Seattle @ Washington ... Pregame chatter (1 Viewer)

[matttyl]

I didn't say they aren't and I don't see what point you might be making if none of the grass games Lynch has played on match the grass for Sunday. All I said was that I was more concerned with the grass slowing down the D than the O.

You can be concerned with whatever you want. I just showed that clearly Lynch has had far more success per game on a synthetic field than when on grass.The same thing can be said of last year for Lynch -Games on grass (4 games):58 for 172 yards and 2 TDs (2.97 YPC, and zero 100 yard games)Games on synthetic (11 games):227 for 1,032 and 10 TDs (4.55 YPC, and 6 100 yard games)This is every game now for the last two year's of Lynch's career. You have to admit this is a VERY VALID claim.

It is misleading as you are presenting it. The sample size of grass games is small, and he faced a disproportionate number of good run defenses on grass (SF, CHI, MIA, CAR in 2012; SF, PIT, CHI in 2011). I would expect Lynch to have less success in a small sample of games on the road against good run defenses than in a larger sample of mostly home games against a mix of good, average, and bad run defenses.Now, this week, Lynch will be on the road against a good run defense. It is certainly possible he won't have a good game. But I don't think this sample on grass is as telling as you are making it out to be.

You don't think it's telling that in 3 years as a Seahawk, Lynch has had only 1 100+ yard game on grass (only 103, though, in about 14 games, nearly a full season), while he's had 15 of them on some synthetic surface (while isn't just playing at home, but includes at the Cowboys and at Lions and at Bills)? I think a full 3 seasons of data gives us a big enough sample size.You don't think it's telling that they score nearly twice as many points on synthetic than on grass, which again includes away games played on synthetic?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Seahawks dominate....next.

Not on this field. Fed Ex field is a total mud pit right now. It hosted the Military Bowl (San Jose vs Bowling Green) this past Thursday night, a day after it got about an inch and a half of rain, then the Skins vs Dallas game last night. It's a disaster of a field right now, and nothing like that great synthetic turf you water birds are accustomed to up in Seattle.

RFK hosted the Military Bowl - not Fed Ex.Go Skins!!

D'oh, that's right. The field was still a mudpit after last night's game, though. I'm just saying that Seattle isn't accustomed to playing on grass (that is clearly shown in their PPG scored and PPG allowed), while Washington is.

Over/Under on how many times Mattyl will mention Grass?

I'll take the over

 

[Apple Jack]

I didn't say they aren't and I don't see what point you might be making if none of the grass games Lynch has played on match the grass for Sunday. All I said was that I was more concerned with the grass slowing down the D than the O.

You can be concerned with whatever you want. I just showed that clearly Lynch has had far more success per game on a synthetic field than when on grass.The same thing can be said of last year for Lynch -Games on grass (4 games):58 for 172 yards and 2 TDs (2.97 YPC, and zero 100 yard games)Games on synthetic (11 games):227 for 1,032 and 10 TDs (4.55 YPC, and 6 100 yard games)This is every game now for the last two year's of Lynch's career. You have to admit this is a VERY VALID claim.

It is misleading as you are presenting it. The sample size of grass games is small, and he faced a disproportionate number of good run defenses on grass (SF, CHI, MIA, CAR in 2012; SF, PIT, CHI in 2011). I would expect Lynch to have less success in a small sample of games on the road against good run defenses than in a larger sample of mostly home games against a mix of good, average, and bad run defenses.Now, this week, Lynch will be on the road against a good run defense. It is certainly possible he won't have a good game. But I don't think this sample on grass is as telling as you are making it out to be.

You don't think it's telling that in 3 years as a Seahawk, Lynch has had only 1 100+ yard game on grass (only 103, though, in about 14 games, nearly a full season), while he's had 15 of them on some synthetic surface (while isn't just playing at home, but includes at the Cowboys and at Lions and at Bills)? I think a full 3 seasons of data gives us a big enough sample size.You don't think it's telling that they score nearly twice as many points on synthetic than on grass, which again includes away games played on synthetic?

Of course it is. It would scare the hell out of me if I was a Seattle fan.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Seattle reminds me of the '09 Packers or '10 Saints: wild card teams that look scary as hell heading into the postseason, but could very well drop their first game (which GB and NO both did). It always seems like when a road team winning a playoff game is this obvious (as it appears to be to many, but not me), strange things happen and the home team plays a great game and wins.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Seattle Team stats this season on Grass-Rushing, as a team averaged 124.2 yards per game, good enough for 10th best rushing attack in the league.

