How quickly we forget....

[ApnaHawk]

There is a lot of over analysis going on due to our record. I'll say this again, no team is as complete as ours. Simply put! If we face any team in a 3 game series, we will win. It's the same base from last year, with greater depth among the d-line. A secondary that's taken a hit, but with Lane and maybe one day Simon, it won't be long before they're playing amazing again. Even though our secondary has not played on its legendary status, our statistics still rank in the top of the league. We don't give up big plays, period!

Keep picking apart this team of ours and I'm sure you will walk away with a weakness, just like any other team in the league. If you look at the big picture however, there is not a single teams make-up or future or whatever they have that I'll take.

We are young, with all-stars on every level of our game. What other team comes close to that? No one! Not a damn single team can match our system and youth.

 

[seahawkfreak]

I haven't forgotten anything. This past game is our first real complete game we've played and to be honest some here would argue our defense still sucks. So until this years team shows its like the teams of the past 3 years or a wining version of it, I will still be sceptical. How quickly we forget my ass!

 

[hawk45]

I guess I missed the all stars on our offensive line. Yes, it must be an issue of memory rather than any real deficiency with the team.

 

[Anthony!]

One difference is is that we are no longer bullies. Nobody seams intimidated by our defense this year.

It's only going to take a single game. Once this Hawks team plays a complete game this season, the whole NFL will be put back on notice again.

We've been playing horrible football according to our standards and yet these supposed "elite" teams are barely beating us. No one has made statement against us, but we will to someone

Good point but it needs to be a complete game against a legit team, SF does not count.

Needs to be a complete game against a legit team before what? You can say they are playing better?

Why? Our line was at its worst against Detroit, they are no more "legit" than San Fran.

We know why you want to paint the line in the worst possible light each week, your motivation is clear. But if they keep their current data trend, they will likely end up "ranked" back in the 20's, right where they always do.

Dude there is no motivation other than one good game against a bad team does not mean the oline is fixed or better or even getting better, It means they could be getting better and we need to see more against a better team to know. Seems pretty realistic and on point to me, and most on this forum.

 

[Anthony!]

I guess I missed the all stars on our offensive line. Yes, it must be an issue of memory rather than any real deficiency with the team.

LOL

 

[purpleneer]

In the past few years, we have played a lot of close games. We have won most of them, but also lost a couple. This year, we've lost more and won less. It's really no different then in years past.

Two thoughts on this (the second of which clarifies that I'm not bashing the Hawks, as I think the first thought doesn't apply as much to them as it does to other teams).


Thought 1: What you've written is why the occasional detractors of the Seahawks write them off as "lucky." Statistically, over time, close games are almost a coin flip. Basically teams should win and lose an equal number of close games over time. So, people see the Seahawks of the last few years and see what you've seen: a team that has won most of its close games, and is fairly "lucky" for having done so. This year they've simply regressed back to the mean and are losing the close games too, this argument would go.


Thought 2: While I think "Thought 1" is true (and it doesn't matter what I "think", that 1 score games are mostly coin flips is statistically true) I think the Seahawks present a kind of special case, and "break" the rule more than practically any other team does. I'd basically argue that statistics be damned the Seahawks should win more close games than the average team.

The reason why is because of how they play. While winning more than their share of close games they were a run-first team with a dominant pass defense. Basically, they weren't dominating teams by blowing them out, they were dominating teams by suffocating them into submission and controlling the clock. Another way to put it is that over the last few years being down 17-10 at the start of the 4th quarter against the Hawks was a DRAMATICALLY different situation than being down 17-10 at the start of the 4th against other good teams. The Hawks were built to chew up half of the quarter just running the ball, and the pass defense prevented teams from fighting their way back when they had to think about how much time was left in the game.

Conclusion: While I think there's a bit of "luck" in the Hawks close games record over the past few seasons, I think the role it played has been, by some, DRAMATICALLY overstated as it doesn't really take into consideration how the Hawks beat teams compared to your typical team.

On the other side of the coin, this year, I think it's only PARTIALLY that their record in close games has regressed to the mean, but it's also that the pass defense has underperformed. We see this in games too. The Hawks have continued to play the way they've played, but in those close games in which they suffocated people into submission, instead, this year, people have been able to come back through passing the ball in the 4th quarter. Put another way, it's not just regression to the mean, but instead, the Hawks are also a more "typical" team this year due to their non-entirely dominant pass defense, and their "close game" record is also a reflection of that.

Basically I think a little bit of both is going on.

Good post. I do think though, that regression to the mean gets talked about too much. It's not meaningless, but feels like it assumes too much randomness. Just because a bigger sample size starts to look closer to 50/50 (which is inevitable in zero-sum things) doesn't mean each "sample" is random and there aren't more tangible reasons for the regression.
The Seahawks recently have gotten different results because they have been playing so close to the edge. Their approach and style of play reduces the margin for error. As comfortable as some games have felt in finishing with a relatively small lead, it doesn't take much to turn the tide in the modern NFL. One big conversion, or good drive, or even just an extra opportunity can lead to so much more (especially in the passing game). We tend to forget how small of a margin in performance can manifest itself into a much bigger margin in results.

 

[253hawk]

We could have easily been 5-5 at this point in 2013. We were literally one play away in 4 out 5 games this year from being 9-1. That's just how it goes in football.

 

[Popeyejones]

As comfortable as some games have felt in finishing with a relatively small lead, it doesn't take much to turn the tide in the modern NFL. One big conversion, or good drive, or even just an extra opportunity can lead to so much more (especially in the passing game). We tend to forget how small of a margin in performance can manifest itself into a much bigger margin in results.

Agreed with your overall point, but the passage quoted above is actually IMO an argument FOR the power of regression to the mean, and an argument against pulling out sub-samples in these types of scenarios (zero-sum; incredibly small sample sizes of incredibly high consequences -- e.g. the difference between 9-7 and missing the playoffs and 11-5 and winning the division).

 

[purpleneer]

As comfortable as some games have felt in finishing with a relatively small lead, it doesn't take much to turn the tide in the modern NFL. One big conversion, or good drive, or even just an extra opportunity can lead to so much more (especially in the passing game). We tend to forget how small of a margin in performance can manifest itself into a much bigger margin in results.

Agreed with your overall point, but the passage quoted above is actually IMO an argument FOR the power of regression to the mean, and an argument against pulling out sub-samples in these types of scenarios (zero-sum; incredibly small sample sizes of incredibly high consequences -- e.g. the difference between 9-7 and missing the playoffs and 11-5 and winning the division).

They are keeping things in the window where the flip-of-a coin type play hurts more, but I'd say their struggles to hang on aren't random; they are due to not being as good in the run game for tangible reasons. Those conversions and stops happened more consistently before because they were better.

 

[hawk45]

I'm with thought 2 Popeye, and personally feel it gets closer to the mark than thought 1. Except in the playoffs where I definitely feel we've been winning on crazy plays, and where some regression to the mean might be due to occur. Perhaps already occurred on the goal line vs the Patriots.

For a couple years, the defense has been able to hand the ball to our anemic offense over and over again late on games until our offense finally managed to do something with it. This year our defense isn't able to give the O 3 or 4 swings at the piñata late in games, so we lose. That's the story, at least in the regular season.

Edit: furthermore, far from handing the ball to our O multiple times, the D will just go ahead and let any old clipboard holder drive for a game winning score near the end.