Who do we bench/start?

[SoulfishHawk]

With the season over who should and who should start? Do we have any young guys who were riding the pine all year? Why not see what they can do for a proper evaluation?

1. Season is NOT over
2. What the heck are we doing here? Talking about benching people?
3. Season is NOT over

 

[Jville]

They may afford the legs of Abe Lucas some help by alternating with an understudy.

On a short week for recovery, that is a real possibility.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Fair enough

 

[flv2]

A victory over the Bears will have a playoff impact ONLY if the Rams beat the Cardinals, The Seahawks beat the Rams, and then at least 10 of the other 11 games I listed go the Seahawks way. It's about a 1 in 1000 chance. Frankly, I think the Seahawks would improve their chances by more than 0.01% if they rested key personnel and concentrated on Week 18. As a neutral i'd be happy for the Seahawks and Bears to go at it as if their lives depended on it. I want to be entertained. As a Rams fan i'd like the Seahawks to treat the Bears game as life or death because I see it as counter-productive and I want the Rams to be in the playoffs.

...but whatever. I sure wouldn't want to be a coach that has to explain an injury to a key player to the fans. Especially if the injury occurred in a meaningless game a week before a potential do-or-die season finale.

I'll watch whoever gets to play. Good luck to the Seahawks, but i'm taking the Bears money line and +3½ on the spread. I'm hoping to arb the money line +ve on both sides. Not much money involved but I get a kick out of arbing.

 

[joeosprey]

the bears and rams both win this week it's over

 

[DarkVictory23]

A victory over the Bears will have a playoff impact ONLY if the Rams beat the Cardinals, The Seahawks beat the Rams, and then at least 10 of the other 11 games I listed go the Seahawks way. It's about a 1 in 1000 chance. Frankly, I think the Seahawks would improve their chances by more than 0.01% if they rested key personnel and concentrated on Week 18. As a neutral i'd be happy for the Seahawks and Bears to go at it as if their lives depended on it. I want to be entertained. As a Rams fan i'd like the Seahawks to treat the Bears game as life or death because I see it as counter-productive and I want the Rams to be in the playoffs.

...but whatever. I sure wouldn't want to be a coach that has to explain an injury to a key player to the fans. Especially if the injury occurred in a meaningless game a week before a potential do-or-die season finale.

I'll watch whoever gets to play. Good luck to the Seahawks, but i'm taking the Bears money line and +3½ on the spread. I'm hoping to arb the money line +ve on both sides. Not much money involved but I get a kick out of arbing.

It's completely true that the odds aren't great for the Seahawks, but your numbers are a bit off. There are about 13~ games that affect whether the Seahawks would get the SOV tiebreaker and not all of them are equal. We can afford to have at least 2 of them go against us and some weird combos where 3 of them can go against us and we still get the tiebreak.

Most of the games the Seahawks need the favored team to win and only need a couple of upsets. Now, it's true, if you flip a coin 10 times and need all 10 to land your way, that's 1 in 1,000. But we aren't flipping 10 coins, we're flipping 13ish coins and need 10 to land our way. And they aren't all weighted 50/50, since most of the time, we need the favorites to win. Depending on how you weight these games, the odds float between 1% to as high as 25%. I think 5% seems to be approximately the real number, which is 1 in 20. Good odds? No. But definitely not crazy.

(Also, it's inaccurate to say the Bears game doesn't make a difference for seeding if the Rams lose to the Cards because if the Falcons win the NFC South, we get the #3 seed if we have the same record.)

 

[flv2]

It's completely true that the odds aren't great for the Seahawks, but your numbers are a bit off. There are about 13~ games that affect whether the Seahawks would get the SOV tiebreaker and not all of them are equal. We can afford to have at least 2 of them go against us and some weird combos where 3 of them can go against us and we still get the tiebreak.

Most of the games the Seahawks need the favored team to win and only need a couple of upsets. Now, it's true, if you flip a coin 10 times and need all 10 to land your way, that's 1 in 1,000. But we aren't flipping 10 coins, we're flipping 13ish coins and need 10 to land our way. And they aren't all weighted 50/50, since most of the time, we need the favorites to win. Depending on how you weight these games, the odds float between 1% to as high as 25%. I think 5% seems to be approximately the real number, which is 1 in 20. Good odds? No. But definitely not crazy.

(Also, it's inaccurate to say the Bears game doesn't make a difference for seeding if the Rams lose to the Cards because if the Falcons win the NFC South, we get the #3 seed if we have the same record.)

I'm happy to acknowledge @Maulbert's post & thread. I'm not going to guesstimate the odds of 16 other games and write a computer program to rattle through every combination to give a precise number. Some of the game odds will be in your favour and some will be against you. For a base guesstimate treating each game as a coin flip and looking for 14 or more from 17 on a binomial calculator gives a result of 0.64%. The true number could be 3 times that or a third of that. whatever. Again, it only matters if the Bears win both games and the Rams beat the Cardinals. The chances of those 3 results are about 10%...so everything combined...could be 250-1 or 4000-1, but it's not worth worrying about, and I don't think the Seahawks HC will.