This is against these teams with their rushing team defense ranks:

sorted by team rush defense rank:

Opp	Rank	Yards Allowed to SEASFO	4	136CHI	8	176MIA	13	96CAR	14	98ARZ	28	115

I think some people are blowing the grass factor out of proportion by looking at 1 player on Seattle.

 

[ImTheScientist]

You don't think it's telling that they score nearly twice as many points on synthetic than on grass, which again includes away games played on synthetic?

1) Home field is synthetic, so of course they will score more at home (most teams do better at home then on the road).2) When you score 150 points in 3 weeks (most points since 1951) on synthetic that will skew the stats3) When you play the Bears & 49ers on grass and don't have a number of other grass opponents your stats are skewed, those are top defenses.The problem with your argument is you have taken a small sample size. If they played 8-10 games on grass you would probably have a bit more to go with. Problem is you don't. No statistician would say you have valid data.If Team X played the Bucs, Saints, and Redskins (the 3 worst passing defenses) and say they all played those games on grass and Team X passed for 400 y/g would you say Team X has a dominant pass game on grass?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Seattle Team stats this season on Grass-Rushing, as a team averaged 124.2 yards per game, good enough for 10th best rushing attack in the league.

This is against these teams with their rushing team defense ranks:

sorted by team rush defense rank:

Opp	Rank	Yards Allowed to SEASFO	4	136CHI	8	176MIA	13	96CAR	14	98ARZ	28	115

I think some people are blowing the grass factor out of proportion by looking at 1 player on Seattle.

Its really just one guy who thinks he found a cool stat..... I find it intriguing more than anything else he actually believes it. Makes me want to continue to question and probe him.

 

[mad sweeney]

Seattle Team stats this season on Grass-Rushing, as a team averaged 124.2 yards per game, good enough for 10th best rushing attack in the league.

This is against these teams with their rushing team defense ranks:

sorted by team rush defense rank:

Opp Rank Yards Allowed to SEASFO 4 136CHI 8 176MIA 13 96CAR 14 98ARZ 28 115I think some people are blowing the grass factor out of proportion by looking at 1 player on Seattle.

Its really just one guy who thinks he found a cool stat

..... I find it intriguing more than anything else he actually believes it. Makes me want to continue to question and probe him.

Whch isn't even related to the point he was supposedly replying about.

 

[Tau837]

I didn't say they aren't and I don't see what point you might be making if none of the grass games Lynch has played on match the grass for Sunday. All I said was that I was more concerned with the grass slowing down the D than the O.

You can be concerned with whatever you want. I just showed that clearly Lynch has had far more success per game on a synthetic field than when on grass.The same thing can be said of last year for Lynch -Games on grass (4 games):58 for 172 yards and 2 TDs (2.97 YPC, and zero 100 yard games)Games on synthetic (11 games):227 for 1,032 and 10 TDs (4.55 YPC, and 6 100 yard games)This is every game now for the last two year's of Lynch's career. You have to admit this is a VERY VALID claim.

It is misleading as you are presenting it. The sample size of grass games is small, and he faced a disproportionate number of good run defenses on grass (SF, CHI, MIA, CAR in 2012; SF, PIT, CHI in 2011). I would expect Lynch to have less success in a small sample of games on the road against good run defenses than in a larger sample of mostly home games against a mix of good, average, and bad run defenses.Now, this week, Lynch will be on the road against a good run defense. It is certainly possible he won't have a good game. But I don't think this sample on grass is as telling as you are making it out to be.

You don't think it's telling that in 3 years as a Seahawk, Lynch has had only 1 100+ yard game on grass (only 103, though, in about 14 games, nearly a full season), while he's had 15 of them on some synthetic surface (while isn't just playing at home, but includes at the Cowboys and at Lions and at Bills)? I think a full 3 seasons of data gives us a big enough sample size.You don't think it's telling that they score nearly twice as many points on synthetic than on grass, which again includes away games played on synthetic?

