Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)......

H4172teh5k1n5 · 01-11-2006, 11:42 PM

The SeaHawks played only 5 teams w/ a winning record this year (Jags, Skins, Cowboys, Giants, & Indy). If you count the Falcons ( 8-8 ) it was 6.

The 'Skins by comparison played 8 w/ a winning record, and played 2 of those teams twice (so 10 if your going by games against winning teams).

Do the math. We played as many winning teams as they played losing teams.

The SeaHawks had the 32nd hardest schedule while the Redskins had the 2nd (that's right, Seattle had the easiest schedule in the NFL!!!!)

The Seahawks beat only 1 team w/ a top ten defence, Dallas, whom we beat twice. 5 of their wins came from the worst 3 defences in the NFL (SF, STL, & HUSTON)

Excluding the IND game (because they didn't play their starters) Hasselbeck averaged a passer rating of only 74.5 against teams w/ a winning record (Arizona's Josh McCown finish the season ranked 24th w/ a passer ranking of 74.9). Alexander averaged 85.5 yards per game against teams w/ a winning record (again excluding the IND game).

The Seahawks are not for real. They have fooled everyone into thinking they are worth something by beating some of the worst teams in the NFL. Beating SF by only 2 points in their first match up is ridiculous. If SF had made their 2 point conversion, it would have gone into overtime. That's sad!!! Enjoy your short stay in the playoffs Seattle. The Redskins are about to show the rest of the NFL what a fake you really are.

SkinsLove24/7 · 01-11-2006, 11:52 PM

Good stuff. This makes my optimism going into this weekend even higher.

H4172teh5k1n5 · 01-12-2006, 12:02 AM

I did some research on our being #1 on "least # of yards and still win in the playoffs" list, and found out that #s 2, 3, & 4 went on to Win Championships. It is just fitting that we set another record. It just happens t o be the fewest yards by a winning team in the playoffs.

#2 2000 Ravens and #3 1942 Redskins both were Championships Teams.

Here is an interesting trend that has followed Gibbs for his entire career, improving upon seeing a team for the second time. Observe the following pattern:

2005
First meeting against Giants: Loss. 36-0
Second meeting: Win. 35-20
First meeting against Cowboys: Win. 14-13 (barely).
Second meeting: Win. 35-7 (easily).
First meeting against Eagles: Win (barely) 17-10.
Second meeting: Win (better) 31-20.
First meeting against Bucs: "Loss". 36-35.
Second meeting: Win. 17-10.
First meeting with Seahawks: Win 20-17 (OT).
** Second meeting: ??? **

2004
First meeting against the Giants: Loss. 20-14.
Second meeting Giants: Win. 31-7.
First meeting against Dallas: Loss. 21-18.
Second meeting: Loss. 13-10 (darn).
First meeting against Eagles: Loss. 28-6 (ouch).
Second meeting: Loss. 17-14 (an improvement).

1992
First meeting against the Cowboys: Loss. 23-10.
Second meeting: Win. 20-17
First meeting against the Eagles: Win. 16-12.
Second meeting: Loss. 17-13 (had the division clinched already).
First meeting against The Giants: Loss. 24-7.
Second meeting: Win. 28-10.
First meeting against The Vikings: Win. 15-13 (whew).
Second meeting: Win. 24-7 (much better).

For those of you that don't recognize trends I'll explain it to you. When Gibbs sees a team for a second time, he improves. In the 10 cases where Gibbs saw a team twice in the last three seasons: He has faired better 8 times, done the same twice, and never done worse. That is a pretty incredible statistic if you think about it. (I can go back further if you want, but you get the idea)

H4172teh5k1n5 · 01-12-2006, 12:04 AM

There is 1 stat that almost never lies when it comes to playoff football in the NFL. That stat is turnovers. The team that turns the ball over more loses, almost every time. The reason for that is that in playoff games, both teams are good, the competition is usually tight, and turnovers are the difference in the game.

Remember early in the season, when more panicy extremers were complaining about Williams' defense not creating turnovers? Remember when the Skins were somehthing like -10 in the turnover ratio, and somehow actually had a decent record?

