Comparative analysis of teams with easy strength of schedule

[Polaris]

So you're not impressed with the 15-1 record because in reality we shouldn't be 15-1? If you say we don't measure up to our record that then implies that we exceeded any reasonable expectation. I would say that's a good thing, no?

No, it means what the Atlanta or Texan records meant a couple of years ago. You smashed up a bunch of tin cans. Good for you. You're supposed to do that; no one is saying you haven't earned your seed. However, don't expect people outside the South East to be all that impressed.

Unlike that Atlanta team, CAR seems to have the defense and run game to play in January imo.

Well, true. I do think (and DVOA agrees) that Carolina is a damn good and solid team both offensively and defensively. It's too bad (for them) that they drew the one team that matches up against them the best right out of the gate....but I blame the NFL for that and the skewed divisional strengths this year.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Could CarolinaBlue be any more passive aggressive?

 

[carolinablue]

Now you're cherry picking. Don't forget that win on the road against Arizona that is even more recent. Also if you want to point to the Rams then I get to point to Atlanta. You should know better than anyone that some divisional teams have the number of some others regardless of record or other circumstances. The Rams are that way with Seattle and have been since Fischer became the coach there. I know that historically you've had your own issues with the Saints. Let's also not forget that in addition to Arizona, Seattle in that same period beat a pretty good Minny team ON THE ROAD not once but twice and this last time in truly appalling conditions. I'd also say the Pittsburgh win was a good quality win as well.

Some of the Arizona fans feel like they laid down in that game once it was halftime. Can't really speak to that and frankly it doesn't really matter if they did or not. That was a good win which was why I didn't mention it. I was trying to point at some of the "tin cans" in your schedule and I didn't think Arizona fit. As for the Rams I know all about divisional games so yeah those are tough games regardless of records. And I've said a couple of times on here already that I don't believe we'd be 15-1 if we played your schedule. I think we would have won 12 or 13 though.

 

[HawkGA]

I remember reading an article last year about how the, I believe it was AFC, South was so historically bad that it greatly affected the playoffs. Basically, every division that played the entire AFC South division, sent at least 2 teams to the playoffs.

How many bad divisions did Carolina get to play? Oh, that's right, 3.

 

[Polaris]

Now you're cherry picking. Don't forget that win on the road against Arizona that is even more recent. Also if you want to point to the Rams then I get to point to Atlanta. You should know better than anyone that some divisional teams have the number of some others regardless of record or other circumstances. The Rams are that way with Seattle and have been since Fischer became the coach there. I know that historically you've had your own issues with the Saints. Let's also not forget that in addition to Arizona, Seattle in that same period beat a pretty good Minny team ON THE ROAD not once but twice and this last time in truly appalling conditions. I'd also say the Pittsburgh win was a good quality win as well.

Some of the Arizona fans feel like they laid down in that game once it was halftime. Can't really speak to that and frankly it doesn't really matter if they did or not. That was a good win which was why I didn't mention it. I was trying to point at some of the "tin cans" in your schedule and I didn't think Arizona fit. As for the Rams I know all about divisional games so yeah those are tough games regardless of records. And I've said a couple of times on here already that I don't believe we'd be 15-1 if we played your schedule. I think we would have won 12 or 13 though.

This is why I look at advanced stats. All teams will have a few tin cans on their schedule. You cherry picked the part of Seattle's schedule that happened to have a lot of them....and take one look at Bruce Arian's face during that week 17 game and then tell me that Arizona 'gave up at halftime' and I'll say bull.

The problem is that Carolina's schedule is full of tin cans because of how the schedule intersected with three historically weak divisions playing each other. It is what it is.

 

[carolinablue]

I remember reading an article last year about how the, I believe it was AFC, South was so historically bad that it greatly affected the playoffs. Basically, every division that played the entire AFC South division, sent at least 2 teams to the playoffs.

How many bad divisions did Carolina get to play? Oh, that's right, 3.

