Barnwell at ESPN predicts we take a step back

[John63]

I believe the 2019 Seahawks were one of the worst 11-5 teams in NFL history, however, is this some take leftover from 2017? The Seahawks trailed at half time 7 times last season and won 5 of those games. The team also took half time leads of 20-3, 24-0, 10-3, and 20-7. So the played out "hot take" of the Seahawks coming back and winning needs to be retired. The defense last season could not hold a lead to save its life.

Ahh not really if the hawks had a lead and then had to come back to win that would mean they 'HAD TO COME BACK TO WIN". In addition, part of the reason the other team was able to com back was us going to our prevent offense and defense. That is where we play not to lose rather than to win.

 

[AgentDib]

Reversion to the mean should be the default opinion when projecting any upcoming season, but that applies to every good team and not just the Hawks. It's an NFL law that a couple of teams that were great last year are going to be bad, and a couple of bad teams are going to be great. The Hawks have done an amazing job over the years keeping things rolling but it's an uphill battle.

That being said, using NFL point differentials from previous seasons is an awful predictor. It's a small sample size in the first place and then there's a ton of off-season change in terms of injuries, coaching strategies, roster personnel, and schedule difficulty. If you want to predict the outcome of the upcoming 2020 Seahawks @ Falcons opener then you need to exhaust truly a mountain of information before the "2019 Seahawks/Eagles score differential" becomes your next most useful piece of data.

He neglected to mention the impact of those injuries on the style of play our offense is accustomed to. We lost our top three tight ends and running backs and our starting center.

I agree this was a key oversight on his part. I would bet as a Pats fan he just saw the adjusted games lost thing and assumed that we were relatively healthy, without realizing that the specific people we lost (and when we lost them) was catastrophic to the end of our season.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Really John, the Hawks don't play to win? :34853_doh:

 

[beaumaris]

These are the same guy s who predicted a 4-12 season two years ago. They have been wrong about the team more often than any other news source. Even Prisco is better at assessing the Hawks, and we all know how little we care about his mostly negative assessments.

There's a group here that will naturally enjoy the post but Barnwell is hardly a fan of the Hawks. The complaint seems to be Pete's teams don't blow other teams out, but they win, and that somehow isn't good enough. OK, sure thing Bill, cool story Bro.

Style points mean diddly, it's all about winning and losing.

I have found (in all sports) over many years,that those know nothing “Knowalls” are wrong about 90% of the time. :roll:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

They've been predicting bad Hawks seasons for years. Maybe they'll be right at some point.....a decade too late.

 

[kf3339]

The biggest reasons this team has had issues has been our bad offensive play in the first half and a defense that gives up too much ground every game. We haven't been able to extend drives on offense, or get off the field on 3rd down for our defense. I don't think anyone will disagree with either of those points.

It is for these reasons that we have had to play from behind resulting in close games at the end. RW is the only reason we have been able to pull out close wins, or lose close games at the end. I don't see any reason to question those points as well.

Is Barnwell a piece of s$%T for always digging on the Hawks. Yes.

I would personally like to see us open up the offense early in the game and start putting pressure on the other team to keep up with us. It would be a change of pace. Hopefully, adding Olsen with a healthy Dissly will give us a better 3rd down win percentage. Add in our WR's with a possible Gordon signing and I think we can be more explosive on offense. PC just needs to let RW be aggressive much sooner in the game. We still have our run game, but just need to be more creative. That has been his biggest mistake.

Our defense has been a work in progress. With the added secondary trades we should be much tighter. I even think our pass rush rotation will be better than last year. Perhaps not the name guy that we had with Clowney, but then he hasn't shown a real interest in staying with this team. Just a lot of talk. We could use a solid DT in the rotation and maybe a Griffin if he comes at a fair price. Other than that I'm excited to see us improve on defense. We couldn't be much worse than the last few years.

I really just hope that I can see four quarters of solid play each week from this team, and not have to wait until the last third of the game for us to wake up and really play to win. That would be a welcome change.

 

[Uncle Si]

The point differential seems to be the premise of his conclusion. And thats fair. Its easy to assume that the wins total is not sustainable with such a low differential.

That will need to improve for the hawks to push past 9 wins.

But not "that" much considering the game plan of the team.. and pushing this on the offensive scheme seems to miss the issue.


In 2013 the differential was 11 per game.. scoring 417 points. In 2014 it was 8 per, scoring 394.

In 2018 it was 5 per, scoring 428 points.

Last year, less than 0, scoring 405.

The difference here is the defense, not the offense.

Does Dunbar and Adams help the D? What about a Clowney or Griffen?

 

[olyfan63]

It was a reasonably balanced effort by Barnwell, I thought, not so much a hater effort. The reason he's wrong and his arguments are meaningless is that our D will be much better this year, with the addition of Adams and Dunbar, working along with Quandre Diggs, plus the LB speed upgrade from the addition of Jordyn Brooks. Our pass rush HAS to improve--it couldn't get much worse. So there's that.

I think our OL will be better than he believes it will be, but it may take a few games for timing and cohesiveness to kick in. Our OL talent overall is better. There are some wildcards in terms of who comes back healthy and contributes on offense, between Dissly, Carson, and Penny.

With all that, Barnwell might be only a game or three off. He does pick us to be .500 or above, so, say 9-7. In my unreasonably optimistic preseason mindset, I'm thinking 11-5 +/- 1 game.

 

[Rat]

He has always said that the kind of “high record vs low differential” (there’s probably a more eloquent term) is not sustainable. I hope he’s wrong in this case, but at least he’s consistent.

