Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:49 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:15 pm
Posts: 34
SacHawk2.0 wrote:
Snackdaddy, RW is already a proficient pocket passer. The read option wasn't a main staple of our offense, it was a sparingly used change up to our base offense.

The Patriots are always in it because their division had been a joke for a decade, and because Tom Brady.

The Broncos got good because the rest of their team was actually solid in spite of Tim Tebow.

Good QBs are essential, I agree. But to say RW hasn't shown he can throw from the pocket shows how little you've actually seen him play.


You could be right. But me, I want to see more than one season. He won't be catching teams by surprise. He repeats what he did last season, then I'll be a believer. For now, its wait and see. I've seen a lot of sophomore slumps over the years in several sports.

He has one thing in his favor. He has a good running game and good protection. And a good defense. He won't have to do it all by himself like Drew Brees in New Orleans tried last season.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:52 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm
Posts: 1635
RolandDeschain wrote:
fenderbender123 wrote:
We have returning starters across the offensive line


I'd say that's only a good thing for half of the O-line, lol. I really hope Moffitt comes back, and Carp stays healthy and playing @ guard.


I hear ya, our line is far from perfect but I think they do a good job at run blocking.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:52 pm 
*Host of .NET Awards*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
Posts: 8873
Location: With a white girl
Don't be a cliche' machine, dude. There are myriad (hi Zeb!) reasons to believe he won't slump.

_________________
Legal Notice: Only a very small percentage of the things I do and say can be taken seriously. If ever.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:57 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am
Posts: 575
Location: Walla Walla
snackdaddy wrote:
SacHawk2.0 wrote:
Snackdaddy, RW is already a proficient pocket passer. The read option wasn't a main staple of our offense, it was a sparingly used change up to our base offense.

The Patriots are always in it because their division had been a joke for a decade, and because Tom Brady.

The Broncos got good because the rest of their team was actually solid in spite of Tim Tebow.

Good QBs are essential, I agree. But to say RW hasn't shown he can throw from the pocket shows how little you've actually seen him play.


You could be right. But me, I want to see more than one season. He won't be catching teams by surprise. He repeats what he did last season, then I'll be a believer. For now, its wait and see. I've seen a lot of sophomore slumps over the years in several sports.

He has one thing in his favor. He has a good running game and good protection. And a good defense. He won't have to do it all by himself like Drew Brees in New Orleans tried last season.


As often as the Hawks ran the read-option, people still think its the teams bread and butter - its not.

Several posts over the last couple weeks have addressed the sophomore slump idea, and it's largely a myth. With Luck, RG3, Wilson, and Kaep, it'll cease being spoken of altogether.

One thing in his favor... and you list three? He has a great running game around him, agreed, and good run-blocking for it. The defense was solid until the last minute of a few unmentionable games.

But good protection? I'd say it was adequate most of the time, but his ability to scramble out of pressure extended many plays that would have got any other QB leveled. With RW, it's the whole package. His college tape looks just the same as his preseason work and entire season last year. If there's a breakdown, it won't be Wilson.

_________________
____________
BLUE and GREEN...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:46 pm 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:42 pm
Posts: 60
One thing about the read option that people forget. New England's best runs came out of the same formation, except they didn't have the threat of a running quaterack. Tom Brady would line up in the shotgun and hand it off. With Brady back there the defensive end can just crash down and help on the running back. With Wilson if the D-end starts crashing down Wilson will run. So early in the game The D-end will stay at home and Wilson will continue to feed the Beast. After Beastmode is tearing them a new one, the d-end will eventually crash and Wilson will burn him. The beauty of it is either way it creates a numbers advantage for the offense. Reguarless of whether or not Wilson hands it off or keeps it :twisted:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:17 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
Posts: 9156
Location: Renton Wa.
Well Fran Tarkenton was always thought of as a scrambler, he threw a lot from the pocket as well, when you have a mobile QB you are having to account for him every play taking away the defenses versatility and setting up a advantage. Read option roll outs, moving pockets whatever you want to throw out there, defense still has to wait , wait, wait till Russell commits to where he is going.

_________________
Image

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
.Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:23 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
Posts: 9156
Location: Renton Wa.
Oh one more expectation, when we sack Kaepernick I hope the person that does it kisses his own bicep in the back field, not over Kaep that would get a penalty.

_________________
Image

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
.Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:51 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
Posts: 5464
Location: Kansas City, MO
chris98251 wrote:
Oh one more expectation, when we sack Kaepernick I hope the person that does it kisses his own bicep in the back field, not over Kaep that would get a penalty.

Avril, Bennett, Clemens, Irvin and my boyfriend have far more class than this, unlike Krapperdink...just sayin' .

_________________
43-8...it's all about that action boss....
next man up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:35 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 690
snackdaddy wrote:
Seahawks are a solid team on both sides of the ball. Good lines. Good RB. Very good CB's. QB was a pleasant surprise last season.

But there is one thing to remember. History has shown that defenses eventually find a way to slow down the latest fad when it comes to offenses. The running QB running a read option seems to be the flavor of the month. What would happen if defenses figure out ways to keep Russell Wilson, Colin Kapernick, RGIII and other running QB's in the pocket? Making them beat them with their arms and not their legs? Will they become proficient pocket passers?

Look at the final 4 teams last year. 3 of the 4 teams had QB's who are primarily pocket passers. I don't think thats a coincidence. While its nice to have a guy who can escape the pass rush, its even better to have a guy who can sit there, read defenses, make good decisions and make accurate throws. Why are the Patriots always a playoff team? It hasn't been their defense lately. Why did the Broncos all of a sudden become a superbowl contender? Why did Joe Flacco lead his team to a championship? Good pocket passers, thats why.

If defenses make Wilson stay in the pocket, can he succeed? Thats a question that remains to be seen.



This is where the Niners will also benefit by having one of the best o-lines in the league. If o-linemen can dominate the trenches then our mobile QB can continue to be mobile. Especially going up against a defense without a good pass rush. This is where not having all your pass rushers available for a game against one of the listed QB's above will surely hurt you more than normal.

_________________
DISCLAIMER:

The trash talking that I do occasionally this week is strictly for gamesmanship between opposing fanbases as a result of our upcoming matchup this week on SNF. It by no means should be taken personally.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:57 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
Posts: 9828
NinerLifer wrote:
snackdaddy wrote:
Seahawks are a solid team on both sides of the ball. Good lines. Good RB. Very good CB's. QB was a pleasant surprise last season.

But there is one thing to remember. History has shown that defenses eventually find a way to slow down the latest fad when it comes to offenses. The running QB running a read option seems to be the flavor of the month. What would happen if defenses figure out ways to keep Russell Wilson, Colin Kapernick, RGIII and other running QB's in the pocket? Making them beat them with their arms and not their legs? Will they become proficient pocket passers?

Look at the final 4 teams last year. 3 of the 4 teams had QB's who are primarily pocket passers. I don't think thats a coincidence. While its nice to have a guy who can escape the pass rush, its even better to have a guy who can sit there, read defenses, make good decisions and make accurate throws. Why are the Patriots always a playoff team? It hasn't been their defense lately. Why did the Broncos all of a sudden become a superbowl contender? Why did Joe Flacco lead his team to a championship? Good pocket passers, thats why.

If defenses make Wilson stay in the pocket, can he succeed? Thats a question that remains to be seen.



This is where the Niners will also benefit by having one of the best o-lines in the league. If o-linemen can dominate the trenches then our mobile QB can continue to be mobile. Especially going up against a defense without a good pass rush. This is where not having all your pass rushers available for a game against one of the listed QB's above will surely hurt you more than normal.


Well what happened last December here in Seattle? Seattle hada not very good pash rush and they still curbstomped the ninnies! So there may be a bigger chink in the SF armor then you think.

_________________
42-13, 29-3, and 23-17 and a Lombardi trophy from THIS century, deal with it niner trolls

SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:47 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 690
Sports Hernia wrote:
NinerLifer wrote:
snackdaddy wrote:
Seahawks are a solid team on both sides of the ball. Good lines. Good RB. Very good CB's. QB was a pleasant surprise last season.