Here's the thing with that. Teams get matched up with each other before the year. It's a clean slate, it's 0-0. Then teams start playing and if the teams you play lose they get a loss on their record. And if you keep beating them, they get even more losses. All these stats...DVOA whatever are based off of what you do versus these teams right? So is it your fault that you keep beating these teams?

The only way any metric could be seen as totally accurate is if every team played each other the same amount of times and that will never happen.

 

[Polaris]

I remember reading an article last year about how the, I believe it was AFC, South was so historically bad that it greatly affected the playoffs. Basically, every division that played the entire AFC South division, sent at least 2 teams to the playoffs.

How many bad divisions did Carolina get to play? Oh, that's right, 3.

Here's the thing with that. Teams get matched up with each other before the year. It's a clean slate, it's 0-0. Then teams start playing and if the teams you play lose they get a loss on their record. And if you keep beating them, they get even more losses. All these stats...DVOA whatever are based off of what you do versus these teams right? So is it your fault that you keep beating these teams?

The only way any metric could be seen as totally accurate is if every team played each other the same amount of times and that will never happen.

Again, no one is saying that Carolina is to blame for their schedule but that doesn't mean you can ignore it or say it doesn't matter. It does matter. Carolina did what they were supposed to do and have been awarded the week off and the #1 seed accordingly. Unfortunately (for Carolina), instead of playing the weakest team left in the playoff field, Carolina is stuck with facing one of the strongest (if not they strongest) because of the way the records got skewed because of the weirdly skewed divisions.

Going by weighted DVOA (what have you done lately), the "actual" strength of the six NFC teams were (in order) Seattle, Carolina, Arizona, Minnesota, Green Bay, Washington. However, because of the skewed divisions, Seattle and Carolina (the top two) have to play each other straight out of the gate, while the two weakest got to play each other in wild-card weekend insuring one of them survived to the divisional round [a problem Arizona will soon solve I'm certain].

That's unfortunate because IMHO Seattle @ Carolina is a match that should have decided the NFC.

 

[Ruminator]

Thus, it will be a 50-0 shutout Seattle. Easier for Sherman to block kicks when it isn't quite so cold.

 

[whidbeast]

Unfortunately for Seattle, Seattle got the best defenses when they were playing their worst early in the season. However, Minny's defense and of course Arizona's defense (talking about this year only) are nothing to sneeze at. However, if you want to go down that route then look at DVOA (yes I know you Panthers fans hate DVOA but it is what it is). It accounts for all this...and Carolina is hardly bad in DVOA. It's just that DVOA shines a very hard and harsh light what the rest of the NFL strongly suspects: Seattle had bad luck (schedule, fumble and penalty) all year and got stuck with a worse record than their level of play (esp now) would normally indicate, and Carolina blessed with good luck (esp schedule, but also to some degree penalty and fumble) has a record that is far better than their level of play would normally indicate. It was Nate Silver of 538 iirc that blasted Carolina for being the worst (then) 12-0 team in NFL history. There's a reason for this.

So basically Carolina did better than they should have done and Seattle did worse than they should have done (according to this DVOA stat you keep bringing up). If that's what you're telling me than I guess I'm having a hard time in seeing how this reflects poorly on Carolina. It should be a better thing to overachieve than underachieve. Or maybe I'm just missing something.

They really do hate DVOA. It's just math, amigo!

 

[carolinablue]

Unfortunately for Seattle, Seattle got the best defenses when they were playing their worst early in the season. However, Minny's defense and of course Arizona's defense (talking about this year only) are nothing to sneeze at. However, if you want to go down that route then look at DVOA (yes I know you Panthers fans hate DVOA but it is what it is). It accounts for all this...and Carolina is hardly bad in DVOA. It's just that DVOA shines a very hard and harsh light what the rest of the NFL strongly suspects: Seattle had bad luck (schedule, fumble and penalty) all year and got stuck with a worse record than their level of play (esp now) would normally indicate, and Carolina blessed with good luck (esp schedule, but also to some degree penalty and fumble) has a record that is far better than their level of play would normally indicate. It was Nate Silver of 538 iirc that blasted Carolina for being the worst (then) 12-0 team in NFL history. There's a reason for this.

