** UPDATE** Official 2014-15 NFL 'U LOST Bro'-owl Thread** Pats are SB Champs!!

[emperus]

well, they sure took apart Green Bay with a healthy Rodgers earlier in the season. Yes, Green Bay gave them that game last week, I think few disagree with that.

But it is a team game, and they never would have been in the position to feast on the meltdown had the D not kept them in the entire game. Probably the most important game for them all season.

Again, I still think NE is on fire right now, but discounting Seattle because of that one game is really just laughable at this point. Seriously--ask Peyton Manning.

If you watched the game you probably noticed GB played scared and not to lose. Seattle won because of that period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

I keep asking you to tell me what team they have played the last 8 games that had a good quarterback and a good offense outside of GB. Just name one.

It's not the one game, it's the fact that they not only backed into the #1 seed, they played weak teams to do it.

 

[zinfamous]

If you watched the game you probably noticed GB played scared and not to lose. Seattle won because of that period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

I keep asking you to tell me what team they have played the last 8 games that had a good quarterback and a good offense outside of GB. Just name one.

It's not the one game, it's the fact that they not only backed into the #1 seed, they played weak teams to do it.

you're arguing that the team that dominated the toughest division in the league backed into their seeding, unlike the team that dominated one of the weakest divisions in the league?

OK...

8-0 is still better than 6-2. and ask the Pats what they thought about playing Seattle earlier.

 

[dainthomas]

If you watched the game you probably noticed GB played scared and not to lose. Seattle won because of that period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

I keep asking you to tell me what team they have played the last 8 games that had a good quarterback and a good offense outside of GB. Just name one.

It's not the one game, it's the fact that they not only backed into the #1 seed, they played weak teams to do it.

So when Seattle wins it's because they suck, the other team sucks, or both.

When the Pats lose, it's because they're awesome.

 

[emperus]

They beat the Pats. :hmm:

Even if I conceded that the Hawks' strength of schedule is weaker the last 8 games, so what? They've gone 8-0. The Patriots have gone 6-2. Hell, they barely beat the Jets (!) and lost to the Bills. Is Billy the kind of guy who lets his team coast into the playoffs like that? The Seahawks are playing strong down the stretch and winning games they have to win.

They beat the Pats in Seattle last year on a last minute jump ball pass by Wilson against our rookie Safety who then lost his starting Job and hasn't started since.

If you think the two Patriots teams are similar offensively and defensively, you're going to be surprised on Sunday.

Honestly, that Jets/pats game was the Jets Superbowl. And honestly the Jets would have probably beat the Seahawks and so would the Bills. You remember the Bills beat the Packers. That being said, I know you don't watch the Pats much and are probably a recent Seattle fan, but the Pats had already secured the #1 seed when they played the Bills and rested most of the starters past the 1st quarter.

 

[dainthomas]

They beat the Pats in Seattle last year on a last minute jump ball pass by Wilson against our rookie Safety who then lost his starting Job and hasn't started since.

If you think the two Patriots teams are similar offensively and defensively, you're going to be surprised on Sunday.

Honestly, that Jets/pats game was the Jets Superbowl. And honestly the Jets would have probably beat the Seahawks and so would the Bills. You remember the Bills beat the Packers. That being said, I know you don't watch the Pats much and are probably a recent Seattle fan, but the Pats had already secured the #1 seed when they played the Bills and rested most of the starters past the 1st quarter.

If we're playing that game, Seattle beat the Packers twice and NE lost to them.

Anyway, I stand corrected. When the Pats lose or play crappy it's because of excuses. But they're still awesome. :thumbsup:

 

[emperus]

you're arguing that the team that dominated the toughest division in the league backed into their seeding, unlike the team that dominated one of the weakest divisions in the league?

OK...

8-0 is still better than 6-2. and ask the Pats what they thought about playing Seattle earlier.

The toughest division in the leaque? People are always prisoners of the moment. Who was in your division that actually had a real quarterback or a balanced team? Seattle only got the #1 seed because Arizona was playing with their 3rd string, let me say that again 3rd string quarterback.

Why is it that all the AFC teams that Seattle played either beat them or took them to overtime? Whereas NE generally had their way with the NFC teams outside of GB.

 

[smackababy]

you're arguing that the team that dominated the toughest division in the league backed into their seeding, unlike the team that dominated one of the weakest divisions in the league?

OK...

8-0 is still better than 6-2. and ask the Pats what they thought about playing Seattle earlier.