But there is one thing to remember. History has shown that defenses eventually find a way to slow down the latest fad when it comes to offenses. The running QB running a read option seems to be the flavor of the month. What would happen if defenses figure out ways to keep Russell Wilson, Colin Kapernick, RGIII and other running QB's in the pocket? Making them beat them with their arms and not their legs? Will they become proficient pocket passers?

Look at the final 4 teams last year. 3 of the 4 teams had QB's who are primarily pocket passers. I don't think thats a coincidence. While its nice to have a guy who can escape the pass rush, its even better to have a guy who can sit there, read defenses, make good decisions and make accurate throws. Why are the Patriots always a playoff team? It hasn't been their defense lately. Why did the Broncos all of a sudden become a superbowl contender? Why did Joe Flacco lead his team to a championship? Good pocket passers, thats why.

If defenses make Wilson stay in the pocket, can he succeed? Thats a question that remains to be seen.



This is where the Niners will also benefit by having one of the best o-lines in the league. If o-linemen can dominate the trenches then our mobile QB can continue to be mobile. Especially going up against a defense without a good pass rush. This is where not having all your pass rushers available for a game against one of the listed QB's above will surely hurt you more than normal.


Well what happened last December here in Seattle? Seattle hada not very good pash rush and they still curbstomped the ninnies! So there may be a bigger chink in the SF armor then you think.


Despite being banged up from the prior week in NE, you guys took out Vernon Davis. I obviously don't have to explain how big of an injury that was.

_________________
DISCLAIMER:

The trash talking that I do occasionally this week is strictly for gamesmanship between opposing fanbases as a result of our upcoming matchup this week on SNF. It by no means should be taken personally.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:16 am 
*NET FCC Liaison*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 22636
Location: Kirkland, WA
NinerLifer wrote:
Despite being banged up from the prior week in NE, you guys took out Vernon Davis. I obviously don't have to explain how big of an injury that was.


Kaepernick hardly looked Vernon's way at all during the regular season, so at the time, it really wasn't a big injury at all. I just checked, and Kaepernick averaged 3 targets to VD per game throughout the regular season once Kaepernick became the starter; and that is much higher than reality, because the first two starts he targeted him 5 and 8 times, respectively. For the final month of the regular season, he averaged merely 2 targets per game to Davis.

This isn't a knock on Davis, because he deserves more targets than that by a long shot on a regular basis. It's a knock on Kaep.

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:24 am 
*NET FCC Liaison*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 22636
Location: Kirkland, WA
Also, as a comparison, Tony Gonzalez was targeted 7.56 times per game in the regular season by Matt Ryan. You might point out that he's one of the greatest TEs of all time, and that's true, but the Falcons also have two very good WRs that see a ton of throws, so Gonzalez isn't targeted as much as he would be on nearly any other team in the NFL.

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:42 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:37 pm
Posts: 2539
I expect Seattle to sweap the 49ers and break even with the rams.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:46 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
Posts: 9828
NinerLifer wrote:
Sports Hernia wrote:
snackdaddy wrote:
Seahawks are a solid team on both sides of the ball. Good lines. Good RB. Very good CB's. QB was a pleasant surprise last season.

But there is one thing to remember. History has shown that defenses eventually find a way to slow down the latest fad when it comes to offenses. The running QB running a read option seems to be the flavor of the month. What would happen if defenses figure out ways to keep Russell Wilson, Colin Kapernick, RGIII and other running QB's in the pocket? Making them beat them with their arms and not their legs? Will they become proficient pocket passers?

Look at the final 4 teams last year. 3 of the 4 teams had QB's who are primarily pocket passers. I don't think thats a coincidence. While its nice to have a guy who can escape the pass rush, its even better to have a guy who can sit there, read defenses, make good decisions and make accurate throws. Why are the Patriots always a playoff team? It hasn't been their defense lately. Why did the Broncos all of a sudden become a superbowl contender? Why did Joe Flacco lead his team to a championship? Good pocket passers, thats why.

If defenses make Wilson stay in the pocket, can he succeed? Thats a question that remains to be seen.


This is where the Niners will also benefit by having one of the best o-lines in the league. If o-linemen can dominate the trenches then our mobile QB can continue to be mobile. Especially going up against a defense without a good pass rush. This is where not having all your pass rushers available for a game against one of the listed QB's above will surely hurt you more than normal.


Well what happened last December here in Seattle? Seattle hada not very good pash rush and they still curbstomped the ninnies! So there may be a bigger chink in the SF armor then you think.


Despite being banged up from the prior week in NE, you guys took out Vernon Davis. I obviously don't have to explain how big of an injury that was.

.....and Seattle was without 3 out of 4 top CB's....... I can do this for that all day long...... Excuses only get you so far!

_________________
42-13, 29-3, and 23-17 and a Lombardi trophy from THIS century, deal with it niner trolls

SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:56 am 
* Class Act Hawk Fan *
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:00 am
Posts: 690
Location: Boise, Idaho
Axx wrote:
I expect Seattle to sweap the 49ers and break even with the rams.


I expect Seattle to sweep both the 49ers and the Rams, but if we split I think it will be with the 49ers... Don't see us losing the first Home Game on Sunday Night Football. Especially with a crowd trying to break the sound record in a stadium..... :th2thumbs:

_________________
Looking For That One Particular Habor....


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:15 pm 
* Glitter over Knives *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 8511
Hawkboi wrote:
Axx wrote:
I expect Seattle to sweap the 49ers and break even with the rams.


I expect Seattle to sweep both the 49ers and the Rams, but if we split I think it will be with the 49ers... Don't see us losing the first Home Game on Sunday Night Football. Especially with a crowd trying to break the sound record in a stadium..... :th2thumbs:


And on Pete Carroll's birthday!

_________________
"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
"BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:16 pm 
*NET FCC Liaison*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 22636
Location: Kirkland, WA
bestfightstory wrote:
And on Pete Carroll's birthday!


Reminds me of the birthday present we gave Jim Harbaugh.

*snicker*
*chortle*
*teeheehee*

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:17 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:02 pm
Posts: 288
What Do I Expect This Year?

I expect the Niners to split the series with both the Seahawks and Rams... I think SF wins the division due to the significantly easier away schedule. I think there will also be a 'fair-well' tour for Candlestick that will come into play. I think Andrew Luck will win the MVP, mostly on being in a high-volume passing attack with a suspect defense, requiring him to pass consistently. But his team will be another year better. I think Dallas will have a breakout year and Tony Romo will actually be an MVP candidate. I think the Broncos will rely heavily on their defense and run attack with Monte Ball. I see Alex Smith getting KC to the last playoff spot, but getting ousted in the first round. I see a divisional game in SF between SEA and SF, which could be the last game ever in Candlestick, and just completely nuts...

NFC
Division Winners:
SF, GB, ATL, DAL
Wildcards:
SEA, WAS
Contenders:
STL, NO, NYG, CAR

AFC
Division Winners:
DEN, PIT, IND, NE
Wilcards:
HOU, KC
Contenders:
MIA, CIN, TEN, BAL

Wilcard Round:
SEA defeats DAL
ATL defeats WAS
IND defeats KC
NE defeats HOU

Divisional Round:
SF defeats SEA
GB defeats ATL
NE defeats DEN
IND defeats PIT

Conference Round:
SF defeats GB
NE defeats IND

Super Bowl:
SF defeats NE

Awards
MVP: Andrew Luck (runners up: Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, RGIII, Tony Romo, Colin Kaepernick)
OPOY: Aaron Rodgers
DPOY: Von Miller
OROY: Monte Ball
DROY: Dion Jordan
Super Bowl MVP: Kaepernick


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:22 pm 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9819
RolandDeschain wrote:
kearly wrote:
As far as the Rams, why should we be worried about them? They are not a 10 win team. They are like Minnesota without AP. As long as Bradford is there, they will be mediocre. They remind me a lot of the John Friesz-era Seahawks. They are more of a pest than a good team, IMO.