Later insert: Nothing was said about 13 Seahawks result and 4 Rams results. Maybe that results in a tie, maybe not. By the same calculator it would be a 1.8% chance.

I didn't say anything about the seeding before but for the record I don't think being the #3 or #4 seed will make a difference. Both seeds will play the 2 NFC North wild-cards and if they get lucky they'll play the top 2 seeds. I don't think there's much between the Eagles and the 3 NFC North teams so whatever with the #3 and #4 seeding.

 

[RedAlice]

It's completely true that the odds aren't great for the Seahawks, but your numbers are a bit off. There are about 13~ games that affect whether the Seahawks would get the SOV tiebreaker and not all of them are equal. We can afford to have at least 2 of them go against us and some weird combos where 3 of them can go against us and we still get the tiebreak.

Most of the games the Seahawks need the favored team to win and only need a couple of upsets. Now, it's true, if you flip a coin 10 times and need all 10 to land your way, that's 1 in 1,000. But we aren't flipping 10 coins, we're flipping 13ish coins and need 10 to land our way. And they aren't all weighted 50/50, since most of the time, we need the favorites to win. Depending on how you weight these games, the odds float between 1% to as high as 25%. I think 5% seems to be approximately the real number, which is 1 in 20. Good odds? No. But definitely not crazy.

(Also, it's inaccurate to say the Bears game doesn't make a difference for seeding if the Rams lose to the Cards because if the Falcons win the NFC South, we get the #3 seed if we have the same record.)

Let's do some facts then.

Here is the list of tiebreakers:

To Break A Tie Within A Division (Two Clubs):

1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
5. Strength of victory in all games.
6. Strength of schedule in all games
7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed in all games.
8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed in all games.
9. Best net points in common games.
10. Best net points in all games.
11. Best net touchdowns in all games.
12. Coin toss

 

[RedAlice]

Rams and Seahawks can be tied after week 18 after applying 6 tiebreaks​

There is a scenario in which the Rams and the Seahawks can remain tied after week 18 even after applying the first 6 tiebreaks and it is not entirely unlikely.

For context, here are the first 6 tiebreaks:

1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
5. Strength of victory (SoV).
6. Strength of schedule (SoS).

For starters, to reach this position, the Rams would have to beat the Cardinals and then Lose to the Seahawks and the Seahawks would have to beat the Bears and the Rams, landing both teams at 10-7.

Tiebreak 1 would land both teams at 50% after splitting their games (Rams won their last encounter).

Tiebreak 2 would land both teams at 4-2 (66.67%) since in this scenario the Seahawks beat the Cardinals x 2, the 49ers x 1 and the Rams x 1 while the Rams beat the 49ers x 2, the Cardinals x 1 and the Seahawks x 1.

Tiebreak 3 and forward is going to require more detailed calculations, so let’s jump into them. First, let’s list the teams in common between both teams. They are:

• Lions
• Cardinals x 2
• 49ers x 2
• Bears
• Packers
• Vikings
• Dolphins
• Patriots
• Bills
• Jets

The Rams and Seahawks would both have a record of 7-5 since in this scenario the Rams won against the 49ers x 2, Vikings, Patriots, Bills, Jets and Cardinals and lost against the Lions, Cardinals, Bears, Packers and Dolphins while the Seahawks won against the Patriots, Dolphins, 49ers, Cardinals x 2, Jets and Bears and lost against the Lions, 49ers, Bills, Packers and Vikings.

Tiebreak 4 includes all conference games and both Rams and Seahawks would land at 6-6 since in this scenario the Rams won against the 49ers x 2, Vikings, Seahawks, Saints and Cardinals and lost to the Lions, Cardinals, Bears, Packers, Eagles and Seahawks while the Seahawks won against the Falcons, 49ers, Cardinals x 2, Bears and Rams and lost against the Lions, Giants, 49ers, Rams, Packers and Vikings.

Tiebreak 5 involves the SoV which is the win percentage calculated from the combined win-loss record of the teams the Rams and the Seahawks beat. In this scenario, the Rams beat the 49ers x 2, Raiders, Vikings, Seahawks, Patriots, Saints, Bills, Jets and Cardinals and the Seahawks beat the Broncos, Patriots, Dolphins, Falcons, 49ers, Cardinals x 2, Jets, Bears and Rams.

Things get a bit complicated since we have to assume results for the following two weeks but most of these assumptions are reasonable and some are uncertain/questionable. The assumptions are the following:

• The 49ers lose the last 2 (Lions and Cardinals).
• The Cardinals lose to the Rams and win against the 49ers.
• The Saints lose against the Packers (end of week 16), win against the Raiders and lose against the Buccaneers.
• The Raiders lose the last 2 (Saints and Chargers).
• The Vikings win against the Packers and lose against the Lions.
• The Bills win the last 2 (Jets and Patriots).
• The Bears lose against the Seahawks and win against the Packers.
• The Broncos win the last 2 (Bengals and Chiefs).
• The Dolphins win the last 2 (Browns and Jets).
• The Falcons win the last 2 (Commanders and Panthers).

