Seattle v Atlanta: the statistical truth

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Seattle v Atlanta: the statistical truth
Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:48 pm
  • Atlanta's schedule ranked 32nd (the easiest) in the NFL regarding the defensive strength of their opponents. They averaged 26 points per game. Seattle's schedule ranked 3rd toughest in the NFL regarding the defensive strength of their opponents. They also averaged 26 points per game. Are we to believe that the Seahawks offense is actually much better than the Falcons offense? With even an average running game the Falcons would be an offensive juggernaut. But with a poor running game they are one dimensional and merely above average. Speaking of average, the Falcons essentially played against the Buffalo Bills defense every week. And they managed 26 points per game. The Seahawks essentially played the Atlanta defense every week and managed 26 points per game. Atlanta is a MUCH better D than Buffalo (right Falcon fan?) The Seahawks put up a 50 burger at Buffalo! Matty Ice, Julio and Roddy get a lot of ESPN highlight time, but they cannot wear a defense down and they are not dominating in terms of putting up points.

    The defense is a different story. Atlanta's schedule ranked 10th toughest in the NFL regarding the offensive strength of their opponents. They gave up 19 points per game. That's pretty damn good! Seattle's schedule ranked 15th toughest in the NFL regarding the offensive strength of their opponents. They gave up 15 points per game. The Falcon's D is a lot better than the media coverage portrays. Russell better know that these guys will bait him into a pick or two if he is not razor sharp. He was not razor sharp against Washington, but fortunately their D is not good. The telling match-up here is if the Falcons can stop a true power running game that is mixed in with some option. So far they have not shown a strength against the run. But they do have talent and with a few adjustments they could make things tougher than you might think for the Seahawk's offense.

    Calling Ryan and Russell equal and with the exception of White & Jones, I would give the edge to the Seahawks at every other position on the field. And it just so happens that White and Jones go up against Seattle's primary strength of Sherman and Browner. The data says Seattle scores 24 (+/- 2) and Atlanta 17 (+/- 2). But who's to say that Russell doesn't overthrow Baldwin for a an easy TD, or Rice drops an easy 30 yard pass during a key late drive, or Lynch fumbles on the one yard line instead of putting the nail in the coffin? One big play, or non-play can swing this game! But Seattle plays better against quality teams. On an actual NFL surface: Seahawks 27 Atlanta 17.
    User avatar
    SoCalSeahawk
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 310
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:15 pm


  • I can dig it. Nice job.
    poop
    User avatar
    SacHawk2.0
    .NOT a Moderator
     
    Posts: 9630
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
    Location: With a white girl


  • Bang, that prediction just happened.

    Great breakdown of the offense and defensive scoring stats vs. the strength of the opponents. I think this game is going to be pretty close, but I think all of their strengths and weaknesses play to our advantage. I say Hawks win by 4.

    31-27
    User avatar
    JGfromtheNW
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1018
    Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:37 am
    Location: Bellinghome


  • I like that qualifier: "On an actual NFL surface."

    I think the surface had a lot to do with last week's passing inefficiencies.
    Image
    User avatar
    ParisPC07
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 453
    Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:14 pm
    Location: Mountain Home, Idaho


  • I like stats, but I like my eyes better. The Hawks are capable of winning an a blowout or loosing a close one... I like to think the best be is somewhere in between...

    Hawks 28
    That other team 20
    Position Before Submission
    The only thing worse than a miss is a S L O W miss
    User avatar
    The Grouch
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 73
    Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:45 am
    Location: BFEastern WA


  • How does ATL's Special Teams Rank? Do we have advantage in that area ala field position?