Their defensive line is worth about six wins all by itself. If Bradford can simply not cause any more losses than he causes wins, an improved secondary and a good #1 receiver could push them into 9-10 win territory.

You might think I'm being facetious, but I'm not.


Their line won't get 52 sacks every season though. I don't see much immediate upside for them on defense, really the only area for upside left is the running game. I think Bradford is probably very near his ceiling already. It's not that he lacks the skills or development, and yet he's still below the NFL median. Yeah, his receivers weren't great, but outside of a handful of megastar WRs, it's generally the QB who makes the WR, not the other way around.

I think the WR excuse is valid, but only excuses so much because it's a double-edged sword. For that matter, I can't recall a single sub-par QB who suddenly became great because of additions at WR. WR's are enhancers, but they don't change who you are. Tom Brady took off when he got Moss/Welker and later Gronk/Hernandez, but before 2007 he was still an ultra-elite QB, even when he was throwing to a bunch of no names who couldn't catch the football.

I liked the Rams additions at RB and WR in the draft, but WRs typically take a few years to acclimate. Really the only thing about the Rams that I am in awe of is their D-line, their corners are decent too, but after that, it's an average to below average group of talent.

Fisher is a good in game decision maker, but he's never been a great talent evaluator. His teams have been very inconsistent year to year, too.

RolandDeschain wrote:
Dude, I just pointed out from your own Sando link that the difference in losses at 10am starts compared to 1am starts is exactly 3.0%. That is a very minor deviation. What kind of crack are you smoking?


Sorry Roland, but thinking that body clock doesn't and hasn't had a significant impact on present and past outcomes is birther level silliness. Also, the 3% you cite is just the Seahawks, in a relatively small sample size (keep in mind too- Seattle has been a mostly terrible road team over that span, 10am or not). What Cartire showed was a chart that involved several teams in a much larger sample that had very clear results, much larger than 3%. You can't just dismiss a body of data because a very small piece of it disagreed. That would be like saying the Mariners are not a terrible offense because they've had the AL's best offense in July.

Also, you really need to stop cherry picking the stats you like and then discarding the ones you don't by labeling them outliers- especially when those stats you incorrectly label outliers agree with the larger body of evidence more than your favored stats do. An outlier is a stat that is a standard deviation or two away from the norm, and generally disagrees with the overall data consensus, or at least stands out like a sore thumb. The recent 49ers (in Sando's chart) are not an outlier. They were a better at 1pm games than Oakland and Arizona, but their 10am record was pretty close. It's not a massive gulf in difference, especially since a 19 game 1pm sample is hardly rock solid.

Now, the one thing you are right about is that drawbacks tend to hurt better teams less. The Chargers did relatively well in early games because for most of the last 10 years they've won a ton of regular season games, and did so with great offense- which generally isn't impacted much by early starts. You look at the teams that bucked the 10am trend over NFL history and they generally were either very good and/or had very good offenses. So Seattle is a good bet to buck the trend this year. But that doesn't mean it isn't a disadvantage that must still be overcome. (And remember, Seattle finished 11-5 with FO's #1 offense last year, and was still miserable in 10am starts.)

Who knows, maybe the Seahawks are just that damn good and they got 5-0 in their 10am starts this year. I'm open to that. But let's not pretend that it isn't a significant extra disadvantage that will be a challenge to overcome. Someone else said it perfectly- in the first half of 10am starts it's like the other team is on performance enhancers because of body routine.


Last edited by kearly on Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:00 pm, edited 14 times in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:27 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 am
Posts: 2036
NinerBuff wrote:
What Do I Expect This Year?



I didnt quote the whole thing cause its too long, but just wanted to make sure this was replied to you.

Your a 9er fan, so I give you a pass on the SF prediction. BUT 2 TEAMS FROM THE NFC EAST?!?!?!

Son, Crack is for people who dont have a reason to live anymore. And rich people who dont care.

_________________
Time of possession is the most meaningless statistic in football. -RolandDeschain


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:57 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
Posts: 5464
Location: Kansas City, MO
NinerBuff wrote:
What Do I Expect This Year?

I expect the Niners to split the series with both the Seahawks and Rams... I think SF wins the division due to the significantly easier away schedule. I think there will also be a 'fair-well' tour for Candlestick that will come into play. I think Andrew Luck will win the MVP, mostly on being in a high-volume passing attack with a suspect defense, requiring him to pass consistently. But his team will be another year better. I think Dallas will have a breakout year and Tony Romo will actually be an MVP candidate. I think the Broncos will rely heavily on their defense and run attack with Monte Ball. I see Alex Smith getting KC to the last playoff spot, but getting ousted in the first round. I see a divisional game in SF between SEA and SF, which could be the last game ever in Candlestick, and just completely nuts...

NFC
Division Winners:
SF, GB, ATL, DAL
Wildcards:
SEA, WAS
Contenders:
STL, NO, NYG, CAR

AFC
Division Winners:
DEN, PIT, IND, NE
Wilcards:
HOU, KC
Contenders:
MIA, CIN, TEN, BAL

Wilcard Round:
SEA defeats DAL
ATL defeats WAS
IND defeats KC
NE defeats HOU

Divisional Round:
SF defeats SEA
GB defeats ATL
NE defeats DEN
IND defeats PIT

Conference Round:
SF defeats GB
NE defeats IND

Super Bowl:
SF defeats NE

Awards
MVP: Andrew Luck (runners up: Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, RGIII, Tony Romo, Colin Kaepernick)
OPOY: Aaron Rodgers
DPOY: Von Miller
OROY: Monte Ball
DROY: Dion Jordan
Super Bowl MVP: Kaepernick

I will ignore the 49ers winning the Superbowl part that's to be expected from you but Dallas as the NFC East division champions? Are you insane or just trying to get a laugh? Also Kansas City isn't making the playoffs unless James Baldwin somehow becomes a legitimate #2 WR. Which isn't likely.

_________________
43-8...it's all about that action boss....
next man up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:00 pm 
NET Ring Of Honor
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
Posts: 21063
Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014
Every year I look at the schedule and say damn that is tough.
Here is the deal, it is tough every year regardless of competition within the division.

The Seahawks need to take that next step and get it done on the road.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:26 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:02 pm
Posts: 288
Cartire wrote:
NinerBuff wrote:
What Do I Expect This Year?



I didnt quote the whole thing cause its too long, but just wanted to make sure this was replied to you.

Your a 9er fan, so I give you a pass on the SF prediction. BUT 2 TEAMS FROM THE NFC EAST?!?!?!

Son, Crack is for people who dont have a reason to live anymore. And rich people who dont care.



I realize that 2 teams from the NFC East seems pretty illogical, but the NFL usually cycles in 2 or 3 teams per conference into the playoffs each year. Thinking that Dallas can do anything in the playoffs is laughable, but they have a pretty legit lineup, top to bottom. They've been perennial underachievers, but I think the trend ends this year and they break into the playoffs.

KCHawkGirl wrote:
I will ignore the 49ers winning the Superbowl part that's to be expected from you but Dallas as the NFC East division champions? Are you insane or just trying to get a laugh? Also Kansas City isn't making the playoffs unless James Baldwin somehow becomes a legitimate #2 WR. Which isn't likely.


I think that Denver is pretty under overrated and the AFC is pretty weak in general. They had 6 pro-bowlers last year, and all they needed was a QB that didn't turn the ball over...enter Alex Smith. Now, will they do anything substantial in the playoffs, no. But KCs offense (Charles, Bowe, Baldwin, Moeaki, McCluster) with Andy Reid is enough to beat the Raiders and Chargers 2x. So they need about 4 or 5 more wins throughout the rest of their schedule.


In general, I've made predictions for the past 5 or 6 seasons, usually going with consensus picks, and there's always a team that comes from mediocrity to make the playoffs. I see Dallas and KC being those teams this year... I could also see MIA or STL making the last wildcard spot... The problem for STL is they're stuck looking up at two juggernauts.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:35 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:02 pm
Posts: 288
Ok Hawk fans... Obviously we differ on our opinions of how our teams will do, but what about...

