If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   Are the Seattle Seahawks the second best team in the NFL? Replacement Refs say no, but Cardinals fans may have to say yes   (blog.seattlepi.com) divider line 89
    More: Unlikely, Seahawks, NFL, Cardinals, Football Outsiders, Nick Eaton, Sidney Rice, Patriots, DVOA  
•       •       •

982 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Dec 2012 at 9:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-13 09:42:17 AM
The real test will be against the 49ers. If they can win that, then we'll talk.
 
2012-12-13 09:48:05 AM
Anyone that ISN'T a Seahawks homer thinks they are a fine time. Playoff caliber, certainly.

Nowhere NEAR the best or second best in the league though.

If you're generous, someplace between 5 and 10.
 
2012-12-13 09:51:00 AM
2 road wins all year, for a team that won't play at home once in the playoffs
 
2012-12-13 09:51:01 AM
Rookie QB has obviously never faced the playoffs, so you can't possibly rank them higher than 6 or so. If you think the NFL is fast, the playoffs are that much faster. It's a rare rookie that can take a team deep into the post season.
 
2012-12-13 09:52:45 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Rookie QB has obviously never faced the playoffs, so you can't possibly rank them higher than 6 or so. If you think the NFL is fast, the playoffs are that much faster. It's a rare rookie that can take a team deep into the post season.


Indeed. Only rookie studs like Mark Sanchez or Joe Flacco could do something like that.

Lost Thought 00: 2 road wins all year, for a team that won't play at home once in the playoffs


That's what happens when the majority of your road games come early in the season with several rookies starting.
 
2012-12-13 09:52:52 AM
Wouldn't the replacement refs be saying yes, subby?
 
2012-12-13 09:52:52 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Rookie QB has obviously never faced the playoffs, so you can't possibly rank them higher than 6 or so. If you think the NFL is fast, the playoffs are that much faster. It's a rare rookie that can take a team deep into the post season.


Russel Wilson : 'Sup?
 
2012-12-13 09:57:26 AM

Incorrigible Astronaut: Wouldn't the replacement refs be saying yes, subby?


according to the replacement ref official twitter feed they say "potato war fleshlight"... i hope that makes everything clear
 
2012-12-13 10:01:03 AM

IAmRight: Lost Thought 00: 2 road wins all year, for a team that won't play at home once in the playoffs

That's what happens when the majority of your road games come early in the season with several rookies starting.


Perhaps. They certainly looked chipper in Chicago. If they can repeat that again this week in Buffalo, then I'll have more confidence
 
2012-12-13 10:02:46 AM

Lost Thought 00: Perhaps. They certainly looked chipper in Chicago. If they can repeat that again this week in Buffalo, then I'll have more confidence


If they don't win in Toronto (against Buffalo), then they should be embarrassed and probably won't make the playoffs.
 
2012-12-13 10:10:40 AM

Lost Thought 00: 2 road wins all year, for a team that won't play at home once in the playoffs


Can we stress this maybe? They just CRUSHED a team that has now lost 9 straight, so maybe a rush to judgement isn't in order.

Their road games:
L 20 - 16 Arizona
L 19 - 13 St. Louis
W 16 -12 Carolina
L 13 - 6 San Francisco
L 28 - 24 Detroit
L 24 - 21 Miami
W 23 -17 (OT) Chicago

They are a good team that has improved over the season. They play close games on the road, but they still lose most of those games, and right now they would be headed either @ Green Bay or @ New York Giants to start the playoffs. Are they favored in either of those scenarios?

Plus, interesting number, before this Sunday they had scored 30+ points or more only one time this season. Before the recent destruction of the Cardinals, they averaged 20.2 points per game, cwhich is pretty low. If they had 20.2, they would currently be ranked 24th in the NFL, behind Carolina and ahead of Cleveland.
 
