But the 6 seed teams beat the 1 seed teams 5 - 2

Any stat that involves the paper tiger falcons and one and done colts is a stat worth looking further into.

Shouts to Nshima at fieldgulls for actually breaking these games down.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/1/8/5288 ... loser-look

looks like a case of over/underrated teams as opposed to being some kinda curse or weakness.

Now ask yourself, do we look like an "inflated" 13 - 3 team?
do the saints look like some darkhorse NY Giants team?

exactly

time to handle business.

The Saints are a darkhorse. Just a few weeks ago, they were being talked about as contenders for the #1 seed and seemed like a lock for the #2 seed at one point.

They have a lot of talent.

But the Seahawks are not a paper tiger.

"Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation of data."

Stats can't predict the future and the Hawks aren't part of those stats! The Saints are a damn good team, but Seattle is a freaking nightmare for road teams. But we have had a week off and the secret weapon comes out on Saturday. Brees did prove himself a little last week by not chocking outside of his dome but I think the whooping the got last time is still in the back of the mind of every person on that team.

I appreciate the attempt to justify the poor showing by #1s since 2005, but he has to go through a lot of acrobatics to get there. You can't really convince me that a Saints upset would be more shocking than the Jets stunning the Patriots in 2010 just because the Jets had a higher defensive DVOA.

DavidSeven":2c5iqvzb said:

I appreciate the attempt to justify the poor showing by #1s since 2005, but he has to go through a lot of acrobatics to get there. You can't really convince me that a Saints upset would be more shocking than the Jets stunning the Patriots in 2010 just because the Jets had a higher defensive DVOA.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It wasn't a lot of acrobatics really. He was using a neutral criteria to measure relative quality (DVOA) to show that those #6 seeds that beat the #1 seeds weren't really upsets in the sense the team that was better did in fact win. I note that there have been many cases in recent history where the #1 seed has been a paper tiger at best abbetted by a favorable schedule, while the #6 seed came out second best in a dogfight for a hard division and actually was playing better football.

Since when are #6 seeds crappy teams that stun the #1?

You don't get in the playoffs if you're crappy. The difference between #1 and #6 can sometimes be as obscure as strength of schedule or cumulative points.

Even 7-9 teams can beat the defending Super Bowl champs........anybody? anybody? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Even at 7-9 we had such a strong home field presence that the media was saying that's the only reason we had a chance.

Shadyhawk182":2ah3j10p said:

Even at 7-9 we had such a strong home field presence that the media was saying that's the only reason we had a chance.

Click to expand...

We also had Marshawn Lynch, who was finally getting his legs under him as a Seahawk.

Nuggets/Sonics 1994. As fans it's great to have expectations and look ahead to the NFCC and Super Bowl... but as RW says, one game at a time. I don't think the Saints should be overlooked. It's not going to be another blowout.

The Seahawks would be wise to rest their starters this week for the NFC Championship game against the 49ers or Carolina.

That will be the real war.

None of it matters and/or has a thing to do with what will happen this Saturday.

People bringing up sonics/nuggets are seattlites that are addicted to losing.

Because what happened in a basketball game has so much to do with a football game :34853_doh:

Polaris":3phugw1z said:

DavidSeven":3phugw1z said:

I appreciate the attempt to justify the poor showing by #1s since 2005, but he has to go through a lot of acrobatics to get there. You can't really convince me that a Saints upset would be more shocking than the Jets stunning the Patriots in 2010 just because the Jets had a higher defensive DVOA.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It wasn't a lot of acrobatics really. He was using a neutral criteria to measure relative quality (DVOA) to show that those #6 seeds that beat the #1 seeds weren't really upsets in the sense the team that was better did in fact win. I note that there have been many cases in recent history where the #1 seed has been a paper tiger at best abbetted by a favorable schedule, while the #6 seed came out second best in a dogfight for a hard division and actually was playing better football.

Click to expand...

Uh, the 2010 Patriots were #1 in overall and weighted DVOA by a huge margin. They were riding an eight game win streak going into the playoffs and had blown out the Jets 50-3 a month before getting beat by them in the playoffs. The 14-2 Colts team he references was also #1 in overall DVOA.

He's doing acrobatics because in one example, he'll point out how the underdog had a higher OVERALL DVOA. In another, he'll point out the underdog had a lower OVERALL DVOA, but higher in DEFENSIVE DVOA, so that EXPLAINS EVERYTHING. In yet another example, he'll point out how the underdog had a higher SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA but was ranked lower everywhere else, so now that explains the upset -- except his statistical analysis is nonsensical so he starts bringing up players getting stabbed by their girlfriends and family tragedy to distract us. That is acrobatics, my friend. And this analysis really shows us nothing.

Two factors I have seen in these upsets. Either the #1 seed has a suspect defense going in (Falcons, Colts) or it was a division match-up (Patriots, Giants). We've seen how the Cards and Rams play the Hawks so tough while supposedly better teams don't. The only one that doesn't fit in either category is the Ravens / Titans upset but that Ravens D was so good for a long period that they were always a threat on the road.

I disagree. In NO case has a #6 seed beaten a #1 seed where the #6 seed was inferior in all respects to the #1 seed, and honestly that's what we're seeing here. I note the same season where the 14-2 Colts lost (and barely lost) to the Steelers, the #1 seeded Seahawks (#2 in overall DVOA) had no problems with a Washington Redskins team (a #6 seed) that was inferior in all respects even without Shaun Alexander for most of the game.

The point the article is making is that there isn't an automatic "toxic" matchup between #1 and #6 seeds, but rather there are specific football reasons that often apply (and that the #6 seed may be a lot better than their seed and the #1 seed can be a alot worse).

All 5 wins were from 6 seeded teams with better defense. It's that simple.

What do the Seahawks have? They have a defense miles above the Saints defense.

The thing that interests me the most is, when was the last time a #1 seed had a defense like ours that just dominates critical categories.


But the theme of the article was the 6 seeds who won those games had better D. What wins championships and playoff games?

The outcome of the game will not be decided on what happened in the past... particularly with other teams a number of years ago.

Seeker":ryrb8gz8 said:

People bringing up sonics/nuggets are seattlites that are addicted to losing.

Click to expand...

Addicted no. Just had many years of SOS syndrome, living through the 90s teams has jaded me

SoulfishHawk":ryrb8gz8 said:

Because what happened in a basketball game has so much to do with a football game :34853_doh:

Click to expand...

A generalization of the situation. just because you're 13-3 and the other team is 12-5, blew them out in the last game, don't assume a victory, don't play down to them, don't plan a trip to NYC... BTW, Hauschka drains 3 pointers all the time

These stats are so useless it almost makes me anbgry that ESPN tries to act like they actually play a factor. Some dolt the other day said SF has the best shot because they are a championship franchise with a lot of rich history. So because a few teams that won the Super Bowl back when the Roman Empire fell it gives the 49ers an edge in the playoffs? Even though the organization is almost 100% different from top the bottom? GTFO of here with that nonsense.