Seattle favored by 3 over Carolina

FlyingGreg · Aug 29, 2013

myrmidon":1cztwhi0 said:
Panther fan here. This should be a very good game. Im interested to see how our offense will look against a good defense, its a good test for week 1. Our secondary is somewhat suspect but our front 7 is no joke, if you guys can protect Wilson it will be a vey easy day for him because there will be receivers WIDE open. On the other hand if we get pressure on him it bodes well for us.

I don't mean to sound biased but the x factor in this game is Cam Newton if he's on he's damn near unstoppable, running, throwing it doesn't matter if he's on his game. The key for you guys will be to stop our running game. If Cam can get any help from our backs (he lead the team in rushing last year) lookout.

I predict an ugly game much like last year with not a lot of points scored. 20-17 Panthers.

Well...you may have forgotten, but we handled Newton quite easily last season. Running/mobile QB's don't intimidate our defense ... we completely shut down Kaepernick last December as well. Our speed and attention to detail is impressive.

I think it will be a low scoring game again, for sure. Your front 7 is legit. I sure hope that stubborn Pete doesn't go into this game trying to run the ball all game long like we did in Miami last season or we won't have a good chance. We need to throw, throw and throw.

12th_Bob · Aug 29, 2013

Here is the rub that favors Seattle against Newton, it's not pass rush as we didn't have a great pass rush last season outside of the Green Bay game, it's the front 7 speed + coverage. No WR can get open deep (Cam loves throwing deep), we make teams dink and dunk up the field and this requires patience; this is also why I'm not afraid of Palmer with Arians. The speed of the defensive front seven combined with size and speed of our outside corners means we can get to the line of scrimmage as quick as the Panthers running game and Newton should he decide to run. As long as Seattle is stout up the middle that limits the run as well.

Now, Carolina can still win on offense if they play patiently and Cam takes what is there and limits turnovers. The flip side is Seattle has a great offense running the conservative passing game, running the ball, in addition to the option/pistol/and deep threat. Also, Carolina is another team where man to man, not many Panthers are head and shoulders above the Seattle player at position to position.

Biggest worry for Seattle, no Clemons or Bruce, they bring a lot of talent to the front seven against a team like Carolina and I'm not sure Avril can replace Clemons at this point but I feel pretty good about Bennett if he plays strong side end.

C-Dub · Aug 29, 2013

FlyingGreg":1i7gusyy said:
myrmidon":1i7gusyy said:

Panther fan here. This should be a very good game. Im interested to see how our offense will look against a good defense, its a good test for week 1. Our secondary is somewhat suspect but our front 7 is no joke, if you guys can protect Wilson it will be a vey easy day for him because there will be receivers WIDE open. On the other hand if we get pressure on him it bodes well for us.

I don't mean to sound biased but the x factor in this game is Cam Newton if he's on he's damn near unstoppable, running, throwing it doesn't matter if he's on his game. The key for you guys will be to stop our running game. If Cam can get any help from our backs (he lead the team in rushing last year) lookout.

I predict an ugly game much like last year with not a lot of points scored. 20-17 Panthers.

Click to expand...

Well...you may have forgotten, but we handled Newton quite easily last season. Running/mobile QB's don't intimidate our defense ... we completely shut down Kaepernick last December as well. Our speed and attention to detail is impressive.

I think it will be a low scoring game again, for sure. Your front 7 is legit. I sure hope that stubborn Pete doesn't go into this game trying to run the ball all game long like we did in Miami last season or we won't have a good chance. We need to throw, throw and throw.

:13:

Attack that pathetic Panthers' secondary all game long. That should open up the run game as the game progresses.

RolandDeschain · Aug 29, 2013

bestfightstory":najgv7b6 said:
No. We absolutely did not. I debunked that myth a week or two ago. On 8/9/2013, actually. And kearly acknowledged it. Nuff said.

Based on what? Also, I decided to check this myself based on points, and it certainly appears that I'm right based on points scored/allowed overall based on half. Here, I added them up; and the only reason offense is virtually dead even is because of the three games in a row towards the end where we had first-half blowouts.