No, I don't think it's particularly telling. The quality of Seattle's offense has improved during the course of this season, as Wilson has gained the coaching staff's confidence and they have opened up the offense more. It is even less useful to go back to last season, when they had Tavaris Jackson at QB and Sidney Rice missed half the season, and/or to the 2010 season, when Hasselbeck and Whitehurst were the QBs and Big Mike Williams was their best WR. Why do you think those significantly different situations are applicable now?And it's already been pointed out multiple times that you have a sample size issue related to the quality of the opposing run defenses in your 4 and 5 game samples for 2011 and 2012. I didn't bother to look at that for 2010 because I just don't think what Lynch did in 2010 is at all relevant to what he will do in this upcoming playoff game and beyond. Apparently you do, so we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

 

[matttyl]

All I was trying to point out is that Seattle has been a much different team away from their home field than on it. I'm not sure if it's grass vs synthetic or what - but look at Lynch's stats, look at their points output, whatever you want, it's there. Teams have always had a tough time heading to the great north west to play the Hawks, and teams from the West coast have traditionally had a tough time heading to the east coast to play games. It all comes down to what the team is accustomed to.

Seattle isn't accustomed to heading this far east to play. Taking the Bills (who I think had pretty much given up at that point in the season) game out of it, Seattle was 8-2 in their own time zone, 1-1 in the Central Time zone, and 0-2 in the Eastern time zone this year. Yes, of course home vs away games play into that - but then that would obviously favor the Skins Sunday.

It's going to be a tough matchup no matter what, and as a Skins fan I'm just trying to find any advantages as I can.

Oh yeah, and happy new year to all.

 

[CapnJB]

Seattle isn't accustomed to heading this far east to play. Taking the Bills (who I think had pretty much given up at that point in the season) game out of it, Seattle was 8-2 in their own time zone, 1-1 in the Central Time zone, and 0-2 in the Eastern time zone this year.

You really shouldn't cherry pick your stats. But if you do, you should at least be accurate (Carolina plays in the Eastern time zone).If you really want to use small sample sizes you might as well just say that Seattle is 2-0 in East Coast games that start after 4pm (which the playoff game is).

 

[proninja]

What are the odds that somebody brings up seattle's record on grass?

 

[robertd52]

I didn't say they aren't and I don't see what point you might be making if none of the grass games Lynch has played on match the grass for Sunday. All I said was that I was more concerned with the grass slowing down the D than the O.

You can be concerned with whatever you want. I just showed that clearly Lynch has had far more success per game on a synthetic field than when on grass.The same thing can be said of last year for Lynch -Games on grass (4 games):58 for 172 yards and 2 TDs (2.97 YPC, and zero 100 yard games)Games on synthetic (11 games):227 for 1,032 and 10 TDs (4.55 YPC, and 6 100 yard games)This is every game now for the last two year's of Lynch's career. You have to admit this is a VERY VALID claim.

It is misleading as you are presenting it. The sample size of grass games is small, and he faced a disproportionate number of good run defenses on grass (SF, CHI, MIA, CAR in 2012; SF, PIT, CHI in 2011). I would expect Lynch to have less success in a small sample of games on the road against good run defenses than in a larger sample of mostly home games against a mix of good, average, and bad run defenses.Now, this week, Lynch will be on the road against a good run defense. It is certainly possible he won't have a good game. But I don't think this sample on grass is as telling as you are making it out to be.

You don't think it's telling that in 3 years as a Seahawk, Lynch has had only 1 100+ yard game on grass (only 103, though, in about 14 games, nearly a full season), while he's had 15 of them on some synthetic surface (while isn't just playing at home, but includes at the Cowboys and at Lions and at Bills)? I think a full 3 seasons of data gives us a big enough sample size.You don't think it's telling that they score nearly twice as many points on synthetic than on grass, which again includes away games played on synthetic?

It is def interesting....have you heard any one on the media reporting on this angle yet? "Seems" tangible...of course that's why we play the games.

 

[urbanhack]

What are the odds that somebody brings up seattle's record on grass?

playing on grass or after smoking grass?

 

[Raider Nation]

Looking forward to my buddy Phenix coming back to scold me some more for saying this is the most intriguing game of the weekend. Here we are at post #215 while the threads for the other 3 games are

 

[drummer]

Looking forward to my buddy Phenix coming back to scold me some more for saying this is the most intriguing game of the weekend. Here we are at post #215 while the threads for the other 3 games are

 

[Raider Nation]

Looking forward to my buddy Phenix coming back to scold me some more for saying this is the most intriguing game of the weekend. Here we are at post #215 while the threads for the other 3 games are

I think he's busy yelling at a Girl Scout or something.