    Also, would like to think that our run/read option with play action game should chew up clock and keep their offenses off the field
    GoHawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 454
    Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:49 pm


  • last week I predicted both D's match their scoring averages for a final of 24-14 in Seattle's favor...I'll do the same this week and say 20-14 Seattle.
    User avatar
    Navyhawkfan187
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 605
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:48 am


  • Atlanta's ST are ranked 20th. They have a good K in Bryant, so their coverage and return teams must be pretty weak. Big advantage Seattle, but then again we just had to sign Longwell.
    User avatar
    SoCalSeahawk
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 310
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:15 pm


  • Our return game is absolutely terrible in Atlanta, but we honestly have some of the best kickoff/punt return coverage in the NFL. Kicking game is solid to great as well. You should look forward to lots of fair catches on Dominique Franks part if he plays - Mike Smith has been considering switching to Harry Douglas, who had a great year as a returner in one of our previous seasons, and if that is to happen, there might actually be some danger to your team. Otherwise, it's smooth sailing.
    Falcan Moore
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 92
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:25 pm


  • GoHawks wrote:How does ATL's Special Teams Rank? Do we have advantage in that area ala field position?

    Also, would like to think that our run/read option with play action game should chew up clock and keep their offenses off the field


    http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-bl ... ial-teams/
    How many 49ers fans does it take to change a light bulb?

    None, they will all show and talk about how good the old one was...
    User avatar
    hawker232
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 165
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:18 pm


  • Historical look

    Dave Boling ‏@DaveBoling

    Stats from 2011 #Seahawk loss to Atl. Julio Jones 11 catches 127 yards. Lynch just 24 rush yards. Possession time: Atl 40:10, Seattle 19:50.


    Good thing the team has changed since that game. Ouch.
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    Wilson will sign for $18M+ (3/4/2014)
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9076
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • drdiags wrote:Historical look

    Dave Boling ‏@DaveBoling

    Stats from 2011 #Seahawk loss to Atl. Julio Jones 11 catches 127 yards. Lynch just 24 rush yards. Possession time: Atl 40:10, Seattle 19:50.


    Good thing the team has changed since that game. Ouch.


    And if I recall we attempted a 61 yard fg to win the game at the end of regulation?
    JGreen79
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 357
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:26 pm
    Location: Oregon


  • Yeah I think it could have been a lot closer but a penalty happened or something.
    Skittles - The candy of champions.
    User avatar
    Seahawksfan425
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1267
    Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:32 pm
    Location: Kenmore, WA


  • As TechWorlds (Dom) would say: What does Mr. DVOA say?
    Image
    "Make good teams look bad and make bad teams look terrible!" -Michael Robinson
    User avatar
    BlueTalons
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1114
    Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 am
    Location: Spanaway, WA


  • Last year the Seahawks had Bigby, Hawthorne and Curry trying to cover in the passing game. I think Chancellor, Wagner and Wright will do a much better job.
    rideaducati
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1555
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm


  • The Falcons would have lost to the 49ers at least once but probably twice, the Patriots, Packers, Cardinals (with Kolb as they were when we played them week 1), and probably the Rams at least once as well.

    This is a team that beat the Bills 15-12 in Buffalo...
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1408
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • SoCalSeahawk wrote:Atlanta's ST are ranked 20th. They have a good K in Bryant, so their coverage and return teams must be pretty weak. Big advantage Seattle, but then again we just had to sign Longwell.


    Here's a pretty good list of stats for the Falcons

    Touchbacks 47%
    Bryant is 33 of 38, 86%, long of 55, all 5 misses inside of 50 yards, 4-4 from 50 or longer.
    Haven't allowed a blocked FG or punt all season
    Haven't returned a KO or Punt for TD
    Long of 77 on a KO return by Quizz, averaging 25.7 ypr
    Franks has 21 for 163 yards on punt returns, 7.8ypr, long of 24
    Opponents have returned 26 for 241 on punt returns, 9.3ypr, 0 TD
    Opponents average 22.2 ypr on kickoffs, 0 TD
    Bosher has 40.7 net yards per punt
    Opponents averaged 44.2 net yards per punt
    Opponents have returned 26 punts for 241 yards, 9.3 ypr average


    All in all, Atlanta has a decent special teams unit. Bryant is a very good kicker, probably more so indoors at home. Bosher is a solid punter. Of course Atlanta and Seattle are #29 and #30 in total punts(lowest).

