Jump to content

The Strength Of Schedule Argument


Recommended Posts

Also posted this on the Seahawks forum. Thoughts are appreciated.

Now, back to the thread's intention - addressing the argument about strength of schedule. I could just make the same point that's been made by others, about how the 2005 Seahawks are comparable to the 2012 Falcons in terms of respect, but that's an eyeball test, and as such, I'm sure won't be respected a heck of a lot.

However, in our defense, while the strength of defensive opponents being last in the NFL looks bad on the surface, a large portion of that can also be attributed to the strength of offenses in our division. We have the 3rd, 7th, 13th and 18th ranked offenses in terms of points scored, and the 2nd, 8th, 9th and 12th ranked offenses in terms of yardage in the NFC South. When you factor in the fact that we're constantly playing each other as well as having 8 other common opponents in the AFC West and NFC East, it's no surprise that our entire division has an easy SoS when it comes to strength of defensive opponents.

In a way, it's like poking fun at the NFC West offenses for having the 9th, 11th, 25th and 31st ranked offenses in scoring and the 11th, 17th, 23rd, and 32nd ranked offenses in yardage. Sure, it makes them look mediocre to bad as a division when it comes to offense, but it's also due to playing better defenses in the NFC West. I've seen that very argument made right here on these boards. It's a large part of why your strength of schedule is considered tougher, as well.

Our defense has already been shown to be 5th in points scored against, with the 10th ranked SoS, so I won't beat that dead horse. They're underrated by pretty much everyone, but it's interesting to see some of the folks on your boards giving props to us. The difference between our defenses isn't nearly as cut and dry as one would believe. Yours is #1 in points scored against with the 15th ranked SoS. Obviously fantastic, so I won't talk much more on that either.

As another note, in regards to our offense, the fact is, stats are very easily skewed. For example, while the bridge between our offenses doesn't appear to be that great, with Atlanta having a slight to decent advantage (7th in points scored, 8th in yardage) over Seattle (9th in points scored, 17th in yardage), there's something to be said for consistency over inflation. Don't take this the wrong way - as I've stated, I like the Seahawks and keep up with them a decent bit - but your average points scored has been inflated tremendously, whereas the Falcons tend to like keeping the score around 30ish.

To illustrate this, the Falcons were only held under 20 points twice in the year - once against Dallas (19 points), and once in the meaningless last game of the year against the Bucs (17 points). With Dallas, we were playing in a tough environment and had constant failure in the red zone, whereas with the Bucs, we were obviously screwing around with plays, almost treating it like a preseason game, except with the starters in. On one occasion, we ran three screen plays in a row. I sh*t you not. It was testing things out, a very vanilla gameplan besides the fact, since it wasn't trick plays we were running - it was just stuff we wanted to practice.

On the other hand, the Seahawks were held under 20 points SIX times in the year. It did come earlier in the year, so the argument could be made that the Seahawks "clicked" and put it together along the stretch. While I think that's largely true, especially due to Russel Wilson's play, I think it also bears thinking that the stretch was also against their toughest opponents, which could have easily been the cause of the lower point output.

It should also be mentioned that the Seahawks average points per game is inflated by three games down the stretch with 42 or more points. This might be because Carroll likes to kick the weaker teams when they're down - seriously, he only runs up the score on the weaker opponents in the NFL. Conversely, the Seahawks only scored 30 or more points once besides those blowouts.

The Falcons, on the other hand, never scored over 42, despite outscoring their opponents in the first half by roughly 70 points over the season. The Falcons did, however, score 30 or more points five times on the season, and scored 27 three times as well.

This is not to take away from all the good the Seahawks have done - rather, just to provide an opposing fan's perspective, and maybe get some good feedback as well. Can't wait for the game on Sunday...good luck to both teams. Just...a bit more luck to ours. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you stated, it is ultimately an eyeball test. We played essentially the same schedule as the Broncos, beat the Broncos and the other top 10 "power rankings" opponents on our schedule (whereas they lost to them), and had a better overall record, yet they are the consensus number one team in the eyes of the media. I'm glad to have the Shehawks and Pack/Niners ahead of us because it means that we have to beat the best to be the best. From the post that you pasted, I'm assuming that Shehawk fans are much more respectful on their forums than Panties, Stains, and Tampax fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you stated, it is ultimately an eyeball test. We played essentially the same schedule as the Broncos, beat the Broncos and the other top 10 "power rankings" opponents on our schedule (whereas they lost to them), and had a better overall record, yet they are the consensus number one team in the eyes of the media. I'm glad to have the Shehawks and Pack/Niners ahead of us because it means that we have to beat the best to be the best. From the post that you pasted, I'm assuming that Shehawk fans are much more respectful on their forums than Panties, Stains, and Tampax fans.

It's like light and day. Nothing but respect for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when the media has a narrative they go with it, and the skew data and take opinions out of context to tell their story.

Take that from someone who has given up watching politics, the only way to beat the media is to kick the seahhawks in the teeth and shut their story up.

Edited by BadMoonRising
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seem like a good bunch to me.

They are "ok". I use the term liberally. You get a personal email from the moderators letting you know that smack talk is not allowed in certain forums and you will be banned immediately.

So you go on debating and being civil, the here come the hillbilly, trailer park, inbred southerners, NASCAR comments. Topped with how all southerners are jealous of the Northwest because they work at Boeing, Microsoft, etc while we are stuck on tobacco farms. In the midst of bragging about their intellect all the while their post is chock full of misspelled words.

But all in all, it is a nice board with exceptional moderators and some really cool fans. You can find your typical chest pounding homers, eternal optimist, negative nancy's, and "realists".

Oh yeah, the use of stats and past years seems to only be a one way street over there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that of the last 5 top seeds with the weakest SoS, 4 made the Super Bowl. The only one that didn't was the 2001 Steelers who lost the AFCCG.

I'm all for the schedule makers continuing to look into their crystal ball and knowing 8 months in advance that the AFC West, NFC South and NFC East are going to be weak divisions like they did this year.

Nice job fellas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...