 

[Marvelous]

The Redskins don't dominate in the running game by winning "slug fests." Hey, I think Seattle is a very, very tough matchup for the Skins. But Seattle has really only faced the one team (the Niners) who do some of the things the Skins do. And the Niners are a weird hybrid running the pistol with an offensive line that is still very much built on a power running game.

Faced Carolina .... they also go up against their own team in practice. In those two games rookie MLBer Bobby Wagner has been huge....why? He played at Utah State and has faced these types of offenses in college A TON. Its not really a concern in hawk land. My concern would be what WR are you playing in the slot.... who ever it is will own Marcus Trufant. He is awful. Deep passes don't kill the hawks. Hitch routes, quick out routes, and quick slants kill them. Dink and dunk stuff.

Moss will be in the slot. Garcon and Morgan/Hankerson are outside.

 

[Marvelous]

The guy runs for 63 and a TD and people still say he is hobbling - maybe so, but I think that any NFL team would take a QB that can run for 63 every week . . .

My opinion: RGIII definately looked slower and less explosive running the ball. But it was amazing how efffective he was against the Cowboys. Also, the read option has confounded defense ends and outside linebackers all season. So even running at half speed, he can easily run around a frozen DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul. They are not even blocked on many plays.

 

[Raider Nation]

Anyone wanna take a stab at which team matches up better with the Falcons in the likely matchup the following week?

Is Seattle the easy answer because they have the corners to match up with Julio and Roddy?

 

[ImTheScientist]

The guy runs for 63 and a TD and people still say he is hobbling - maybe so, but I think that any NFL team would take a QB that can run for 63 every week . . .

My opinion: RGIII definately looked slower and less explosive running the ball. But it was amazing how efffective he was against the Cowboys. Also, the read option has confounded defense ends and outside linebackers all season. So even running at half speed, he can easily run around a frozen DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul. They are not even blocked on many plays.

My opinion: The Seahawks practice against the read option. Not really a big deal.

 

[mad sweeney]

All I was trying to point out is that Seattle has been a much different team away from their home field than on it. I'm not sure if it's grass vs synthetic or what - but look at Lynch's stats, look at their points output, whatever you want, it's there. Teams have always had a tough time heading to the great north west to play the Hawks, and teams from the West coast have traditionally had a tough time heading to the east coast to play games. It all comes down to what the team is accustomed to. Seattle isn't accustomed to heading this far east to play. Taking the Bills (who I think had pretty much given up at that point in the season) game out of it, Seattle was 8-2 in their own time zone, 1-1 in the Central Time zone, and 0-2 in the Eastern time zone this year. Yes, of course home vs away games play into that - but then that would obviously favor the Skins Sunday.It's going to be a tough matchup no matter what, and as a Skins fan I'm just trying to find any advantages as I can.Oh yeah, and happy new year to all.

You went off on a huge tangent from what I said about a sloppy field that had nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Plus, nobody really needs to point out that Seattle is a different road team than they are at home. It's a widely known fact that has plagued them and been their major knock ever since Holmgren brought the team back from obscurity. Perhaps you'd want to use a better word than accustomed up there. They are accustomed to going that far east, they do it every year. They're just simpyl not very good about it and it will take years of improvement to shake that well earned reputation. A playoff win will be a very nice step towards doing that.

 

[mad sweeney]

The guy runs for 63 and a TD and people still say he is hobbling - maybe so, but I think that any NFL team would take a QB that can run for 63 every week . . .

My opinion: RGIII definately looked slower and less explosive running the ball. But it was amazing how efffective he was against the Cowboys. Also, the read option has confounded defense ends and outside linebackers all season. So even running at half speed, he can easily run around a frozen DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul. They are not even blocked on many plays.

The mid-season adjustment that the team went through to somewhat emulate the success of G3 will be exceptionally helpful to the D for having practiced against it for so long already. Of course, the same is true of the Redskins D. One great advantage the Seahawks have over the Cowboys (other than not being hindered by Romo) is the speed of the ends. Irvin and Clemons rely on speed moreso than power and with a gimpy RG3 that should help keep him from getting the edges and force him to run up the middle and expose himself to getting hit by the Legion of Boom. He'd better learn to slide.

 

[packseasontix]

NOT SAYING THIS HAS ANY AFFECT ON THE GAME:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/discomfort-zone-impact-travel-nfl-games/14372/

You will notice that West Coast has the worst road record.

