Breaker":hjzosbdc said:
Lets look at the team defense DVOA for all of those games and I will use a good metric to prevent an argument. First column with be Team DVOA Defense.
Game 1: Carolina 43 (#6)
Game 2: Hou 98 yds (#18)
Carolina at week 4 (the soonest defensive adjustments were added into the metric and thus the closest fair measurement to week one) had a DVOA on defense of -9.4% which at the time was tenth (but would wind up being much higher than that in the end with the same percentage). Houston (and Seattle's week 4 opponent was Houston) had a defensive DVOA of -16.1% (which is extremely good) and rated fifth (not 18th) at this time.
Indy's defensive DVOA after week five was #17 that week. That is true. It was also -2.6% which would wind up being better than KC had it been sustained. A lot of defenses bottomed out (Indy's was one of them) late in the season. I
also note that at that time Indy had an offensive DVOA of 21.4% which was fourth in the league. So much for Seattle "not facing a top offense" (and the game was won on the strength of an Indy special teams TD).
Arizona's defensive DVOA was #5 at the end of week 7, not #1 (don't know where you got that!) but it WAS a whopping -10.0%
Actually at the time (week 8) StL had a #24 DVOA rating on defense at 3.7%. This game was a stinker for Seattle, no question (and I don't think anyone here would dispute that)
At week 9 (when this matchup happened), Atlanta's defensive DVOA was 13.4% or #30 and I agree it was a trash defense.
Game 7: San Fran 72 (#13)
Actually San Fran's Defense after week 14 (when this matchup happened) was #7 or -8.6%. I also note that San Fran's run defense is stellar and very few backs get even 72 yards on San Fran.
After week 15, the defensive DVOA of the Giants was -8.6% or #9
Average Team Defense DVOA against the run is #12 for these games. The numbers are even more in my favor after doing this.
Now you are switching things up. You claimed team DVOA not DVOA against the run. I also point out that you can't just average placements. For example if you averaged the placements of Seattle, Arizona, and Carolina on defense using DVOA placements you'd get 2. However that number would be completely misleading because Seattle had (at season's end) a defensive DVOA of -25.8 while Arizona had a much smaller -16.4 (an 8.4% difference) while Carolina had a -15.7% rating (only 0.7 less than Arizona).
So this entire analysis is completely misleading and flawed.
Lynch had 621 total yards
276 vs DVOA top 16 teams (43% of total representing 5 games)
345 vs DVOA bottom 16 (57% of total representing 3 games)
Again that's not how it works. If you wanted to be fair, you should measure yards gained against teams with a below replacement value defense (better than average) and an above replacement value defense (worse than average).
When you do it that way, you find that of the eight road games, six teams had NEGATIVE (that's good for defense) DVOA's for 6 of the 8. Only St Louis and Atlanta are the stinkers. That changes your math a bit. That's also ignoring the disparity between the various teams which is a no-no as I allude to above.
Lynch ran on the road for 463 against teams with better than replacement value defenses. He ran for a mere 168 against the two teams with a worse than replacement value defense
all measured when the games were played.
So by your own metrics Lynch had 57% of his road rushing stats against sub-par DVOA Team Defenses, which is actually a greater percentage than the 54% of my original post. Now speaking to the original post that I was responding too, I used the exact same metrics that he used, which were actually team defense vs run and pass metrics, which I didn’t feel like pointing out to the dumbass, but you seem to be a smarter individual so I will go by your statistical measures.
You are wrong. See above. Be careful about calling people names unless you are sure you're right. You're not.
Now speaking to your other point about having to do it when you play them. I would agree, if you can find week by week DVOA stats and show me I am wrong, I will admit to it.
I think you owe me an apology then.
But here is the stat that is absolutely priceless, it is going to make you cringe when you realize hear this. On FOB they have a ranking in the team defense category called SCHED, which according to FOB “SCHEDULE represents the average offensive DVOA of all opponents, with teams ranked from hardest schedule to easiest schedule” Guess where Seattle falls on that list … 31st. That’s right the vaunted Seattle defense faced teams with offenses over the course of 16 games that gave their defense the 2nd easiest DVOA schedule in the league. Denver wasn’t much better at #24, but still better. I have been of the opinion that Seattle D could be overrated for a long time. You faced 8 backup QBS, faced only one of the top 10 QB’s Statistically. Other gems I investigated about you vaunted defense.
Actually Seattle's 2013 Schedule is -0.5 which rates as 17th in the NFL. Wanna know what Denver's is?
-6.7% which is 31st in the entire league.
