I just hope that the front office puts principle aside and realizes that you must have your best talent on the field to win. Right now that isn't apparent without #31. But if principle takes precedence over winning then our year will be mediocre at best with no playoff appearance let alone a return to the Super Bowl . We our now in a must win situation these next two weeks. Lose one and the pressure will become even greater.
Stick a fork in the Seahawks, they're done
- Thread starter seahawk12thman
- Start date
kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,975
- Reaction score
- 0
The headline of the article was a lot more sensationalist than the content. Seems like an attempt to grab attention for a low traffic blog, IMO.
johnnyfever
Well-known member
In 4 weeks we will be 4-2, at worst 3-3. How many teams make the superb owl with those #'s. I know there was one last year...
A
Anonymous
Guest
kearly":ljs3spbk said:
FWIW, I got that too.
Stuff like this gets Vegas all in a tussle. Stats vs. historicals vs. probabilities...
It was a particularly tough road game and I'm glad we came home relatively unscathed. Personally, I fully expected the 0-2 and am really not freaking out about it at all.
Too much time left.
One last note about starting 0-2 and the percentage of those teams that didn't go to the playoffs or the Super Bowl. Of those teams how many had their first two games away? I always said that if you can go undefeated at home (8 Wins), and .500 on the road, that makes for a 12-4 season.
O.K. so we lost one (to the Rams) that we should have won, and lost one that most of us had conceded to Green Bay. This ship can be up righted and sail into the high seas. Yes we have to get Kam back, re-organize our play calling and that includes getting Jimmy Graham involved. And have faith as well, that the O-line will continue to mature. There's no other plausible answer. If you have one share it with me, or tell me that you have thrown in the towel.
John Schneider hopefully will demonstrate how much he enjoys a winning team, rather than a team solely built upon principle and convention. Those last two entities won't always lead you to the promised land.
O.K. so we lost one (to the Rams) that we should have won, and lost one that most of us had conceded to Green Bay. This ship can be up righted and sail into the high seas. Yes we have to get Kam back, re-organize our play calling and that includes getting Jimmy Graham involved. And have faith as well, that the O-line will continue to mature. There's no other plausible answer. If you have one share it with me, or tell me that you have thrown in the towel.
John Schneider hopefully will demonstrate how much he enjoys a winning team, rather than a team solely built upon principle and convention. Those last two entities won't always lead you to the promised land.
Paschtorian
New member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 245
- Reaction score
- 0
In Pete and John do we trust.
Really?????????
The "sky is falling" already???
We got to the Superbowl with what,...3 losses?
I think it's adjustment time, and our 'Hawks will dominate. Mark my words.
Really?????????
The "sky is falling" already???
We got to the Superbowl with what,...3 losses?
I think it's adjustment time, and our 'Hawks will dominate. Mark my words.
TheHawkster
Active member
Can we re-visit this when we're 6-2 or 5-3 at our bye week?
I don't go off of historic stats that don't take into account specifics.
Specifically, we're a good team. Specifically, how many of those 0-2 teams were on the road the first two games ? Now that those are filtered out, how many were against a team like the Packers, who are the best in the NFC at home during Rodgers tenure (and historically good there)? Now, factor in the Rams game, which we've lost 2 of the last 3 years and still gone to the SB twice.
Historically, many pundits wrote us off last year, saying "it's just too tough to go back to back SB's". There was no given reason other than historically, it's been hard. The same pundits even acknowledged we were the most talented team in the league, but "it hasn't been done since the Patriots" so we couldn't do it.
Specifically, we're a good team. Specifically, how many of those 0-2 teams were on the road the first two games ? Now that those are filtered out, how many were against a team like the Packers, who are the best in the NFC at home during Rodgers tenure (and historically good there)? Now, factor in the Rams game, which we've lost 2 of the last 3 years and still gone to the SB twice.