    The only things that I can spin out of this is the potential of Leon getting some room to run one back. He is likely the only X Factor in the ST phase for both teams...and maybe the rust of Longwell.
    User avatar
    CrimsonWazzu
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 413
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:33 am


  • lukerguy wrote:The Falcons would have lost to the 49ers at least once but probably twice, the Patriots, Packers, Cardinals (with Kolb as they were when we played them week 1), and probably the Rams at least once as well.

    This is a team that beat the Bills 15-12 in Buffalo...


    :34853_doh: and the Hawks probably would of lost to the Skins if RG3 was healthy...hmm its like there is no way of knowing
    keepertd
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 61
    Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:09 pm


  • lukerguy wrote:The Falcons would have lost to the 49ers at least once but probably twice, the Patriots, Packers, Cardinals (with Kolb as they were when we played them week 1), and probably the Rams at least once as well.

    This is a team that beat the Bills 15-12 in Buffalo...

    Is this a joke? We've never scored that low this year, we've never faced the Bills this year, and we can both play the "ifs" game for days. You basically just said we'd lose to every good team we face, despite the fact that we're 4-0 against winning teams this year on our admittedly easy schedule. I could say stuff with ATL's schedule in regards to SEA and it wouldn't make it true...both teams are great in their own ways.
    Falcan Moore
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 92
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:25 pm


  • Falcan Moore wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:The Falcons would have lost to the 49ers at least once but probably twice, the Patriots, Packers, Cardinals (with Kolb as they were when we played them week 1), and probably the Rams at least once as well.

    This is a team that beat the Bills 15-12 in Buffalo...

    Is this a joke? We've never scored that low this year, we've never faced the Bills this year, and we can both play the "ifs" game for days. You basically just said we'd lose to every good team we face, despite the fact that we're 4-0 against winning teams this year on our admittedly easy schedule. I could say stuff with ATL's schedule in regards to SEA and it wouldn't make it true...both teams are great in their own ways.



    Yes it was...you're a quick one. Your most impressive win of the season was definitely vs. the Broncos. However, even with Peyton having the worst game of his career, they were almost able to come back and win. 2 of those INTs he threw were gift wrapped, over thrown or inaccurate passes.

    The fact that you barely beat Arizona with Lindley at QB tells me a lot. Ryan struggles with pressure, and if memory serves you made LS Howling look like Barry Sanders on two of his runs.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1408
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • GoHawks wrote:How does ATL's Special Teams Rank? Do we have advantage in that area ala field position?

    Also, would like to think that our run/read option with play action game should chew up clock and keep their offenses off the field


    DVOA has them middle of the road at 16th, the Hawks at 3rd conversely.

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

    Offense
    Hawks-4
    Falcons-12

    Defense
    Hawks-4
    Falcons-12

    S/Ts
    Hawks-3
    Falcons-16
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1408
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • keepertd wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:The Falcons would have lost to the 49ers at least once but probably twice, the Patriots, Packers, Cardinals (with Kolb as they were when we played them week 1), and probably the Rams at least once as well.



    :34853_doh: and the Hawks probably would of lost to the Skins if RG3 was healthy...hmm its like there is no way of knowing


    No way of knowing for certain..however, with the C+ game we put forth, I actually do think we would have lost if RG3 was healthy. I don't think that's a stretch to say. We were losing 14-0 when he was far from healthy, and then he really re-aggravated it and their offense went stagnant.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1408
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • The Statistical truth of the matter Matty Ice again will be melted into a Puddle. I fully expect The Hawks to slaughter the Falcons. I really can't see Falcons D stopping Lynch at all.
    Jay-HawkPackFan
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 3
    Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:24 pm


  • lukerguy wrote:Yes it was...you're a quick one. Your most impressive win of the season was definitely vs. the Broncos. However, even with Peyton having the worst game of his career, they were almost able to come back and win. 2 of those INTs he threw were gift wrapped, over thrown or inaccurate passes.