Are we really going to call the NFC West one of the toughest divisions? I'm sure St. Louis and SF are such tough teams! And, Arizona with Lindley was equally as tough...

We can't take away that Seattle did win their last 8 games of the season AND win some playoff games, but they coasted into the Superbowl on some luck. Had it been Dallas or Detroit, hell or Carolina, Seattle loses with how they played last week. I don't expect them to be anywhere near that form on Sunday, but I certainly don't expect NE to pull a GB.

I actually think this will be the best two teams facing off, even if Seattle got a bit of help hitting their stride. These are the two best playoff teams, IMO, even if I am a Dallas homer and Seattle played like shit in the championship game. Barring an all out implosion I think this will be a pretty good game, but I certainly give the edge to the Patriots. They have a good defense AND a great offense.

 

[emperus]

If we're playing that game, Seattle beat the Packers twice and NE lost to them.

Anyway, I stand corrected. When the Pats lose or play crappy it's because of excuses. But they're still awesome. :thumbsup:

I don't play those games. I actually watch the games and see how the teams played. I don't just look at the box report and final score. You should probably do the same.

 

[emperus]

Are we really going to call the NFC West one of the toughest divisions? I'm sure St. Louis and SF are such tough teams! And, Arizona with Lindley was equally as tough...

We can't take away that Seattle did win their last 8 games of the season AND win some playoff games, but they coasted into the Superbowl on some luck. Had it been Dallas or Detroit, hell or Carolina, Seattle loses with how they played last week. I don't expect them to be anywhere near that form on Sunday, but I certainly don't expect NE to pull a GB.

I actually think this will be the best two teams facing off, even if Seattle got a bit of help hitting their stride. These are the two best playoff teams, IMO, even if I am a Dallas homer and Seattle played like shit in the championship game. Barring an all out implosion I think this will be a pretty good game, but I certainly give the edge to the Patriots. They have a good defense AND a great offense.

'

I think the Cowboys were a better team. They wouldn't have played scared like the Packers played. McCarthy should be fired. He was scared of Seattle and that permeated through his team as you could tell on that last interception. When have you ever seen a player slide down on an interception with over 5 minutes left in a game with no one near him. When he did that I knew they would lose that game. There is playing smart and then there is playing scared.

 

[Ban Bot]

My argument is not based on bias. I explicitly explained why I thought the Seahawks were overrated. Why don't you try disputing the fact that they haven't really played anyone the last 8 weeks outside of the Packers last week who should have beat them.

First off, Patriot fans shouldn't throw stones while living in glass houses. You play in the AFC East. I repeat, the AFC East.

The AFC East consists of NYJ (Geno Smith and washed up Mike Vick), Buffalo (EJ Manuel and Kyle Orton), and Ryan Tannehill. I won't say New England didn't face any good QBs as they played P. Manning (week 9), Luck (11), Rodgers (13), and Rivers (14). But the rest of your schedule is a mix of average to very poor quarterback play: Tannehill (1, 15), Cassel (2), Carr (3), Alex Smith (4), Dalton (5), Orton (6, 17), Geno Smith (7, 16), Cutler (8), Stafford (12).

Come on man, you guys got 6 games against Geno Smith, Kyle Orton, and Tannehill and you are going to complain about Seattle's competition???

Seattle played some common opponents (Alex Smith, David Carr). Putting them aside Seattle played a number of top tier quarterbacks: Rodgers (W), Romo (L), Rivers (L), Manning (W). I won't take anything away from Dallas or SD--they earned those wins--but Seattle is healthier on defense and playing better as a team since those early losses (week 2 and week 5). The next tier down is Kaepernick, Newton, E. Manning w/ Beckham who are all better than the bottom 12 of New England's quarterbacks IMO.

As for playing no one how quickly people forget the opponents Seattle met were just as much in the playoff hunt. Arizona was 9-1 when they met with Stanton at QB (which mind you played a lot early in the season when Palmer had the elbow issue). Seattle handed Arizona 2 of their 4 final losses and it was the vaunted Arizona defense that was shredded. Philly was 9-3 when they met Seattle and coming off some explosive offensive performances under Sanchez. Of course Philly lost at home and enjoyed the Seattle hangover effect. And people forget that San Fran was 7-4 when they met Seattle in a 3 game stretch. Seattle played a huge part in killing off SF and Philly's and squashed Arizona. Of course I don't consider the Rams world beaters but this is a team that beat San Fran, Denver, and Seattle and whipped Oakland 52-0 (a team New England struggled against).

