As soon as the Hawks lost the second game to LA I knew they were in real trouble. When Ken asked for projections of record in the next 5 games I said 2-5. I expected wins against LA and Dallas. Both games were close, winnable games that the Hawks couldn’t put away. Meyers’s misses in both games were key. Obviously in LA, but the miss in the Dallas game meant that in the 4th quarter the Hawks led by 5, not 8. That led to a 4th down attempt that failed giving Dallas a short field to score TD. With 8 point lead Hawks probably punt and maybe defense holds on a longer field. Even if they don’t, the best Dallas gets is a tie, so the next failed 4th down attempt is also less likely.
I don’t mean to be piling on Meyers as he’s also won a couple of close games this year. I’m just pointing out how thin the line is between good and mediocre. Winning even one of those games puts Seattle in strong contention for playoffs and winning both almost guarantees it.
Several people said before the season started that this year’s Hawks could be better than last year’s, but have a worse record due to this year’s tougher schedule. I think we might be seeing that come true. I’m seeing some encouraging signs from young players, but some of the vets are in obvious decline. Start trimming those players and their large salaries and add another good draft next year with some key FA’s and the rebuild should continue. But, so disappointing that this year’s preseason promises haven’t come through!
Why go to the playoffs if you're not going in hot? Win four of the next five and we're probably in. We will have beaten an NFC contender (either SF or Philly) and stood toe to toe with Dallas on the road. If that happens, then we can all feel some hope about any playoff matchup. Winning all five works for me too.
The other wildcard contenders can do whatever they do. A lot can happen in five weeks, but the Hawks are still a playoff team in my mind for at least another two weeks. A victory on the road over the 49ers a week after they demolished the Eagles and with playoff hopes on the line would be the biggest win for the Seahawks in years. What a fantastic opportunity!
"Objectively, I got to spend 90+% of the time from 2012-2020 getting to write that the Seahawks were one of the NFL’s best teams."
This is why I feel blessed to be a Seahawks fan, where (for the most part) every game has counted and they have always been in the thick of things. This also makes the "fire Pete" idea a bit weak in my opinion, based on performance. Let alone how hard it would be to replace him, as the previous article illustrated.
Also, this article really puts things in perspective...looking at our schedule and performance and comparing against other teams vying for a playoff spot. Geeze...we better pull a rabbit out of our...otherwise we out!
The fact we are in competition with the Rams for the last seed says it all. Fighting the Los Angeles
Rams ,who are in the middle of a rebuilding year. what’s wrong with this picture? Who is to blame,PC., no it’s the OC.,no it’s the quarterback. I personally don’t have a clue. I do know that there will be are awful lot of people trying to figure out the answer to that conundrum during the off-season.
Now that we have the GB game where the Chiefs didn’t get it done, Seattle’s path to the playoffs has gotten much more extreme -- in fact, the odds against should skyrocket. Every one of the 6-6 teams have an easier schedule than Seattle’s and GB’s is extremely easy: Giants, Bucs, Panthers, Vikings and Bears. They could easily go 5-0 and enter at 11-6. Afraid now the worst Seattle can be is 10-7. Not impossible but nearly.
And BTW: if you lose twice to one of the teams you’re up against, do you really deserve to be in?
The use of mere winning percentage bugs me. I don't think it tells an accurate story.
I spent much of the day compiling a complete (possibly even correct!) set of scores into a 32x32x17 array. Each cell of the array shows how many points the "column" scored against the "row" in any given week. Obviously, most of the cells are empty (zero).
After summing across the last dimension (play week), I had a 32x32 matrix that had different numbers above the diagonal than below (because some teams score more than others).
Now, if all teams tied all games at the same score, then all non-zero cells in that array would have the same number. In a geometric sense, it would represent sort of a 32-dimensional sphere. However...not all teams tie all games at the same score, so the non-zero numbers are all over the place. Geometrically, it represents a 32-dimensional smooshed sphere.
We can measure the amount of smooshing with a mathematical notion called an "eigenvalue". In the real world, an eigenvalue is used to measure (for example) how long one axis of a thing is relative to other axes: like the ratio between length of a cigar and the radius of that cigar at the middle. The direction of that smoosh is called an "eigenvector".