So basically Carolina did better than they should have done and Seattle did worse than they should have done (according to this DVOA stat you keep bringing up). If that's what you're telling me than I guess I'm having a hard time in seeing how this reflects poorly on Carolina. It should be a better thing to overachieve than underachieve. Or maybe I'm just missing something.

They really do hate DVOA. It's just math, amigo!

I don't hate it. Don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other tbh. But my thing is that why would I look at how Seattle did against all these other teams and how those teams did against other teams (which DVOA seems to be a measure of) when I can just look at the last time we played them a couple months ago?

 

[whidbeast]

Unfortunately for Seattle, Seattle got the best defenses when they were playing their worst early in the season. However, Minny's defense and of course Arizona's defense (talking about this year only) are nothing to sneeze at. However, if you want to go down that route then look at DVOA (yes I know you Panthers fans hate DVOA but it is what it is). It accounts for all this...and Carolina is hardly bad in DVOA. It's just that DVOA shines a very hard and harsh light what the rest of the NFL strongly suspects: Seattle had bad luck (schedule, fumble and penalty) all year and got stuck with a worse record than their level of play (esp now) would normally indicate, and Carolina blessed with good luck (esp schedule, but also to some degree penalty and fumble) has a record that is far better than their level of play would normally indicate. It was Nate Silver of 538 iirc that blasted Carolina for being the worst (then) 12-0 team in NFL history. There's a reason for this.

So basically Carolina did better than they should have done and Seattle did worse than they should have done (according to this DVOA stat you keep bringing up). If that's what you're telling me than I guess I'm having a hard time in seeing how this reflects poorly on Carolina. It should be a better thing to overachieve than underachieve. Or maybe I'm just missing something.

They really do hate DVOA. It's just math, amigo!

I don't hate it. Don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other tbh. But my thing is that why would I look at how Seattle did against all these other teams and how those teams did against other teams (which DVOA seems to be a measure of) when I can just look at the last time we played them a couple months ago?

I suppose an Atlanta fan could say the same if you were playing them this weekend, but my guess is that you would prefer that matchup

 

[carolinablue]

Yeah I'm still upset over that. According to the DVOA we should have won that game.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Yeah I'm still upset over that. According to the DVOA we should have won that game.

Making fun of DVOA just shows a lot of us how much you don't know, FYI. You should really read up on it, and how accurate it has been in myriad ways for the last decade.

It's not some guarantee that Seattle's going to beat you, or anything; but it's by far the best single stat out there to gauge a football team by. Nothing else really comes close.

 

[Smellyman]

Now you're cherry picking. Don't forget that win on the road against Arizona that is even more recent. Also if you want to point to the Rams then I get to point to Atlanta. You should know better than anyone that some divisional teams have the number of some others regardless of record or other circumstances. The Rams are that way with Seattle and have been since Fischer became the coach there. I know that historically you've had your own issues with the Saints. Let's also not forget that in addition to Arizona, Seattle in that same period beat a pretty good Minny team ON THE ROAD not once but twice and this last time in truly appalling conditions. I'd also say the Pittsburgh win was a good quality win as well.

Some of the Arizona fans feel like they laid down in that game once it was halftime. Can't really speak to that and frankly it doesn't really matter if they did or not. That was a good win which was why I didn't mention it. I was trying to point at some of the "tin cans" in your schedule and I didn't think Arizona fit. As for the Rams I know all about divisional games so yeah those are tough games regardless of records. And I've said a couple of times on here already that I don't believe we'd be 15-1 if we played your schedule. I think we would have won 12 or 13 though.

30-6 halftime lead will do that.

 

[RichNhansom]

This is getting convoluted.

Simply put. Do you believe that the seeding is accurate? Meaning do you think the #4 should always beat the #5 and so on?

I assume you don't. You seem to be level headed so if you subscribe to the idea that maybe the #4 is possibly better than say the #2. Ho do you justify your belief?