STL, NO, ATL, CAR, WAS, DAL, NYG, GB, CHI, DET?

If both SF and SEA make the playoffs, which are the other division winners and the other wildcard?

As I said above, I think:

SF, SEA, GB, ATL, WAS, and DAL


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:41 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
Posts: 5464
Location: Kansas City, MO
NinerBuff wrote:
Cartire wrote:
NinerBuff wrote:
What Do I Expect This Year?



I didnt quote the whole thing cause its too long, but just wanted to make sure this was replied to you.

Your a 9er fan, so I give you a pass on the SF prediction. BUT 2 TEAMS FROM THE NFC EAST?!?!?!

Son, Crack is for people who dont have a reason to live anymore. And rich people who dont care.



I realize that 2 teams from the NFC East seems pretty illogical, but the NFL usually cycles in 2 or 3 teams per conference into the playoffs each year. Thinking that Dallas can do anything in the playoffs is laughable, but they have a pretty legit lineup, top to bottom. They've been perennial underachievers, but I think the trend ends this year and they break into the playoffs.

KCHawkGirl wrote:
I will ignore the 49ers winning the Superbowl part that's to be expected from you but Dallas as the NFC East division champions? Are you insane or just trying to get a laugh? Also Kansas City isn't making the playoffs unless James Baldwin somehow becomes a legitimate #2 WR. Which isn't likely.


I think that Denver is pretty under overrated and the AFC is pretty weak in general. They had 6 pro-bowlers last year, and all they needed was a QB that didn't turn the ball over...enter Alex Smith. Now, will they do anything substantial in the playoffs, no. But KCs offense (Charles, Bowe, Baldwin, Moeaki, McCluster) with Andy Reid is enough to beat the Raiders and Chargers 2x. So they need about 4 or 5 more wins throughout the rest of their schedule.


In general, I've made predictions for the past 5 or 6 seasons, usually going with consensus picks, and there's always a team that comes from mediocrity to make the playoffs. I see Dallas and KC being those teams this year... I could also see MIA or STL making the last wildcard spot... The problem for STL is they're stuck looking up at two juggernauts.

I wouldn't bank on 2 wins vs. the Chargers, fact is nobody has a good read on how bad or good they will be. Denver isn't overrated that is a solid team throughout. I do see them dropping to 12-4 but their schedule is so easy that 14-2 isn't unlikely. Kansas City if everything goes right wins 10 games but are more likely to land anywhere between 7-9 wins. McCluster can't hang on to a ball and the offense can't just be Charles, and Bowe is their only legit WR as of now. But they do have the makings of an elite OL and if Smith gets the protection you may be right but so much has to go right.

Dallas no, as long as Romo and Jerruh are there it's 8-8 city. Romo is like Cutler he implodes whenever it's important and just can't seem to put it all together despite putting up gaudy statistics.

_________________
43-8...it's all about that action boss....
next man up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:45 pm 
*Host of .NET Awards*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
Posts: 8873
Location: With a white girl
Seattle wins the division, Rams get the wild card.

_________________
Legal Notice: Only a very small percentage of the things I do and say can be taken seriously. If ever.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:47 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
Posts: 5464
Location: Kansas City, MO
SacHawk2.0 wrote:
Seattle wins the division, Rams get the wild card.

If that happens the Bay Area may just sink into the ocean. (It might given the Superbowl hangover effect).

_________________
43-8...it's all about that action boss....
next man up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:50 pm 
*Host of .NET Awards*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
Posts: 8873
Location: With a white girl
It's not just the hangover. Two years in a row they've gone deep in the post season with an aging roster. That's about to catch up to them.

_________________
Legal Notice: Only a very small percentage of the things I do and say can be taken seriously. If ever.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:51 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
Posts: 5464
Location: Kansas City, MO
NinerBuff wrote:
Ok Hawk fans... Obviously we differ on our opinions of how our teams will do, but what about...

STL, NO, ATL, CAR, WAS, DAL, NYG, GB, CHI, DET?

If both SF and SEA make the playoffs, which are the other division winners and the other wildcard?

As I said above, I think:

SF, SEA, GB, ATL, WAS, and DAL

NFC? I see Seattle, Atlanta, Green Bay, NYG as division winners with New Orleans and St. Louis as wildcards. After thinking on it I think SacHawk has a good point and with the SB hangover effect in play. ESPN is going to go into shock and Skip Bayless may have a stroke on national television. Those are my thoughts.

_________________
43-8...it's all about that action boss....
next man up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:12 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:02 pm
Posts: 288
KCHawkGirl wrote:
NinerBuff wrote:
Ok Hawk fans... Obviously we differ on our opinions of how our teams will do, but what about...

STL, NO, ATL, CAR, WAS, DAL, NYG, GB, CHI, DET?

If both SF and SEA make the playoffs, which are the other division winners and the other wildcard?

As I said above, I think:

SF, SEA, GB, ATL, WAS, and DAL

NFC? I see Seattle, Atlanta, Green Bay, NYG as division winners with New Orleans and St. Louis as wildcards. After thinking on it I think SacHawk has a good point and with the SB hangover effect in play. ESPN is going to go into shock and Skip Bayless may have a stroke on national television. Those are my thoughts.


The Super Bowl hangover may be a bit of a misnomer, the last SB loser to not make the playoffs was the Patriots team that lost Tom Brady and had Matt Cassell (and they still won 11 games). I think 11 wins will make the playoffs, even in the NFC. Now, getting 11 wins could be pretty difficult. Now, the last SB loser to win the following year was the '72 Dolphins.

There are a few teams that I have a hard time perdicting... STL (can they move up from 3rd in the division, can Bradford become more consistent), NYG (is it good Manning or bad Manning), CAR (can Newton be more than a fantasy pt stuffer), TB (can FA spending actually pay off), and DAL (perennial losers with a great team 'on paper')
:snack:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:13 pm 
*NET FCC Liaison*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 22636
Location: Kirkland, WA
kearly wrote:
Their line won't get 52 sacks every season though.

So true, but that's not what impressed me so much about the Rams D-line. It's their ability to constantly create pressure and wreak havoc even without getting sacks. That week 17 game was terrifying. Our O-line isn't great, but they looked like high school chumps against the Rams D-line.

Kearly wrote:
Sorry Roland, but thinking that body clock doesn't and hasn't had a significant impact on present and past outcomes is birther level silliness. Also, the 3% you cite is just the Seahawks, in a relatively small sample size (keep in mind too- Seattle has been a mostly terrible road team over that span, 10am or not). What Cartire showed was a chart that involved several teams in a much larger sample that had very clear results, much larger than 3%. You can't just dismiss a body of data because a very small piece of it disagreed. That would be like saying the Mariners are not a terrible offense because they've had the AL's best offense in July.

Also, you really need to stop cherry picking the stats you like and then discarding the ones you don't by labeling them outliers- especially when those stats you incorrectly label outliers agree with the larger body of evidence more than your favored stats do.

Whoa. Ok, for the first time ever, I'm going to seriously combat your opinion. I almost always agree with you on any given topic, but I'm going to attempt to justify my thoughts here, and I'm very curious to see your response. First of all, body clock is a very real thing, but it takes more than 3 hours for there to be a significant difference. I'm basing this off of my own experience. I lived in Miami for a few years and have flown back to visit friends several times from Seattle. That is a long-ass flight; the longest you can do in the continental U.S. A 3-hour difference is nothing. I've laid out my case for this before, but basically, it's NO different from the habit people have of either staying out late on a Friday night or having to wake up abnormally early for an appointment, or what have you. There isn't some mystical, magical force the Earth imparts on you when you change 3 time zones. Sure, you spend 7 hours on an airplane and you gain 3 hours flying to Miami, but so what? You land where the local time is 10pm instead of 7pm. You go to sleep a bit later because your body still feels like it's earlier, and you wake up a couple hours later, nice and rested. So what?