Usually, we're only interested in the size and direction of the biggest smoosh. In this case, we'd like to know which team pulls (or pushes) the 32-dimensional sphere the furthest out of round, and then compare all the other directions' smooshes to that one.
It is SF...and not by a trivial amount, either. Philly isn't actually that far off of Seattle - neither are in the top half of the pack (which caused me a long pause...until I started looking at Phily's opponents). Washington brings up the rear, just behind Denver. Baltimore trails only SF.
The eigenvalue notion gives credit for scoring lots of points on teams that OTHER teams typically don't score very much on. (Kind of like a "strength of schedule" or "points differential" analysis, but more detailed). It takes away credit for scoring fewer points on teams that OTHER teams score on a lot. Same idea is true for giving up points.
It doesn't actually give credit for direct wins or losses. It just does scoring and being scored on.
I don't really buy in to the results (yet). There are some things that don't pass the "squint" test (yet). There are, however, three takeaways of interest:
1) It says the 'hawks stand a better chance of beating the Eagles than the Niners. That chance might be a decent one, too.
2) It says that most (NOT all) of the other 6-6 NFC teams have a more reasonable claim to playoff status than the 'hawks, and also a MUCH better expectation thereof.
Village Idiot, your analysis is fascinating and almost certainly better than all the usual metrics we use to make football judgements. Interesting that it reveals those four things that make sense and are supported by SSJ's post.
I usually use my brain as a toy and play with it on the floor. Clearly you use yours for greater purpose. While you had too much time on your hands, that exercise seems worthwhile. Maybe you can do that smooshing thing more often, and tell us what it tells you? Perhaps in your fee time when you're not building AI models for Dr. Evil...
"...better chance of beating the Eagles than the Niners" should be read as "...better chance of beating the Eagles than they do of beating the Niners."
I agree that a more precise means of measuring a team’s relative performance would be really good. The CFP is already trying to do this, w/one-loss Alabama and Texas being in, while undefeated FSU and Liberty are not.
That said, apparently your model agrees with the current structure in that in neither case does Seattle get one of the last two wild cards.
Really looking fwd to the Eagles game now though, bc I just saw the Niners shmoosh them into a parallel universe and if Seattle is better equipped than that, OMG!!
KC gets enough favor from refs--I have no problem with them being the recipient now and then. The game was watchable without that incessant chanting of the tomahawk chop at least!
I hope it happens, but I am not invested in them winning a playoff spot. I think it more likely, we beat the Eagles than the Niners, and if we do they may get in the playoffs, and be a pain... but either way, I see growth and hope and that is enough, if not want I want.
At this point the Seahawks will need to win vs SF next week to make me believe that they will get there. I was expecting them to struggle vs Philly but after the first Q SF simply imposed their will in all phases of the game.
There is a saying in the sports betting world that "teams that are not good enough to win 4 in a row, don't" and the same goes for teams on losing streaks. Are the Seahawks "bad enough" to lose 4 in a row for the first time in Pete's tenure? Maybe... we'll see.
Maybe not in general but the matchup is set up perfectly for them to lose 4 in a row.
I just don't see a way outside of 1 or 2 key 49er injuries early in the game or a complete 3+ turnover meltdown by the 49ers. I don't feel there is anything the Seahawks can do against the 49ers to win... Will have to be the 49ers finding a way to lose for a Seahawk win in the record books.
I guess I am a bit pessimistic as well; the team just seems to be in a funk and lacks intensity. When I watched the sidelines of Dallas vs Seattle it was clear. It was a must win game for Seattle but they seemed to lack that aggression that they had in the championship years.
And then there is this: a Hope Float drink recipe. A comment under the recipe says that if the ingredients are blended you get Nuclear Waste, which ... fits.
As soon as the Hawks lost the second game to LA I knew they were in real trouble. When Ken asked for projections of record in the next 5 games I said 2-5. I expected wins against LA and Dallas. Both games were close, winnable games that the Hawks couldn’t put away. Meyers’s misses in both games were key. Obviously in LA, but the miss in the Dallas game meant that in the 4th quarter the Hawks led by 5, not 8. That led to a 4th down attempt that failed giving Dallas a short field to score TD. With 8 point lead Hawks probably punt and maybe defense holds on a longer field. Even if they don’t, the best Dallas gets is a tie, so the next failed 4th down attempt is also less likely.