 

[John63]

Really John, the Hawks don't play to win? :34853_doh:

ahh yes the old I know what you mean, but I am going to try to make it something else to belittle you thing. Good job. You know exactly what I mean. BUt to help you, example hey we got a 20 point lead by mixing in pass and urn but we have a lead now let's run 70% of the time. And yes we have done that a lot. OR he we are holding them to no point playing aggressive, but we have a lead so let's pull back and not take chances.

When you get a lead and stop them playing a particular way you keep doing it till they stop it. You don't pull back. nice try though

 

[John63]

The biggest reasons this team has had issues has been our bad offensive play in the first half and a defense that gives up too much ground every game. We haven't been able to extend drives on offense, or get off the field on 3rd down for our defense. I don't think anyone will disagree with either of those points.

It is for these reasons that we have had to play from behind resulting in close games at the end. RW is the only reason we have been able to pull out close wins, or lose close games at the end. I don't see any reason to question those points as well.

Is Barnwell a piece of s$%T for always digging on the Hawks. Yes.

I would personally like to see us open up the offense early in the game and start putting pressure on the other team to keep up with us. It would be a change of pace. Hopefully, adding Olsen with a healthy Dissly will give us a better 3rd down win percentage. Add in our WR's with a possible Gordon signing and I think we can be more explosive on offense. PC just needs to let RW be aggressive much sooner in the game. We still have our run game, but just need to be more creative. That has been his biggest mistake.

Our defense has been a work in progress. With the added secondary trades we should be much tighter. I even think our pass rush rotation will be better than last year. Perhaps not the name guy that we had with Clowney, but then he hasn't shown a real interest in staying with this team. Just a lot of talk. We could use a solid DT in the rotation and maybe a Griffin if he comes at a fair price. Other than that I'm excited to see us improve on defense. We couldn't be much worse than the last few years.

I really just hope that I can see four quarters of solid play each week from this team, and not have to wait until the last third of the game for us to wake up and really play to win. That would be a welcome change.

DING DING DING we have a winner

 

[John63]

Every year we are amongst the tops in close games. Even back in the LOB days. He has said he like to keep it close and win in the end. Great when you have a top defense, great when you have a great oline. Not great with what we have had since 2015. Yes we win, but we have such a slim margin for error and really so much for Wilson to do magic that eventually it has to catch up to us. Not to mention it cannot get us beyond the 2nd round. The reality is until PC or someone opens up the offense and keeps the peddle to the mettle we are at best 2nd round playoff and out team. That's pressuming we keep beating the odds on all these close games every year.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I'm not belittling you at all. I just find it interesting that you actually think they don't play to win.

 

[John63]

I'm not belittling you at all. I just find it interesting that you actually think they don't play to win.

I find it interesting you are purposely being dense when I just spelled out what I meant and you know what I meant.

 

[AgentDib]

BUt to help you, example hey we got a 20 point lead by mixing in pass and urn but we have a lead now let's run 70% of the time. And yes we have done that a lot.

Are you talking about the Seahawks? When has Pete ever lost a game here that he was leading by 20 points?!

This does happen sometimes in the NFL, notably to the Falcons in the Super Bowl, when teams do not secure the lead and let the other team back into the game with turnovers and a fast tempo.

 

[John63]

BUt to help you, example hey we got a 20 point lead by mixing in pass and urn but we have a lead now let's run 70% of the time. And yes we have done that a lot.

Are you talking about the Seahawks? When has Pete ever lost a game here that he was leading by 20 points?!

This does happen sometimes in the NFL, notably to the Falcons in the Super Bowl, when teams do not secure the lead and let the other team back into the game with turnovers and a fast tempo.

I guess you missed the part of EXAMPLE. As to your last turnovers and fast tempo, yes but slowing it down, being predictable, and playing not to lose is not the answer. There is a middle ground that so far he has not found or does not want to find. Also yes not 20 but 17 point lead in 2015. Let me help you we went into the 4th qtr with 17 point lead. Also great we have never lost by 20 but how many times did we loose when we should have won if only we kept the peddle to the metal or did not wait so long to put the foot on the peddle.

Here are just 2 examples

https://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2020/01/13/slow-starts-hampered-seahawks-pete-carroll-era/

https://sports.mynorthwest.com/750145/huard-why-seahawks-offense-starts-slow-finishes-fast/?




enough said

 

[chris98251]

There is a reason we lead the league in defibrillator sales since Carroll took over.

 

[Smellyman]

Wah wah. Somebody in the media stated their opinion. I am salty.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And they're wrong so often, it makes it fun to look back. Good, I always hope the media underestimates the Hawks. Not that it matters even a little bit.

 

[rjdriver]

Whether or not you like him or not ....

He's no hack. He has NEVER predicted the Seahawks at 4-12 so it is ridiculous to compare him to Prisco. He has a better working knowledge of all 32 teams then any writer I have come across lately. I have heard him a few times on John Clayton's show and he had never been anti-Seahawk. Hit the archives and read what he said about the 2013 Seahawks being underrated.

He speaks math. His two points are simple.
1. Winning at a high percentage with a very slim point differential is usually statistically unsustainable. If the other team has a chance to win at the very end, eventually they just might.

2. Rusell Wilson is undisputedly the best weapon the Seahawks have. Barnwell is of the impression that we don't utilize that weapon efficiently, which leads to the Seahawks never enjoying a high point differential lead at the end of games..which leads us back to his first point.

Remember, all it takes is one more loss to literally take a "step back", and hell maybe the Niners make that field goal next year. If the Seahawks come out of the gate and start beating teams by more than 7 points, he will change his tune quickly, because the statistics he uses will mandate it.