Historically, many pundits wrote us off last year, saying "it's just too tough to go back to back SB's". There was no given reason other than historically, it's been hard. The same pundits even acknowledged we were the most talented team in the league, but "it hasn't been done since the Patriots" so we couldn't do it.
Siouxhawk
New member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,776
- Reaction score
- 0
I think seahawk12man was one of those poor souls who left early and were locked out of the NFC Championship Game just when things were getting good.
OP
OP
seahawk12thman
New member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,083
- Reaction score
- 0
Siouxhawk":2cpw3tqu said:
I was sharing the article, I didn't write this LOL. The last game I went to was in the Kingdome against the Raiders on Sunday night football.
LymonHawk
Well-known member
To quote the late & great Yogi Berra, "It ain't over til it's over!"
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
Did not read. I sense obvious click bait.
Gametime
New member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 422
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm not a professional mathematician but I'm not totally dumb.
That stat of 0-2 teams not making it is misleading to me. What is the probability that BAD teams start off 0-2? I would say high. That means that the How many of those BAD teams don't reach the playoffs or Superbowl? It stands to reason that if you are bad team you have a high probability of starting off 0-2 that year.
Now.... it is somewhat rare that a GOOD team (good meaning they have a very high probability of making the playoffs before the season starts) actually goes 0-2 out of the gate. This means that there is statistical certainty that a small number of 0-2 teams that play in January. Because teams capable of doing it in the first place don't go 0-2 often.
To say that going 0-2 reduces the playoff "chances" of a quality team like the Seahawks doesn't worry me.
We were 3-3 last year losing the first game on the road to the Chargers, Beating Denver but in OT, and then losing back to back to the Boys at home and at St. Louis.
We were 4-0 in 2013 BUT.... remember the Panthers and Texans games? Those could be considered pretty epic wins that could have gone either way. 2-2 was just about as realistic but the ball bounced our way unlike this year (Rams game especially.) Remember being down 21-0 to the Bucs at HOME!!! Or the goal-line stand in St. Louis? Could have been loses with 1 different bounce or call.
The bottom line is that we always get better and gel as the season progresses and will turn heads IMO with the game at Cincinnati. This year it's even more pronounced because our stars played less of the preseason than ever. They have far fewer reps than in 2013 and 2014. If we can win in SF and Dallas (with their injuries) then we could realistically be 6-2 at the BYE and have 3 straight home games after the break. That's an entire month at home.
I still see big things this year and we all know the Packers will drop a few on the road. :th2thumbs:
I'm not worried a bit. I think the only thing that's changed is our expectations and our patience. :thirishdrinkers:
That stat of 0-2 teams not making it is misleading to me. What is the probability that BAD teams start off 0-2? I would say high. That means that the How many of those BAD teams don't reach the playoffs or Superbowl? It stands to reason that if you are bad team you have a high probability of starting off 0-2 that year.
Now.... it is somewhat rare that a GOOD team (good meaning they have a very high probability of making the playoffs before the season starts) actually goes 0-2 out of the gate. This means that there is statistical certainty that a small number of 0-2 teams that play in January. Because teams capable of doing it in the first place don't go 0-2 often.
To say that going 0-2 reduces the playoff "chances" of a quality team like the Seahawks doesn't worry me.
We were 3-3 last year losing the first game on the road to the Chargers, Beating Denver but in OT, and then losing back to back to the Boys at home and at St. Louis.
We were 4-0 in 2013 BUT.... remember the Panthers and Texans games? Those could be considered pretty epic wins that could have gone either way. 2-2 was just about as realistic but the ball bounced our way unlike this year (Rams game especially.) Remember being down 21-0 to the Bucs at HOME!!! Or the goal-line stand in St. Louis? Could have been loses with 1 different bounce or call.
The bottom line is that we always get better and gel as the season progresses and will turn heads IMO with the game at Cincinnati. This year it's even more pronounced because our stars played less of the preseason than ever. They have far fewer reps than in 2013 and 2014. If we can win in SF and Dallas (with their injuries) then we could realistically be 6-2 at the BYE and have 3 straight home games after the break. That's an entire month at home.