    The fact that you barely beat Arizona with Lindley at QB tells me a lot. Ryan struggles with pressure, and if memory serves you made LS Howling look like Barry Sanders on two of his runs.

    It wasn't a joke, it was either made-up or an actual mistake you made. You're saying he had the worst game of his career...funny how QBs tend to have those against us. Like Brees throwing for no TDs and five picks. Or Eli with no TDs and 2 picks. Rivers with no TDs and 2 picks. Stafford with no TDs and a pick. I mean, Jesus, RG3 was full health against us for the whole game till the 4th quarter and we held him to less than a hundred yards total.

    And you're in no place to cherry pick bad games. Seahawks lost to the Cardinals, Lions, and Dolphins...not only did we have a better record against our common opponents, but the teams we lost to all had better records than those three.

    I'm not saying we're fantastic, heck, I'm not even saying we're better than you guys. But we're still 13-3 and beat every opponent on our schedule, riding the 7th ranked scoring offense and 5th ranked scoring defense. If we play angry, there's no one capable of beating us - see the Giants game. If you play angry, there's no one capable of beating you - see the SF game.

    It'll be a great game.
    Falcan Moore
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 92
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:25 pm


  • Falcan Moore wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:The Falcons would have lost to the 49ers at least once but probably twice, the Patriots, Packers, Cardinals (with Kolb as they were when we played them week 1), and probably the Rams at least once as well.

    This is a team that beat the Bills 15-12 in Buffalo...

    Is this a joke? We've never scored that low this year, we've never faced the Bills this year, and we can both play the "ifs" game for days. You basically just said we'd lose to every good team we face, despite the fact that we're 4-0 against winning teams this year on our admittedly easy schedule. I could say stuff with ATL's schedule in regards to SEA and it wouldn't make it true...both teams are great in their own ways.


    We are 5-1 in the regular season against Quality Opponents. And played one of the tougher schedules in the NFL this year. Only loss to a QO was on the road in a Thursday night Divisional game (which the road team only wins 27% of the time as opposed to the normal 47% win-rate for road teams in NON-Thursday games), 13-6 to the Whiners. And it was our LARGEST loss of the year, ONLY 7 points.
    entropyrulesall
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 240
    Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:00 pm
    Location: Federal Way, WA


  • we all know SOS accounts for a certain amount of a teams will and strength but what really counts the most IMO opinion is matchup, how teams matchup, just like the Rams matchup well with the Niners, you have these sort of matchups spread around the leagues where the underdog or worst team dominates, not that I'm saying the Rams are underdogs but they do have a few glitches to work out..

    I think all stats really do is give you an idea of how teams match up based on what schemes they use defensively and offensively and what plays they use, how they use them and how effective those plays are?

    for instance looking at the stats we can tell that the Falcons play action run isn't very effective yet their play action pass is, so a defense says what defensive schemes or plays do I have that best combat the play action pass?

    if that team doesn't really have anything in the toolbox then that team defense doesn't match up well and this is where coaches come in, can they design a match up for that play? do they have the personnel to run those plays? can they fabricate, trick or fool the offense in those situations?

    its my personal opinion that a team without an aggressive and effective run game falls short in the number of pass plays they can run effectively, in other words the more effective your run game the more effective and open your passing game is especially when facing a team known for their pass defense and defense all around.. some falcons are talking 5 deep sets? wow what a gift that would be even with just 3-4 up front, "hows your scramble Ryan" I don't think, we've seen Seattle pressure hard with 3-4 up giving the QB less than seconds to do his job

    the numbers should say Seattle has an edge but playing the game is the only way you can really find out? its prolly just a matter of adjustment and beating your opponents, playing better? I think we can safely say the Seahawks play just as hard and are just as conditioned and physical as any team in the league right now, even the niners.. ;)
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm


  • entropyrulesall wrote:
    Falcan Moore wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:The Falcons would have lost to the 49ers at least once but probably twice, the Patriots, Packers, Cardinals (with Kolb as they were when we played them week 1), and probably the Rams at least once as well.