2012-12-13 10:23:57 AM

Theseus: Plus, interesting number, before this Sunday they had scored 30+ points or more only one time this season. Before the recent destruction of the Cardinals, they averaged 20.2 points per game, cwhich is pretty low. If they had 20.2, they would currently be ranked 24th in the NFL, behind Carolina and ahead of Cleveland.


Q1 (2H, 2A): 70 points (17.5/game)
Q2 (1H, 3A): 70 points (17.5/game)
Q3 (2H, 2A): 102 points (25.5/game)
Q4 (1H): 58 points (58/game)

Okay, let's go by half-season:

H1 (3H, 5A): 140 points (17.5/game)
H2 (3H, 2A): 160 points (32/game)

It's a pretty good upward trend in terms of scoring.
 
2012-12-13 10:29:11 AM

IAmRight: Theseus: Plus, interesting number, before this Sunday they had scored 30+ points or more only one time this season. Before the recent destruction of the Cardinals, they averaged 20.2 points per game, cwhich is pretty low. If they had 20.2, they would currently be ranked 24th in the NFL, behind Carolina and ahead of Cleveland.

Q1 (2H, 2A): 70 points (17.5/game)
Q2 (1H, 3A): 70 points (17.5/game)
Q3 (2H, 2A): 102 points (25.5/game)
Q4 (1H): 58 points (58/game)

Okay, let's go by half-season:

H1 (3H, 5A): 140 points (17.5/game)
H2 (3H, 2A): 160 points (32/game)

It's a pretty good upward trend in terms of scoring.


if you throw out the stastical abnormality of the cards game the 2nd half scoring isnt any better.
 
2012-12-13 10:33:35 AM

farbekrieg: if you throw out the stastical abnormality of the cards game the 2nd half scoring isnt any better.


If you could read, then you'd see that the 3Q scoring is 8 points better, meaning that yes, the second half scoring is up EIGHT POINTS over what it was in the first half of the season. Other than being completely wrong, though, you have a point.

BTW, number of teams that have scored more than the 20.2 average (that is SO low) against the Seahawks: 3

Scoring slightly over 20/game isn't an issue when you're holding everyone else to 15.
 
2012-12-13 10:33:48 AM

Phil Ken Sebben: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Rookie QB has obviously never faced the playoffs, so you can't possibly rank them higher than 6 or so. If you think the NFL is fast, the playoffs are that much faster. It's a rare rookie that can take a team deep into the post season.

Russel Wilson : 'Sup?


I WILL REACH UP THROUGH YOUR ASSHOLE, GRAB YOUR HEART RIP IT OUT, PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE AND SHOVE IT BACK DOWN YOUR THROAT WILSON!!!
 
2012-12-13 10:38:28 AM
I'd say yes if we won those close ones on the road this year.
We give up to many 3rd and long plays and our pass rush is feast or famine.

That said....our rookie QB gets better every game and Beast Mode is dominating just like our corners.

San Fran to me is the real test here. We need to own the division and as of now San Fran has us by a slight edge.
 
2012-12-13 10:42:22 AM
Yes, yes, I know, they should be 8-6 (sic) because of the Fail Mary or Goldengate or what I prefer to call it, 'REF-POCALYPSE.'

I hadn't heard any of those, but they're pretty great.
 
2012-12-13 10:43:35 AM
You're right, they are upward trending. In the last 5 games prior to Arizona game, they scored 24, 30, 28, 21, and 23 points. That's pretty good. Anyone who suggests that Seattle is a mirage or joke hasn't seen them play this season. The defense is stout. People aren't arguing those assertions.

What remains though, is that unless something changes in the last 3 weeks, they won't win the NFC west and therefore must win 3 road games in the playoffs. Consider that the Atlanta Falcons are not all that different from Seattle, they also enjoy a strong home-field advantage and have won a lot of close games, they aren't exactly blowing teams out of the water. But the Falcons are 6-0 at home and 5-2 on the road, while Seattle is 6-0 at home and 2-5 on the road. If the first week of the playoffs was 13-3 Atlanta @ 10-6 Seattle, the betting line would be very close, don't you agree? A LOT of people who doubt the Falcons would be betting on the Seahawks. Now switch it and play the game in the Georgia dome....the line would significantly favor Atlanta, right?