Since you want less "bias" here is as clean as it gets. Entering the season Seattle had the #6 strength of schedule (.561); New England was #10 at .516. The final opponent record also favors Seattle (.525) over New England (.512).


You can only beat who you play and the fact is when comparing defenses Seattle is a lot better than New England. Look at the pass defense stats (which when you include rush Seattle would be even better as they are top 3 in rush yards, average, and DVOA):

Seattle's Defense
(Metric) (Stat) (Rank)
DVOA     -9.3%   #3
NEP      -20.1   #3
Yards     186    #1
TD        217    #2
Rating    80.4   #5
%         61.7   #12
INT       13     #18
Sack      37     #20
NY/PA     5.5    #3
YAC/G     96.3   #2

New England's Defense
(Metric) (Stat) (Rank)
DVOA     +2%      #12
NEP      -10.9    #4 
Yards     240     #17
TD        24      #12
Rating    84.0    #10
%         59.6    #8
INT       16      #12
Sack      40      #13
NY/PA     6.2     #15 
YAC/G     123.5   #19

Even if Seattle played an easier schedule--they didn't--Seattle performed better against the opponents in front of them on defense.

And Seattle's offense is unconventional but not as bad as people say. Take Toxic Play Differential--the combination of NET explosive plays plus NET turnover differential. The #2 team in the NFL is Denver at +53. #3 is Green Bay at +37. New England? #14 at +0.

The best team in the NFL at toxic differential? #1 Seattle at + 76.





As I have noted before Seattle's rushing DVOA is historically great at +30%, a full 20pts better than #2. That Seattle offense was #9 in yards while New England was #11. New England is #1 in NET point differential, Seattle is only #2, but when looked at percentage Seattle is #1 by a wide margin.

Seattle and New England are very good teams, but they are both 12-4 with some warts. Your criticism of Seattle's opponents/record can is matched and then upped by the fact New England lost 20-33 to Miami (13 points) and 14-41 to Kansas City (27 points). Seattle hasn't lost by double digits since 2011.

 

[Capt Caveman]

you're arguing that the team that dominated the toughest division in the league backed into their seeding, unlike the team that dominated one of the weakest divisions in the league?

OK...

8-0 is still better than 6-2. and ask the Pats what they thought about playing Seattle earlier.

This year? AFC east was definitely not the weakest division in the league with Buffalo and Miami almost squeaking into the playoffs. And SF and StL had some good games but played pretty badly this year especially with SF's talent.

Playing Seattle in 2012? I don't think you watched the game as NE dominated the game for 3 1/2 Qtrs and their defense failed on them which we can all agree is a much stronger defense this year.

In the game, Brady threw for 395 yards. Lynch rushed for 15 times for 41 yds, no TDs. Wilson ran 5 times for 17 yds, no TDs but he did throw for 293 including the two come from behind TDs.

 

[Ban Bot]

Are we really going to call the NFC West one of the toughest divisions? I'm sure St. Louis and SF are such tough teams! And, Arizona with Lindley was equally as tough...

Yes, the NFC West is one of the best divisions. Look at their records (12-4, 11-5, 8-8, 6-10) and look at what they did against the, say, NFC East.

We can't take away that Seattle did win their last 8 games of the season AND win some playoff games, but they coasted into the Superbowl on some luck. Had it been Dallas or Detroit, hell or Carolina, Seattle loses with how they played last week. I don't expect them to be anywhere near that form on Sunday, but I certainly don't expect NE to pull a GB.

Name a game where Wilson had 4 interceptions.

You cannot, because he never did that before. It was a bad game. Really bad effort by him and the receivers (who dropped 6 passes and popped 2 up for easy INTs). But he toughed it out. And this is coming off a week where he torched a good Carolina defense that (a) stopped Lynch and (b) forced Wilson to beat them from the pocket... so on 3rd down he went 8/8 for 199 yards and 3 touch downs.

But more specifically I think everyone is falling into the trap: Teams are the QB. Teams are the offense.

Defense folks. Defense, Defense, Defense.

Seattle's defense was FANTASTIC against Green Bay for 60 minutes. Green Bay got the ball on the wrong side of the field throughout the first half--3 times on the 33 yard line or closer. They stone walled them twice on two different drives on the 1 yard line. Rodgers had 2 interceptions and a 55% passer rating. Green Bay had no explosive plays and their run game was held in check.