    This is a team that beat the Bills 15-12 in Buffalo...

    Is this a joke? We've never scored that low this year, we've never faced the Bills this year, and we can both play the "ifs" game for days. You basically just said we'd lose to every good team we face, despite the fact that we're 4-0 against winning teams this year on our admittedly easy schedule. I could say stuff with ATL's schedule in regards to SEA and it wouldn't make it true...both teams are great in their own ways.


    We are 5-1 in the regular season against Quality Opponents. And played one of the tougher schedules in the NFL this year. Only loss to a QO was on the road in a Thursday night Divisional game (which the road team only wins 27% of the time as opposed to the normal 47% win-rate for road teams in NON-Thursday games), 13-6 to the Whiners. And it was our LARGEST loss of the year, ONLY 7 points.

    I never said anything bad about your team, just defended my own. I think the Seahawks are one of the best three teams in the NFL right now.
    Falcan Moore
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 92
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:25 pm


  • Strength of schedule has nothing to do with this game. Nothing. All it means is the path here was different for both teams.

    The Patriots went 16-0 with the easiest schedule in NFL history. Didn't mean they were going to lose or win in playoff games.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10505
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Moore, who are the 4 winning teams the Falcons beat this year?

    I hope you're not counting the Cowboys as a winning team? the 9-7 Giants? sure why not they were steam rollin when the falcs played em.. lol

    you also beat the Broncos BEFORE they got hot as a team, just like 5 teams beat the Hawks before they opened it up..

    I have the Giants, Redskins and Broncos as the only Teams the Falcons beat that ended OVER .500

    fact of the matter is every other team the Falcons faced ended at (1 team, cowboys) or under .500, thats 12 teams under .500 and one at?

    and yes I made a mistake somewhere stating the Falcons defense as 28th, that was old, they ended 24th, cant find thread for correction..

    but yea regardless, the Falcs played 12 teams that finished under .500, several well under, and they lost to 2 of those teams, on the other hand they faced a decent division all 7-9 or better but we must consider those teams faced the same weak opponents as well because they're in the same division..

    NFC west may look weak but look at who they faced outside and inside their division?

    just facing facts, any given Sunday is my rule...
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm


  • ATL is favored by 2.5 across the board...
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm


  • They can only play who they play.

    Strength of schedule is figured into Mr. DVOA and is a better reference.
    Idle vaporings of a mind diseased
    Image
    User avatar
    VaporHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1520
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am
    Location: Seattle


  • Twisted wrote:Moore, who are the 4 winning teams the Falcons beat this year?

    I hope you're not counting the Cowboys as a winning team? the 9-7 Giants? sure why not they were steam rollin when the falcs played em.. lol

    you also beat the Broncos BEFORE they got hot as a team, just like 5 teams beat the Hawks before they opened it up..

    I have the Giants, Redskins and Broncos as the only Teams the Falcons beat that ended OVER .500

    fact of the matter is every other team the Falcons faced ended at (1 team, cowboys) or under .500, thats 12 teams under .500 and one at?

    and yes I made a mistake somewhere stating the Falcons defense as 28th, that was old, they ended 24th, cant find thread for correction..

    but yea regardless, the Falcs played 12 teams that finished under .500, several well under, and they lost to 2 of those teams, on the other hand they faced a decent division all 7-9 or better but we must consider those teams faced the same weak opponents as well because they're in the same division..

    NFC west may look weak but look at who they faced outside and inside their division?

    just facing facts, any given Sunday is my rule...

    I was counting the Cowboys - thanks for the correction. And yes, the Giants were "steam-rolling" when we faced them. They had just put up 50+ the week before, and while I don't put much stock into power rankings, they were almost universally ranked in the top 3 and favored to beat us, and maybe even blow us out.

