HawkShack.com

Who have we beaten? Dallas Cowboys (4-5), Arizona Cardinals (2-7), Oakland Raiders (1-8), Detroit Lions (3-6), and Green Bay Packers (4-5-1).

Who has beaten us? Denver Broncos (3-6), Chicago Bears (6-3), LA Rams x2 (9-1), LA Chargers (7-2)

Who's left to play? Carolina Panthers (6-3), SF 49'ers x2 (2-8), Minny Vikings (5-3-1), KC Chiefs (9-1), Arizona Cardinals (2-7).

Summary: We have not beaten a team that currently has a winning record. We have lost just one game to teams without a winning record. Our remaining schedule is split between teams with winning records and losing records..3 each.

Not trying to make any kind of editioral comment, just thought it would be an interesting look at the bare facts of our record and remaining schedule.

RiverDog wrote:Who have we beaten? Dallas Cowboys (4-5), Arizona Cardinals (2-7), Oakland Raiders (1-8), Detroit Lions (3-6), and Green Bay Packers (4-5-1).

Who has beaten us? Denver Broncos (3-6), Chicago Bears (6-3), LA Rams x2 (9-1), LA Chargers (7-2)

Who's left to play? Carolina Panthers (6-3), SF 49'ers x2 (2-8), Minny Vikings (5-3-1), KC Chiefs (9-1), Arizona Cardinals (2-7).

Summary: We have not beaten a team that currently has a winning record. We have lost just one game to teams without a winning record. Our remaining schedule is split between teams with winning records..3 each.

Not trying to make any kind of editioral comment, just thought it would be an interesting look at the bare facts of our record and remaining schedule.

OK, then I won't make one either by pointing out that we've been in every single game regardless of the opponent's record.

We've been within one TD of the lead in the 4th quarter of every game. The difference between us this year and years that we were winning the division every year is that in those years we were winning the close games. I think this current team is still a year away from learning to consistently close out the close ones. That comes with having the 3rd youngest roster in the NFL.

c_hawkbob wrote:Who have we beaten? Dallas Cowboys (4-5), Arizona Cardinals (2-7), Oakland Raiders (1-8), Detroit Lions (3-6), and Green Bay Packers (4-5-1).

Who has beaten us? Denver Broncos (3-6), Chicago Bears (6-3), LA Rams x2 (9-1), LA Chargers (7-2)

Who's left to play? Carolina Panthers (6-3), SF 49'ers x2 (2-8), Minny Vikings (5-3-1), KC Chiefs (9-1), Arizona Cardinals (2-7).

Summary: We have not beaten a team that currently has a winning record. We have lost just one game to teams without a winning record. Our remaining schedule is split between teams with winning records..3 each.

Not trying to make any kind of editioral comment, just thought it would be an interesting look at the bare facts of our record and remaining schedule.

OK, then I won't make one either by pointing out that we've been in every single game regardless of the opponent's record.

We've been within one TD of the lead in the 4th quarter of every game. The difference between us this year and years that we were winning the division every year is that in those years we were winning the close games. I think this current team is still a year away from learning to consistently close out the close ones. That comes with having the 3rd youngest roster in the NFL.

I don't necessarily agree, at least not as it applies to our two SB seasons this decade.

In 2013, 5 of our 13 wins were by less than 9 points. In 2014, only 3 of our 12 wins were by less than two scores. In both seasons, our point differentials were 2nd best in the league. All of our losses in both years were by a touchdown or less, so in 2013 we were 5-3 in close games, in 2014 we were 3-4.

In 2016, 5 of our 10 wins were by fewer than one score. We were 5-5-1 in close games that season.

The other seasons...2015 (Cards) and 2017(Rams) we did not win our division.

This season, 2 of our 5 wins (vs. Cards, Packers) were by a touchdown or less, so we're 2-5.

I see Bob's point.
In a reset year after losing 5 Pro Bowlers on Defense we are almost there.
It's actually pretty close to being a successful reset the very first year.
That being said, we are what our record show - a team that's not quite getting it done yet.