If you believe you will have jet lag, your body will manifest symptoms. This is a well-known medical phenomenon. The subconscious is very powerful; more so than most people realize. As I said previously, even if it works, that doesn't change the fact that it's a placebo. Argue all you want, but I've flown plenty, including a good # of times across 3 time zones, and jet lag in a 3-hour time zone change is basically nil, and CERTAINLY it's gone after a day. If you want to discuss the effects when flying across 10 or 12 time zones to Europe or whatever, that's a different story and takes days to fully adjust to. Most teams flying across the country fly on Friday, so they have two full days to get used to it. You are trying to tell me there's still a considerable difference after being in the new time zone two and more days later, and I'm flat-out saying no way.

As far as cherry-picking stats, we're talking about 40% of them being against your argument. That is getting close to half. A tiny difference with the Seahawks, a flat-out objection to your statement with the Chargers since they WON more 10am road games than they did 1pm road games over a decade-long period, and then three large ones that support your argument. 2 out of 5 don't support it, which is 40%. How is this me cherry-picking stats? Most of the teams sucked during much of this period, and I specifically said poor teams tend to amplify problems and elite teams tend to hide them. If even one starting player on offense or defense believes they'll have bad jet lag, (thereby causing it) that could be enough to swing some of those games. We can call the Seahawks and Chargers outliers instead if you want, it really doesn't matter, because the overall average difference for all 5 isn't that big. It's big for 3, nearly nonexistent for 1, and flat-out contradictory for the other. If you want to argue this, we should calculate strength of schedule for these games. Perhaps the 3 that had worse records faced twice as many winning teams on the road at 10am as they did at 1pm, for instance. That could EASILY account for a big discrepancy, since coincidentally, the 3 biggest discrepancies are all teams that largely sucked for the period in question. Certainly, I don't think either one of us is proven to be correct without knowing that data.

Kearly wrote:
Now, the one thing you are right about is that drawbacks tend to hurt better teams less. The Chargers did relatively well in early games because for most of the last 10 years they've won a ton of regular season games, and did so with great offense- which generally isn't impacted much by early starts.

The Chargers had a winning season in exactly 6 of the 12 years used in the ESPN article. (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010) They had some good years for sure, but winning in only half of them is far from a dynasty powerhouse, let's just say. They won more games than they lost over the total 12-year period though, so they were a good overall team for this time frame.

Kearly wrote:
You look at the teams that bucked the 10am trend over NFL history and they generally were either very good and/or had very good offenses. So Seattle is a good bet to buck the trend this year. But that doesn't mean it isn't a disadvantage that must still be overcome. (Though for what it's worth, Seattle finished 11-5 with FO's #1 offense last year, and was still miserable in 10am starts.)

Miserable at 10am starts? I did just check FO, and here's what they list. We only had two games on the road in which our total team DVOA was a negative value. Weeks 1 (@Ari) and 12. (@Mia) Our worst DVOA game was at Arizona, which was a 1pm start. The other, @Mia, was a 10am start. (-16.8% and -3.1%, respectively.) So, our worst road game per FO was @ Arizona. We had 4 10am road games, 3 1pm ones, and a 5pm one, which makes this easy to average. Our average total team DVOA for 10am starts was 18.375%, and for 1pm/5pm road starts was 20.4%. To say our 10am starts were miserable per FO is inaccurate, because the other 3 10am starts (weeks 4, 8, and 13) had DVOAs of 12.8%, 23.4%, and 40.4%, respectively.

Kearly wrote:
Who knows, maybe the Seahawks are just that damn good and they got 5-0 in their 10am starts this year. I'm open to that. But let's not pretend that it isn't a significant extra disadvantage that will be a challenge to overcome. Someone else said it perfectly- in the first half of 10am starts it's like the other team is on performance enhancers because of body routine.

10am's an excuse for the weak-minded. (Not referring to you as weak-minded, I mean weak-minded teams/players.) If you have other evidence to present to support your assertion, let's see it. If all 5 of those teams on the ESPN article had followed the same trend as the worst 3, I'd be deferring to it assuming they faced approximately equal-strength opponents in 10am games as they did in 1pm games, which we have yet to establish; but that's not the case. Only 3 out of 5, or 60%, follow this trend. The other 40% do not, so you really cannot draw a correlation from that, IMO.

I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you or being a jerk. I've got nothing but respect for you, and I still do. I just heartily disagree on this particular topic.

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:15 pm 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9819
Cartire wrote:
Image


The most disturbing thing about that chart is that roughly two thirds of non-primetime West coast to East coast road games happen at 10am. That makes sense, given that there are a lot more games in general that occur in the early slot compared to the later slot. The NFL needs to look into that. Why be so unbalanced? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if you had the same number of teams playing in the later slot than the early one?

Anyway, based on that chart- you'd expect about sixty to seventy percent of Seattle's east coast games to be 10am. So in a typical year, that probably means 3 ten AM games. Which sucks. We got five this year, which is ridiculous, but even 3 in a year is too many, considering that the only equivalent disadvantage for east coast teams is playing at night, and the average east coast team might get 1-2 of those a year.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:22 pm 
*NET FCC Liaison*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 22636
Location: Kirkland, WA
I'm a big proponent of getting rid of west coast teams playing 10am (or 1pm EST if you prefer) road games, period. Even if you ignore the team/player angle, who the hell wants to start drinking and partying 2 hours before a game starts, which means you start at 8am? Blech.

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:32 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 am
Posts: 2036
kearly wrote:
Cartire wrote:
Image


The most disturbing thing about that chart is that roughly two thirds of non-primetime West coast to East coast road games happen at 10am. That makes sense, given that there are a lot more games in general that occur in the early slot compared to the later slot. The NFL needs to look into that. Why be so unbalanced? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if you had the same number of teams playing in the later slot than the early one?

Anyway, based on that chart- you'd expect about sixty to seventy percent of Seattle's east coast games to be 10am. So in a typical year, that probably means 3 ten AM games. Which sucks. We got five this year, which is ridiculous, but even 3 in a year is too many, considering that the only equivalent disadvantage for east coast teams is playing at night, and the average east coast team might get 1-2 of those a year.


I actually talked to Tim Ryan and PK on NFL radio about this. The afternoon games are designed to have one per station so that they can get an ad revenue boost. They said thats not going away no matter what.

_________________
Time of possession is the most meaningless statistic in football. -RolandDeschain


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:34 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:43 pm
Posts: 171
kearly wrote:
Cartire wrote:
Image

Anyway, based on that chart- you'd expect about sixty to seventy percent of Seattle's east coast games to be 10am. So in a typical year, that probably means 3 ten AM games. Which sucks. We got five this year, which is ridiculous, but even 3 in a year is too many, considering that the only equivalent disadvantage for east coast teams is playing at night, and the average east coast team might get 1-2 of those a year.


10 AM starts suck for west coast teams, but do a little math...(89 wins +185 losses)/(5 teams x 12 seasons) = average of 4.5 10 AM games per west coast team per year. So the Seahawks are playing half a game more than average.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:35 pm 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9819
@IRO

I meant miserable in terms of W-L outcomes, though I'll give you credit for digging up stats. Fair points. I am stunned that the DVOA was that close- especially since the Buffalo massacre was a 1pm Pacific game. In fact, you missed a chance to really drive home the point by including the Falcons playoff game, in which I'm sure Seattle had a good DVOA score (I'm guessing it wasn't listed?). Where did you find the week by week dvoa scores, anyway?

I am not basing my arguments on anecdotes (though if I did I would agree with the idea that body clock peaks around 4pm- that's when I do my best workouts). I am basing it on facts and scientific studies that have been linked and discussed frequently here at .net. FWIW, I agree with you that it isn't a HUGE disadvantage. Maybe a few points a game kind of thing. Starting at 10am shouldn't have been what made us lose heartbreakers at Miami or Detroit, especially since those games were lost in the 4th quarter. It was a factor, though, and if it's at 1pm, who knows? I am also dead sure that the early start factored vs. Atlanta. Seattle's defense gave up 20 points in the first half and they've locked down better QBs than Ryan.