I still see big things this year and we all know the Packers will drop a few on the road. :th2thumbs:
I'm not worried a bit. I think the only thing that's changed is our expectations and our patience. :thirishdrinkers:
kearly":3frj7n6m said:
Just piggy backing on this post a little because it hints at what I'm about to say...
For anybody that doesn't want to bother with the link, it's a list of playoff teams and how many games they lost through week 3 since 2009. Yeah, the OP and the author are correct that there are only two that have gone to the playoffs after going 0-2 since 2009 but the list that have been 1-2 in week three is a lot bigger at 16 (15 of which are 2011 to 2014).
http://pfref.com/tiny/X6Dgy
So if we go 1-2 (as they did through 3 weeks), we're less likely to make the playoffs and/or win the super bowl because we went L, L, W rather than W, L, L for example?
Pretty thin.
By the way, in 8 of those 16 occurrences, both losses were to eventual playoff teams.
http://pfref.com/tiny/4cZzO
Just sayin...
nrayorr
Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 2
:34853_doh: What a freakin' wiener this guy is.
two dog
New member
The Seahawks are battling math?? I sympathize completely. I battled math
through both high school and college. Sad to say I lost, unlike the 'Hawks
who are a math battlin' bunch of b.....guys.
through both high school and college. Sad to say I lost, unlike the 'Hawks
who are a math battlin' bunch of b.....guys.
RiverDog
Well-known member
There are liars, damn liars, and then there are statisticians.
Take into consideration that both of our losses were on the road, our past history of starting slow, and the quality of our first two opponents and the odds will start to look quite different.
Take into consideration that both of our losses were on the road, our past history of starting slow, and the quality of our first two opponents and the odds will start to look quite different.
This is exactly right and the problem with people who throw statistics around but are careless with causation. If these first four weeks occurred in reverse order we would likely have two strong wins at this point and that article would be completely opposite. The conclusions after week 2 are completely driven by the order of the schedule which should be a warning sign that they have no merit.fenderbender123":10zer03s said:
byau
Active member
What I love about stats is that the Seahawks are historically breaking them.
What's the stat about how many of our 53-man roster are undrafted players?
What's the stat about how long it's been since a SB champion *won* a playoff game next year?
What's the stat about even making it to back to back SB?
The Seahawks are always defying historical stats.
What's the stat about how many of our 53-man roster are undrafted players?
What's the stat about how long it's been since a SB champion *won* a playoff game next year?
What's the stat about even making it to back to back SB?
The Seahawks are always defying historical stats.
byau
Active member
Here's an interesting number. Vegas Odds of winning the SB
If I'm going to give a lot of credence to any single number, I'll think Vegas odds. They tend to do their research because, you know, actual money rests on them putting out a line for people to bet. It doesn't care so much the actual record, it cares whether they think you will win or lose the game you're betting on.
What better number to talk about because there is a lot of talk about that the small percentage of 0-2 teams that make the playoffs is swayed by the fact that most 0-2 teams just really suck and they probably wouldn't make the playoffs regardless if they were 0-2 and 1-1.
Well let's look. I noticed that the triple odds teams (100-1 of winning the SB) tend to always be in the bottom 20% to 25% of the league while the 10-1 odds or better tend to be only the top 3 or 4 teams.
Here we go:
2013-2014 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB:
Only two teams are better than 100-1 odds which lends credence to the fact that the 0-2 teams sucked.
PANTHERS 66-1
GIANTS 75-1
REDSKINS 100-1
STEELERS 125-1
BROWNS 150-1
BUCANEERS 250-1
JAGUARS 1000-1
2014-2015 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB
Again, only two teams are better than 100-1 odds which lends credence to the fact that the 0-2 teams sucked
SAINTS 20-1
COLTS 40-1
GIANTS 150-1
BUCANEERS 200-1
CHIEFS 200-1
RAIDERS 500-1
JAGUARS 500-1
2015-2016 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB
Look who is still a 8-1 bet for winning the SB (in the top three or four). That's something no matter if you're 0-2, 1-1,. or 2-0.