Well take a look at how the Skins have done with turnovers during "the streak". This is pretty impressive. Since the Dallas game, the Skins are +10 in the turnover ratio, with 3 give aways and 13 take aways. Since the Stl game the Skins have 6 give aways to 19 take aways, and are +13 in turnover ratio for 6 games. That means they are averaging over +3 in turnover ratio per game. An amazing stat.

What even more impressive is that the turnovers Williams' defense creates seem to always be exactly when we need them. They create turnovers early in games to take quick leads (it seems like the LBs have an early pic in every game), and they create turnovers late to end games.

Things start to really add up when you think about earlier in the season, when Williams would say over and over how important it was to create turnovers. Then you think about Gibbs sitting Ramsey, the 2003 poster boy for turnovers, in favor of "Mr. I''ve got no arm but I don't turn it over" Brunell.

Gibbs and Willians decided early on, We're going to play defense, run the ball, and take the ball away, and we're going to win a lot of games, and it has worked.

I really don't think this game is going to be any different. As Kleese mentioned in his thread, the Seahawks are under big pressure here to get a win. In seven seasons Holmgen has yet to win a playoff game, and the Seahawks haven't won a playoff game since all the way back in 1984 when we were wearing vans sneakers and going to Van Halen concerts. Now that's pressure. On top of that, the Seahawks starters have barely played football for 3 weeks b/c of their bye and playing the back ups in their last game. So now you've got high pressure mixed with a little rust.

Just like in their last 6 games, the Redskins defense will take the ball away early and give the Skins the lead. Gibbs will pound Portis, and the Skins will slow down Alexander enough for Holmgren to abandon the run. Seattle will put up some yards on the Skins throwing the ball, but late in the game Phillip Daniels will get his big mit on a Hasselbeck pass, and it will be another pic for a TD to close out the Hawks.

Skins win!

20 - 13

saskin · 01-12-2006, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H4172teh5k1n5

The SeaHawks played only 5 teams w/ a winning record this year (Jags, Skins, Cowboys, Giants, & Indy). If you count the Falcons ( 8-8 ) it was 6.

The 'Skins by comparison played 8 w/ a winning record, and played 2 of those teams twice (so 10 if your going by games against winning teams).

Do the math. We played as many winning teams as they played losing teams.

The SeaHawks had the 32nd hardest schedule while the Redskins had the 4th (that's right, Seattle had the easiest schedule in the NFL!!!!)

The Seahawks beat only 1 team w/ a top ten defence, Dallas, whom we beat twice. 5 of their wins came from the worst 3 defences in the NFL (SF, STL, & HUSTON)

Excluding the IND game (because they didn't play their starters) Hasselbeck averaged a passer rating of only 74.5 against teams w/ a winning record (Arizona's Josh McCown finish the season ranked 24th w/ a passer ranking of 74.9). Alexander averaged 85.5 yards per game against teams w/ a winning record (again excluding the IND game).

The Seahawks are not for real. They have fooled everyone into thinking they are worth something by beating some of the worst teams in the NFL. Beating SF by only 2 points in their first match up is ridiculous. If SF had made their 2 point conversion, it would have gone into overtime. That's sad!!! Enjoy your short stay in the playoffs Seattle. The Redskins are about to show the rest of the NFL what a fake you really are.

Very good, and I agree with everything.

Looks like the squaks are in for a rude awakening....at least, I hope so....

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 01-12-2006, 12:39 AM

There are some high quality, well-written, and well-thought posts in this thread. Keep it up!

wheeler · 01-12-2006, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

There are some high quality, well-written, and well-thought posts in this thread. Keep it up!

redskin fans are the best .........swept

SWEPT .defense wins play-off games.. Our defense is pumped. go skins. i still say taylor didn't spit nuthin:yeahright

mheisig · 01-12-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

There are some high quality, well-written, and well-thought posts in this thread. Keep it up!

Aww gosh...you're gonna make me blush!

davy · 01-12-2006, 11:41 AM

How about this for a positive stat?