That's all I'm saying.Seattle may be an improving solid playoff team that just misses out due to some early season road losses. Or of course they could be like the Giants of last year and win all the playoff games on the road.
 
2012-12-13 10:44:07 AM
It is more likely that the Rams make the playoffs than the Seahawks.
 
2012-12-13 10:53:13 AM

IAmRight: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Rookie QB has obviously never faced the playoffs, so you can't possibly rank them higher than 6 or so. If you think the NFL is fast, the playoffs are that much faster. It's a rare rookie that can take a team deep into the post season.

Lost Thought 00: 2 road wins all year, for a team that won't play at home once in the playoffs

That's what happens when the majority of your road games come early in the season with several rookies starting.


Prior to this season, the Seahawks home/road winning percentage over the last decade is: .646/.373. This season hasn't done anything to assuage those fears that the Seahawks only play well at home.
 
2012-12-13 10:54:02 AM
Almost forgot:

www.mouthofthemidwest.com
 
2012-12-13 10:54:19 AM

Theseus: What remains though, is that unless something changes in the last 3 weeks, they won't win the NFC west and therefore must win 3 road games in the playoffs.


The thing is that there's a huge likelihood of things changing, but it all really comes down to next week. This week, the Niners play the Patriots in Foxboro. The Seahawks get the Bills in Toronto in what should be a huge "F*ck you for quitting on me" game for Lynch.

So that would put the Niners a half-game ahead of the Seahawks if the Pats and Seahawks win. If the Seahawks do beat the Niners in Seattle (something I'm certainly not counting on, but am optimistic about), then the Seahawks are in charge of the division. And if the Packers lose a game in their final three, they could even get the 2 seed (not unfathomable).

I like their chances LESS on the road, but to say they don't have a shot on the road is silly.
 
2012-12-13 10:55:36 AM

SkittlesAreYum: Prior to this season, the Seahawks home/road winning percentage over the last decade is: .646/.373. This season hasn't done anything to assuage those fears that the Seahawks only play well at home.


No one really cares what the last decade's teams did. Virtually the entire roster has been in the league (and if not that, then at least with the team) three or fewer years.
 
2012-12-13 10:57:52 AM
DVOA is nothing to be taken lightly, but as for the Seahawks' chances to go deep in the playoffs I'll say it depends just about 100% on the offensive line. If Okung and Giacomini avoid the dumb penalties and they can find two healthy guards among Carpenter, Moffitt and McQuistan, they can go far. Their defense can do it and their offensive skill position players can do it. Even on the road. Frankly, with the way this team has progressed, I think at least one or two of those early-season close losses are wins if they replay those games today. (The Detroit and Miami losses are inexcusable and I have no explanation for those.)
 
2012-12-13 10:58:07 AM

Theseus: Now switch it and play the game in the Georgia dome....the line would significantly favor Atlanta, right?


Don't really care what others think. Seattle would have a pretty good chance to beat Atlanta in Atlanta. Especially in the playoffs, where they're even less proven than the Seahawks (at least the Seahawks actually won a playoff game within the last couple of years).
 
2012-12-13 11:01:18 AM
 
2012-12-13 11:10:10 AM
Sigh...the fourth quarter in the Detroit and Miami games are the only two quarters we've given up more than 10 points in in 52 quarters so far this year.
 
2012-12-13 11:12:57 AM

SnarfVader: The real test will be against the 49ers. If they can win that, then we'll talk.


Done in one.

i36.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 11:14:51 AM
Considering Seattle almost beat the Alex Smith-led 49ers last year at home (19-17), I am liking their chances this year, so long as Sherman doesn't get suspended.