Green Bay lost because they never figured out the Seattle defense and in the second half Green Bay couldn't cover Seattle receivers and no one wanted to tackle Lynch. Seattle didn't win 13-7 on a last second play. Seattle marched down the field repeatedly with 10-20-30 yard plays over, and over, and over again. GB didn't have 3 plays with broken coverage aka "fluke plays." They were systematically bested play after play. Even on the fake punt people forget Seattle marched down and Lynch dropped a pass on a wheel route that would have scored.

Seattle will lose to New England if they give the ball up 4 times in the first half. That was a horrible display of execution. But that was only part of the game. Seattle's defense was fantastic for 4 quarters and in the second half, minus a few mistakes (e.g. Kearse popping a second ball up for an easy INT) Seattle was gashing Green Bay. They couldn't stop the read option, they couldn't stop Lunch, and Wilson put up 200+ iirc in the second half. Green Bay made mistakes but they didn't toss 4 pick 6s. Seattle took advantage. It isn't like the reverse wasn't true--but that is the East Coast narrative. When Seattle has 4 uncharacteristic interceptions--Wilson had 7 in 16 games!--it is because Seattle is bad and Wilson isn't good. But when Green Bay makes a mistake it is because it is Seattle is lucky.

Seattle played like shit in the championship game.

The offense definitely did for most of the game but, again, the defense was fantastic and the offense righted the ship.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Their 2012 match-up may not mean much but found this pretty good breakdown of the game.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/patriots-seahawks-2012-matchup-revisited/

 

[dainthomas]

Since you want less "bias" here is as clean as it gets. Entering the season Seattle had the #6 strength of schedule (.561); New England was #10 at .516. The final opponent record also favors Seattle (.525) over New England (.512).

Waiting for Emperus' excuses why this is irrelevant in 3..2..1..

 

[Ban Bot]

I have posted a number of positive things about New England (hence I scoff at the bias comments). He is another--from a Seattle fan site:

Brady has faced off against a considerable number of great, good, and average defenses and pass defenses this year -- and he consistently shit all over them. Against the Buffalo Bills, ranked first in pass defense DVOA, Brady was 27-of-37, 361 yards, four touchdowns, and no interceptions. (Brady also faced them for a half of a meaningless Week 17 game.)

Brady faced the Denver Broncos, ranked fifth in pass defense DVOA, and went 33-of-53, 333 yards, four touchdowns and one interception.

Against the Cincinnati Bengals, ranked seventh in pass defense, Brady was 23-of-35, 292 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions.

Against the Detroit Lions, ranked eighth, he was 38-of-53, 349, two touchdowns, one interception.

He faced the Indianapolis Colts twice, they ranked 10th in that category, and he went a combined 42-of-65, 483 yards, five touchdowns and three interceptions.

Brady hasn't played Seattle since 2012 but he did have 395 yards and 2 TDs against the LOB (!). Of course that was on 58 attempts and included 2 INTs and another easy INT dropped by Sherman. Of course Seattle won that game (at home) and Seattle was much younger then and Wilson has improved tremendously (that was before the read option). But that didn't stop him from 2 late touch downs and a non-jump ball (contrary to the above) perfect pass splitting the safeties.

I think for New England there are 3 keys.

Key 1. Don't let Brady be pressured. He isn't great under pressure and this is why New England lost their last 2 Super Bowls. Seattle has been rocky on pass rush and bad since Hill went down with nominal pressure on Newton and Rodgers. Based on how few blatant holding calls refs ignored in both of Seattle's playoff games and watching the GB right tackle false start at least twice w/o a flag I predict Brady will be comfortable in the pocket most of the game. This is the #1 key for New England and I think they can accomplish this. If they don't they have no one to blame but themselves as Seattle served notice against Denver how vital this is to success.

Key 2. Run up the gut effectively. Blount needs to be effective up the middle. Seattle lost their beef in the middle (Mebane, Hill, Scruggs). If New England can control the line of scrimmage, TOS, and wear down the Seattle defense they can build off that. Ask Dallas who did this to Seattle in week 5.

Key 3. Dink and Dunk without getting your guys killed. Rivers did this in the dungeons of hell to great success in week 2. Keep the Seattle defense on the field for long drives, hitting your check downs for 3, 4, and 5 yards.

Seattle's team is smaller in the front 7 and based on speed. And keeping the defense on the field for long drives wears them out. And it keeps Seattle's offense off the field which completely wears down opponents. Want to stop Lynch in the 4th quarter? Don't allow him to get many carries in the first half so you are fresh.

New England does these 3 things they win 9-of-10.

They can do it and it is easy on paper. But Denver had all the tools to do this last year. And failed. horribly.

 

[KeithTalent]

Good lord I wish the game would just fucking start already. Stupid fucking East Coast timezone bullshit this year though.