And if you like parity, what about the fact this year only one team is 100-1 or worse.
Seahawks 8-1
Colts 16-1
Eagles 20-1
Ravens 30-1
Lions 60-1
Saints 80-1
Giants 80-1
Texans 80-1
Bears 300-1
Also, if it helps,
2013-2014 Season after week 2
Broncos: 4-1 odds of winning (#1)
Seahawks: 6-1 odds of winning (#2)
49ers: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)
2014-2015 Season after week 2
Broncos: 9-2 odds of winning (#1)
Seahawks: 9-2 odds of winning (#2)
Patriots: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)
2015-2016 Season after week 2
Packers: 3-1 odds of winning (#1)
Patriots: 5-1 odds of winning (#2)
Seahawks: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)
That's right, at 0-2, we are still the third best odds of winning the SB this year. And still under 10-1 at an 8-1. I'll take that as a pretty accurate indication of our team
Not saying there aren't things that worry me. For sure. I'm taking this more as credbility that we don't need to hit any panick button yet.
If I'm going to give a lot of credence to any single number, I'll think Vegas odds. They tend to do their research because, you know, actual money rests on them putting out a line for people to bet. It doesn't care so much the actual record, it cares whether they think you will win or lose the game you're betting on.
What better number to talk about because there is a lot of talk about that the small percentage of 0-2 teams that make the playoffs is swayed by the fact that most 0-2 teams just really suck and they probably wouldn't make the playoffs regardless if they were 0-2 and 1-1.
Well let's look. I noticed that the triple odds teams (100-1 of winning the SB) tend to always be in the bottom 20% to 25% of the league while the 10-1 odds or better tend to be only the top 3 or 4 teams.
Here we go:
2013-2014 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB:
Only two teams are better than 100-1 odds which lends credence to the fact that the 0-2 teams sucked.
PANTHERS 66-1
GIANTS 75-1
REDSKINS 100-1
STEELERS 125-1
BROWNS 150-1
BUCANEERS 250-1
JAGUARS 1000-1
2014-2015 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB
Again, only two teams are better than 100-1 odds which lends credence to the fact that the 0-2 teams sucked
SAINTS 20-1
COLTS 40-1
GIANTS 150-1
BUCANEERS 200-1
CHIEFS 200-1
RAIDERS 500-1
JAGUARS 500-1
2015-2016 season 0-2 teams Vegas Odds of winning the SB
Look who is still a 8-1 bet for winning the SB (in the top three or four). That's something no matter if you're 0-2, 1-1,. or 2-0.
And if you like parity, what about the fact this year only one team is 100-1 or worse.
Seahawks 8-1
Colts 16-1
Eagles 20-1
Ravens 30-1
Lions 60-1
Saints 80-1
Giants 80-1
Texans 80-1
Bears 300-1
Also, if it helps,
2013-2014 Season after week 2
Broncos: 4-1 odds of winning (#1)
Seahawks: 6-1 odds of winning (#2)
49ers: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)
2014-2015 Season after week 2
Broncos: 9-2 odds of winning (#1)
Seahawks: 9-2 odds of winning (#2)
Patriots: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)
2015-2016 Season after week 2
Packers: 3-1 odds of winning (#1)
Patriots: 5-1 odds of winning (#2)
Seahawks: 8-1 odds of winning (#3)
That's right, at 0-2, we are still the third best odds of winning the SB this year. And still under 10-1 at an 8-1. I'll take that as a pretty accurate indication of our team
Not saying there aren't things that worry me. For sure. I'm taking this more as credbility that we don't need to hit any panick button yet.