NorthHawk wrote:I see Bob's point.
In a reset year after losing 5 Pro Bowlers on Defense we are almost there.
It's actually pretty close to being a successful reset the very first year.
That being said, we are what our record show - a team that's not quite getting it done yet.

Well it aint over till its over. Not ready to shovel dirt on the coffin yet. Could and probably should have swept the Rams although as the late great Chuck knox said "if you coulda won you shoulda won". As Bob pointed out we've been in every game and we used to win almost all of them back in the heyday.But it's not just skill but luck, a bounce here and there, a flag at the wrong moment.It was not much different in the 1013 run to a title except the result. Frankly our offense has been consistently more dependable than that team and the D has been inconsistent but at times just as clutch such as holding GB to 3 second half points. No team ought to feel safe playing us.

Bears are good, real good. Denver caught us before our D solidified and we had some key mistakes. Chargers probably whooped us as much as anyone and they are really good with Rivers having the best numbers of his career.
We are part of the reason for the records of the teams we've beat such as Dallas who is not bad, Detroit who had won 3 in a row including clubbing the Pats about the head and neck at home. Raiders are the worst team we've played by a mile. We got lucky in AZ but it seems they always play us tough regardless of their record. Lets just see what happens when the book is written on 2018....

RiverDog wrote:I don't necessarily agree, at least not as it applies to our two SB seasons this decade.

In 2013, 5 of our 13 wins were by less than 9 points. In 2014, only 3 of our 12 wins were by less than two scores. In both seasons, our point differentials were 2nd best in the league. All of our losses in both years were by a touchdown or less, so in 2013 we were 5-3 in close games, in 2014 we were 3-4.

In 2016, 5 of our 10 wins were by fewer than one score. We were 5-5-1 in close games that season.

The other seasons...2015 (Cards) and 2017(Rams) we did not win our division.

This season, 2 of our 5 wins (vs. Cards, Packers) were by a touchdown or less, so we're 2-5.

You're trying to equate margin of victory to margin of defeat, they aren't the same thing. The NFL counts wins and losses. How much you win by is irrelevant really (until you get on top and are exerting your dominance). How much you lose by on the other hand is a good measure of how close a young team is to being competitive.


And BTW you need to turn in your "not a stat guy" card. You can't just decry stats when folks are using them to show how good we are historically when we're winning and then lean on them so hard to show how good we really aren't yet when we're not

I posted the Panther's record in another thread and thought it might be good to post it here, too. The thing I think this is going to come down to is who is really a up and moving team and who is hiding behind the teams they've played. I ponder what our record would be if we had played the Panther's schedule to date. The big difference, we've played our 9-1 division opponent twice already - they haven't played their's even once yet.

Just wanted to update my chart to reflect the loss today the Panthers had against the Lions.

As always, it comes down to how Seattle matches up against their opponents and vice versa. Records are kind of irrelevant at this point, other than obviously they matter in regards to the post season. Carolina worries me. If for no other reason than its 10 games in to the season, and Seattle still refuses to cover backs out of the backfield, which makes Carolina and McCaffrey a serious, serious concern.

If that defense let's him and Carolina do whatever they want early on in the game, forcing Seattle out of what is clearly their strength, and into a passing heavy offense, it could be a very long and depressing day.

Here's hoping the coverage of outlets is for one game at least, mediocre.

c_hawkbob wrote:You're trying to equate margin of victory to margin of defeat, they aren't the same thing. The NFL counts wins and losses. How much you win by is irrelevant really (until you get on top and are exerting your dominance). How much you lose by on the other hand is a good measure of how close a young team is to being competitive.

Fully understood regarding margin of victory. I just threw that in as a tidbit to show how dominant we were those seasons.

I'm sure glad Pete wasn't as impressed with losing close games as you appear to be. 6 of our 7 losses last season were by a touchdown or less, and had he thought like many that "if it wasn't for that damn Blair Walsh, we would have been in the playoffs" and think that all we had to do was replace the kicker and presto, instant SB contender, he wouldn't have blown up the team like he did this past offseason. It perpetuates mediocrity.