KT

 

[emperus]

First off, Patriot fans shouldn't throw stones while living in glass houses. You play in the AFC East. I repeat, the AFC East.

The AFC East consists of NYJ (Geno Smith and washed up Mike Vick), Buffalo (EJ Manuel and Kyle Orton), and Ryan Tannehill. I won't say New England didn't face any good QBs as they played P. Manning (week 9), Luck (11), Rodgers (13), and Rivers (14). But the rest of your schedule is a mix of average to very poor quarterback play: Tannehill (1, 15), Cassel (2), Carr (3), Alex Smith (4), Dalton (5), Orton (6, 17), Geno Smith (7, 16), Cutler (8), Stafford (12).

Come on man, you guys got 6 games against Geno Smith, Kyle Orton, and Tannehill and you are going to complain about Seattle's competition???

Seattle played some common opponents (Alex Smith, David Carr). Putting them aside Seattle played a number of top tier quarterbacks: Rodgers (W), Romo (L), Rivers (L), Manning (W). I won't take anything away from Dallas or SD--they earned those wins--but Seattle is healthier on defense and playing better as a team since those early losses (week 2 and week 5). The next tier down is Kaepernick, Newton, E. Manning w/ Beckham who are all better than the bottom 12 of New England's quarterbacks IMO.

As for playing no one how quickly people forget the opponents Seattle met were just as much in the playoff hunt. Arizona was 9-1 when they met with Stanton at QB (which mind you played a lot early in the season when Palmer had the elbow issue). Seattle handed Arizona 2 of their 4 final losses and it was the vaunted Arizona defense that was shredded. Philly was 9-3 when they met Seattle and coming off some explosive offensive performances under Sanchez. Of course Philly lost at home and enjoyed the Seattle hangover effect. And people forget that San Fran was 7-4 when they met Seattle in a 3 game stretch. Seattle played a huge part in killing off SF and Philly's and squashed Arizona. Of course I don't consider the Rams world beaters but this is a team that beat San Fran, Denver, and Seattle and whipped Oakland 52-0 (a team New England struggled against).

Since you want less "bias" here is as clean as it gets. Entering the season Seattle had the #6 strength of schedule (.561); New England was #10 at .516. The final opponent record also favors Seattle (.525) over New England (.512).


You can only beat who you play and the fact is when comparing defenses Seattle is a lot better than New England. Look at the pass defense stats (which when you include rush Seattle would be even better as they are top 3 in rush yards, average, and DVOA):

Seattle's Defense
(Metric) (Stat) (Rank)
DVOA     -9.3%   #3
NEP      -20.1   #3
Yards     186    #1
TD        217    #2
Rating    80.4   #5
%         61.7   #12
INT       13     #18
Sack      37     #20
NY/PA     5.5    #3
YAC/G     96.3   #2

New England's Defense
(Metric) (Stat) (Rank)
DVOA     +2%      #12
NEP      -10.9    #4 
Yards     240     #17
TD        24      #12
Rating    84.0    #10
%         59.6    #8
INT       16      #12
Sack      40      #13
NY/PA     6.2     #15 
YAC/G     123.5   #19

Even if Seattle played an easier schedule--they didn't--Seattle performed better against the opponents in front of them on defense.

And Seattle's offense is unconventional but not as bad as people say. Take Toxic Play Differential--the combination of NET explosive plays plus NET turnover differential. The #2 team in the NFL is Denver at +53. #3 is Green Bay at +37. New England? #14 at +0.

The best team in the NFL at toxic differential? #1 Seattle at + 76.





As I have noted before Seattle's rushing DVOA is historically great at +30%, a full 20pts better than #2. That Seattle offense was #9 in yards while New England was #11. New England is #1 in NET point differential, Seattle is only #2, but when looked at percentage Seattle is #1 by a wide margin.

Seattle and New England are very good teams, but they are both 12-4 with some warts. Your criticism of Seattle's opponents/record can is matched and then upped by the fact New England lost 20-33 to Miami (13 points) and 14-41 to Kansas City (27 points). Seattle hasn't lost by double digits since 2011.

It would probably benefit you to watch some of the games vs. reading stat lines. Seattle backed it's way into the playoffs beating Arizona (with the 2nd string quarterback) and then Arizona again with a 3rd string quarterback. Meanwhile Arizona lost it's final games because of a 3rd string quarterback. What would the difference had been if Palmer was still playing? And please don't act like a 2nd string quarterback and 3rd string quarterback would be half as effective as Palmer. If you watched the games, Arizona had 0 offense what so ever.