Don't tell me that Denver has faced better teams. It's just not true. I also note when talking about offenses that you neglected to show the raw numbers. I am going to bet that #24 and #31 aren't all that far apart.
Now, wanna do it the other way? Let's talk about the SCHED that your vaunted offensive has faced. It's not a pretty picture.
44 Team Sacks
5 (11%) against top 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
17 (39%) against middle 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
22 (50%) against bottom 10 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
Denver stats on this:
41 Sacks (despite losing Von Miller for more than half the year)
15 (37%) against top 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
14 (34% )against middle 11 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
12 (29%) against bottom 10 pass protection DVOA offensive lines
Yea, that’s right, 50% of your sacks for the year came against teams ranked 22 or below in offensive pass protection DVOA, you fed of bottom feeders and didn't even average 2 sacks a game against top 11 teams. You want to know where Denver is ranked, #1 pass protection DVOA offensive line. I find it laughable that Seattle fans just assume that they will get pressure on Manning like it is a forgone conclusion, that Denver has no chance to stop you. Denver led the league in plays per game, we run a no huddle faster than the vaunted Eagles offense. Seattle fans love to talk about their rotation, but tell me this? How are you going to rotate if you can’t get off the field? That leaves tired, huge Dline men going up against the best DVOA pass protecting line and Manning sitting back there all day. No secondary on earth can hold up consistently under those conditions for more than 4-5 seconds.
That's all true and completely misleading. I notice you didn't include the numbers for knockdowns and hurries. Seattle leads the league in QB hurries.
I am not usually the type to talk trash, except to Pats fans cause I hate them. I actually like the Seahawks and I LOVE Russell Wilson, and hate Kaepernick. If my BRONCOS … yea not a 49ers fan at all, have to lose to a team in the NFC, I would rather it be the Seahawks than anyone else, you do have the coolest uniforms in the league btw. However, I cannot abide by the sheer arrogance of a majority of Seahawk fans that I see on this board. I realize that your franchise hasn’t “been there” very often so you don’t really know how to be optimistic without coming across as arrogant jackasses, especially when actually stats call into question your assertion that you have the best defense in the league, as shown earlier.
It's really not arrogance. Seattle is simply a horrible matchup for Denver. We saw it briefly in the pre-season and we'll see it again in a bit more than a week. It's not arrogance when it's true.
All that said, I expect a close game and would not be surprised if the Seahawks win, I don’t think they will, however I do expect it close. I believe the game will come down to 4 things.
1. Seattle Defense getting pressure on Manning: As proven in this post, it WILL be harder than you think. If you don’t get pressure it wont matter how good your secondary is and our no huddle is brutal.
I don't expect to sack Manning often if at all. However, Seattle doesn't have to. All Seattle has to do is force him off his spot. Manning's own numbers show that when he's hurried or forced to move (even a little) his numbers plummet to mortal levels. Yes the Bronco's O-Line is very good at pass-pro, but your receivers do NOT handle press coverage very well at all. Indy showed this. So did San Diego. Seattle specializes in press coverage and very tight windows. All it takes is an extra half second.....
2. Containing Wilson – I think we can do an adequate job of bottling up Lynch, as long as we don’t let Wilson extend the play to much by scrambling. Outside of Harvin I am not worried about any of your receivers.
None of the QBs you've faced other than RG3 have Wilson's ability to extend plays and scramble. Look back at the AFCCG and all the Green Grass in front of Brady. Heck Brady RAN IN a TD on you guys. If Brady can do that, you don't want to think about what Wilson will do to you. As for Lynch, Lynch runs extremely well even against the stoutest of run defenses. Your run defense is adequate, but it doesn't hold a candle to San Fran's.
3. Avoid turnovers – our biggest problem all year has been the insane turnovers, if the Seahawks don’t get at least one, I don’t believe that have any chance
I think Seattle will get at least two esp if PFM insists on throwing it into the LoB. You were telling me about arrogance?? If you go by the advanced analytics (DVOA), the estimate on a neutral field is that Seattle will win 58% of the time btw so "don't have a chance" is pretty damned arrogant IMO.
4. Harvin - Don't let Harvin beat us ... I am worried that Harvin is too good for any of our corners. However, if for some reason Wilson force feeds the ball to him, it could get problematic for the Hawks.
Wilson doesn't make that kind of mistake and if you've followed him lately you'd know that. I also note that Harvin can be fed the ball in a lot of ways. What's more he's a complete wild card. We don't need him to win, but he's sure nice to have.