Stick a fork in the Seahawks, they're done

Anyway we can send this to Renton?

http://www.outsports.com/2015/9/21/9363713/nfl-week-2-seahawks-brady-manning-hot-player

By Jim Buzinski


You are not supposed to make bold end-of-season predictions after Week 2, but I am confident about this: The Seattle Seahawks will not be going back to the Super Bowl. History and math are the reasons.

At 0-2, the Seahawks face daunting history:

Only 4 of the 98 teams that have made the Super Bowl (4%) started 0-2 -- the 1993 Dallas Cowboys; 1996 New England Patriots; 2001 New England Patriots and 2007 New York Giants. The 1993 Cowboys were missing star Emmitt Smith the first two games, while Tom Brady did not take over as the 2001 Patriots quarterback until Week 3. Seahawks fan are hoping there is a parallel with them missing holdout safety Kam Chancellor, but there are no signs the two sides are even talking.
Only 2 of the last 45 teams to start 0-2 (going back to 2009) even made the playoffs, which shows the hole the Seahawks are in.
Regardless of the first two games, the last team to lose the Super Bowl and win it the next season was the 1972 Dolphins. The last team to lose the Super Bowl and even make it back the next season was the 1993 Bills. Seattle was staring at a bad historical precedent even before the season started.
Math is the second thing going against the Seahawks. At 0-2, they trail the Packers by two games, and by losing at Green Bay Sunday means that Seattle has to pick up three games on the Pack the rest of the season if they are to pass them in the NFC standings. That's not happening unless Aaron Rodgers gets hurt. The Seahawks are also two games behind Arizona in the division, but they do play the Cardinals twice, which gives them hope. But it's hard to see Seattle getting as lucky as they did last season when the Cardinals, then 9-1, lost QB Carson Palmer for the season and had no functional offense.

MUST READS
Why the Seahawks will miss the playoffs
Cyd Zeigler
To do anything in the playoffs -- if they are fortunate to make them -- Seattle needs home field. With Russell Wilson at quarterback, they are 1-1 on the road and 4-0 at home. If they don't get a top seed or win the division, this team is not going to win two or three road playoff games.

The 2015 Seahawks don't scare anyone. Their once-feared defense has given up 27 points in each of the first two games. On offense, Wilson is playing well, but the trade for tight end Jimmy Graham looks like a bust, especially since Seattle gave up their best offensive lineman (Max Unger) to get him. Against the Packers, Graham had only one catch and was thrown to only twice. Why trade for him if he's not a part of the offense? With the Saints, Graham was a master at going for the jump ball passes and yet Seattle has all but ignored him so far.

The Seahawks are a talented team and I still see them in the playoffs, but as a wild card. This is not a group that's going to be a threepeat Super Bowl team. There's too much history and math to overcome.

:34853_doh:

It's too early in a 16 game season to say any team is "done."

There will be MANY injuries around the leagues.

Teams, including the Hawks will adapt. Hopefully for the better.

There are challenges of course and things to improve but after 2 games it's too early to say the "sky is falling."

Mr. Buzinski needs to search a little more Seahawks history and a little less NFL wide statistical trends. There is nothing about the start of this season that is 1) unfamiliar, 2) surprising or the least bit unsettling to long time Seahawks fans.

1) We were 2-2 the year of our first visit to the Super Bowl and 3-3 last year. We'll be 2-2 again this year and likely 4-2. Calling the season already is more than a little premature.

2) At least half the people I know that don't just pick the Seahawks to win every game looked at our schedule and figured the Seahawks to be 1-1 at best at this point with 0-2 as a very real possibility

For us to fret about being 0-2, especially with a full slate of home games ahead of us, would be silly.

Forget this.. did you see Danny Amendola? I mean.. hello!

Vesuve":dkea6f0c said:

It's too early in a 16 game season to say any team is "done."

There will be MANY injuries around the leagues.

Teams, including the Hawks will adapt. Hopefully for the better.

There are challenges of course and things to improve but after 2 games it's too early to say the "sky is falling."

Click to expand...

If you're banking on injuries and weakened opponents for Seattle to have a fighting chance, it's not unreasonable to think then that we've also become a weaker team.

WindCityHawk":269qh6wy said:

Vesuve":269qh6wy said:

It's too early in a 16 game season to say any team is "done."

There will be MANY injuries around the leagues.

Teams, including the Hawks will adapt. Hopefully for the better.

There are challenges of course and things to improve but after 2 games it's too early to say the "sky is falling."

Click to expand...

If you're banking on injuries and weakened opponents for Seattle to have a fighting chance, it's not unreasonable to think then that we've also become a weaker team.