Noone said NE's defense is better. They are different based on their head coaches personalities. But yes you only play the only oponents are given. And when you are playing terrible quarterbacks it would help your pass defensive stats, no?

Like I said, I try to watch all the games I can so I can get a better view of the teams I root for or against and how people play. Stats give you a snapshot of a player or a team. Like you said Carr and Tannehill are bad quarterbacks. You clearly haven't watched their games. And if you get a chance this week, watch the Jets, Dolphins and Bills games against NE and other people. The Jets with a 2nd string quarterback and no CB's almost beat Payton Manning. IT may change your view on the AFC east being a weak division.

Lastly, you can't used pre-season strength of schedules or season win loss records to determine who played a tougher schedule. Like Seattle played Arizona 2x with Arizona's 2nd and 3rd string quarterback.

 

[SunnyD]

I'm here so I won't get fined.

 

[emperus]

Their 2012 match-up may not mean much but found this pretty good breakdown of the game.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/patriots-seahawks-2012-matchup-revisited/

Good Analysis, Thanks.

 

[dainthomas]

Lastly, you can't used pre-season strength of schedules or season win loss records to determine who played a tougher schedule. Like Seattle played Arizona 2x with Arizona's 2nd and 3rd string quarterback.

Why? If the teams Seattle played won more games than the teams NE played, wouldn't that make those teams better? What other metric should we be using? (Other than "quarterbacks emperus thinks are better").

Anyway, it follows that if NE had a weaker schedule, and they're a better team, shouldn't they have won more games than Seattle? And not only did they lose the same number of games, but they lost those by more total points (53-22).

Once again, if there are any holes in my logic I'm relying on you to enlighten me what they are.

 

[smackababy]

Why? If the teams Seattle played won more games than the teams NE played, wouldn't that make those teams better? What other metric should we be using? (Other than "quarterbacks emperus thinks are better").

Anyway, it follows that if NE had a weaker schedule, and they're a better team, shouldn't they have won more games than Seattle? And not only did they lose the same number of games, but they lost those by more total points (53-22).

Once again, if there are any holes in my logic I'm relying on you to enlighten me what they are.

The problem with strength of schedule based on wins doesn't take into account things like Arizona being a phenomenal team until Palmer was out. You can't really believe Seattle beating Lindley was some kind of great victory. Each week is individual of the next for the most part. Could Seattle have beaten Arizona in say week 5 or 6?

And, we will know who the better team is after Sunday.

 

[Ban Bot]

It would probably benefit you to watch some of the games vs. reading stat lines. Seattle backed it's way into the playoffs beating Arizona (with the 2nd string quarterback) and then Arizona again with a 3rd string quarterback. Meanwhile Arizona lost it's final games because of a 3rd string quarterback. What would the difference had been if Palmer was still playing? And please don't act like a 2nd string quarterback and 3rd string quarterback would be half as effective as Palmer. If you watched the games, Arizona had 0 offense what so ever.

Noone said NE's defense is better. They are different based on their head coaches personalities. But yes you only play the only oponents are given. And when you are playing terrible quarterbacks it would help your pass defensive stats, no?

Like I said, I try to watch all the games I can so I can get a better view of the teams I root for or against and how people play. Stats give you a snapshot of a player or a team. Like you said Carr and Tannehill are bad quarterbacks. You clearly haven't watched their games. And if you get a chance this week, watch the Jets, Dolphins and Bills games against NE and other people. The Jets with a 2nd string quarterback and no CB's almost beat Payton Manning. IT may change your view on the AFC east being a weak division.

Lastly, you can't used pre-season strength of schedules or season win loss records to determine who played a tougher schedule. Like Seattle played Arizona 2x with Arizona's 2nd and 3rd string quarterback.

Classic deflection and ad hominem.

Attack the messenger and hand wave any inconvenient points that contradict your favorite narrative formed by your subjective observations.

I am comfortable admitting my opinions are such, they are subjective, and the datasets I pull on are incomplete and most important because football is about matchups on any given Sunday all facts are subjective. Most of us adults here can appreciate a different opinion, even if we think it is incomplete or wrong. Obviously, not you.

Like you said above you aren't able to see opinions outside your own, e.g. "Not sure why anyone has Seattle winning this game." When they disagree with you they must be ignorant and not even watch the game.

LOL I am glad most NE fans are a lot classier than that.