I don’t mean to be piling on Meyers as he’s also won a couple of close games this year. I’m just pointing out how thin the line is between good and mediocre. Winning even one of those games puts Seattle in strong contention for playoffs and winning both almost guarantees it.
Several people said before the season started that this year’s Hawks could be better than last year’s, but have a worse record due to this year’s tougher schedule. I think we might be seeing that come true. I’m seeing some encouraging signs from young players, but some of the vets are in obvious decline. Start trimming those players and their large salaries and add another good draft next year with some key FA’s and the rebuild should continue. But, so disappointing that this year’s preseason promises haven’t come through!
Why go to the playoffs if you're not going in hot? Win four of the next five and we're probably in. We will have beaten an NFC contender (either SF or Philly) and stood toe to toe with Dallas on the road. If that happens, then we can all feel some hope about any playoff matchup. Winning all five works for me too.
The other wildcard contenders can do whatever they do. A lot can happen in five weeks, but the Hawks are still a playoff team in my mind for at least another two weeks. A victory on the road over the 49ers a week after they demolished the Eagles and with playoff hopes on the line would be the biggest win for the Seahawks in years. What a fantastic opportunity!
"Objectively, I got to spend 90+% of the time from 2012-2020 getting to write that the Seahawks were one of the NFL’s best teams."
This is why I feel blessed to be a Seahawks fan, where (for the most part) every game has counted and they have always been in the thick of things. This also makes the "fire Pete" idea a bit weak in my opinion, based on performance. Let alone how hard it would be to replace him, as the previous article illustrated.
Also, this article really puts things in perspective...looking at our schedule and performance and comparing against other teams vying for a playoff spot. Geeze...we better pull a rabbit out of our...otherwise we out!
I do wish We had tried Drew Lock, One way, or the other that would’ve given a definitive answer on where we stand on getting a quarterback proof
The fact we are in competition with the Rams for the last seed says it all. Fighting the Los Angeles
Rams ,who are in the middle of a rebuilding year. what’s wrong with this picture? Who is to blame,PC., no it’s the OC.,no it’s the quarterback. I personally don’t have a clue. I do know that there will be are awful lot of people trying to figure out the answer to that conundrum during the off-season.
,
My guess is those are discussions that are ongoing in the front office and final decisions/announcements will be delayed until after the season ends.
Now that we have the GB game where the Chiefs didn’t get it done, Seattle’s path to the playoffs has gotten much more extreme -- in fact, the odds against should skyrocket. Every one of the 6-6 teams have an easier schedule than Seattle’s and GB’s is extremely easy: Giants, Bucs, Panthers, Vikings and Bears. They could easily go 5-0 and enter at 11-6. Afraid now the worst Seattle can be is 10-7. Not impossible but nearly.
And BTW: if you lose twice to one of the teams you’re up against, do you really deserve to be in?
The use of mere winning percentage bugs me. I don't think it tells an accurate story.
I spent much of the day compiling a complete (possibly even correct!) set of scores into a 32x32x17 array. Each cell of the array shows how many points the "column" scored against the "row" in any given week. Obviously, most of the cells are empty (zero).
After summing across the last dimension (play week), I had a 32x32 matrix that had different numbers above the diagonal than below (because some teams score more than others).
Now, if all teams tied all games at the same score, then all non-zero cells in that array would have the same number. In a geometric sense, it would represent sort of a 32-dimensional sphere. However...not all teams tie all games at the same score, so the non-zero numbers are all over the place. Geometrically, it represents a 32-dimensional smooshed sphere.
We can measure the amount of smooshing with a mathematical notion called an "eigenvalue". In the real world, an eigenvalue is used to measure (for example) how long one axis of a thing is relative to other axes: like the ratio between length of a cigar and the radius of that cigar at the middle. The direction of that smoosh is called an "eigenvector".
Usually, we're only interested in the size and direction of the biggest smoosh. In this case, we'd like to know which team pulls (or pushes) the 32-dimensional sphere the furthest out of round, and then compare all the other directions' smooshes to that one.
It is SF...and not by a trivial amount, either. Philly isn't actually that far off of Seattle - neither are in the top half of the pack (which caused me a long pause...until I started looking at Phily's opponents). Washington brings up the rear, just behind Denver. Baltimore trails only SF.
