bigskydoc
Well-known member
Honestly can't believe that people are blaming the kicker for this.
Last play of the 1st half, he misses a 57 yarder. Those are not gimmes. In 2018, 57-58 yard field goals were successful 50% of the time. From 2010-2018, 50% of 57-58 yard field goals were successful.
Did the Seahawks adjust playcalling since they didn't have a kicker? Maybe, on one drive. Did it affect the outcome? No. If it did, it likely only made the score closer than it otherwise would have been.
In the second half -
Drive one - ended on Seattle 29 - No effect
Drive two - ended on Seattle 48 - No Effect
Drive three - 4th & 5 from 39 and a 2 pt conversion - Plus 1-8 points.
Drive four - ended on Seattle 29 - No effect (maybe we would have been passing at this point)
Drive five - ended on Seattle 23 - No effect (maybe we would have been passing at this point)
Drive six - 2 pt conversion - no effect.
Onside kick - almost certainly no effect
Assuming we had a kicker in the second, we likely would not have gone for that 4th and 5, down by only 4. We changed things up and went for it, instead of playing for field position, because we knew we didn't have a kicker for our next drive. Even if we had gone for it, there is no chance Pete would have gone for 2 point conversion. At the end of that drive, the score would have been either 6-10 or 13-10. Cowboys came back and scored the next two touchdowns, so the score would have been either 6-24 or 13-24. Now, you might argue that with a kicker, we would have been down by 2 or more scores and gone to Wilson earlier.
Drive seven would not have been affected by the presence of a kicker. Best case scenario, we would have been down 13-24, and we would have gone for 2 to put us within a field goal of tying up the game.
Onside kick - Single digit success rate since the rule change. Is it possible we would have had a better chance with Seabass? Yes, by some infinitesimal amount, it probably would have,
With Seabass, we likely would have been playing for a tie rather than a win.
The only way you can argue that Seabass cost us this game is to say that we would have been down by 2 scores 6-17 after Dallas' second TD, and therefore we would have gone to Wilson earlier, and he had the kind of success that he had in garbage time. Let's say drive 4 gets us to 13-17. The interception gets us to drive 5 and we score 20-17. Dallas scores to go up 20-24. We score to go up 27-24. Likely there would not have been enough time left for Dallas to kick a Field Goal.
So, to argue that Seabass cost us the game, you have to argue that it is because we would have been FURTHER behind, and thus would have gone to Russ earlier in the game, then assume Russ performs his magic.
That's a lot of assumptions there. Sure it's possible, but not likely.
Anyway, he could have cost us the game, but he didn't. Stupidly giving up a huge run in a short-yardage situation, and failing to abandon what wasn't working, cost us this game. Seabass didn't affect it either way.
Last play of the 1st half, he misses a 57 yarder. Those are not gimmes. In 2018, 57-58 yard field goals were successful 50% of the time. From 2010-2018, 50% of 57-58 yard field goals were successful.
Did the Seahawks adjust playcalling since they didn't have a kicker? Maybe, on one drive. Did it affect the outcome? No. If it did, it likely only made the score closer than it otherwise would have been.
In the second half -
Drive one - ended on Seattle 29 - No effect
Drive two - ended on Seattle 48 - No Effect
Drive three - 4th & 5 from 39 and a 2 pt conversion - Plus 1-8 points.
Drive four - ended on Seattle 29 - No effect (maybe we would have been passing at this point)
Drive five - ended on Seattle 23 - No effect (maybe we would have been passing at this point)
Drive six - 2 pt conversion - no effect.
Onside kick - almost certainly no effect
Assuming we had a kicker in the second, we likely would not have gone for that 4th and 5, down by only 4. We changed things up and went for it, instead of playing for field position, because we knew we didn't have a kicker for our next drive. Even if we had gone for it, there is no chance Pete would have gone for 2 point conversion. At the end of that drive, the score would have been either 6-10 or 13-10. Cowboys came back and scored the next two touchdowns, so the score would have been either 6-24 or 13-24. Now, you might argue that with a kicker, we would have been down by 2 or more scores and gone to Wilson earlier.
Drive seven would not have been affected by the presence of a kicker. Best case scenario, we would have been down 13-24, and we would have gone for 2 to put us within a field goal of tying up the game.
Onside kick - Single digit success rate since the rule change. Is it possible we would have had a better chance with Seabass? Yes, by some infinitesimal amount, it probably would have,
With Seabass, we likely would have been playing for a tie rather than a win.
The only way you can argue that Seabass cost us this game is to say that we would have been down by 2 scores 6-17 after Dallas' second TD, and therefore we would have gone to Wilson earlier, and he had the kind of success that he had in garbage time. Let's say drive 4 gets us to 13-17. The interception gets us to drive 5 and we score 20-17. Dallas scores to go up 20-24. We score to go up 27-24. Likely there would not have been enough time left for Dallas to kick a Field Goal.
So, to argue that Seabass cost us the game, you have to argue that it is because we would have been FURTHER behind, and thus would have gone to Russ earlier in the game, then assume Russ performs his magic.
That's a lot of assumptions there. Sure it's possible, but not likely.
Anyway, he could have cost us the game, but he didn't. Stupidly giving up a huge run in a short-yardage situation, and failing to abandon what wasn't working, cost us this game. Seabass didn't affect it either way.
ukeface: 