Seahawks offensive points scored in the first half and the second half, then defensive points allowed in first half and second half:

Week 1: 3/13, 10/10
Week 2: 13/14, 7/0
Week 3: 7/7, 0/12
Week 4: 7/6, 13/6
Week 5: 6/10, 3/9
Week 6: 10/14, 17/6
Week 7: 6/0, 3/10
Week 8: 17/7, 14/14
Week 9: 20/10, 17/3
Week 10: 14/14, 7/0
Week 12: 7/14, 7/17
Week 13: 10/13, 7/10
Week 14: 38/20, 0/0 (lol)
Week 15: 31/19, 17/0
Week 16: 28/14, 6/7
Week 17: 3/17, 7/6
Week 18: 13/11, 14/0
Week 19: 0/28, 20/10

Offensive totals: 233 points scored in the first half, 231 points scored in the second half. Three outlier games in a row starting with the Cardinals bumped the first half total up DRAMATICALLY. We scored more points in the second half of a game 8 times, and scored more points in the first half 8 times; an even split, with two games allowing the same number of points in both halves. Factor in the fact that defenses get tired towards the end of games, and you should see more offensive scoring in the second half than the first, on average. The only reason this is even is because of that three-game hot streak we had towards the end of the regular season. It took that just to even it out; otherwise, there's a pretty good difference in points scored in the first half versus the second half.

Defensive totals: 169 points allowed in the first half, 120 points allowed in the second half. When you again remember to factor in the fact that defenses tire towards the end of games along with us having blown several games in the 4th quarter last year, that is a mightily impressive differential. The Seahawks allowed WAY fewer points in the second half than in the first half, on average.

BFS, can you link the thread you're referring to? I don't recall it, and I'd like to see what it's based on; because the overall scoring trends sure agree with the assertion that we were slow starters as a team more often than not.

C-Dub · Aug 29, 2013

SoulfishHawk":1zkxc6is said:
Gotta pound the rock all...fricken....day

That's going to be very tough. Open the run game up first by attacking the secondary.

SoulfishHawk · Aug 29, 2013

I'm thinking in terms of eating up clock, keeping our D fresh, and wearing them out in the 4th quarter.

Sarlacc83 · Aug 29, 2013

FlyingGreg":164z491o said:
I think it will be a low scoring game again, for sure. Your front 7 is legit. I sure hope that stubborn Pete doesn't go into this game trying to run the ball all game long like we did in Miami last season or we won't have a good chance. We need to throw, throw and throw.

I agree. If Rice and Miller are active for the game, there's no reason not to destroy the field outside of the box.

Sgt. Largent · Aug 29, 2013

If Carolina was smart, they'd just run the ball down our throats with the makeshift D-Line we're going to have. Which also worries the hell out of me for week 2 if we don't start getting some of these guys back.

Sarlacc83 · Aug 29, 2013

Sgt. Largent":312vb9bz said:
If Carolina was smart, they'd just run the ball down our throats with the makeshift D-Line we're going to have. Which also worries the hell out of me for week 2 if we don't start getting some of these guys back.

This would worry me more if DeAngelo Williams was any good and Stewart wasn't out. Same with Frank Gore and the 49ers.

AgentDib · Aug 29, 2013

I also missed the previous thread about whether we started slowly or not. I believe the way to look at it would be with win probability plots from a site like advancednflstats or ideally one that released the data in tabular form, and estimate the overall slope. For the context of this discussion, you probably want to look specifically at road games because "starts slowly on the road" is the criticism that Vegas seems to have against us.

Cartire · Aug 29, 2013

RolandDeschain":3rr9gzj6 said:
bestfightstory":3rr9gzj6 said:

No. We absolutely did not. I debunked that myth a week or two ago. On 8/9/2013, actually. And kearly acknowledged it. Nuff said.

Click to expand...

Based on what? Also, I decided to check this myself based on points, and it certainly appears that I'm right based on points scored/allowed overall based on half. Here, I added them up; and the only reason offense is virtually dead even is because of the three games in a row towards the end where we had first-half blowouts.

Seahawks offensive points scored in the first half and the second half, then defensive points allowed in first half and second half:

Week 1: 3/13, 10/10
Week 2: 13/14, 7/0
Week 3: 7/7, 0/12
Week 4: 7/6, 13/6
Week 5: 6/10, 3/9
Week 6: 10/14, 17/6
Week 7: 6/0, 3/10
Week 8: 17/7, 14/14
Week 9: 20/10, 17/3
Week 10: 14/14, 7/0
Week 12: 7/14, 7/17
Week 13: 10/13, 7/10
Week 14: 38/20, 0/0 (lol)
Week 15: 31/19, 17/0
Week 16: 28/14, 6/7
Week 17: 3/17, 7/6
Week 18: 13/11, 14/0
Week 19: 0/28, 20/10

Offensive totals: 233 points scored in the first half, 231 points scored in the second half. Three outlier games in a row starting with the Cardinals bumped the first half total up DRAMATICALLY. We scored more points in the second half of a game 8 times, and scored more points in the first half 8 times; an even split, with two games allowing the same number of points in both halves. Factor in the fact that defenses get tired towards the end of games, and you should see more offensive scoring in the second half than the first, on average. The only reason this is even is because of that three-game hot streak we had towards the end of the regular season. It took that just to even it out; otherwise, there's a pretty good difference in points scored in the first half versus the second half.

