Article: Revisiting the curse of the 10-win comeback season

[drdiags]

This article is along the lines of the percentage of teams that lose the Superbowl and having a tough following season. This one is about teams that went from a losing team to a 10 plus win team regressing back near to or under .500.

From 2002 to 2011 there were 29 instances in which a team posted a record of 7-9 or worse one season and came back the following year to record ten or more wins. And in 26 of those 29 instances (89.6%), the teams in question reverted from a 10-6 or better franchise to a 9-7 or worse franchise in year three.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Revisiting-the-curse-of-the-10win-comeback-season.html

And yes, there are 4 teams this year that qualify as the type of team in question. Seattle is one of them. There were 3 last year and 2 of them bucked the trend, one being our rivals to the south.

 

[Cartire]

Interesting and kinda scary...

 

[hawker84]

interesting, but i just can't see that happening to this team, barring catostrophic injury plagued training camp/season...

We're way too much talent at almost every position, and as long as RW is verticle, we will more than likely be in every game..

but one never really knows what the season has in store..

 

[Sarlacc83]

I'm not too terribly concerned about this team regressing because it wasn't a case of a player (or players) having a historic year that can't be replicated such as the Lions owing much of their success to a crazy performance by Stafford in 2011 that was going to be nigh-on impossible to do again in 2012. (Stafford only threw for 20 TDs last year, down from 41 in 2012). So, a big gain covered over a host of other problems.

In Seattle's case, I think the teams success is sustainable. Wilson should be better if not just as good as last year, someone like Sherman still can improve (scary thought), and Seattle continues to cycle its roster to get better at its weakest positions. You can, however, see the issues mentioned above for the other 3 teams on the list. Luck's 4th quarter success might be impossible to repeat, the Redskins relied on Griffin and Morris's historic performances, and the Vikings relied on AP waaaay too much.

 

[Hawknballs]

something would have to go wrong.

This team has improved too much from year to year for me to be too concerned about a step backwards.

in pete carrol's first year here (2010) we were getting stomped by everyone in our losses by an average of 21 points, and struggling to score points ourselves.

In his second year we narrowed the gap. A slow start, and we didn't sneak into the playoffs, but repeating a 7-9 record didn't do justice to the fact that the team had improved significantly. Aside from two lopsided games to start the season, we finished the second half of that year 5-3, with those 3 losses by a total of 11 points..

Last year we continued upon the 2011 season with a better QB and more experience. We all saw what happened. Including the playoffs, our 6 losses were by an average of 4 points. Our 12 wins were by an average of 17.

Barring significant injury or other unforseen circumstances there's no reason to worry about a step backwards.

 

[The Radish]

Seattle was one of those teams in 2006 as I recall and were the team that broke the string of losing SB teams not making the playoffs the following year.

:les:

 

[Hawknballs]

2006 was sort of a down year for the NFC though. only 5 teams finished above 500. we were dangerously close to being beaten out for the spot by the rams.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Catastrophic injury notwithstanding, this is not a team that in any way resembles a one off/lucky franchise.

The seeds for sustained success were in place. The growth of the team was predictable. And the manner in which this team dug through and overcame new challenges with such regularity leads me to the conclusion that this team is poised on the precipice of greatness.

I don't see a team that simply benefitted from lucky bounces and blown calls. It's a team that methodically improved week to week in a manner one would hope for a club whose core stars are young but just approaching their primes.

If it was one guy or two having career years that masked serious and persistent liabilities, then I'd be worried. But this is a team that is loaded in breadth and depth. A team that really appears to barely be reaching their potential. The manner in which this club keeps improving and surmounting the benchmarks of a good to great team is not typical of a one and done squad.

Lots of teams can get lucky one year. But I think it's pretty clear that if the team remains healthy at QB, they should be significantly improved over last season and even the last half of last season.

 

[Kixkahn]

You trying to put water on our fire about the potential for this upcoming season? :sarcasm_on: Don't try to be a party pooper. :sarcasm_off:

 

[DavidSeven]

I wonder how many of those teams were able to add one of the best all-around players in football while also retaining virtually all of its impact starters AFTER the 10+ win season? Any doubt we would have won a bunch more games in 2006 if we retained Hutch, Jurevicius, etc. and added a talent like Harvin?

 

[Hawks46]

I can see the reasoning both for and against us making the playoffs.

We are in the toughest division in the NFL. If we get a few key injuries, there isn't a lot of room for error. SF looks to have another strong year, and if we lose some key players, and it costs us 2-3 games, that's it. SF is looking like a 12 win or better team, so no margin for error. You also can't always count on getting the wildcard in a pretty decent conference like the NFC is shaping up to be next year.

Then again, we're probably the most stacked and deepest team in the league. THe only real injuries that would hurt us are QB and maybe FS, LT or C. Other than that we look very solid across the board. The flip side is that SF also have a narror margin of error and injury could deplete them equally.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I can see the reasoning both for and against us making the playoffs.

We are in the toughest division in the NFL. If we get a few key injuries, there isn't a lot of room for error. SF looks to have another strong year, and if we lose some key players, and it costs us 2-3 games, that's it. SF is looking like a 12 win or better team, so no margin for error. You also can't always count on getting the wildcard in a pretty decent conference like the NFC is shaping up to be next year.