The eigenvalue notion gives credit for scoring lots of points on teams that OTHER teams typically don't score very much on. (Kind of like a "strength of schedule" or "points differential" analysis, but more detailed). It takes away credit for scoring fewer points on teams that OTHER teams score on a lot. Same idea is true for giving up points.
It doesn't actually give credit for direct wins or losses. It just does scoring and being scored on.
I don't really buy in to the results (yet). There are some things that don't pass the "squint" test (yet). There are, however, three takeaways of interest:
1) It says the 'hawks stand a better chance of beating the Eagles than the Niners. That chance might be a decent one, too.
2) It says that most (NOT all) of the other 6-6 NFC teams have a more reasonable claim to playoff status than the 'hawks, and also a MUCH better expectation thereof.
3) I had WAY too much time on my hands today.
Village Idiot, your analysis is fascinating and almost certainly better than all the usual metrics we use to make football judgements. Interesting that it reveals those four things that make sense and are supported by SSJ's post.
I usually use my brain as a toy and play with it on the floor. Clearly you use yours for greater purpose. While you had too much time on your hands, that exercise seems worthwhile. Maybe you can do that smooshing thing more often, and tell us what it tells you? Perhaps in your fee time when you're not building AI models for Dr. Evil...
Seriously...great analysis.
"...better chance of beating the Eagles than the Niners" should be read as "...better chance of beating the Eagles than they do of beating the Niners."
Sorrrrrryyyy...
I agree that a more precise means of measuring a team’s relative performance would be really good. The CFP is already trying to do this, w/one-loss Alabama and Texas being in, while undefeated FSU and Liberty are not.
That said, apparently your model agrees with the current structure in that in neither case does Seattle get one of the last two wild cards.
Really looking fwd to the Eagles game now though, bc I just saw the Niners shmoosh them into a parallel universe and if Seattle is better equipped than that, OMG!!
..a parallel universe accessible only through their own bung hole, at that.
Next game might be competitive...SF scored 42 points on those cretins. They could only score 31 on us.
I can hear the crowd now...We're Number 22! We're Number 22!
kkkkkk
Wow. Absolutely P. I. on Valdez-Scantling then on Kelce on that final play for KC.
Green Bay looking like a wild card with their remaining schedule. Plus Lafleur is 16-0 in December...
KC gets enough favor from refs--I have no problem with them being the recipient now and then. The game was watchable without that incessant chanting of the tomahawk chop at least!
Yes...just like watching a USC game with that incessant Trojans fight song (or whatever in the hell it is). Oye!
Florida St also does the chop and makes their games unwatchable.
I hope it happens, but I am not invested in them winning a playoff spot. I think it more likely, we beat the Eagles than the Niners, and if we do they may get in the playoffs, and be a pain... but either way, I see growth and hope and that is enough, if not want I want.
At this point the Seahawks will need to win vs SF next week to make me believe that they will get there. I was expecting them to struggle vs Philly but after the first Q SF simply imposed their will in all phases of the game.
There is a saying in the sports betting world that "teams that are not good enough to win 4 in a row, don't" and the same goes for teams on losing streaks. Are the Seahawks "bad enough" to lose 4 in a row for the first time in Pete's tenure? Maybe... we'll see.
Maybe not in general but the matchup is set up perfectly for them to lose 4 in a row.
I just don't see a way outside of 1 or 2 key 49er injuries early in the game or a complete 3+ turnover meltdown by the 49ers. I don't feel there is anything the Seahawks can do against the 49ers to win... Will have to be the 49ers finding a way to lose for a Seahawk win in the record books.
Just have our team security get into it with Greenlaw. Then Warner, Trent, Deebo, Kittle...
I guess I am a bit pessimistic as well; the team just seems to be in a funk and lacks intensity. When I watched the sidelines of Dallas vs Seattle it was clear. It was a must win game for Seattle but they seemed to lack that aggression that they had in the championship years.
USS Hope still afloat here but I did put on my Mae West.
It's a good thing that Hope Floats.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119313/
That goes back sways. Ivory floats too.
So pure… lol
And then there is this: a Hope Float drink recipe. A comment under the recipe says that if the ingredients are blended you get Nuclear Waste, which ... fits.
https://www.drinknation.com/drink/hope-float
Wonder how it would work with Dr. Pepper.
Cherry Nuclear Waste. 😂