Quote:
As far as cherry-picking stats, we're talking about 40% of them being against your argument.


That's how samples work. Some data goes one way, some goes the other. What matters is what the greater body of evidence determines. To not understand this, it makes you sound like Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign manager. :)

And let's be honest, it's not like the "against the argument" data really says much. Some teams (over a period of time) will probably fare better or worse depending on how they are structured, and they still had a losing record in 10am games, it was just less terrible.

We usually agree on stuff. Probably 99% of the time. But the larger body of evidence as well as scientific study is very clear on this issue. I'm guessing you wouldn't find a single NFL coach who'd say it isn't a factor. Some coaches even flew their team out a few extra days ahead and gave up practice time to overcome it (and it didn't work).

I'll admit that I might be over-rating the impact slightly, but in my defense, Seattle got shafted over and over and over and over during 10am starts last year. Including the playoffs, Seattle had five gut-punch losses last season and all five of them were 10am starts. So I'll concede that this might be causing me to lose a bit of objectivity, but I do think the facts support the idea that 10am starts cost us wins.


Last edited by kearly on Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:03 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:39 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:02 pm
Posts: 288
Cartire wrote:
kearly wrote:
Cartire wrote:
Image


The most disturbing thing about that chart is that roughly two thirds of non-primetime West coast to East coast road games happen at 10am. That makes sense, given that there are a lot more games in general that occur in the early slot compared to the later slot. The NFL needs to look into that. Why be so unbalanced? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if you had the same number of teams playing in the later slot than the early one?

Anyway, based on that chart- you'd expect about sixty to seventy percent of Seattle's east coast games to be 10am. So in a typical year, that probably means 3 ten AM games. Which sucks. We got five this year, which is ridiculous, but even 3 in a year is too many, considering that the only equivalent disadvantage for east coast teams is playing at night, and the average east coast team might get 1-2 of those a year.


I actually talked to Tim Ryan and PK on NFL radio about this. The afternoon games are designed to have one per station so that they can get an ad revenue boost. They said thats not going away no matter what.


I understand the revenue stream from advertisement will force the hand of the NFL schedule makers, but damn, the West teams have really struggle in general.

Just wondering, does anyone have a chart for the opposite... Teams that usually kickoff at 10am PT traveling west and playing at 1pm. Is the disparity similar?


Last edited by NinerBuff on Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:40 pm 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9819
Disp wrote:
10 AM starts suck for west coast teams, but do a little math...(89 wins +185 losses)/(5 teams x 12 seasons) = average of 4.5 10 AM games per west coast team per year. So the Seahawks are playing half a game more than average.


4.56 to be exact. Good catch.

You'll notice though that Seattle and San Diego drew far fewer 10am games than the other three teams did. So in reality, the Seahawks have been pretty lucky on the 10am starts thing over the past 12 seasons. Interesting.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:42 pm 
*NET FCC Liaison*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 22636
Location: Kirkland, WA
kearly wrote:
@IRO

I meant miserable in terms of W-L outcomes, though I'll give you credit for digging up stats. Fair points. I am stunned that the DVOA was that close- especially since the Buffalo massacre was a 1pm Pacific game.

I am not basing my arguments on anecdotes (though if I did I would agree with the idea that body clock peaks around 4pm- that's when I do my best workouts). I am basing it on facts and scientific studies that have been linked and discussed frequently here at .net. FWIW, I agree with you that it isn't a HUGE disadvantage. Maybe a few points a game kind of thing. Starting at 10am shouldn't have been what made us lose heartbreakers at Miami or Detroit, especially since those games were lost in the 4th quarter. It was a factor, though, and if it's at 1pm, who knows? I am also dead sure that the early start factored vs. Atlanta. Seattle's defense gave up 20 points in the first half and they've locked down better QBs than Ryan.

I'm not saying it's not a factor, I'm saying that it's an extremely minor one and that it shouldn't even be that. Also, we started off the same way at Washington as we did at Atlanta, and that was a 1:30pm start. We gave up two freakin' TDs in the 1st quarter to 0 points for us. Not as bad as a 20-0 start, but the Falcons offense was a better one than the Redskins. I'd point to our offensive play calling differences between the 1st and 2nd halves of each of those games as being why we were able to shoot back, combined with improved defensive play later in the game.

kearly wrote:
That's how samples work. Some data goes one way, some goes the other. What matters is what the greater body of evidence determines. To not understand this, it makes you sound like Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign manager. :)

Oh, come on, man; lol. Statistical deviations vary wildly as far as how much of a percentage change is needed to be considered significant. You're basically arguing that 99% on one side and 1% on the other is the same as 60%-40%, or 51%-49%. Whatever the larger number is, wins. That's so not how it goes a huge percentage of the time. In almost any sort of statistical comparison you can think of, there are many variables that affect the outcome. For instance, as an example, let's say the 3 crap teams of those 5 had twice as many 10am opponents that had winning records as they did 1pm opponents. Despite the 60% number still being true, that could EASILY mean the 60% still loses. This is just an example, I haven't done the considerable task of checking opponent records for 12 seasons of football for 5 teams, lol; but my point stands. You can't just look at a percentage and determine anything, you have to know what variables have and have not been accounted for, and decide how important they are. Depending on what factors have been factored in/calculated for and what ones haven't, in any given set of data, 10% could easily be a larger deviation than 25%, or what have you.

kearly wrote:
And let's be honest, it's not like the "against the argument" data really says much. Some teams (over a period of time) will probably fare better or worse depending on how they are structured, and they still had a losing record in 10am games, it was just less terrible.

It would say a lot more, either in favor of you or in favor of me, if we knew the strength of schedule of 10am vs. 1pm starts for all the opponents in that set of data.

kearly wrote:
We usually agree on stuff. Probably 99% of the time. But even if I wanted to agree with you, reading you make a case on this feels like seeing someone who made up their mind already and is on the hunt for any supporting evidence while conveniently dismissing or failing to mention inconveniences.

That kind of hurts, haha. I've been involved with two really big discussions about time zone travel/jet lag on here since I've been a member, and one of those times, I linked legitimate evidence backing my assertion. Did you know that some scientists suspect that the major cause of jet lag isn't even caused by crossing time zones, but by being in an environment where the air pressure is much higher than you're used to? It causes oxygen deprivation, or hypoxemia, leading to lethargy among other things. http://www.healthytravelblog.com/2012/0 ... -sickness/

kearly wrote:
The larger body of evidence as well as scientific study is very clear on this issue.

Hardly. Even WebMD says simply setting your watch to the new time zone beforehand (at the airport/when you board the plane, etc.) can really help with jet lag, and they flat-out say this is a psychological effect. http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/ex ... ies?page=2

kearly wrote:
I'm guessing you wouldn't find a single NFL coach who'd say it isn't a factor. Some coaches even flew their team out a few extra days ahead and gave up practice time to overcome it (and it didn't work).

Check any source you can find, they all say that at most, it takes a day per time zone crossed to fully acclimate. Some teams have tried travelling east a WEEK early and still lost; that's evidence for my assertion, not yours. :)

kearly wrote:
I'll admit that I might be over-rating the impact slightly, but in my defense, Seattle got shafted over and over and over and over during 10am starts last year. Pretty much all of our gut-punch losses happened in the 10am slot. So I'll concede that this might be causing me to lose a bit of objectivity, but I do think the facts support the idea that 10am starts cost us wins.

I'd say a much larger factor I was spreading out our defensive coverage in a big way at the end of the 4th quarter in most of the games you mentioned.

If I had billions of dollars, I would pay some scientists to test this whole thing. Fill a plane with a couple hundred people and fly them to Miami from Seattle, test for jet lag on them, then load another group up and fly them in big circles and land in some spot in the same state, or in another nearby state in the same time zone but with them having believed they were flown to some spot on the east coast and tested for jet lag, so they're under the guise that they traveled to the east coast but didn't. Then, take a 3rd group and fly them in circles for the same duration it takes to go to Miami, and TELL them you're flying in circles ahead of time so they know, and just land where the 2nd test group did, in a nearby state or elsewhere in the same state and test for jet lag. I would bet a lot that the first two groups both have similar amounts of jet lag, but that the 3rd one largely doesn't.

