Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

PlayoffsFollow

#52 Jan 28 2014 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
someproteinguy wrote:

Got it all planned out suspiciously quickly... Smiley: lol

Smiley: tinfoilhat

Don't mess with the matriarch.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#53 Jan 28 2014 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:

Got it all planned out suspiciously quickly... Smiley: lol

Smiley: tinfoilhat

Don't mess with the matriarch.
No kidding. She did have the best story: hasn't been on a vacation for 8 years, lost her job right back before Christmas, has an upcoming surgery in a couple of weeks that will have her laid up for a couple of months, etc. etc.

It was a bloodless coup.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#54 Jan 28 2014 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,500 posts
Smiley: lol.
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#55 Jan 29 2014 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Vataro wrote:
Smiley: lol.
/em smacks the post out of your hand. Yes that totally makes sense. Smiley: lol

I've been stuck on that Duracell commercial, of all things. Can't resist a tear jerker it seems.

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#56 Feb 03 2014 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Smiley: eek

I'm not sure if I have anything particularly interesting say, I'm still dumbstruck over that game. I guess Denver was the traditional pocket-passing team we were designed to beat, I guess everyone discounted that earlier pre-season game against them as "pre-season" and nothing more, I guess 2 weeks of hype was 2 weeks too much, I guess playing SF was the real Superbowl, I guess I'm surprised if anyone else watched that game after halftime.

I'm glad we got the win when we did. Next year is going to be tough with the NFC West the way it is, and us getting the tougher schedule because of the division win. Oh well, savoring the moment while it lasts.

Go Hawks. Smiley: cool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#57 Feb 03 2014 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
If you'd told me that one team would win that game by 35 points, my immediate assumption would have been that Denver put on the gas and never looked back. The two major scenarios that I think everyone assumed were that either Denver would get an early lead and Seattle wouldn't be able to catch up and we'd have a blow out or that Seattle would be able to slow Denver down enough to stay on pace with them making it a close exciting game.

Don't think anyone seriously thought Seattle would shut Denver down so completely *and* put that many points on the board. I mean, a lot was made of the historical meetings of "number 1 offense versus number 1 defense", but while the defense usually wins, it's also usually a slow close game, not a blow out. Also, while Seattle was statistically just your run of the mill "happened to have the number one defense this year" team (ie: good, but not ridiculously good), Denver was the number one offense of all time. No team in NFL history has ever put up that many yards and points in a season. Hell, few teams have come close.

But hell. Any given Sunday, right?

Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 1:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Feb 03 2014 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
*and* put that many points on the board.
This is what got to me, really more than anything else I think.

I wasn't too shocked to see the defense step up. If you told me the superbowl was going to be low scoring I would have been a bit surprised (8 was a bit of a "wow", but defense has been our strength, especially against quarterbacks who like to hang out in that pocket a lot. That would have been Drew Brees' total if not for that missed interception / tipped pass.), but not shocked by any means. The Seahawks point total, well those are numbers we only put up against Jacksonville this year in the regular season, so I wasn't expecting anything remotely like that. Even the 27 points by the offense was pretty solid total for that bunch (thank goodness Denver couldn't tackle Smiley: rolleyes).

Edit:

Also, I think this is my favorite story to come out of the whole thing.

Quote:
As you may have noticed during last night’s Super Bowl broadcast, Pete Carroll is sporting a nasty little laceration to his left cheek these days.

...

“I did get hit returning a kickoff in practice this week,” Carroll said. “I jumped in to give Percy [Harvin] a break…and Derrick Coleman grabs me and [Chris] Maragos comes in and gives me a shot in the head.”

Yep, it was just another “62-year-old man fields kickoff, finds a seam and takes a bucket shot zipping up the sideline” scenario. Nothing too drastic.


I hope I can do that at 62. Heck, I probably can't do that now... Smiley: lol

Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 3:07pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#59 Feb 03 2014 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Quote:
Also, while Seattle was statistically just your run of the mill "happened to have the number one defense this year" team (ie: good, but not ridiculously good)
Are you **** kidding me?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#60 Feb 03 2014 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Also, while Seattle was statistically just your run of the mill "happened to have the number one defense this year" team (ie: good, but not ridiculously good)
Are you @#%^ing kidding me?


Um... No.

They had the best defense this year. But every year some team has the number one defense. And, as this article shows, Seattle's defense doesn't stack up that well historically. Even when compared with the most restrictive and recent pool possible (the "since 2004" group), Seattle ranks 6th. That's 6th out of 9 years of "number one defense" teams. That puts them in the bottom 3rd of that pool.

So no. Seattle did not have a ridiculously good defense relative to historical NFL defenses. Denver, on the other hand, absolutely had the number one NFL offense of all time. Hence, my statement.