/Thurmond is underrated
 
2012-12-13 11:19:16 AM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Considering Seattle almost beat the Alex Smith-led 49ers last year at home (19-17), I am liking their chances this year, so long as Sherman doesn't get suspended.

/Thurmond is underrated


If Thurmond is healthy. Apparently held out of practice again with hamstring stuff. :/

/and the score was 19-17 last year in SF, too, before a late KR and PR made it look lopsided.
 
2012-12-13 11:21:02 AM
Seahawks defense, 4th quarters:

vs Detroit and Miami: 31 points allowed
vs 11 other teams: 27 points allowed

/dammit so much
 
2012-12-13 11:32:14 AM

Lost Thought 00: 2 road wins all year, for a team that won't play at home once in the playoffs


Never count your chickens until the 49ers collapse....
 
2012-12-13 11:32:28 AM

IAmRight: Seahawks defense, 4th quarters:

vs Detroit and Miami: 31 points allowed
vs 11 other teams: 27 points allowed

/dammit so much


Miami was just a case of a west coast team traveling east. I don't think the Dolphins win that game otherwise.
 
2012-12-13 12:04:14 PM
Beating Buffalo in Toronto is going to be challenging enough for this team.

It has Arizona1/Detroit/Miami written all over it. Worrying about anything else or speculating about everything wonderful is nothing but a circle jerk until after Sunday's game.
 
2012-12-13 12:11:41 PM

Cletus C.: Beating Buffalo in Toronto is going to be challenging enough for this team.

It has Arizona1/Detroit/Miami written all over it. Worrying about anything else or speculating about everything wonderful is nothing but a circle jerk until after Sunday's game.


The bright side is that, while it's a cross-country trip, it's not a 1 pm EST game like the other two were (meaning it's 10 am for the players' bodies). But it's definitely another game of "win and great, we're in good position; lose and we're f*cked."
 
2012-12-13 12:14:33 PM

Primitive Screwhead: SnarfVader: The real test will be against the 49ers. If they can win that, then we'll talk.

Done in one.

[i36.photobucket.com image 400x600]


I agree wholeheartedly with everything in this post.

I think there are 2 tiers of playoff teams this year (based on the current standings). One with NE, SF, DEN, SEA, and NYG, then HOU, GB, CHI, PIT, IND, and ATL. There is not one team (barring a major injury) that would shock me if they won the SB, but I don't think any of them stand out as THE dominant team in the league. That being said, I hope the Packers end up with the 2 seed so they do not have to go anywhere besides ATL.
 
2012-12-13 12:14:36 PM

IAmRight: SkittlesAreYum: Prior to this season, the Seahawks home/road winning percentage over the last decade is: .646/.373. This season hasn't done anything to assuage those fears that the Seahawks only play well at home.

No one really cares what the last decade's teams did. Virtually the entire roster has been in the league (and if not that, then at least with the team) three or fewer years.


Why shouldn't people care? When over an entire decade a team is amazing at home and poor on the road it's not unfair to adopt an attitude of wait and see. Yes they have a lot of young players. Was having a lot of old players the reason previous teams did poorly on the road? That doesn't really make sense. Besides, when you lose to the Cardinals and Lions away, yet beat the Patriots and Packers* at home, people are going to bring up the team's past. Sure it's a small sample size if you only include this year, but given their consistent struggles on the road and stunning home dominance, it's probably not a statistical anomaly.

I'm not saying the Seahawks aren't really good, but I am saying I will wait to see if they can play on the road instead of assuming they will. That's all. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

* I put this to troll you. The Seahawks defense played well enough to deserve the win, even if the final play was botched. Even if they had lost it was a very strong performance.
 
2012-12-13 12:23:35 PM

SkittlesAreYum: I'm not saying the Seahawks aren't really good, but I am saying I will wait to see if they can play on the road instead of assuming they will.


Fair enough - I think the same way. Though at least now it's a case of "we're just as good, if not better than this team, and we should beat them in their house if we play as well as we can" rather than "well, sh*t, we're on the road, might as well mark that down as a loss" as it has been before.