    Saying we beat the Broncos before they got hot and turning right around and saying that's the only reason the Hawks lost early in the season is silly. The Broncos had just beat up Pittsburgh the week before and were considered the early season SB frontrunners. Now that they're 13-3 and the number one seed in the AFC, everyone wants to make it sound like our win didn't count. That's cherrypicking. I'm looking at all the games teams played.

    The Falcons defense isn't 24th, imho. Yardage statistics are empty as a measuring stick when it comes to bend-but-don't-break and teams racking up yardage in garbage time. We're 5th in points allowed, 1st in passing TDs allowed, and I believe we're tied (with you guys) at 4th in terms of turnover differential.

    The three teams we lost to had better records than three of the teams you lost to, so once again...you're cherry picking in that case.

    Lastly, I never said the NFC West was weak. I argued that they weren't as weak as some might consider them to be offensively, but rather, that the good defenses that the teams in their division had faced made their offenses look weaker than they really were. Similarly to how all the good offenses in the NFC South, mixed with common opponents, make the Falcons opponents look like they're worse on defense than they might actually be.
    Falcan Moore
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 92
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:25 pm


  • lukerguy wrote:
    keepertd wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:The Falcons would have lost to the 49ers at least once but probably twice, the Patriots, Packers, Cardinals (with Kolb as they were when we played them week 1), and probably the Rams at least once as well.



    :34853_doh: and the Hawks probably would of lost to the Skins if RG3 was healthy...hmm its like there is no way of knowing


    No way of knowing for certain..however, with the C+ game we put forth, I actually do think we would have lost if RG3 was healthy. I don't think that's a stretch to say. We were losing 14-0 when he was far from healthy, and then he really re-aggravated it and their offense went stagnant.


    The tough part about the C+ grade is it is kind of by design. That field is kept that way to purposely offset the speed pf opposing teams. Considering the speed on this Seahawks team, it is almost predictable we would struggle significantly early until we adjusted and likely continue to struggle to a lessor degree as the game progressed and we adapted. The problem with taking the standpoint that if RG stay's healthy things are different is his injury is a product of that field.

    Schneider made his bed and now he has to sleep in it. It is becoming pretty common knowledge in NFL circles that if they don't fix the field, RGIII's playing life may be drastically reduced. The advantage gained is lost in not being able to field a healthy team.

    So if you want to say that if RGIII were to have been healthy it is equally fair to say, if the field was in good shape and IMO if the field is in good shape, we don't go down 14 points in the first two drives. That changes the complete complexity of the game and so we are back to asking the same questions we asked before we played them. The answer is in the truth. We (just like them) played the hand we were dealt and the end result is that we are moving on and they are not. End of story.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2902
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • BlueTalons wrote:As TechWorlds (Dom) would say: What does Mr. DVOA say?

    Mr. DVOA says Seattle 28 Atlanta 21. That is based on the league average of 22.75 points per game then compared to Atlanta's offensive DVOA % plus Seattles DVOA % (remember, good defensive DVOA's are negative so you add the two). The same for Seattle's offense and Atlanta's defense.

    This approach called all four Wildcard winners successfully last week and was pretty darned close to the final scores.

    Oh, and if you're wondering, which I know you're all sitting on the edges of your seats lol: San Fran 25 Green Bay 24.
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


  • Falcan Moore wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:Yes it was...you're a quick one. Your most impressive win of the season was definitely vs. the Broncos. However, even with Peyton having the worst game of his career, they were almost able to come back and win. 2 of those INTs he threw were gift wrapped, over thrown or inaccurate passes.

    The fact that you barely beat Arizona with Lindley at QB tells me a lot. Ryan struggles with pressure, and if memory serves you made LS Howling look like Barry Sanders on two of his runs.

    It wasn't a joke, it was either made-up or an actual mistake you made. You're saying he had the worst game of his career...funny how QBs tend to have those against us. Like Brees throwing for no TDs and five picks. Or Eli with no TDs and 2 picks. Rivers with no TDs and 2 picks. Stafford with no TDs and a pick. I mean, Jesus, RG3 was full health against us for the whole game till the 4th quarter and we held him to less than a hundred yards total.