Did you honestly think differently?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Feb 03 2014 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Yes, I do think differently. There's more to a defense than statistics. The simple fact is Seattle's defense has shut down the top tier QBs almost every time they've faced them. Top tier QBs who are without question, hall of famers. Because they didn't play lights out every game doesn't mean squat. This defense steps up for big games and simply dominates.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#62 Feb 03 2014 at 8:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Yes, I do think differently. There's more to a defense than statistics. The simple fact is Seattle's defense has shut down the top tier QBs almost every time they've faced them. Top tier QBs who are without question, hall of famers. Because they didn't play lights out every game doesn't mean squat. This defense steps up for big games and simply dominates.


Huh? Shutting down a quarterback is presumably measured by things like say yards of offense and points scored right? And by those statistics, Seattle was pretty mediocre in terms of historical "number one defenses". Saying "there's more to a defense than statistics" is another way of saying "the stats don't show it, but I just feel in my gut that Seattle is the best!".

That's great and all, but what I said can actually be backed up with numbers. Which obviously doesn't guarantee any outcome (cause Seattle won), but it certainly doesn't justify an incredulous response. Doubly so since your response was to me directly speaking about how Seattle stacked up statistically. The statement I made was absolutely correct.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 6:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Feb 03 2014 at 11:11 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,500 posts
I hate to say this, but... I agree with gbaji. Seattle's D is good, to be sure, but to say

Quote:
The simple fact is Seattle's defense has shut down the top tier QBs almost every time they've faced them.


Doesn't really mean much. Unless the rest of that list of top defenses didn't play top tier QBs, which is possible but very unlikely. That being said, calling them "run of the mill" is also quite understating their accomplishments this season.
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#64 Feb 04 2014 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
The couple of analyses I read over the last week (from random sports stat nerdy people, which I can try and grab links for if I must) would put them somewhere around the top 10 since the merger. Where they fell depended a lot of which metrics you used, how the were weighted and adjusted and what not.

One of the bigger controversies that came up was whether or not to weight the stats based on the strength of the offenses in the league this year, or how exactly best to do that. The league is more pass-happy than its been in the past, and the rules more skewed towards the offense pass game, making it harder to defend against than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Then again, it's easy to over adjust for that kind of thing, and there's more to the game than just the passing attack.

Really the Hawks gave up several games like the Superbowl. The opponents passing numbers looked good on paper (the record number of completions, for example), but the points weren't there. They forced a lot of turnovers this year, 28 interceptions in 16 games, or something like that. That was more the story of our season than anything else. We'd win something like 20-13, and 10 of those points were the result for the defense or special teams, either directly or due to the good field position they gave the offense to work with off a turnover. It went beyond the usual "lucky interception of a bad pass" and became more like "eventually we will pick something off." Sherman liked to talk (well, duh, I think we all know that now...) about them baiting QBs to throw; it was part of their game plan.

Then you pull out a quarterback like Kapernick who can run and throw, and they'd have trouble. Mobile QBs were a pain to defend against, and just the run game alone gave them fits at times this year. They excelled against the Mannings of the world, who wanted to sit in the pocket and throw against our over-sized secondary. They were the trump card for that kind of offense, designed specifically to beat them in many ways.

If you want to say we're in the top 10 of the last 50 years, I wouldn't bat an eye. But were not as all-around strong as we are engineered to counter a specific offensive style, one that's popular in the league at this time. What the LOB can say, is that they utterly destroyed the best passing attack the sport has ever seen, in the biggest game of the year. Think of it this way the Seattle defense outscored the highest-scoring NFL offense ever, 9 to 8.

They'll certainly be remembered for that even if the numbers aren't there.

Edited, Feb 4th 2014 9:27am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#65 Feb 04 2014 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
So in summation, they had an all around decent defense that just happened to be the best at defending against the kind of team they played against in the Superbowl.

That actually matches what I am seeing from pundits.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#66 Feb 04 2014 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Pretty much. Smiley: grin

Exceptional perhaps, they can be in the conversation, but they aren't taking any top honors. They're very much still an open book. What they do over the next couple of years will mean a lot to any ranking on a "best ever" list, in my mind at least. They just had a really big, rather shocking, a victory in a game everyone was watching (well at least for the first half), so that got people talking. Maybe think of it as a strong Psychic Pokemon going up against a decent Dark Pokemon and getting its but kicked. Mewtwo lost to Umbreon, same kind of thing.

Well, that and they like telling everyone they're awesome; which always riles up the natives. Smiley: lol

Edited, Feb 4th 2014 2:16pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT
Dyadem, Szabo, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (65)