10 out of the 12 games so far this week were decided by a touchdown or less. It's the norm, not the exception, to be involved in a lot of close games. I get your point about a young team staying competitive, but outside a physiological state of knowing that you're at least competitive, it doesn't count for much.

And BTW you need to turn in your "not a stat guy" card. You can't just decry stats when folks are using them to show how good we are historically when we're winning and then lean on them so hard to show how good we really aren't yet when we're not

IMO there's a little bit of a difference between conventional stats like completion percentage, yards per carry, QB rating et al and won/loss records, standings, final scores. Heck, you can't even find final scores in the stats sections of any website or newspaper.

idhawkman wrote:I posted the Panther's record in another thread and thought it might be good to post it here, too. The thing I think this is going to come down to is who is really a up and moving team and who is hiding behind the teams they've played. I ponder what our record would be if we had played the Panther's schedule to date. The big difference, we've played our 9-1 division opponent twice already - they haven't played their's even once yet.

panthers.png

Good points. I probably should have started the thread prior to the Packers game this week, but I thought our schedule/record is worth a discussion regardless of the timing. I'd also note that the Cowboys are beginning to look like contenders, especially considering that the Skins lost not only the game to the Texans, they lost Alex Smith for the season...perhaps for his career...yesterday.

RiverDog wrote:
Good points. I probably should have started the thread prior to the Packers game this week, but I thought our schedule/record is worth a discussion regardless of the timing. I'd also note that the Cowboys are beginning to look like contenders, especially considering that the Skins lost not only the game to the Texans, they lost Alex Smith for the season...perhaps for his career...yesterday.

That's actually not good for us. We hold the tie breaker over Dallas but maybe not against the Eagles or Skins. I think it is a huge ask to win our division so we'll probably end up playing for a wild card spot. We need Chicago to win the North and the Skins to win the East then we need to beat Minn. to hold the tie breaker over them. The south I've already discussed in that we need to beat the Panthers to hold the breaker over them as I don't think anyone is going to beat the Saints in the rest of their season.

I'm sure glad Pete wasn't as impressed with losing close games as you appear to be.

Stop it. I never said I was impressed by it, merely posting it as a counter to all your "don't get too happy guys, we really still suck" posts. It honestly is a decent measure of how close a young team is to being able to win. Nothing to be impressed by, but definitely something to be encouraged about.

c_hawkbob wrote:Stop it. I never said I was impressed by it, merely posting it as a counter to all your "don't get too happy guys, we really still suck" posts. It honestly is a decent measure of how close a young team is to being able to win. Nothing to be impressed by, but definitely something to be encouraged about.

Sorry, bad choice of words.

idhawkman wrote:That's actually not good for us. We hold the tie breaker over Dallas but maybe not against the Eagles or Skins. I think it is a huge ask to win our division so we'll probably end up playing for a wild card spot. We need Chicago to win the North and the Skins to win the East then we need to beat Minn. to hold the tie breaker over them. The south I've already discussed in that we need to beat the Panthers to hold the breaker over them as I don't think anyone is going to beat the Saints in the rest of their season.

That's something I hadn't thought about. As I said earlier, I don't start taking a close look at the playoff scenerios until after Thanksgiving. There's just too many of them to contemplate, at least for me.

c_hawkbob wrote:Stop it. I never said I was impressed by it, merely posting it as a counter to all your "don't get too happy guys, we really still suck" posts. It honestly is a decent measure of how close a young team is to being able to win. Nothing to be impressed by, but definitely something to be encouraged about.

RiverDog wrote:Sorry, bad choice of words.

No worries man, we're good.

Personally I don't think Washington is a huge concern. Seattle currently holds its playoff entrance in their own hands regardless of how the East shakes out. That is of course if they don't hand it back this coming weekend. Currently, they can lose a single game ( against kc) and are guaranteed a playoff spot regardless of how Minnesota, Dallas, philly, washington, Green Bay, Atlanta etc perform.