The win-loss record for all teams involved in the calculations would:

• 49ers: 6-11
• Raiders: 3-14
• Vikings: 14-3
• Seahawks: 10-7
• Rams: 10-7
• Patriots: 3-14
• Saints: 6-11
• Bills: 14-3
• Jets: 4-11
• Cardinals: 8-9
• Broncos: 11-6
• Dolphins: 9-8
• Falcons: 10-7
• Bears: 5-12

In this scenario, the Rams and Seahawks end with a combined 74-94 record for SoV.

Now, for tiebreak 6, which involves the SoS, we can focus exclusively on comparing the record of the teams not in common between Rams and Seahawks. The teams not in common for the Rams are the Raiders, the Saints and the Eagles and the teams not in common for the Seahawks are the Broncos, the Giants and the Falcons.

In this scenario, these three teams for each team would have a combined record of 23-28 assuming the Eagles win the last 2 (Cowboys and Giants) for a record of 14-3 and the Giants lose the last 2 (Colts and Eagles) for a record of 2-15.

The most critical games are probably Vikings vs Packers and Broncos vs Chiefs. The first one feels like any team can win while the second one the Broncos have a chance to win, in particular if the Chiefs decide to rest their starters after securing the first seed in the AFC.

The other games that could be critical are the ones played by the Falcons but considering that it is possible that the Eagles secure the NFC East before the Commanders play against the Falcons, it is possible the Commanders take it a bit easier having secured the 7th seed on the NFC and who knows in what could end up the game against the Panthers.

There is no point in speculating about tiebreak 7 since that requires way too many more assumptions about scores in each of the games, so let’s not open that can of worms.

 

[BGHawk]

If I'm coach..I try Jaren Hall at QB. Not that I think he would be any good, but it would be a shot across the bow..to send a message. You either play ball or we replace you with a man off the damn street. We are done..even if we somehow were to squeak into the playoffs ..were dead meat.

 

[Wsumatt1982]

If I'm coach..I try Jaren Hall at QB. Not that I think he would be any good, but it would be a shot across the bow..to send a message. You either play ball or we replace you with a man off the damn street. We are done..even if we somehow were to squeak into the playoffs ..were dead meat.

The only message this sends is we have given up on the season when we still have a shot to make the playoffs. Not sure that’s the message you want to send

 

[BGHawk]

The O-line sucks, the defense is swiss cheese, the QB is lost in the clouds, the run game does not exist, most of the receivers cannot catch the damn ball, Grubbs..I don't know where to start..did I miss anything. Shit needs to change. I highly doubt we make any playoffs..if we do, it won't last a week

 

[Bear-Hawk]

Lets beat the Bears and the Rams then see what happens.

Do you expect the team to be fired up or flat for the Bears game? I said on the Bears forum the team that comes out fighting harder will probably win. Also, after watching both teams all year, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a sloppy game full of penalties and turnovers. Maybe a fight between DK and Stevenson.

 

[Appyhawk]

Do you expect the team to be fired up or flat for the Bears game? I said on the Bears forum the team that comes out fighting harder will probably win. Also, after watching both teams all year, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a sloppy game full of penalties and turnovers. Maybe a fight between DK and Stevenson.

I expect our team to come out and play as hard as they can with full intent to win the game. Whoever does not do that should not be a candidate to return for next year.

 

[jeremiah]

I read that the Rams are sitting most of their star starters, they are trying to give Seattle a win, and going for a better draft pick. Or maybe they feel they can go to the playoffs after they lose? My advice to the Hawks is, rest your starters. Send in mostly 2nd team players and find out what they can do for you. Like a preseason game. Play hard, try to win, but with your best resting up.

 

[RiverDog]

I read that the Rams are sitting most of their star starters, they are trying to give Seattle a win, and going for a better draft pick. Or maybe they feel they can go to the playoffs after they lose? My advice to the Hawks is, rest your starters. Send in mostly 2nd team players and find out what they can do for you. Like a preseason game. Play hard, try to win, but with your best resting up.

The Rams have clinched the division title. They are resting starters in preparation for their wild card game. It's a common practice for teams that have clinched a playoff spot, particularly those playing in a wild card game as they won't get another break until before the SB.

On the other hand, it looks like we're playing our starters, at least as far as the quarterback position goes.

Seattle Seahawks head coach Mike Macdonald said the team doesn't plan on playing backup quarterback Sam Howell in their Week 18 regular-season finale on Sunday against the division-rival Los Angeles Rams.

MSN

As far as what we should be doing, with the possible exception of players like Abe Lucas who may still be recovering from an injury, I say that we play this game like any other. I don't like the idea of giving the team the impression that it's OK not to try to win football games. A 10-7 record sounds better than a 9-8 mark, and I like the idea of ending the season on a positive note instead of losing our last three straight games. These players are by definition highly competitive athletes, and they like winning. It's an ego thing.

 

[sutz]

Meh, if starters are healthy they play.

 

[nwHawk]

I would like to shut down Abe. Let him go into the offseason with a chance to dominate 2025.

 

[AlbaHawk]

I agree about playing the starters is fit but I would make one exception. I would have liked to see Howell with a full week of prep under centre and having the 1st string team around him.