I respect the Pats and laid out how they can win. BB and Brady are all-timers and NE is a good team. I am not so arrogant to believe it is impossible for NE to win--and I know Seattle players look at New England as a good team, too. But I must say your tears will be delicious when Seattle wins because you just cannot get over yourself :awe:

Those are always the best tears. Go Hawks!

 

[Ban Bot]

The problem with strength of schedule based on wins doesn't take into account things like Arizona being a phenomenal team until Palmer was out. You can't really believe Seattle beating Lindley was some kind of great victory. Each week is individual of the next for the most part. Could Seattle have beaten Arizona in say week 5 or 6?

And, we will know who the better team is after Sunday.

That is what DVOA, NEP, and ELO ratings take into consideration to various degrees.

e.g. Everyone knows Seattle was # in rush yards and # in average. But the advance statistics, looking at specific game conditions and opponent, shows the margin is even bigger than the stats say. On the reverse the advanced metrics indicate Seattle is a balanced defense and while the pass defense is very good on an efficiency basis they are only top 3 per play. This balances out (e.g. Cleveland had a great pass defense but bad run defense, but the stats don't mean they are better just the game situations and opponents resulted in higher pass defense effectiveness.) i.e. grain of salt but not irrelevant.

The advanced metrics kind of shoot a hole in the "Seattle had a weak schedule" and are lucky. Sure, it is easy to say, "Seattle got lucky playing Arizona late." OK, but they played a healthy SD team in week 2, got Green Bay healthy week 1, and Denver healthy week 3. They went 2-1 while Irvin and Kam were still recovering from off season hip surgeries and internal strife.

Of course I am sure Seattle was somehow "lucky" against Denver w3 and Green Bay w1, somehow, someway, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Narrative buster? That last 6-8 game spread Seattle let, what 39 points or something? (EDIT: 39 in 6 games) Only a couple other teams have EVER done that. A lot of teams have had easy stretches and not duplicated that stretch. Someone did the work (google it) and went through every NFL team and took their 6 best defensive games and Seattle's 6 game back-to-back stretch is BETTER than any 6 games ANY team had in 2014 (or top 3, cannot remember, but you get the point). Basically people are saying Seattle is lucky and their opponents suck--but when looking at the BEST performances of other NFL teams Seattle still comes out on top.

For everyone to chew on ELO, NEP and nERD, and DVOA. ELO and DVOA are the best indicators IMO.

ELO: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...gs-and-playoff-odds-conference-championships/

SEA: 1769 (#1)
NE: 1696 (#2)

NEP & nERD: https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/teams/power-rankings/

TOTAL nERD
SEA: 9.75 (#1)
NE: 9.49 (#2)

OFFENSE
SEA: 138 (#6)
NE: 196 (#2)

OFFENSE--RUSH
SEA: 97 (#1)
NE: 27 (#2)

OFFENSE--PASS
SEA: 61 (#12)
NE: 166 (#2)

DEFENSE
SEA: -54 (#1)
NE: 6 (#6)

DEFENSE--RUSH
SEA: 41 (#4)
NE: -2 (#17)

DEFENSE--PASS
SEA: -20 (#3)
NE: -11 (#4)

DVOA: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

TOTAL
SEA: 31.3% (#1)
NE: 22.4% (#4)

OFFENSE
SEA: 16.7% (#5)
NE: 13.6% (#6)

OFFENSE--RUSH
SEA: 29.9% (#1)
NE: -3.6% (#14)

OFFENSE--PASS
SEA: 19.6% (#10)
NE: 35.0% (#5)

DEFENSE
SEA: -16.3% (#1)
NE: -3.4% (#11)

DEFENSE--RUSH
SEA: -25.1% (#2)
NE: -10.4% (#14)

DEFENSE--PASS
SEA: -9.3% (#3)
NE: 2.0% (#12)

Of course none of this secures a Seattle victory. But the Seattle is lucky/overrated/got an easy schedule arguments don't add up.

 

[emperus]

Classic deflection and ad hominem.

Attack the messenger and hand wave any inconvenient points that contradict your favorite narrative formed by your subjective observations.

I am comfortable admitting my opinions are such, they are subjective, and the datasets I pull on are incomplete and most important because football is about matchups on any given Sunday all facts are subjective. Most of us adults here can appreciate a different opinion, even if we think it is incomplete or wrong. Obviously, not you.

Like you said above you aren't able to see opinions outside your own, e.g. "Not sure why anyone has Seattle winning this game." When they disagree with you they must be ignorant and not even watch the game.

LOL I am glad most NE fans are a lot classier than that.