It's doubtful they'll win the other five games, however, it's just as doubtful those listed do as well. Realistically, Seattle is in no worse spot than all teams vying for a wildcard spot, and are in a better spot than most, as at least they get a shot to knock those ahead of them out, with a bulk of their remaining games at home. This Sunday's game is enormous, and critical to retaining that advantage.

HumanCockroach wrote:Personally I don't think Washington is a huge concern. Seattle currently holds its playoff entrance in their own hands regardless of how the East shakes out. That is of course if they don't hand it back this coming weekend. Currently, they can lose a single game ( against kc) and are guaranteed a playoff spot regardless of how Minnesota, Dallas, philly, washington, Green Bay, Atlanta etc perform.

It's doubtful they'll win the other five games, however, it's just as doubtful those listed do as well. Realistically, Seattle is in no worse spot than all teams vying for a wildcard spot, and are in a better spot than most, as at least they get a shot to knock those ahead of them out, with a bulk of their remaining games at home. This Sunday's game is enormous, and critical to retaining that advantage.

I agree completely HC. They win it and I think the momentum is there along with the math.

Edit: 11 games into a season, and still refuse to cover a running back..... they'll at some point this year realize that is necessary right?

Not too many people can cover McCaffrey. Seattle's D is a work in progress but made one more stop than they did on the road against an O coordinator having a smoking hot day and a tremendously talented all purpose back who had about 500 yards rushing AND receiving coming into the game.

It's not a game of how. Its a game of how many. 30 to 27 is how many GO HAWKS!!!!

They haven't played McCaffrey the other ten games, I'm not talking about the difficulty of covering an excellent player. I'm talking about ZERO coverage, no matter the talent level of said backs.

Recurring issue...

HumanCockroach wrote:They haven't played McCaffrey the other ten games, I'm not talking about the difficulty of covering an excellent player. I'm talking about ZERO coverage, no matter the talent level of said backs.


Recurring issue...

Its not been good for sure but honestly we've faced quite a few really good backs including Gurley twice. Zeke, the 2 headed monster in Denver, Chicago has a real good back as well as the Chargers.

Not having KJ hurts a lot but I think we better find plan b cause he's done for IMO. I guess Norton must just be picking his poison because it seems to be a trend not really accounting for RBs in the pass game and everyone watches film so get used to it I guess. It was so bad yesterday I was thinking we should have someone assigned to McCaffrey every play regardless of down or distance. Still our D made one more stop than they did in the end.

Hawktawk wrote:Not too many people can cover McCaffrey. Seattle's D is a work in progress but made one more stop than they did on the road against an O coordinator having a smoking hot day and a tremendously talented all purpose back who had about 500 yards rushing AND receiving coming into the game.

It's not a game of how. Its a game of how many. 30 to 27 is how many GO HAWKS!!!!

I don't view McCaffery as a super human RB like Adrian Peterson was in his prime. He's a very good back that hits the hole running 100 percent, gets to the 2nd level quickly, and is a good receiver out of the backfield. What made McCaffery's runs work was the threat of Cam running. They ran Cam alot in that first series, and that set things up for McCaffery. I was more concerned with our lack of pressure on Cam than I was our failure to shut down McCaffery.

The D didn't have a stellar game, but they played well enough to win. I was particularly impressed with our red zone D, getting a 4 down stop and a pick, the combination of which arguably won the game for us. The good thing about our offensive scheme...something that drives Anthony nuts as it's not QB intensive...is that it keeps our defense off the field, and tends to keep scoring low.

To be honest, I don't know why all three downs aren't a dump off to a running back by every O coordinator in the NFL. 15 to 25 yard play every down would sound good to me until they covered a back out of the backfield, at least once this season.

There's no defensive scheme regularly run in the league that doesn't account for a back in the passing game, except in Seattle.