is an excuse, especially if we're trying to predict future road performance.

I also specifically said the SF game wasn't a fluke.

My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.
 

seabowl

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
4,480
Reaction score
1,283
It's not a fluke when you look at our road record over the years. Also if you want to say those games were flukes then so was our win* over GB. You are as good as your record, period. Win on the road and then I will become a believer and not before.
 

Hawks46

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,498
Reaction score
0
Yea, I get ya. I agree with your last post, the way I understood the post was "our record is a fluke due to the road losses and here's why".

I also miscommunicated the SF part of the post. Not saying you said it was a fluke, I was just going on with my line of reasoning, applied to each game.

I would agree that our offense has progressed, but strangely, our defense has regressed in different areas, specifically the run defense.
 

Hawkfeathers

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Erebus":1uxudign said:
Hawks46":1uxudign said:
I have a hard time with this line of thinking.

First of all, saying ARI was Wilson's first game is not an excuse. Our coaching staff chose to go with a rookie; you also choose to live with rookie growing pains. A lot of us expected to lose a few close games due to Wilson not quite being there, or to lose a couple of games due to rookie mistakes. Saying it's a fluke seems disengenuous.

STL was an offensive team let down. Lots of drops, a few misses by Wilson, etc. and there you go. "The ball bounced the wrong way" is just the way the game is, saying it's a fluke or we "had bad luck" also is just a cop out. If you don't want the ball to bounce the wrong way, don't put it on the ground or throw it to the other team.

Detroit was a defensive team let down. Period.

SF we just got beat. That and a few drops, but once again, drops aren't a fluke. If you want to win games, your playmakers have to make plays in those situations.

So far, we are what are record says we are: a poor road team. You can say we've improved, you can say we've come up just short, but the honest truth is that we didn't do enough to win those games.

I never said the Arizona game was a fluke. I should've said we shouldn't have expected to win that game, because it was RW's first game. And it being his first game absolutely is an excuse, especially if we're trying to predict future road performance.

I also specifically said the SF game wasn't a fluke.

My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.

Basically, yours is a homer analysis on a Seattle forum. No surprise here.
 

The Radish

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
18,469
Reaction score
3
Location
Spokane, Wa.
Our road record is a fluke???

Lets see, we have a losing record for many years under many different coaches and staffs.

What is flukie about that?

:141847_bnono:
 

hawksfan515

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
0
Location
Battle Ground, Washington
The Radish":178hllob said:
Our road record is a fluke???

Lets see, we have a losing record for many years under many different coaches and staffs.

What is flukie about that?

:141847_bnono:

Not easy winning on the road. :3-1:
 

EmonacoZ71

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
seabowl":2z7stu4t said:
Also if you want to say those games were flukes then so was our win* over GB. You are as good as your record, period.

I wouldn't put an asterisk on that win, remember that pass interference on Cam Chancellor that allowed GB to continue their drive was complete BS. That catch at the end of the game evened that back out in my opinion.

However, back to the point at hand. I've noticed this about the Seahawks throughout my history of following the team. It seems as though the Seahawks usually finish right in the 8-8 area aside from a few really bad and really good years and I credit that to geography. Being in Seattle, there is quite of bit of isolation from other teams, closest road game is in San Fransisco and that's still a ways away. I think the Seahawks have a HUGE advantage at home not only for the 12th man but for the extensive travel for the road teams however it backlashes for the Seahawks having to travel from Seattle to other cities for any road game which becomes a huge disadvantage.

Not saying this is the ONLY reason but I honestly feel its very significant. To validate my point, I travel on a race team and regardless how much work you do, flying to and from places will wear you out especially if they are long flights. As tight as a week by week basis such as football schedules, it's important to remember that in that tight scheduling one whole day is reserved just for traveling and nothing else, and that's not fully taking into account time zone changes and length of flights. Like I said this is not the only reason why the Seahawks are struggling on the road and should be used as an excuse but I believe this reality has to be noted significantly in order to overcome the circumstances at hand.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,886
Reaction score
404
Hawks46":2dzpdumf said:
Our coaching staff chose to go with a rookie; you also choose to live with rookie growing pains. A lot of us expected to lose a few close games due to Wilson not quite being there, or to lose a couple of games due to rookie mistakes. Saying it's a fluke seems disengenuous.

So does reducing the whole matter down to "we're a poor road team" when part of the problem is, as you so correctly stated, a rookie QB who has to learn the game.
 

jewhawk

New member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
0
Erebus":2mydxdc5 said:
My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.
Well said.

I can't express how much I hate the phrase "you're as good as your record." That might be true if the question is "How much has this team accomplished?" But if you're making a predictive analysis of how a team could be expected to perform in the future, looking at W-L (especially over a 5 game sample) isn't going to tell you much.
 

LudwigsDrummer

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
37
Location
Az
rideaducati":2xile3yr said:
"Flukie" things happen to young teams more often than they do to experienced teams. This team is getting experience and fewer "flukie" things are happening. I think we'll see a lot fewer "flukes" happening from here on out.
Nice point.
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
Now, let's count the "Flukes" in our wins...

-Tate's catch vs GB
-Ryan Kalil was out for the season, otherwise we would have seen SkyCam on the 1 yard line at Carolina.
-NE goes 3 and out when they have a chance to run out the clock with one or two more first downs. They had only had a few three and outs the whole year.

There's a difference between losing a close game that you maybe should have won, and "fluke". We could be 10-0 but we could also be 3-7...

The most encouraging part of our season is that there are no teams that can blow us away anymore. We can compete in any game. We are used to playing in close games as well- for a young team this is invaluable and will show well in the playoffs.
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
463
jewhawk":sfvdfltz said:
Erebus":sfvdfltz said:
My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.
Well said.

I can't express how much I hate the phrase "you're as good as your record." That might be true if the question is "How much has this team accomplished?" But if you're making a predictive analysis of how a team could be expected to perform in the future, looking at W-L (especially over a 5 game sample) isn't going to tell you much.

Just tell the 16-0 Pats and the 15-1 Packers they're as good as their record. They've got the ring to prove it!
Any given sunday boys.
 
Top