You will also notice PST @ EST has the highest win percentage of all inter-time zone games.

Also as a note at the end it shows the 49ers road winning streak which trys to show you that good teams even from the west coast can go to the east and win.

 

[ImTheScientist]

http://nfl.si.com/2013/01/01/break-it-down-wild-card-weekend-preview-seattles-secondary-vs-rgiii/

Great article on how the Seahawks D is built unique, is 2-0 against teams running zone read variations, and why they will stop RGIII with ease.

 

[Raider Nation]

http://nfl.si.com/2013/01/01/break-it-down-wild-card-weekend-preview-seattles-secondary-vs-rgiii/Great article on how the Seahawks D is built unique, is 2-0 against teams running zone read variations, and why they will stop RGIII with ease.

Barely any reason to watch the game anymore.

 

[ImTheScientist]

NOT SAYING THIS HAS ANY AFFECT ON THE GAME:http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/discomfort-zone-impact-travel-nfl-games/14372/You will notice that West Coast has the worst road record.You will also notice PST @ EST has the highest win percentage of all inter-time zone games. Also as a note at the end it shows the 49ers road winning streak which trys to show you that good teams even from the west coast can go to the east and win.

The game is at the Seahawks normal playing time. If anything the Redskins are playing later than normal. If you want to argue circadian rhythm it doesn't apply to the Seahawks this week.

 

[packseasontix]

NOT SAYING THIS HAS ANY AFFECT ON THE GAME:http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/discomfort-zone-impact-travel-nfl-games/14372/You will notice that West Coast has the worst road record.You will also notice PST @ EST has the highest win percentage of all inter-time zone games. Also as a note at the end it shows the 49ers road winning streak which trys to show you that good teams even from the west coast can go to the east and win.

The game is at the Seahawks normal playing time. If anything the Redskins are playing later than normal. If you want to argue circadian rhythm it doesn't apply to the Seahawks this week.

Look at the article if you want to bring up its at the normal game time....Western Teams - Road Records (2007-2011)EST 4PMGames: 13West Coast Wins: 3East Coast Wins: 10So what was that about the Seahawks playing at their normal time? It has nothing to do about the time they play.

 

[CapnJB]

NOT SAYING THIS HAS ANY AFFECT ON THE GAME:http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/discomfort-zone-impact-travel-nfl-games/14372/You will notice that West Coast has the worst road record.You will also notice PST @ EST has the highest win percentage of all inter-time zone games. Also as a note at the end it shows the 49ers road winning streak which trys to show you that good teams even from the west coast can go to the east and win.

The game is at the Seahawks normal playing time. If anything the Redskins are playing later than normal. If you want to argue circadian rhythm it doesn't apply to the Seahawks this week.

Look at the article if you want to bring up its at the normal game time....Western Teams - Road Records (2007-2011)EST 4PMGames: 13West Coast Wins: 3East Coast Wins: 10So what was that about the Seahawks playing at their normal time? It has nothing to do about the time they play.

Are those numbers solely for the Seahawks or any West Coast team? And going back to 2007 really has no bearing on the current Seahawk team as Pete Carroll blew up the team in 2010. The current Seahawks team has nothing to do with those stats you quoted. The current Seahawk team is 2-0 in 4PM East Coast games.... this year.

 

[MikeApf]

http://nfl.si.com/2013/01/01/break-it-down-wild-card-weekend-preview-seattles-secondary-vs-rgiii/Great article on how the Seahawks D is built unique, is 2-0 against teams running zone read variations, and why they will stop RGIII with ease.

It's interesting that this article comes from Sports Illustrated, the publication that predicted that the Redskins would go 2-14 before the season started.

 

[Hang 10]

The guy runs for 63 and a TD and people still say he is hobbling - maybe so, but I think that any NFL team would take a QB that can run for 63 every week . . .

My opinion: RGIII definately looked slower and less explosive running the ball. But it was amazing how efffective he was against the Cowboys. Also, the read option has confounded defense ends and outside linebackers all season. So even running at half speed, he can easily run around a frozen DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul. They are not even blocked on many plays.

The mid-season adjustment that the team went through to somewhat emulate the success of G3 will be exceptionally helpful to the D for having practiced against it for so long already. Of course, the same is true of the Redskins D. One great advantage the Seahawks have over the Cowboys (other than not being hindered by Romo) is the speed of the ends. Irvin and Clemons rely on speed moreso than power and with a gimpy RG3 that should help keep him from getting the edges and force him to run up the middle and expose himself to getting hit by the Legion of Boom. He'd better learn to slide.