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:55 pm 
* Dirty Harry *
* Dirty Harry *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:51 am
Posts: 5420
Location: Magnolia, Texas
Let us pray,

God,

Hi, this is HH82. I know we don't talk much, but I need a favor:

Could you please visit Kearly, and all the others that are confused, and give them a little "mind zap" or something for me? They just can't get past the fact that NFL games kick off in the local time zone where everyone playing the game happens to be standing at the time. They keep looking at that pacific coast version of the schedule that has them barely finishing breakfast, groggy, hung-over, and thinking that everybody east of them feels the same way. We need to fix this.

You know and I know, that all the games they are saying start at 10:00am really start at either noon or 1:00pm. We know that all the guys playing in those games have been sleeping in that time zone twice before the games actually starts, so there is no "body clock" problem. We are only talking a few hours too. I know that you made the human body the most productive at midday after breakfast when that food has reached the small intestine, but apparently they are looking past all that medical stuff and are citing statistics made up entirely of mediocre teams. They just don't realize that these games were lost because they were simply away games. Those losses occurred while travelling teams were in hostile territory, in snow and rain and frigid temperatures they were not used to, and with thousands of fans screaming while the their quarterback is trying to audible to them. Yes God, you and I both know that 3 hours of awake time means nothing when you consider all of that.

Please God, for the love of you, do the Vulcan mind-meld on them and show them the light. But hey, they are really cool folks that have only gone a little astray, so no fire and brimstone, ok? Appreciate it bro!

Amen

Oh, and by the way, thanks a lot for Scarlette Johannson! Nice Work!

_________________
"God bless America, and God bless the Seattle Seahawks" - Cortez Kennedy


Last edited by HoustonHawk82 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:56 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:15 pm
Posts: 34
NinerLifer wrote:
snackdaddy wrote:
Seahawks are a solid team on both sides of the ball. Good lines. Good RB. Very good CB's. QB was a pleasant surprise last season.

But there is one thing to remember. History has shown that defenses eventually find a way to slow down the latest fad when it comes to offenses. The running QB running a read option seems to be the flavor of the month. What would happen if defenses figure out ways to keep Russell Wilson, Colin Kapernick, RGIII and other running QB's in the pocket? Making them beat them with their arms and not their legs? Will they become proficient pocket passers?

Look at the final 4 teams last year. 3 of the 4 teams had QB's who are primarily pocket passers. I don't think thats a coincidence. While its nice to have a guy who can escape the pass rush, its even better to have a guy who can sit there, read defenses, make good decisions and make accurate throws. Why are the Patriots always a playoff team? It hasn't been their defense lately. Why did the Broncos all of a sudden become a superbowl contender? Why did Joe Flacco lead his team to a championship? Good pocket passers, thats why.

If defenses make Wilson stay in the pocket, can he succeed? Thats a question that remains to be seen.



This is where the Niners will also benefit by having one of the best o-lines in the league. If o-linemen can dominate the trenches then our mobile QB can continue to be mobile. Especially going up against a defense without a good pass rush. This is where not having all your pass rushers available for a game against one of the listed QB's above will surely hurt you more than normal.


Can't argue that the 49ers have a very good line. But remember, the NFC west has some very good pass rushers. Your niners are good. The Rams are very good too. And the Seahawks will benefit with the addition of Avril. Don't over look the Seahawks pass rush. Plus, they have a couple very good corners that could cause coverage sacks.

The NFC west is going to be tough. The 3rd best team, the Rams led the league is sacks last year and could be even better this year. The Cardinals defense isn't a slouch either. Their problem, and maybe the Rams too, is the offense. They can't match the 49ers or Seahawks offense. Rams look a little better on offense on paper, but they're still not on par with the 49ers and Seahawks.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:25 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:16 am
Posts: 571
Location: At a McDonald's inside a Walmart.
to be honest I don't have any expectations for the 2013 season reason being, I've never seen the Hawks have this good of a team coming into a new season. The shy is the limit with this team.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:11 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:15 pm
Posts: 34
kearly wrote:
RolandDeschain wrote:
kearly wrote:
As far as the Rams, why should we be worried about them? They are not a 10 win team. They are like Minnesota without AP. As long as Bradford is there, they will be mediocre. They remind me a lot of the John Friesz-era Seahawks. They are more of a pest than a good team, IMO.


Their defensive line is worth about six wins all by itself. If Bradford can simply not cause any more losses than he causes wins, an improved secondary and a good #1 receiver could push them into 9-10 win territory.

You might think I'm being facetious, but I'm not.


Their line won't get 52 sacks every season though. I don't see much immediate upside for them on defense, really the only area for upside left is the running game. I think Bradford is probably very near his ceiling already. It's not that he lacks the skills or development, and yet he's still below the NFL median. Yeah, his receivers weren't great, but outside of a handful of megastar WRs, it's generally the QB who makes the WR, not the other way around.

I think the WR excuse is valid, but only excuses so much because it's a double-edged sword. For that matter, I can't recall a single sub-par QB who suddenly became great because of additions at WR. WR's are enhancers, but they don't change who you are. Tom Brady took off when he got Moss/Welker and later Gronk/Hernandez, but before 2007 he was still an ultra-elite QB, even when he was throwing to a bunch of no names who couldn't catch the football.

I liked the Rams additions at RB and WR in the draft, but WRs typically take a few years to acclimate. Really the only thing about the Rams that I am in awe of is their D-line, their corners are decent too, but after that, it's an average to below average group of talent.

Fisher is a good in game decision maker, but he's never been a great talent evaluator. His teams have been very inconsistent year to year, too.



The Rams are the biggest question mark to me. Sam Bradford has been mediocre. He has all the tools to be a top 10 QB, but he hasn't made that transition from being a great college QB to the NFL. But with the added talent at the skill positions, and consecutive years in the same system with the same OC for the first time in his young career, will a light go on for him? Its possible.

They have a very young team with a lot of potential talent. But at this moment, thats all it is. Potential. How long will they take to reach their ceiling? How high is their ceiling? We know the 49ers and Hawks are going to be good. We know the Cardinals have likely improved, but they're not likely to be good. We don't know how good, or not so good the Rams will be yet. Too many unknowns to get a handle on them.

As far as Fisher, he's a quality coach who's always like his teams to have attitude. He usually has good defenses and good run games. But his teams usually aren't very good at passing. They went 13-3 a few years ago with a below average passing team. The drafts so far have graded out favorably. Michael Brockers looks like the real deal at DT. Janoris Jenkins and Chris Givens are playmakers. Tavon Austin could be much better than Danny Amendola was. Alec Ogletree could turn out to be a defensive rookie of the year candidate. And Fisher's not the only one evaluating talent. GM Les Snead has been given a lot of credit in that area. Plus, the future looks bright for their team with more draft picks coming next season from the RGIII trade with the Redskins.

Hawks and 49ers may not have to worry about them challenging them for NFC west supremacy this season. But things will get interesting beginning next year.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:36 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
Posts: 5464
Location: Kansas City, MO
Maybe for your team given we draft as well as the Rams if not better and no matter how Bradford turns out Wilson was better in college and certainly better in the NFL.

_________________
43-8...it's all about that action boss....
next man up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:01 am 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:02 pm
Posts: 288
KCHawkGirl wrote:
Maybe for your team given we draft as well as the Rams if not better and no matter how Bradford turns out Wilson was better in college and certainly better in the NFL.


From an 'impartial' point of view, I will agree with most of what you said, except that Bradford had a much better college career. Obviously he didn't have to build 2 different college programs up, but Bradford was the Heisman winner and was the consensus #1 pick even with his injury.