I respect the Pats and laid out how they can win. BB and Brady are all-timers and NE is a good team. I am not so arrogant to believe it is impossible for NE to win--and I know Seattle players look at New England as a good team, too. But I must say your tears will be delicious when Seattle wins because you just cannot get over yourself :awe:

Those are always the best tears. Go Hawks!

How is it deflection or ad-hominem. You quoted stats and from your comments it seems like you hadn't watched the games your stats were based. If you did, my apologies. All I am saying is that stats at times can be massaged to say whatever you want it to say. In the NFl every game has it's own subset of variables week to week, and you can't solely rely soley on stats esp, the ones you highlighted. Btw.. All you had to say was you did watch the games.

In terms of NE fans being a lot classier. NE fans are generally very knowledgeable about their teams and the NFL in general whereas Seattle fans most of them became fans last year

I doubt Seattle will win. But if they do, does that change my view of NE being the better team? Well it would if you only looked at the final score. Seattle won last week. Are you really prepared to say that Seattle was the better team than GB?

 

[emperus]

That is what DVOA, NEP, and ELO ratings take into consideration to various degrees.

e.g. Everyone knows Seattle was # in rush yards and # in average. But the advance statistics, looking at specific game conditions and opponent, shows the margin is even bigger than the stats say. On the reverse the advanced metrics indicate Seattle is a balanced defense and while the pass defense is very good on an efficiency basis they are only top 3 per play. This balances out (e.g. Cleveland had a great pass defense but bad run defense, but the stats don't mean they are better just the game situations and opponents resulted in higher pass defense effectiveness.) i.e. grain of salt but not irrelevant.

The advanced metrics kind of shoot a hole in the "Seattle had a weak schedule" and are lucky. Sure, it is easy to say, "Seattle got lucky playing Arizona late." OK, but they played a healthy SD team in week 2, got Green Bay healthy week 1, and Denver healthy week 3. They went 2-1 while Irvin and Kam were still recovering from off season hip surgeries and internal strife.

Of course I am sure Seattle was somehow "lucky" against Denver w3 and Green Bay w1, somehow, someway, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Narrative buster? That last 6-8 game spread Seattle let, what 39 points or something? (EDIT: 39 in 6 games) Only a couple other teams have EVER done that. A lot of teams have had easy stretches and not duplicated that stretch. Someone did the work (google it) and went through every NFL team and took their 6 best defensive games and Seattle's 6 game back-to-back stretch is BETTER than any 6 games ANY team had in 2014 (or top 3, cannot remember, but you get the point). Basically people are saying Seattle is lucky and their opponents suck--but when looking at the BEST performances of other NFL teams Seattle still comes out on top.

For everyone to chew on ELO, NEP and nERD, and DVOA. ELO and DVOA are the best indicators IMO.

ELO: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...gs-and-playoff-odds-conference-championships/

SEA: 1769 (#1)
NE: 1696 (#2)

NEP & nERD: https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/teams/power-rankings/

TOTAL nERD
SEA: 9.75 (#1)
NE: 9.49 (#2)

OFFENSE
SEA: 138 (#6)
NE: 196 (#2)

OFFENSE--RUSH
SEA: 97 (#1)
NE: 27 (#2)

OFFENSE--PASS
SEA: 61 (#12)
NE: 166 (#2)

DEFENSE
SEA: -54 (#1)
NE: 6 (#6)

DEFENSE--RUSH
SEA: 41 (#4)
NE: -2 (#17)

DEFENSE--PASS
SEA: -20 (#3)
NE: -11 (#4)

DVOA: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

TOTAL
SEA: 31.3% (#1)
NE: 22.4% (#4)

OFFENSE
SEA: 16.7% (#5)
NE: 13.6% (#6)

OFFENSE--RUSH
SEA: 29.9% (#1)
NE: -3.6% (#14)

OFFENSE--PASS
SEA: 19.6% (#10)
NE: 35.0% (#5)

DEFENSE
SEA: -16.3% (#1)
NE: -3.4% (#11)

DEFENSE--RUSH
SEA: -25.1% (#2)
NE: -10.4% (#14)

DEFENSE--PASS
SEA: -9.3% (#3)
NE: 2.0% (#12)

Of course none of this secures a Seattle victory. But the Seattle is lucky/overrated/got an easy schedule arguments don't add up.

Dude step away from the stats. In the last 6 games, Seattle played 4 backup quarterbacks, one being a 3rd stringer. And the other two were against Kaepernick. Find me a stretch where any team played such terrible quarterbacks and then maybe your stats would have relevance.