Since 2000, there have been eight instances when teams that faced each other once in the regular season played a rematch in the playoffs. In those games, the teams that won the regular-season meetings are a combined 8-0 in the playoff rematch.

irish · 01-12-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davy

How about this for a positive stat?

Since 2000, there have been eight instances when teams that faced each other once in the regular season played a rematch in the playoffs. In those games, the teams that won the regular-season meetings are a combined 8-0 in the playoff rematch.

I dont think this stat is correct considering TB beat the skins in the regular season and the skins won on Sat.

davy · 01-12-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish

I dont think this stat is correct considering TB beat the skins in the regular season and the skins won on Sat.

Good point, that Gil Brandt knows nowt!

davy · 01-12-2006, 11:59 AM

Translation...

Nowt = Nothing

01-12-2006, 12:04 AM	#4
H4172teh5k1n5 Camp Scrub Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 16	Re: Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)...... There is 1 stat that almost never lies when it comes to playoff football in the NFL. That stat is turnovers. The team that turns the ball over more loses, almost every time. The reason for that is that in playoff games, both teams are good, the competition is usually tight, and turnovers are the difference in the game. Remember early in the season, when more panicy extremers were complaining about Williams' defense not creating turnovers? Remember when the Skins were somehthing like -10 in the turnover ratio, and somehow actually had a decent record? Well take a look at how the Skins have done with turnovers during "the streak". This is pretty impressive. Since the Dallas game, the Skins are +10 in the turnover ratio, with 3 give aways and 13 take aways. Since the Stl game the Skins have 6 give aways to 19 take aways, and are +13 in turnover ratio for 6 games. That means they are averaging over +3 in turnover ratio per game. An amazing stat. What even more impressive is that the turnovers Williams' defense creates seem to always be exactly when we need them. They create turnovers early in games to take quick leads (it seems like the LBs have an early pic in every game), and they create turnovers late to end games. Things start to really add up when you think about earlier in the season, when Williams would say over and over how important it was to create turnovers. Then you think about Gibbs sitting Ramsey, the 2003 poster boy for turnovers, in favor of "Mr. I''ve got no arm but I don't turn it over" Brunell. Gibbs and Willians decided early on, We're going to play defense, run the ball, and take the ball away, and we're going to win a lot of games, and it has worked. I really don't think this game is going to be any different. As Kleese mentioned in his thread, the Seahawks are under big pressure here to get a win. In seven seasons Holmgen has yet to win a playoff game, and the Seahawks haven't won a playoff game since all the way back in 1984 when we were wearing vans sneakers and going to Van Halen concerts. Now that's pressure. On top of that, the Seahawks starters have barely played football for 3 weeks b/c of their bye and playing the back ups in their last game. So now you've got high pressure mixed with a little rust. Just like in their last 6 games, the Redskins defense will take the ball away early and give the Skins the lead. Gibbs will pound Portis, and the Skins will slow down Alexander enough for Holmgren to abandon the run. Seattle will put up some yards on the Skins throwing the ball, but late in the game Phillip Daniels will get his big mit on a Hasselbeck pass, and it will be another pic for a TD to close out the Hawks. Skins win! 20 - 13 __________________ Hail to the Redskins! Hail Victory! Braves on the Warpath! Fight for old D.C.!

01-12-2006, 12:39 AM	#6
Sheriff Gonna Getcha Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 45 Posts: 8,317	Re: Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)...... There are some high quality, well-written, and well-thought posts in this thread. Keep it up!

01-12-2006, 11:41 AM	#9
davy Impact Rookie Join Date: May 2004 Location: England Posts: 939	Re: Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)...... How about this for a positive stat? Since 2000, there have been eight instances when teams that faced each other once in the regular season played a rematch in the playoffs. In those games, the teams that won the regular-season meetings are a combined 8-0 in the playoff rematch.