Also, the reason the last decade is useless - the only player from the mid-'00s left is Marcus Trufant, who is now our 4th corner instead of our No. 1. None of the coaching staff is the same. The front office isn't the same. Even the uniforms aren't the same. None of these guys have anything to do with what happened in the '00s.

But I will agree that travel is a huge issue - it sucks for teams coming into Seattle (the most geographically distant city in the NFL) and it sucks for Seattle when they're on the road.

I think Seattle is genuinely a better team than Atlanta. I think they can beat Green Bay in Green Bay (remember, Green Bay didn't do too well in Green Bay in last year's playoffs). I'm sure as hell not scared of going to Chicago. And we beat the Giants last year in New Jersey while finishing off the game with Charlie f*cking Whitehurst. So while it's incumbent upon them to prove it if they make the playoffs (and don't get the No. 2 seed, because Atlanta's going to lose to whoever they play as the No. 1 seed), it's also true that they may damn well be better than anyone else in the conference (or league, for that matter).

/I just hope Sherman actually gets exonerated
 
2012-12-13 12:26:20 PM
All I have to add to this thread is

img1.etsystatic.com
 
2012-12-13 12:26:39 PM

emocomputerjock: IAmRight: Seahawks defense, 4th quarters:

vs Detroit and Miami: 31 points allowed
vs 11 other teams: 27 points allowed

/dammit so much

Miami was just a case of a west coast team traveling east. I don't think the Dolphins win that game otherwise.


You can't really discount that effect come playoff time. Particularly in round 1
 
2012-12-13 12:33:41 PM

Lost Thought 00: You can't really discount that effect come playoff time. Particularly in round 1


Maybe.

/again, if we win out, we might have the 2 seed.
 
2012-12-13 12:35:22 PM
I'm a Seahwaks fan and advocate, but even I think the notion that they might be the 2nd best team in the league is ridiculous at this point. In the next 2 season, I think we'll see a really good team emerge and they'll probably be the "dark horse" or "sleeper" SB pick next season or the one after. Right now we have a young, extremely mature and exciting QB who "on any given Sunday" can win games, but 3 road games in the playoffs? Not yet. I think they have a real shot at 11-5 this seasn, but 10-6 is far more likely. That OT win in Chicago seems to have changed something and maybe could be a corner-turning event that finally clicks them into high gear, but this is the NFL and rookie QBs don't win 7-8 games in a row against the best the league has to offer.

If we keep the defensive play-calling aggressive (see DET, MIA for examples of non-aggressive), I think we can absolutely win-out in the regular season and play a home game, but I don't see this team doing any better than a trip to the NFC Championship game. Even that is asking A LOT.

/I'm absolutely ecstatic about where the Seahawks are right now.
 
2012-12-13 12:40:05 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Considering Seattle almost beat the Alex Smith-led 49ers last year at home (19-17), I am liking their chances this year, so long as Sherman doesn't get suspended.

/Thurmond is underrated


Sherman appears to have pushed his hearing until after the season, including playoffs. (I guess he hired a *really* good lawyer)

It's not even winning over Buffalo and the 9ers. The Seahawks need to win-out; the 9ers last game is the Cardinals who are going to go back to Lindley (seriously Whiz, there's nothing there, if there is, it's got PTSD, leave it be. Consider running the wishbone and snapping it to a rotation of Wells, Stephens-Howling and Larry)

The 49ers only have something like a 37% chance of winning against the Patriots, but the Seahawks only have something like a 30% chance of winning-out, put those together and that's about a 13% chance for things to break the Seahawks way. This is a very young team to expect them to get it done on the road in the playoffs.

Still, a great team to watch. I'll try to contain my excitement until after SNF December 23rd.