There's no DE or LB fast enough to stop even a gimpy RGIII from getting to the edge when they get caught flat footed. Did you see how stupid Ware looked the other night?

 

[mad sweeney]

The guy runs for 63 and a TD and people still say he is hobbling - maybe so, but I think that any NFL team would take a QB that can run for 63 every week . . .

My opinion: RGIII definately looked slower and less explosive running the ball. But it was amazing how efffective he was against the Cowboys. Also, the read option has confounded defense ends and outside linebackers all season. So even running at half speed, he can easily run around a frozen DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul. They are not even blocked on many plays.

The mid-season adjustment that the team went through to somewhat emulate the success of G3 will be exceptionally helpful to the D for having practiced against it for so long already. Of course, the same is true of the Redskins D. One great advantage the Seahawks have over the Cowboys (other than not being hindered by Romo) is the speed of the ends. Irvin and Clemons rely on speed moreso than power and with a gimpy RG3 that should help keep him from getting the edges and force him to run up the middle and expose himself to getting hit by the Legion of Boom. He'd better learn to slide.

There's no DE or LB fast enough to stop even a gimpy RGIII from getting to the edge when they get caught flat footed. Did you see how stupid Ware looked the other night?

Ware was a shadow of himself the other night. Some of the times G3 was scrambling the other night it looked like Brian Urlacher could catch him.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I want to see browner or kam get a hold of rg3

 

[Hang 10]

The guy runs for 63 and a TD and people still say he is hobbling - maybe so, but I think that any NFL team would take a QB that can run for 63 every week . . .

My opinion: RGIII definately looked slower and less explosive running the ball. But it was amazing how efffective he was against the Cowboys. Also, the read option has confounded defense ends and outside linebackers all season. So even running at half speed, he can easily run around a frozen DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul. They are not even blocked on many plays.

The mid-season adjustment that the team went through to somewhat emulate the success of G3 will be exceptionally helpful to the D for having practiced against it for so long already. Of course, the same is true of the Redskins D. One great advantage the Seahawks have over the Cowboys (other than not being hindered by Romo) is the speed of the ends. Irvin and Clemons rely on speed moreso than power and with a gimpy RG3 that should help keep him from getting the edges and force him to run up the middle and expose himself to getting hit by the Legion of Boom. He'd better learn to slide.

There's no DE or LB fast enough to stop even a gimpy RGIII from getting to the edge when they get caught flat footed. Did you see how stupid Ware looked the other night?

Ware was a shadow of himself the other night. Some of the times G3 was scrambling the other night it looked like Brian Urlacher could catch him.

I think looks are a bit deceiving. Griffin isn't announcing when he keeps the football. He waits for the end to guess wrong and then he takes the edge. I'm sorry but if you think someone like Clemons is going to be able to peek at Morris and then still catch RGIII before he gets the corner, you're mistaken.

 

[ImTheScientist]

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2013/01/first-impressions-redskins-face-tough.html

Great article with lots of statistical breakdown of both teams. After reading its easy to see why Vegas odd makers have the hawks favored in this one.

 

[The Kerminator]

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2013/01/first-impressions-redskins-face-tough.htmlGreat article with lots of statistical breakdown of both teams. After reading its easy to see why Vegas odd makers have the hawks favored in this one.

I think I'm sensing a pattern here. Any article that has the Seahags winning or labeling them as a great team is considered a "great" article.

 

[mad sweeney]

The guy runs for 63 and a TD and people still say he is hobbling - maybe so, but I think that any NFL team would take a QB that can run for 63 every week . . .

My opinion: RGIII definately looked slower and less explosive running the ball. But it was amazing how efffective he was against the Cowboys. Also, the read option has confounded defense ends and outside linebackers all season. So even running at half speed, he can easily run around a frozen DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul. They are not even blocked on many plays.

The mid-season adjustment that the team went through to somewhat emulate the success of G3 will be exceptionally helpful to the D for having practiced against it for so long already. Of course, the same is true of the Redskins D. One great advantage the Seahawks have over the Cowboys (other than not being hindered by Romo) is the speed of the ends. Irvin and Clemons rely on speed moreso than power and with a gimpy RG3 that should help keep him from getting the edges and force him to run up the middle and expose himself to getting hit by the Legion of Boom. He'd better learn to slide.