Defensive totals: 169 points allowed in the first half, 120 points allowed in the second half. When you again remember to factor in the fact that defenses tire towards the end of games along with us having blown several games in the 4th quarter last year, that is a mightily impressive differential. The Seahawks allowed WAY fewer points in the second half than in the first half, on average.

BFS, can you link the thread you're referring to? I don't recall it, and I'd like to see what it's based on; because the overall scoring trends sure agree with the assertion that we were slow starters as a team more often than not.

Dude, your subjective look on starting slow is dumb. Just because the second halves were better, doesnt correlate to first halves being slow. You need to put that data up against league averages per half. Cmon, your smarter then this. Or at least you pretend to be.

AgentDib · Aug 29, 2013

Cartire":2w1u4z55 said:
Dude, your subjective look on starting slow is dumb. Just because the second halves were better, doesnt correlate to first halves being slow. You need to put that data up against league averages per half. Cmon, your smarter then this. Or at least you pretend to be.

Unless he is looking at whether the team started relatively slow, and that may be more reflective of how fans are looking at it. In other words, I may be concerned that the Seahawks under performed in the first half based on their own potential, not compared to a team like the Miami Dolphins. There are many ways to interpret "starting slow."

Cartire · Aug 29, 2013

AgentDib":3jk1xi38 said:
Cartire":3jk1xi38 said:

Dude, your subjective look on starting slow is dumb. Just because the second halves were better, doesnt correlate to first halves being slow. You need to put that data up against league averages per half. Cmon, your smarter then this. Or at least you pretend to be.

Click to expand...

Unless he is looking at whether the team started relatively slow, and that may be more reflective of how fans are looking at it. In other words, I may be concerned that the Seahawks under performed in the first half based on their own potential, not compared to a team like the Miami Dolphins. There are many ways to interpret "starting slow."

His interpertation is that because the second half was better, the first half was slow. Why cant the first half be normal and the second half be better?

You have to compare to a constant if your going to make the claim that we are slow. The constant is the league average in first halves. Not our own record in second halves.

And the less subjective the better. Otherwise, all you get is "feelings" which is good enough to be an NFL.com analyst (ps, dont strive to be that).

RolandDeschain · Aug 29, 2013

Cartire":3hjgoho9 said:
Dude, your subjective look on starting slow is dumb. Just because the second halves were better, doesnt correlate to first halves being slow.

Actually, when your defense consistently allows more points when they're fresh and less points when they're tired, that does in fact PROVE there is a correlation. Apply a little logic, Car.

Cartire":3hjgoho9 said:
You need to put that data up against league averages per half. Cmon, your smarter then this. Or at least you pretend to be.

I'm not going to spend hours and hours writing down and adding those numbers for the other 31 teams in the league. You can feel free to literally spend the next 10 hours doing that, if you want. Also, for a season average, it's NOT just dumb. Points are the single largest stat to measure performance by, by a huge margin. When you see a trend over the course of an entire season, it's not dumb.

Cartire":3hjgoho9 said:
His interpertation is that because the second half was better, the first half was slow. Why cant the first half be normal and the second half be better?

Dude, if the second half is faster, the first half is slower no matter what. How slow overall compared to the rest of the league is a hard thing to quantify, feel free to do it, but WE WERE SLOWER in the first half than in the second half. Even if our first half performance is not slow at all by league standards, it doesn't change the fact that WE were slower in the first half than in the second. You're killin' me, Smalls.

pehawk · Aug 29, 2013

First drives the Seahawks killed it. Of course it took Bevell half a year to get points every time.

The 1st Rams game sticks out. The Hawks flat-out dominated the Rams on the ground. They did whatever they wanted. But, no points.

AgentDib · Aug 29, 2013

Cartire":1flbtoyc said:
His interpertation is that because the second half was better, the first half was slow. Why cant the first half be normal and the second half be better? You have to compare to a constant if your going to make the claim that we are slow. The constant is the league average in first halves. Not our own record in second halves.

Because in both cases, I think it is perfectly reasonable to feel that your team started slow based on their own potential. The constant you may want to compare to is their own average production.

