Here’s a crazy stat about being the regular-season NFC big dog: Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl. The exception was the 2009 New Orleans Saints, who went on to win Super Bowl XLIV.

The Seahawks have the league’s best record after 11 games. That’s it. In the past three seasons, how many teams with the best record after 11 games have advanced to the Super Bowl? Zero. Houston (10-1) couldn’t do it last season. Green Bay (11-0) couldn’t do it in 2011. New England and Atlanta, both 9-2, couldn’t do it in 2010.

http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... 20xml.html

tom sawyer wrote:Here’s a crazy stat about being the regular-season NFC big dog: Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl. The exception was the 2009 New Orleans Saints, who went on to win Super Bowl XLIV.

The Seahawks have the league’s best record after 11 games. That’s it. In the past three seasons, how many teams with the best record after 11 games have advanced to the Super Bowl? Zero. Houston (10-1) couldn’t do it last season. Green Bay (11-0) couldn’t do it in 2011. New England and Atlanta, both 9-2, couldn’t do it in 2010.

http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... 20xml.html

GB and NE both rely on their QBs a ton and both of their Defenses suck. It isnt suprising they can be upset. I mean Rodgers scored 50+ and 40+ in 2 playoff games and they lost both. Atlanta was ok. Their problem is they couldnt finish a game. They were up HUGE on both us and the 49ers and choked both leads away. And Houston, didnt they have a ton of injuries?

tom sawyer wrote:Here’s a crazy stat about being the regular-season NFC big dog: Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl. The exception was the 2009 New Orleans Saints, who went on to win Super Bowl XLIV.

The Seahawks have the league’s best record after 11 games. That’s it. In the past three seasons, how many teams with the best record after 11 games have advanced to the Super Bowl? Zero. Houston (10-1) couldn’t do it last season. Green Bay (11-0) couldn’t do it in 2011. New England and Atlanta, both 9-2, couldn’t do it in 2010.

http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... 20xml.html

So statistics mean nothing to you because you don't understand the statistical concept of small sample size?

Want to play Texas hold 'em with me, then?

tom sawyer wrote:Here’s a crazy stat about being the regular-season NFC big dog: Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl. The exception was the 2009 New Orleans Saints, who went on to win Super Bowl XLIV.

The Seahawks have the league’s best record after 11 games. That’s it. In the past three seasons, how many teams with the best record after 11 games have advanced to the Super Bowl? Zero. Houston (10-1) couldn’t do it last season. Green Bay (11-0) couldn’t do it in 2011. New England and Atlanta, both 9-2, couldn’t do it in 2010.

http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... 20xml.html

Nobody....wait, let me emphasize this NOBODY had home field advantage in the Super Bowl. I mean, yes it's possible for the rarity to happen that a team whose city hosts the game actually plays in the game, but the odds are not really that good there. Basically once teams make it through their perspective Championship games, neither has HFA. Seattle is undefeated in NFC playoff games when having HFA throughout the playoffs. There's a stat for you.

If statistics mean nothing to you why did you post this?

SalishHawkFan wrote:

tom sawyer wrote:Here’s a crazy stat about being the regular-season NFC big dog: Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl. The exception was the 2009 New Orleans Saints, who went on to win Super Bowl XLIV.

The Seahawks have the league’s best record after 11 games. That’s it. In the past three seasons, how many teams with the best record after 11 games have advanced to the Super Bowl? Zero. Houston (10-1) couldn’t do it last season. Green Bay (11-0) couldn’t do it in 2011. New England and Atlanta, both 9-2, couldn’t do it in 2010.

http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... 20xml.html

So statistics mean nothing to you because you don't understand the statistical concept of small sample size?

Nope! Because statistics are like a bikini... what they reveal is suggestive, however, what they conceal is vital!!

That's less a statistic and more an odd correlative set of truths that you have posted, but uh, okay...

The Radish wrote:If statistics mean nothing to you why did you post this?

For the same reason people climb mountains I suppose.

Sarlacc83 wrote:Want to play Texas hold 'em with me, then?

Buahahahahaha. Win.

kidhawk wrote:Nobody....wait, let me emphasize this NOBODY had home field advantage in the Super Bowl. I mean, yes it's possible for the rarity to happen that a team whose city hosts the game actually plays in the game, but the odds are not really that good there. Basically once teams make it through their perspective Championship games, neither has HFA. Seattle is undefeated in NFC playoff games when having HFA throughout the playoffs. There's a stat for you.

The closest any team came to home field for a superbowl was the '84 49ers who played Miami at Stanford...pretty close, but not Candlestick (thankfully).

kidhawk wrote:Nobody....wait, let me emphasize this NOBODY had home field advantage in the Super Bowl. I mean, yes it's possible for the rarity to happen that a team whose city hosts the game actually plays in the game, but the odds are not really that good there.

