Seahawk Sailor":2n7ix3g0 said:
Popeye, you seem to have ignored my first two sentences. Y'know, the ones where I said the 49ers are far too good a team to think we'll have a win handed to us, if we win at all.
Sorry, wasn't ignoring them, just wasn't responding directly to them. In any case, we agree that 1) it's probably wrong to think of this game as a cakewalk for the Hawks, and 2) despite that the Hawks should still be favored in this game.
Seahawk Sailor":2n7ix3g0 said:
But let me address some of your statements. "Hot streaks" can be very hard to continue week after week after week. Especially on the road, without a bye since way back in week nine, and without a home game since week sixteen. Especially against a tough division rival who already manhandled you in the same place as the upcoming venue, and almost won in your house as well.
Yeah, we agree on this. That's why I included the "This too doesn't really matter IMO (as we learned with the Panthers last week :lol: )." Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was saying that this "hot streak" thing is a media narrative, and one that I don't think is that useful in predicting this game.
Seahawk Sailor":2n7ix3g0 said:
Wilson has not been "bad" for the last five games. He's been "safe." And he's done just enough to win, including limiting turnovers.
Here is where I think we disagree.
If he was doing just enough to win the Hawks win % wouldn't have substantially decreased in the past five games (from 92% to 60%). Likewise, he has not limited turnovers. He had three INTs in the last 3rd of the season, and six in the first 2/3rds (he's throwing picks at the same rate). Instead, in the last five -- and particularly in the last three -- he has just dramatically underperformed from his season average on completion %, passing yards, rushing yards, and TDs. Wilson hasn't been performing in the last five weeks as he was through the rest of the year. We can subjectively place blame for that on any number of things about Wilson or beyond Wilson, but there's now way to argue around the truth of it.
Seahawk Sailor":2n7ix3g0 said:
And he's still one of the top quarterbacks over the course of his first two years.
100% agreed. Absolutely. It's just unrelated to what I said.
Seahawk Sailor":2n7ix3g0 said:
With streaks being what they are, don't you think it's about time he had a "bounce-back" game?
Sure, it's of course absolutely possible. That said, it's opens the door to "streak" logic, which we agree is an improper logic. It also takes "streak" logic and reverses it. If we assume each game as an independent event and that streak logic should have an effect, you're basically arguing that for each new independent event we should expect streaks to stop, not to continue. That seems unlikely (e.g. teams that have won are more likely to continue to win than teams that haven't won; Lebron James is more likely to play well because he has played well than Popeye Jones was likely to play well because he hadn't played well, etc.).
This of course doesn't mean that Wilson won't have a great game (heck, even a masterful game) as he very well could, but arguing that Wilson is LIKELY to have a good game because he has been playing poorly doesn't make much sense to me. (Note also that here you're saying he's "due" for a "bounce back" game right after arguing that he has simply been playing "safe" and there isn't anything to actually "bounce back" from; it logically has to be one or the other).
Seahawk Sailor":2n7ix3g0 said:
Sure, the 'Hawks aren't unbeatable at home, but I'd put their home record the last few years up against any other team's in the league. They're as close to unbeatable here as you'd imagine. I doubt you'd be as nervous about a game in any other stadium.
Again, wasn't debating this or arguing this. I was simply saying that the there have been cracks in the Hawks "invincibility" at home of late, whereas before there were no cracks. OF COURSE the CLink is an incredibly hard venue to visit. I never debated that at all, nor would I ever deny that. My point was simply that the CLinks reputation has gone from "impossible" to "very, very, very hard" (as was of course destined to happen eventually). That's not an insult and is in no way meant to minimize how hard of a venue the CLink is to play in.
TBH, seems like (save for Wilson on a single point), you've read a lot of disagreement into my post that wasn't there, or in the least wasn't even remotely intended to be read into it. All good though. Good luck to your guys today!