There's no DE or LB fast enough to stop even a gimpy RGIII from getting to the edge when they get caught flat footed. Did you see how stupid Ware looked the other night?

Ware was a shadow of himself the other night. Some of the times G3 was scrambling the other night it looked like Brian Urlacher could catch him.

I think looks are a bit deceiving. Griffin isn't announcing when he keeps the football. He waits for the end to guess wrong and then he takes the edge. I'm sorry but if you think someone like Clemons is going to be able to peek at Morris and then still catch RGIII before he gets the corner, you're mistaken.

He's not?! Nothing you say here contradicts what I said. I'm sure keeping Griffin running up the middle will be a priority. That means letting others (LBs and DTs) deal with the middle. The ends will be there, as I said, to keep Griffin from the edge. That doesn't mean they'll shut him down completely and he'll never get out there. I just said that it would be an advantage.

 

[ImTheScientist]

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2013/01/first-impressions-redskins-face-tough.htmlGreat article with lots of statistical breakdown of both teams. After reading its easy to see why Vegas odd makers have the hawks favored in this one.

I think I'm sensing a pattern here. Any article that has the Seahags winning or labeling them as a great team is considered a "great" article.

I enjoy well thought out arguments .... Feel free to post articles ....I'd love to read them.

 

[ImTheScientist]

According to football outsiders defensive efficiency ratings, all of the Redskin's ten wins have come against lower tier defenses:

Giants 18th

Browns 19th

Ravens 21st

Vikings 22nd

Buccaneers 25th

Saints 27th

Cowboys 30th (twice)

Eagles 32nd (twice)

On the flip side the majority of their losses have been against top tier defenses.

Bengals 5th

Rams 9th

Steelers 10th

Panthers 11th

Falcons 12th

Giants 18th

This clearly suggests they will struggle Sunday as the hawks rank as a top tier defense.

 

[proninja]

http://www.hawkblogg...face-tough.html

Great article with lots of statistical breakdown of both teams. After reading its easy to see why Vegas odd makers have the hawks favored in this one.

I think I'm sensing a pattern here. Any article that has the Seahags winning or labeling them as a great team is considered a "great" article.

Let's forget Scientist posted it for a minute - it's an interesting look at the statistics behind the various narratives. You should read it.

 

[silentcoach]

Sea defense is likely to struggle because they are below average against the run (yards per attempt). The skins will have plenty of rush ateempts, even if they are getting stuffed initially, which is unlike any team but the vikings.

The last time sea faced a good/great qb was week 6, when they won, albeit at home (but still allowed 23 pts). Since then:

sf, det, min, nyj, mia, chi, arz, buf, sf, and stl.

Stafford (avg and SEA lost this game), Ponder (avg), Tannehill (and sea lost this game), Cutler (avg), ARZ QB (< average) Fitzpatrick (< average), Kaepernick (avg), and Bradford (avg).

Common theme with sea? They have lost two road games to two average teams with crappy run games (@ det and @mia)

Sunday: Sea is facing a non avg qb who actually has a run game....conclusion, SEA def better prepare because they have not faced a an above average offense that can be two dimensional since week 6.

 

[Raider Nation]

The rest of this work week is gonna take forever. I can't wait for kickoff.

 

[proninja]

Sea defense is likely to struggle because they are below average against the run (yards per attempt). The skins will have plenty of rush ateempts, even if they are getting stuffed initially, which is unlike any team but the vikings.

Go read that hawkblogger link Scientist posted, ok?

 

[CapnJB]

Sea defense is likely to struggle because they are below average against the run (yards per attempt). The skins will have plenty of rush ateempts, even if they are getting stuffed initially, which is unlike any team but the vikings.

Week 16: Frank Gore - 6 carries - 28 yards - 0 TDs Week 17: Steven Jackson - 11 carries - 52 yards - 0 TDs

I think they will be okay.

Monday, Russell Wilson was in to lead the rest of the Seahawks’ rookie class through a workout at Virginia Mason Athletic Center.

Tuesday, Wilson was in to get a jump on this week’s preparation for Sunday’s wild-card playoff game against the Washington Redskins at FedExField.

These were scheduled off days for the players.

And they certainly won't be unprepared.