Then again, we're probably the most stacked and deepest team in the league. THe only real injuries that would hurt us are QB and maybe FS, LT or C. Other than that we look very solid across the board. The flip side is that SF also have a narror margin of error and injury could deplete them equally.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And don't forget no matter how they spin it losing Crabtree was a big blow to the Niners. Particularly Keap given that IS his bread and butter receiver.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

The schedule is the reason for this phenomenon. An easy schedule, a few lucky breaks, good season. Next season, tougher schedule, team falls back. The teams that break that trend are the teams that are gaining talent and the good season is a result of that. So a tougher schedule doesn't knock them back down.
The Seahawks are in that second group. They're going to be a good team for a long time.

 

[kearly]

It's actually not that surprising. Winning 10 games is really hard to do. Seattle has only won ten games or more 6 times in 37 seasons. And they have never done it back to back.

I think next year's team will probably win at least 10, just because on paper they should have won 13 games last year, they are a young improving team, and they made several big additions in the offseason. Even the 2005 Superbowl team was thin in several key areas, this team isn't.

SF was part of this club after 2011, and they ended up having a statistically stronger follow up season. They did win two fewer regular season games, but almost won the SB. Obviously, they did not fall back to Earth. Seattle is a similar if not superior team, so I expect a similar if not superior outcome.

As far as the other 10+ win teams, I'd be surprised if Minnesota and Indy finished with 10+ again. Indy's schedule is tougher this year (they draw the NFC West) and Minnesota rode a career year from AP to hit 10 wins. Denver is the 4th team. As long as Peyton stays healthy, they are a pretty safe bet to win 10+.

The schedule is the reason for this phenomenon. An easy schedule, a few lucky breaks, good season. Next season, tougher schedule, team falls back. The teams that break that trend are the teams that are gaining talent and the good season is a result of that. So a tougher schedule doesn't knock them back down.
The Seahawks are in that second group. They're going to be a good team for a long time.

I'd also mention turnover ratio. The Bears have twice gone from 3-5 wins to 13 wins and back to 3-5 wins in the last decade, and the one thing that made those 13 win seasons stand out was an impossible to repeat turnover ratio.

There's also just freak luck. It's easy to over-achieve or under-achieve in a 16 game sample. Brendan Ryan might be the worst hitter in baseball but over 16 at bats recently he hit close to .500. The Colts are a great example of that last year. They somehow went 11-5 with a -30 point differential (21st in the NFL). The Seahawks posted the exact same record with a +167 point differential (3rd in the NFL). The thing about luck, is that it tends to be temporary, so lucky teams almost always get their due by the next season.

 

[Scottemojo]

regression to the mean is a stupid way to forecast. No way did I think the Niners were going to regress to 9 or less wins last year, and no way do I think it will happen to us this year. Too much talent. 20 returning starters. A QB one year wiser.

 

[kearly]

Actually Scott, SF did regress in terms of luck. They were not able to sustain their extremely high T/O ratio, and partly as a result of that, they won two fewer regular season games.

On the other hand, the 2012 49ers were actually a better team than the 2011 version. Better QB play, vastly superior offense play, and they maintained quality play on defense. They played much better than the 2011 version but actually won two fewer games because of regression to the mean regarding turnovers. I suppose it's justice then that they still managed a bye week and advanced further in the playoffs.

I was one of those people that thought SF would most definitely not repeat a 13 win season last year, and I was basically right. What I did not expect was that Alex Smith and Colin Kaepernick would put up league MVP type numbers. I'm sure even the most unabashed 49ers homer probably didn't see that coming.

 

[bestfightstory]

The 49ers will win 10 games AT MOST.

The Rams will also win 10 games.

Deal with it, Seahawks.
(The Seahawks will win 12 games, minimum)

 

[kearly]

I think the 49ers are a real threat to win 13-14 games next year. They are basically 1b to Seattle's 1a, and their schedule is extremely favorable. Other than their game at Seattle, there isn't a game all season that I look at and think they should lose. Unfortunately, I could see Seattle being the better team and still finishing 2nd if only because of the blatant unfairness in scheduling this year.

 

[bestfightstory]

I think the 49ers are a real threat to win 13-14 games next year. They are basically 1b to Seattle's 1a, and their schedule is extremely favorable. Other than their game at Seattle, there isn't a game all season that I look at and think they should lose. Unfortunately, I could see Seattle being the better team and still finishing 2nd if only because of the blatant unfairness in scheduling this year.

Agree about the ridculousness of the schedule.

I don't begrudge them their talent-never have. I just anticipate issues with injury to Crabtree now and Gore wearing down this year, a thin receiving corps and an unremarkable coverage unit.

Add to that the continued pressure generated by front runner status and I think it comes undone a bit this year.

Hell, call it a gambler's hunch. :th2thumbs:

 

[RolandDeschain]

Notice there's only one team on that list of four that is slated to have a postseason-worthy record, despite being in the toughest division in football. I'm not worried. We're young and on the rise.