Now, the NFL career piece is pretty obvious. Wilson has eclipsed Bradford in any significant stat in just his one year.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:09 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14120
Location: Portland, OR
NinerBuff wrote:
KCHawkGirl wrote:
Maybe for your team given we draft as well as the Rams if not better and no matter how Bradford turns out Wilson was better in college and certainly better in the NFL.


From an 'impartial' point of view, I will agree with most of what you said, except that Bradford had a much better college career. Obviously he didn't have to build 2 different college programs up, but Bradford was the Heisman winner and was the consensus #1 pick even with his injury.

Now, the NFL career piece is pretty obvious. Wilson has eclipsed Bradford in any significant stat in just his one year.


I don't remember Bradford being the consensus #1 pick so much as a majority agreed that the Rams ought to take a QB. I also remember the reports making it sound like the Rams had to convince themselves Bradford was the guy. *shrug* Minor quibble, I suppose.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:09 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14120
Location: Portland, OR
NinerBuff wrote:
KCHawkGirl wrote:
Maybe for your team given we draft as well as the Rams if not better and no matter how Bradford turns out Wilson was better in college and certainly better in the NFL.


From an 'impartial' point of view, I will agree with most of what you said, except that Bradford had a much better college career. Obviously he didn't have to build 2 different college programs up, but Bradford was the Heisman winner and was the consensus #1 pick even with his injury.

Now, the NFL career piece is pretty obvious. Wilson has eclipsed Bradford in any significant stat in just his one year.


I don't remember Bradford being the consensus #1 pick so much as a majority agreed that the Rams ought to take a QB. I also remember the reports making it sound like the Rams had to convince themselves Bradford was the guy. *shrug* Minor quibble, I suppose.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:24 am 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:02 pm
Posts: 288
Sarlacc83 wrote:
NinerBuff wrote:
KCHawkGirl wrote:
Maybe for your team given we draft as well as the Rams if not better and no matter how Bradford turns out Wilson was better in college and certainly better in the NFL.


From an 'impartial' point of view, I will agree with most of what you said, except that Bradford had a much better college career. Obviously he didn't have to build 2 different college programs up, but Bradford was the Heisman winner and was the consensus #1 pick even with his injury.

Now, the NFL career piece is pretty obvious. Wilson has eclipsed Bradford in any significant stat in just his one year.


I don't remember Bradford being the consensus #1 pick so much as a majority agreed that the Rams ought to take a QB. I also remember the reports making it sound like the Rams had to convince themselves Bradford was the guy. *shrug* Minor quibble, I suppose.


Ndamukong Suh and Gerald McCoy were the other guys that were rumored. But Bradford was pretty much the consensus (because they needed a QB)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Expectations for the 2013 season?
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:39 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:14 am
Posts: 2227
RolandDeschain wrote:
kearly wrote:
@IRO

I meant miserable in terms of W-L outcomes, though I'll give you credit for digging up stats. Fair points. I am stunned that the DVOA was that close- especially since the Buffalo massacre was a 1pm Pacific game.

I am not basing my arguments on anecdotes (though if I did I would agree with the idea that body clock peaks around 4pm- that's when I do my best workouts). I am basing it on facts and scientific studies that have been linked and discussed frequently here at .net. FWIW, I agree with you that it isn't a HUGE disadvantage. Maybe a few points a game kind of thing. Starting at 10am shouldn't have been what made us lose heartbreakers at Miami or Detroit, especially since those games were lost in the 4th quarter. It was a factor, though, and if it's at 1pm, who knows? I am also dead sure that the early start factored vs. Atlanta. Seattle's defense gave up 20 points in the first half and they've locked down better QBs than Ryan.

I'm not saying it's not a factor, I'm saying that it's an extremely minor one and that it shouldn't even be that. Also, we started off the same way at Washington as we did at Atlanta, and that was a 1:30pm start. We gave up two freakin' TDs in the 1st quarter to 0 points for us. Not as bad as a 20-0 start, but the Falcons offense was a better one than the Redskins. I'd point to our offensive play calling differences between the 1st and 2nd halves of each of those games as being why we were able to shoot back, combined with improved defensive play later in the game.

kearly wrote:
That's how samples work. Some data goes one way, some goes the other. What matters is what the greater body of evidence determines. To not understand this, it makes you sound like Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign manager. :)

Oh, come on, man; lol. Statistical deviations vary wildly as far as how much of a percentage change is needed to be considered significant. You're basically arguing that 99% on one side and 1% on the other is the same as 60%-40%, or 51%-49%. Whatever the larger number is, wins. That's so not how it goes a huge percentage of the time. In almost any sort of statistical comparison you can think of, there are many variables that affect the outcome. For instance, as an example, let's say the 3 crap teams of those 5 had twice as many 10am opponents that had winning records as they did 1pm opponents. Despite the 60% number still being true, that could EASILY mean the 60% still loses. This is just an example, I haven't done the considerable task of checking opponent records for 12 seasons of football for 5 teams, lol; but my point stands. You can't just look at a percentage and determine anything, you have to know what variables have and have not been accounted for, and decide how important they are. Depending on what factors have been factored in/calculated for and what ones haven't, in any given set of data, 10% could easily be a larger deviation than 25%, or what have you.

kearly wrote:
And let's be honest, it's not like the "against the argument" data really says much. Some teams (over a period of time) will probably fare better or worse depending on how they are structured, and they still had a losing record in 10am games, it was just less terrible.

It would say a lot more, either in favor of you or in favor of me, if we knew the strength of schedule of 10am vs. 1pm starts for all the opponents in that set of data.

kearly wrote:
We usually agree on stuff. Probably 99% of the time. But even if I wanted to agree with you, reading you make a case on this feels like seeing someone who made up their mind already and is on the hunt for any supporting evidence while conveniently dismissing or failing to mention inconveniences.

That kind of hurts, haha. I've been involved with two really big discussions about time zone travel/jet lag on here since I've been a member, and one of those times, I linked legitimate evidence backing my assertion. Did you know that some scientists suspect that the major cause of jet lag isn't even caused by crossing time zones, but by being in an environment where the air pressure is much higher than you're used to? It causes oxygen deprivation, or hypoxemia, leading to lethargy among other things. http://www.healthytravelblog.com/2012/0 ... -sickness/

kearly wrote:
The larger body of evidence as well as scientific study is very clear on this issue.

Hardly. Even WebMD says simply setting your watch to the new time zone beforehand (at the airport/when you board the plane, etc.) can really help with jet lag, and they flat-out say this is a psychological effect. http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/ex ... ies?page=2

kearly wrote:
I'm guessing you wouldn't find a single NFL coach who'd say it isn't a factor. Some coaches even flew their team out a few extra days ahead and gave up practice time to overcome it (and it didn't work).

Check any source you can find, they all say that at most, it takes a day per time zone crossed to fully acclimate. Some teams have tried travelling east a WEEK early and still lost; that's evidence for my assertion, not yours. :)

kearly wrote:
I'll admit that I might be over-rating the impact slightly, but in my defense, Seattle got shafted over and over and over and over during 10am starts last year. Pretty much all of our gut-punch losses happened in the 10am slot. So I'll concede that this might be causing me to lose a bit of objectivity, but I do think the facts support the idea that 10am starts cost us wins.

I'd say a much larger factor I was spreading out our defensive coverage in a big way at the end of the 4th quarter in most of the games you mentioned.

If I had billions of dollars, I would pay some scientists to test this whole thing. Fill a plane with a couple hundred people and fly them to Miami from Seattle, test for jet lag on them, then load another group up and fly them in big circles and land in some spot in the same state, or in another nearby state in the same time zone but with them having believed they were flown to some spot on the east coast and tested for jet lag, so they're under the guise that they traveled to the east coast but didn't. Then, take a 3rd group and fly them in circles for the same duration it takes to go to Miami, and TELL them you're flying in circles ahead of time so they know, and just land where the 2nd test group did, in a nearby state or elsewhere in the same state and test for jet lag. I would bet a lot that the first two groups both have similar amounts of jet lag, but that the 3rd one largely doesn't.


ITT Roland Owns.

_________________
The artist formerly known as T-Sizzle


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]



 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.