/FO thinks it's more like a 30% chance, but still
 
2012-12-13 12:42:08 PM

seumasokelly: I'm a Seahwaks fan and advocate, but even I think the notion that they might be the 2nd best team in the league is ridiculous at this point.


Well, it's not too ridiculous if you look at the rest of the league. Who would you say is actually better this year (unless you buy into the idea that yesteryear's success should be a larger factor)?

The only team that, at this point I'd say Seattle can't beat is probably San Francisco. And I'm not super sure about that - we'll see what happens in two weeks. I just know I wouldn't bet against this team.

/though I also won't bet on them, thanks to games like Detroit and Miami
 
2012-12-13 12:46:16 PM

Tickle Mittens: Consider running the wishbone and snapping it to a rotation of Wells, Stephens-Howling and Larry)


Those guys aren't even good RBs, though, so it's not like that would be an improvement.

Tickle Mittens: The 49ers only have something like a 37% chance of winning against the Patriots, but the Seahawks only have something like a 30% chance of winning-out, put those together and that's about a 13% chance for things to break the Seahawks way.


Sure, but there's better odds on us winning out against Buffalo and at home for two games than there is winning three road games to the Super Bowl.
 
2012-12-13 12:49:03 PM

IAmRight: seumasokelly: I'm a Seahwaks fan and advocate, but even I think the notion that they might be the 2nd best team in the league is ridiculous at this point.

Well, it's not too ridiculous if you look at the rest of the league. Who would you say is actually better this year (unless you buy into the idea that yesteryear's success should be a larger factor)?

The only team that, at this point I'd say Seattle can't beat is probably San Francisco. And I'm not super sure about that - we'll see what happens in two weeks. I just know I wouldn't bet against this team.

/though I also won't bet on them, thanks to games like Detroit and Miami


I think they can beat anyone in one game. They're built to keep games close even when overmatched. I look at it at the probability of being able to do it 6-7 times. Buffalo and STL will be the only games for the rest of the season in which Seattle "should win". Asking them to play and beat SF, plus a wildcard game on the road (most likely scenario), a divisional game on the road, an NFC championship game on the road and a SB on the road is too much in my opinion for this team this season.

As far as their ability to win one game against any team, I'd never say this team can't beat anyone in the league. Doing it 4 weeks in a row or 5 out of 7 is asking too much.
 
2012-12-13 12:49:43 PM

Lost Thought 00: 2 road wins all year, for a team that won't play at home once in the playoffs


If the Seahawks win their remaining games and SF loses at NE this weekend, then the Seahawks would start the playoffs with a home game, perhaps even against SF.
 
2012-12-13 12:57:38 PM

IAmRight: SkittlesAreYum: Prior to this season, the Seahawks home/road winning percentage over the last decade is: .646/.373. This season hasn't done anything to assuage those fears that the Seahawks only play well at home.

No one really cares what the last decade's teams did. Virtually the entire roster has been in the league (and if not that, then at least with the team) three or fewer years.


On one hand, the point of "Magic Stadium" is a valid one.

On the other hand, the Seahawks are a very solid team.

A bunch of people in this thread are underrating the Seahawks' chances at the division. I say this as a Niners fan.
 
2012-12-13 12:58:37 PM

seumasokelly: Asking them to play and beat SF, plus a wildcard game on the road (most likely scenario),


If they beat SF (and win out), then it's more likely that they're playing at home (they're predicted to lose in New England...and if Green Bay drops one of their final three, then they might even get the No. 2 seed) and have HFA throughout the playoffs, because Atlanta will lose their first game to whoever they play.
 
2012-12-13 01:01:06 PM

Dafatone: A bunch of people in this thread are underrating the Seahawks' chances at the division. I say this as a Niners fan.


Exactly! All it takes is favorites winning every game and potentially an upset (don't know what the line would be) in Seattle over the Niners. It's really not much of a stretch.

/and similarly, from that point, it's not crazy to think Green Bay might drop a game, even if they are favored in the remaining three. Those derp refs could really have helped out a lot!
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report