Seattle v Atlanta: the statistical truth

GoHawks":n2ab7s6k said:

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

Click to expand...

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

keepertd":zdqh1dh9 said:

lukerguy":zdqh1dh9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

: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

Click to expand...

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 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.

lukerguy":wvnycrws said:

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.

Click to expand...

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":8d0nqsp1 said:

lukerguy":8d0nqsp1 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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..

entropyrulesall":1h9rf5jr said:

Falcan Moore":1h9rf5jr said:

lukerguy":1h9rf5jr said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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...

ATL is favored by 2.5 across the board...

They can only play who they play.

Strength of schedule is figured into Mr. DVOA and is a better reference.

Twisted":4i9s0ekk said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

lukerguy":3d09tcrw said:

keepertd":3d09tcrw said:

lukerguy":3d09tcrw said:

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.

Click to expand...

: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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BlueTalons":g9eik26j said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Falcan Moore":3tbx4d1z said:

lukerguy":3tbx4d1z said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

lukerguy":2afh7xzc said:

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.

Click to expand...

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":31xw6dlt said:

lukerguy":31xw6dlt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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