Well it's not that hard really. Multiple reputable websites show why they believe one team might be better than another.

Polaris is not trying to be a dick he is trying to break down why DVOA favors us in this match up. He is also giving you full credit for your accomplishments as well as ability, included in the rankings.

Simply put. DVOA says your team over achieved in it's win total. This does not calculate for strength of schedule it simply says if all situations are equal this is where they think you would end up. You already said you wouldn't have a 15-1 record with our schedule so you obviously understand what DVOA is trying to tell you.

Seattle started the season against the worst possible match ups with the worst case scenario at a couple of positions. End result was we lost games DVOA thought we would normally win. Carolina was on the opposite end of that including catching Seattle at just about the perfect time.

From my interpretation of DVOA it basically says it believes we are both 11 win teams with Seattle having the slight edge. It's not Rocket Surgery.

 

[carolinablue]

Yeah I'm still upset over that. According to the DVOA we should have won that game.

Making fun of DVOA just shows a lot of us how much you don't know, FYI. You should really read up on it, and how accurate it has been in myriad ways for the last decade.

It's not some guarantee that Seattle's going to beat you, or anything; but it's by far the best single stat out there to gauge a football team by. Nothing else really comes close.

Of course I'm going to make fun of it lol. We just played you a couple months ago. I saw how the teams matched up then. And before you say well we're a better team now...that's fine. But looking at stats that are a total of what you've been able to do against other teams since then won't tell me anything I don't already know. Football games are all about match ups and I don't believe in any transitive properties defining any of that. Just because Marshawn Lynch was able to get x amount of yards against team z on 3rd and 8mean next to nothing IMO. What would mean more is if you come up with a stat like Marshawn Lynch was able to get x amount of yards against the Carolina Panthers on 3rd and 8

But anyway's carry on with number crunching.

 

[carolinablue]

This is getting convoluted.

Simply put. Do you believe that the seeding is accurate? Meaning do you think the #4 should always beat the #5 and so on?

I assume you don't. You seem to be level headed so if you subscribe to the idea that maybe the #4 is possibly better than say the #2. Ho do you justify your belief?

Well it's not that hard really. Multiple reputable websites show why they believe one team might be better than another.

Polaris is not trying to be a dick he is trying to break down why DVOA favors us in this match up. He is also giving you full credit for your accomplishments as well as ability, included in the rankings.

Simply put. DVOA says your team over achieved in it's win total. This does not calculate for strength of schedule it simply says if all situations are equal this is where they think you would end up. You already said you wouldn't have a 15-1 record with our schedule so you obviously understand what DVOA is trying to tell you.

Seattle started the season against the worst possible match ups with the worst case scenario at a couple of positions. End result was we lost games DVOA thought we would normally win. Carolina was on the opposite end of that including catching Seattle at just about the perfect time.

From my interpretation of DVOA it basically says it believes we are both 11 win teams with Seattle having the slight edge. It's not Rocket Surgery.

No I get what he's trying to say. But my point is this (and I guess I've been bad at conveying this), why bring in stats that are built upon what you have done against other teams when you already have stats from a game that was played head to head? I mean I could understand if we hadn't played each other, you'd need something else to give you an idea of what to expect. But we already played each other. Isn't that more indicative of what might happen as opposed to seeing how Seattle did against team x,y,z and how Carolina did against team a,b,c?

 

[Polaris]

This is getting convoluted.

Simply put. Do you believe that the seeding is accurate? Meaning do you think the #4 should always beat the #5 and so on?

I assume you don't. You seem to be level headed so if you subscribe to the idea that maybe the #4 is possibly better than say the #2. Ho do you justify your belief?

Well it's not that hard really. Multiple reputable websites show why they believe one team might be better than another.

Polaris is not trying to be a dick he is trying to break down why DVOA favors us in this match up. He is also giving you full credit for your accomplishments as well as ability, included in the rankings.