That's because the NFL always wants it in a dome or somewhere sunny (where all of the crap teams play) for all of the socialites and business clowns who don't know crap about football. They're about the only ones that can afford to go anyway. The closest we've got to anything resembling weather was that Colts/Bears game where it was pissing down rain. I'd kill for an Ice Bowl in MetLife this year.

tom sawyer wrote:Here’s a crazy stat about being the regular-season NFC big dog: Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl. The exception was the 2009 New Orleans Saints, who went on to win Super Bowl XLIV.

The Seahawks have the league’s best record after 11 games. That’s it. In the past three seasons, how many teams with the best record after 11 games have advanced to the Super Bowl? Zero. Houston (10-1) couldn’t do it last season. Green Bay (11-0) couldn’t do it in 2011. New England and Atlanta, both 9-2, couldn’t do it in 2010.

http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... 20xml.html

I have a feeling that some of you struggle to see the distinction between discussing stats and living by them. It's entirely possible to discuss them without feeling like they trump reality or the laws of physics.

I am of the opinion that some stats are interesting and others are not. Some hold meaning and some do not.

That said, I disagree and I like stats.

tom sawyer wrote:Here’s a crazy stat about being the regular-season NFC big dog: Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl. The exception was the 2009 New Orleans Saints, who went on to win Super Bowl XLIV.

The Seahawks have the league’s best record after 11 games. That’s it. In the past three seasons, how many teams with the best record after 11 games have advanced to the Super Bowl? Zero. Houston (10-1) couldn’t do it last season. Green Bay (11-0) couldn’t do it in 2011. New England and Atlanta, both 9-2, couldn’t do it in 2010.

http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... 20xml.html

Seahawks with the best record in the NFC + Qwest Field "the best home field advantage in the NFL" = Easiest road to the Super Bowl.

tom sawyer wrote:

The Radish wrote:If statistics mean nothing to you why did you post this?

For the same reason people climb mountains I suppose.

If you don't want answer then just say so.

Saying "Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl" is the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of statistical "probabilities."

And for you uncultured rubes who don't get the reference:

Nicely done.

I rather enjoyed this:

KitsapHawk wrote:

The BUNK.

tom sawyer wrote:Here’s a crazy stat about being the regular-season NFC big dog: Only one of the past six No. 1 seeds in the NFC has advanced to the Super Bowl. The exception was the 2009 New Orleans Saints, who went on to win Super Bowl XLIV.

The Seahawks have the league’s best record after 11 games. That’s it. In the past three seasons, how many teams with the best record after 11 games have advanced to the Super Bowl? Zero. Houston (10-1) couldn’t do it last season. Green Bay (11-0) couldn’t do it in 2011. New England and Atlanta, both 9-2, couldn’t do it in 2010.

http://seattletimes.com/html/jerrybrewe ... 20xml.html

Statistics don't mean anything when you select what stats are important when you already know the results. There are literally an infinite number of permutations, of what combinations of things you can look at and out of all these, randomly you'll get some that fit your argument.

If you put any import into stats they must be as generic as possible and you have to use the same ones year after year. Best team after 11 seasons, why not pick after 13 or 5 games? Why only three seasons? Such a minuscule sample size?

That sounds a lot like 49er fans trying to rationalize their season by saying getting to the playoffs is all that matters just because the Giants got lucky a few years ago. Since the NFL started awarding HFA through the playoffs to the top teams in each conference, "40 of 74 No. 1 seeds have won their conference and advanced to play for the Vince Lombardi Trophy". Only TWO 6-seeds made it to the Super Bowl during that same time frame.

(from http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/visual ... ds-succeed)

I like how we LOVE statistics here..........except when they're not in our favor.

#1 seeds don't make it to the SB very often?................WELL THEN STATS MEAN NOTHING TO ME! I SAID GOOD DAY!

Sgt. Largent wrote:I like how we LOVE statistics here..........except when they're not in our favor.

#1 seeds don't make it to the SB very often?................WELL THEN STATS MEAN NOTHING TO ME! I SAID GOOD DAY!

There's a big difference between actual in game stats and random "stats" like that.

The Seahawks have a pretty good track record for being the #1 seed and making the SuperBowl.

That's all I care about.

KK84 wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:I like how we LOVE statistics here..........except when they're not in our favor.

#1 seeds don't make it to the SB very often?................WELL THEN STATS MEAN NOTHING TO ME! I SAID GOOD DAY!

There's a big difference between actual in game stats and random "stats" like that.

I don't see the difference. Stats are stats, hard factual data used to generate percentages. I just find it funny how some of us love stats when they're gushing all over our Hawks, but poo poo stats when they don't. That's right I said poo poo!

RolandDeschain wrote:

KitsapHawk wrote:

The BUNK.

"She gave me the p@#$$, but won't gimme back my shoes? that's screwed up jimmy!!!"