01-12-2006, 11:59 AM	#12
davy Impact Rookie Join Date: May 2004 Location: England Posts: 939	Re: Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)...... Translation... Nowt = Nothing

01-11-2006, 11:42 PM	#1
H4172teh5k1n5 Camp Scrub Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 16	Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)...... The SeaHawks played only 5 teams w/ a winning record this year (Jags, Skins, Cowboys, Giants, & Indy). If you count the Falcons ( 8-8 ) it was 6. The 'Skins by comparison played 8 w/ a winning record, and played 2 of those teams twice (so 10 if your going by games against winning teams). Do the math. We played as many winning teams as they played losing teams. The SeaHawks had the 32nd hardest schedule while the Redskins had the 2nd (that's right, Seattle had the easiest schedule in the NFL!!!!) The Seahawks beat only 1 team w/ a top ten defence, Dallas, whom we beat twice. 5 of their wins came from the worst 3 defences in the NFL (SF, STL, & HUSTON) Excluding the IND game (because they didn't play their starters) Hasselbeck averaged a passer rating of only 74.5 against teams w/ a winning record (Arizona's Josh McCown finish the season ranked 24th w/ a passer ranking of 74.9). Alexander averaged 85.5 yards per game against teams w/ a winning record (again excluding the IND game). The Seahawks are not for real. They have fooled everyone into thinking they are worth something by beating some of the worst teams in the NFL. Beating SF by only 2 points in their first match up is ridiculous. If SF had made their 2 point conversion, it would have gone into overtime. That's sad!!! Enjoy your short stay in the playoffs Seattle. The Redskins are about to show the rest of the NFL what a fake you really are. __________________ Hail to the Redskins! Hail Victory! Braves on the Warpath! Fight for old D.C.! Last edited by H4172teh5k1n5; 01-12-2006 at 12:07 AM.

01-11-2006, 11:52 PM	#2
SkinsLove24/7 Special Teams Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Bowie, MD Age: 37 Posts: 423	Re: Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)...... Good stuff. This makes my optimism going into this weekend even higher.

01-12-2006, 12:02 AM	#3
H4172teh5k1n5 Camp Scrub Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 16	Re: Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)...... I did some research on our being #1 on "least # of yards and still win in the playoffs" list, and found out that #s 2, 3, & 4 went on to Win Championships. It is just fitting that we set another record. It just happens t o be the fewest yards by a winning team in the playoffs. #2 2000 Ravens and #3 1942 Redskins both were Championships Teams. Here is an interesting trend that has followed Gibbs for his entire career, improving upon seeing a team for the second time. Observe the following pattern: 2005 First meeting against Giants: Loss. 36-0 Second meeting: Win. 35-20 First meeting against Cowboys: Win. 14-13 (barely). Second meeting: Win. 35-7 (easily). First meeting against Eagles: Win (barely) 17-10. Second meeting: Win (better) 31-20. First meeting against Bucs: "Loss". 36-35. Second meeting: Win. 17-10. First meeting with Seahawks: Win 20-17 (OT). Second meeting: ??? 2004 First meeting against the Giants: Loss. 20-14. Second meeting Giants: Win. 31-7. First meeting against Dallas: Loss. 21-18. Second meeting: Loss. 13-10 (darn). First meeting against Eagles: Loss. 28-6 (ouch). Second meeting: Loss. 17-14 (an improvement). 1992 First meeting against the Cowboys: Loss. 23-10. Second meeting: Win. 20-17 First meeting against the Eagles: Win. 16-12. Second meeting: Loss. 17-13 (had the division clinched already). First meeting against The Giants: Loss. 24-7. Second meeting: Win. 28-10. First meeting against The Vikings: Win. 15-13 (whew). Second meeting: Win. 24-7 (much better). For those of you that don't recognize trends I'll explain it to you. When Gibbs sees a team for a second time, he improves. In the 10 cases where Gibbs saw a team twice in the last three seasons: He has faired better 8 times, done the same twice, and never done worse. That is a pretty incredible statistic if you think about it. (I can go back further if you want, but you get the idea) __________________ Hail to the Redskins! Hail Victory! Braves on the Warpath! Fight for old D.C.!

Why the SeaHawks will lose (some stats to think about)......

Locker Room Main Forum