Simply put. DVOA says your team over achieved in it's win total. This does not calculate for strength of schedule it simply says if all situations are equal this is where they think you would end up. You already said you wouldn't have a 15-1 record with our schedule so you obviously understand what DVOA is trying to tell you.

Seattle started the season against the worst possible match ups with the worst case scenario at a couple of positions. End result was we lost games DVOA thought we would normally win. Carolina was on the opposite end of that including catching Seattle at just about the perfect time.

From my interpretation of DVOA it basically says it believes we are both 11 win teams with Seattle having the slight edge. It's not Rocket Surgery.

No I get what he's trying to say. But my point is this (and I guess I've been bad at conveying this), why bring in stats that are built upon what you have done against other teams when you already have stats from a game that was played head to head? I mean I could understand if we hadn't played each other, you'd need something else to give you an idea of what to expect. But we already played each other. Isn't that more indicative of what might happen as opposed to seeing how Seattle did against team x,y,z and how Carolina did against team a,b,c?

I really don't think you do if you put that much weight on a week six matchup. That's ancient history. Really in the NFL it is. I also point out that there are sobering stats about what happens when a rematch occurs in the playoffs. The fact is that the Seattle of Jan 2016 bears only the slightest resemblance to that bumbling Seattle team that struggled to get out of it's way early in the 2015 season. I grant that Carolina has changed too, but the objective statistical metrics (i.e. the DVOA) tell us that Seattle has improved much more than Carolina has.

 

[Gametime]

This is getting convoluted.

Simply put. Do you believe that the seeding is accurate? Meaning do you think the #4 should always beat the #5 and so on?

I assume you don't. You seem to be level headed so if you subscribe to the idea that maybe the #4 is possibly better than say the #2. Ho do you justify your belief?

Well it's not that hard really. Multiple reputable websites show why they believe one team might be better than another.

Polaris is not trying to be a dick he is trying to break down why DVOA favors us in this match up. He is also giving you full credit for your accomplishments as well as ability, included in the rankings.

Simply put. DVOA says your team over achieved in it's win total. This does not calculate for strength of schedule it simply says if all situations are equal this is where they think you would end up. You already said you wouldn't have a 15-1 record with our schedule so you obviously understand what DVOA is trying to tell you.

Seattle started the season against the worst possible match ups with the worst case scenario at a couple of positions. End result was we lost games DVOA thought we would normally win. Carolina was on the opposite end of that including catching Seattle at just about the perfect time.

From my interpretation of DVOA it basically says it believes we are both 11 win teams with Seattle having the slight edge. It's not Rocket Surgery.

No I get what he's trying to say. But my point is this (and I guess I've been bad at conveying this), why bring in stats that are built upon what you have done against other teams when you already have stats from a game that was played head to head? I mean I could understand if we hadn't played each other, you'd need something else to give you an idea of what to expect. But we already played each other. Isn't that more indicative of what might happen as opposed to seeing how Seattle did against team x,y,z and how Carolina did against team a,b,c?

Because the sample size is too small. We are discussing the entire body of work and that is relevant. Truth be told,this is all about us nerds staying busy until Sunday. But the Hawks are just in a position that we feel is great going into the game. Can Carolina win? Absolutely! We just don't think they will given the two teams cumulative body of work and where they are at health wise. And DVOA is pretty solid and to discard that is just willingly ignoring something you don't like.

 

[francois.nc]

Yeah I'm still upset over that. According to the DVOA we should have won that game.

Making fun of DVOA just shows a lot of us how much you don't know, FYI. You should really read up on it, and how accurate it has been in myriad ways for the last decade.

It's not some guarantee that Seattle's going to beat you, or anything; but it's by far the best single stat out there to gauge a football team by. Nothing else really comes close.

This DVOA stuff is interesting. At least it looks like we have a chance I mean we are #3 it's not like it is #1 versus #25 or something.

And that playoff odds article they just posted actually has us with the higher percentage of playing in the NFCCG. So that is interesting. Basically 50-49 so it should be a great battle.

Good luck and enjoy our city if you make it out here to the east coast.