 

[silentcoach]

Sea defense is likely to struggle because they are below average against the run (yards per attempt). The skins will have plenty of rush ateempts, even if they are getting stuffed initially, which is unlike any team but the vikings.

Week 16: Frank Gore - 6 carries - 28 yards - 0 TDs Week 17: Steven Jackson - 11 carries - 52 yards - 0 TDs

I think they will be okay.

Monday, Russell Wilson was in to lead the rest of the Seahawks’ rookie class through a workout at Virginia Mason Athletic Center.

Tuesday, Wilson was in to get a jump on this week’s preparation for Sunday’s wild-card playoff game against the Washington Redskins at FedExField.

These were scheduled off days for the players.

And they certainly won't be unprepared.

...you do realize that their SEASON STATS say they are below average. I'm not sure what two games proves when you had 16 games

...and I said the Redskins will attempt MORE runs. I see 17 total rushes there....

And also:

Week 16 Gore = 4.7 yards a carry and

Week 17 Jackson was 4.7....I think SEA is in trouble the skins can run like that .

That's the problem with teams that face SEA. They think their run defense is good and do not attempt to run, but as shown by even the stats YOU provided, those are awful yards per carry for a defense to give up. I don't think WSH will shy away from rushing, and SEA will need to prove they can stop the run when teams actually run.

 

[ImTheScientist]

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2013/01/first-impressions-redskins-face-tough.htmlGreat article with lots of statistical breakdown of both teams. After reading its easy to see why Vegas odd makers have the hawks favored in this one.

Re: silentcoach Read the link above and rethink your arguement. PPG allowed is more important then ypc fwiw. Last time I checked at least.

 

[silentcoach]

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2013/01/first-impressions-redskins-face-tough.html

Great article with lots of statistical breakdown of both teams. After reading its easy to see why Vegas odd makers have the hawks favored in this one.

Re: silentcoach Read the link above and rethink your arguement.

PPG allowed is more important then ypc fwiw. Last time I checked at least.

PPG--you lost @ det and @ mia, i can pin point to things, just like you can. The fact remains that washington is the number 1 rush offense and sea is below average at stopping the run when teams actually run. All stats are backwards looking so they are not indiciative of what will happen, so SEA may be able to stop the run but thinking that SEA is"in the clear" because they faced average qbs and teams that refused to run is an unreasonable argument and makes you look "homerish" at best.nothing wrong with being a "homer." That is why we are fans.

 

[ImTheScientist]

That's the problem with teams that face SEA. They think their run defense is good and do not attempt to run, but as shown by even the stats YOU provided, those are awful yards per carry for a defense to give up. I don't think WSH will shy away from rushing, and SEA will need to prove they can stop the run when teams actually run.

I'm not sure where you are getting that information but it's highly inaccurate. The strength of their defense is the secondary. Have you looked at the PPG the defense is giving up? Or are you just concerned about rushing ypc? Let me know what you find when you look into it.

 

[silentcoach]

That's the problem with teams that face SEA. They think their run defense is good and do not attempt to run, but as shown by even the stats YOU provided, those are awful yards per carry for a defense to give up. I don't think WSH will shy away from rushing, and SEA will need to prove they can stop the run when teams actually run.

I'm not sure where you are getting that information but it's highly inaccurate. The strength of their defense is the secondary. Have you looked at the PPG the defense is giving up? Or are you just concerned about rushing ypc? Let me know what you find when you look into it.

You realize this game comes to the run, yes? Washington is number 1 rushing, so where you rank against the run is of LARGE importance....the fact that your strength is in your seconday, is my point as to why SEA needs to come to play to stop the RUN, which SEA has not. I agree, your secondary is beast mode.

 

[ImTheScientist]

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2013/01/first-impressions-redskins-face-tough.html

Great article with lots of statistical breakdown of both teams. After reading its easy to see why Vegas odd makers have the hawks favored in this one.

Re: silentcoach Read the link above and rethink your arguement.

PPG allowed is more important then ypc fwiw. Last time I checked at least.

PPG--you lost @ det and @ mia, i can pin point to things, just like you can. The fact remains that washington is the number 1 rush offense and sea is below average at stopping the run when teams actually run. All stats are backwards looking so they are not indiciative of what will happen, so SEA may be able to stop the run but thinking that SEA is"in the clear" because they faced average qbs and teams that refused to run is an unreasonable argument and makes you look "homerish" at best.

You didn't check the link out.