I do agree with you that a difference in production doesn't automatically imply something is wrong. After all, you would expect an offense with Carroll's philosophy to do slightly better as games progressed as your successful running game was able to wear down their defensive line.

Sgt. Largent · Aug 29, 2013

Sarlacc83":3htzcbbp said:
Sgt. Largent":3htzcbbp said:

If Carolina was smart, they'd just run the ball down our throats with the makeshift D-Line we're going to have. Which also worries the hell out of me for week 2 if we don't start getting some of these guys back.

Click to expand...

This would worry me more if DeAngelo Williams was any good and Stewart wasn't out. Same with Frank Gore and the 49ers.

So you don't think Gore and the SF Line are good? That my friend, is crazy talk.

You saw what Gore and the SF line did to us the first time we met last year, and that was WITH most of our healthy D-Line. SF has arguably the best O-Line in the NFL, I can guarantee you they're going to try and ram the ball down our throats..............and this time they won't be coming off an exhausting cross country trip to NE where they had to use up all their energy staving off a torrid NE comeback.

Cartire · Aug 29, 2013

RolandDeschain":2avkbxji said:
Cartire":2avkbxji said:

You need to put that data up against league averages per half. Cmon, your smarter then this. Or at least you pretend to be.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to spend hours and hours writing down and adding those numbers for the other 31 teams in the league. You can feel free to literally spend the next 10 hours doing that, if you want. Also, for a season average, it's NOT just dumb. Points are the single largest stat to measure performance by, by a huge margin. When you see a trend over the course of an entire season, it's not dumb.

Spending 10 hours ..... Only you, iRo, would go into such Hyperbole.

First Half/Second Half Offensive points.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/1s ... s-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/2n ... s-per-game

First Half/Second Half points allowed. (note, you dont want to rank 1st on these)

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/op ... s-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/op ... s-per-game

Wooo, 10 hours down in about 23 seconds.

So now you know, against the average, or defense was 5th best team in the first half, and 1st best in the second half.
Our offense was 9th best in the first half and 11th in the second half.

Now please, enlighten me with your all powerful brain, are we really "slow" to start?

volsunghawk · Aug 29, 2013

peachesenregalia":3kgyj55g said:
We own Cam Newton

Um, we've played Newton ONCE, and if he hadn't thrown that 4th down ball into the dirt in the end zone at an open receiver's feet, we likely lose that game.

Now, that's not to say that we shouldn't win. I think we should. But anyone acting like this is a cakewalk hasn't been watching Carolina at ALL. They won 5 of their last 6 games in 2012, and Newton played pretty strongly down the stretch (10/2 TD to INT ratio over those 6 games, with 4 rushing TDs added on).

Now, it's true that Carolina's secondary is awful, and that the receiving corps is essentially the corpse of Steve Smith and nobody else. But that being said, upsets happen all the time in Week 1, and defenses are usually still well ahead of offenses the first week of the season. Carolina will be playing in front of a raucous crowd (or at least as raucous as they get there), so their D will feed off of that. Their front 7 isn't "decent." It's one of the top in the game, and Keuchly is a monster and a half. If our offense has a hard time getting in rhythm, it could be a long day for the Seahawks. Add to that our issues along the D-line with injury and suspensions. We won there last year in part because we had Clemons and Irvin wreaking havoc on Newton. Guess who we don't have in week 1?

You can strut and thump your chest all you like about a Seahawks beatdown, and I sincerely hope you get to rub it in my face how right you were, but I think it's going to be a very, very close game and that we'll be lucky to escape with a W.

Sarlacc83 · Aug 29, 2013

Sgt. Largent":2pb933u5 said:
Sarlacc83":2pb933u5 said:

Sgt. Largent":2pb933u5 said:

If Carolina was smart, they'd just run the ball down our throats with the makeshift D-Line we're going to have. Which also worries the hell out of me for week 2 if we don't start getting some of these guys back.

Click to expand...

This would worry me more if DeAngelo Williams was any good and Stewart wasn't out. Same with Frank Gore and the 49ers.

Click to expand...

So you don't think Gore and the SF Line are good? That my friend, is crazy talk.

You saw what Gore and the SF line did to us the first time we met last year, and that was WITH most of our healthy D-Line. SF has arguably the best O-Line in the NFL, I can guarantee you they're going to try and ram the ball down our throats..............and this time they won't be coming off an exhausting cross country trip to NE where they had to use up all their energy staving off a torrid NE comeback.

I never mentioned the SF line. Gore, however, is now on the wrong side of 30 and I think he's going to be remarkably less effective this year.

Seattle favored by 3 over Carolina

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

Similar threads