    And you're in no place to cherry pick bad games. Seahawks lost to the Cardinals, Lions, and Dolphins...not only did we have a better record against our common opponents, but the teams we lost to all had better records than those three.

    I'm not saying we're fantastic, heck, I'm not even saying we're better than you guys. But we're still 13-3 and beat every opponent on our schedule, riding the 7th ranked scoring offense and 5th ranked scoring defense. If we play angry, there's no one capable of beating us - see the Giants game. If you play angry, there's no one capable of beating you - see the SF game.

    It'll be a great game.


    First of all, you're absolutely right. Thanks for telling me what I was thinking- you probably know what I was thinking better than I do anyways.

    Not that you deserve my time of day.. but I joke with trollers, like you. Primarily I do this because it elicits the exact reaction that it did.

    The Cardinals game was the first game of the season for our team; teams progress and regress throughout the season. We played a hot AZ team who ended up going 4-0 to start the year including beating the Patriots. Fast forward weeks later and we played a similar team that you played- we beat them 58-0 you beat them by 4 points 3 weeks prior...hmmm

    THe dolphins and Lions are both good teams... I don't get your point? They may not be elite, but both are good football teams.

    You're basically stating if you play your best game, then no other team who plays their best game can beat you? I beg to differ. I think if the Broncos, Seahawks, 49ers, or Patriots play their best game, they will beat your best game. Want to know why? You aren't complete. You can't run the football or stop the run, and in the playoffs that's what wins championships.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1408
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • lukerguy wrote:First of all, you're absolutely right. Thanks for telling me what I was thinking- you probably know what I was thinking better than I do anyways.

    Not that you deserve my time of day.. but I joke with trollers, like you. Primarily I do this because it elicits the exact reaction that it did.

    The Cardinals game was the first game of the season for our team; teams progress and regress throughout the season. We played a hot AZ team who ended up going 4-0 to start the year including beating the Patriots. Fast forward weeks later and we played a similar team that you played- we beat them 58-0 you beat them by 4 points 3 weeks prior...hmmm

    THe dolphins and Lions are both good teams... I don't get your point? They may not be elite, but both are good football teams.

    You're basically stating if you play your best game, then no other team who plays their best game can beat you? I beg to differ. I think if the Broncos, Seahawks, 49ers, or Patriots play their best game, they will beat your best game. Want to know why? You aren't complete. You can't run the football or stop the run, and in the playoffs that's what wins championships.

    I can't tell whether you're skimming my posts or have a lack of reading comprehension so severe that it renders you utterly useless in discussion. Either way, I'm done with you, I'd much rather chat with the intelligent Seahawks fans.
    Falcan Moore
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 92
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:25 pm


  • Falcan Moore wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:First of all, you're absolutely right. Thanks for telling me what I was thinking- you probably know what I was thinking better than I do anyways.

    Not that you deserve my time of day.. but I joke with trollers, like you. Primarily I do this because it elicits the exact reaction that it did.

    The Cardinals game was the first game of the season for our team; teams progress and regress throughout the season. We played a hot AZ team who ended up going 4-0 to start the year including beating the Patriots. Fast forward weeks later and we played a similar team that you played- we beat them 58-0 you beat them by 4 points 3 weeks prior...hmmm

    THe dolphins and Lions are both good teams... I don't get your point? They may not be elite, but both are good football teams.

    You're basically stating if you play your best game, then no other team who plays their best game can beat you? I beg to differ. I think if the Broncos, Seahawks, 49ers, or Patriots play their best game, they will beat your best game. Want to know why? You aren't complete. You can't run the football or stop the run, and in the playoffs that's what wins championships.

    I can't tell whether you're skimming my posts or have a lack of reading comprehension so severe that it renders you utterly useless in discussion. Either way, I'm done with you, I'd much rather chat with the intelligent Seahawks fans.


    Right back at you Einstein. I look forward to seeing your team choke, once again. Go Hawks.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1408
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm




It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:43 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information