Click to expand...

Not to have a fighting chance, just that the writer didn't take that into the equation.

IMO week 13 or 14 is when you have this conversation, not week two. Too much can happen in 3 months, just ask the Cardinals who had a three game lead with three weeks left last year.

Maybe they just mean the road to the SB, since the perception (and likely part of the reality) is that the Hawks get an easier path to the SB because of the HFA.

If Green Bay goes 12-4 right now, we have to go 13-1 to get that HFA.

That would be difficult to do with 2 losses already.....

But if we fix some of the problems? We would become one hell of a dangerous team to meet in the playoffs. (Or if we fail to fix the problems, then yes we would be done)

This team is about to go on a HUGE roll and do it without Kam which I find hilarious.

WindCityHawk":345elcrv said:

Vesuve":345elcrv said:

It's too early in a 16 game season to say any team is "done."

There will be MANY injuries around the leagues.

Teams, including the Hawks will adapt. Hopefully for the better.

There are challenges of course and things to improve but after 2 games it's too early to say the "sky is falling."

Click to expand...

If you're banking on injuries and weakened opponents for Seattle to have a fighting chance, it's not unreasonable to think then that we've also become a weaker team.

Click to expand...

Don't think he's saying to bank on injuries, but you're foolish to think they won't shape the course of the next 15 weeks too. Look at whats happened to Dallas for example. Look at Rodgers calf injury last year. Look at our own injuries in the secondary that piled up during the Super Bowl

Guys will get hurt, some of them will be impactful losses. Just hope it doesn't happen here *knock on wood*

I don't think we're done. I want to state that if only for the record.

However.

On the spectrum of Optimism and Pessimism, both sides meet at Reason, and right now I see no reason to believe we will return to form. I see no evidence that Kam will be back anytime soon. I see no reason to believe that Bevell will become anything other than what he is or has been, and I see no reason to believe that our defense will trenscend the sum of its parts.

What I do see is a defense that has surrendered 61 points in two games, and and an offense with no identity. And a whole team showing little fire/heart.
Pete needs to give this team a narrative, an identity, because right now we're just carrying the off-season drama around with us. Until we win a game, we're just The Team That Lost The Super Bowl.

We'll beat worse teams, of course, we're not going to be at the top of the draft. But given what we've fielded this year, I don't see a team that can beat better teams, and I see a lot of better teams.

We're not done, but we do need to change drastically and quickly.

what nonsense!

The argument is that it doesn't happen often. Not really a strong case.

The math may be correct but the analysis is flawed when your sampling pool has no criteria. How many of those 96% were bad teams to begin with? Made the playoffs the prior year? Had a winning record the prior year? Were considered contenders?

WindCityHawk":2lb42qgw said:

If you're banking on injuries and weakened opponents for Seattle to have a fighting chance, it's not unreasonable to think then that we've also become a weaker team.

Click to expand...

I would share your viewpoint if we'd been blown out by someone. But we haven't been. We've been in games all the way into the fourth, at some point leading them, and the game has swung on some really good plays by the other team. As long as we're showing up well against other division or conference leaders, the question of whether we deserve to be in consideration isn't really a question. It's just a matter of numbers.

In fairness, he does say the Hawks are still a playoff team. He just doesn't think they'll get HFA and thus, won't get back to the SB.

All in all, not an unfair prediction. Heck, at 0-2, I'd be pretty happy with "just" making the playoffs. As someone else mentioned, this team is talented and could be a pain in everyone else's a$$ as a wild card team.

FearTheBeak":14fjpli9 said:

The math may be correct but the analysis is flawed when your sampling pool has no criteria. How many of those 96% were bad teams to begin with? Made the playoffs the prior year? Had a winning record the prior year? Were considered contenders?

Click to expand...

And on top of that, how many of those teams played their first 2 games on the road against 2 of their toughest matchups?

The Rams game was very winnable, I think most of the good teams would have won that game. Game 2 GB, I can understand it, but again, GB was so thin in their line up as the game progressed, so in fair comparison, we played poorly on both the games. I accept it and its on me as a fan to have an opinion on my team based on what I have seen from them

Wait, whut;

most 0-2 teams don't make the Super Bowl?

Hasselbeck":2kkedrdd said:

Forget this.. did you see Danny Amendola? I mean.. hello!

Click to expand...

The article wants to stick something in the Seahawks. I choose to take that as a compliment.

It was a fair article. Nothing the guy said was incorrect. That said, I do think it's kind of dumb for writers to cite the history of 0-2 starts when Seattle is a virtual lock to be 2-2 in two weeks.