Oswlek
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 9,086
- Reaction score
- 5,955
I've collected a batch of semi-lucid thoughts heading into the game tomorrow and don't have any other victims to unleash them on. Please excuse the brain dump.
* I'm completely sick of the DFG and have no intention of delving too deep into it, but while discussing the fumble issue with an idiot on another board I had a break through that I haven't seen anywhere.
First, if you haven't seen it, please go through Drew Fustin's reply to Warren Sharp's analysis. I'm not going to go through it, but I'll be using some of the information from it here. The other key piece is Daryl Sng's reply which demonstrates the same player fumble rate change for players in NE is only 23%. Sharp even admits that this is more accurate.
What I haven't seen anyone do yet is combine the data. For instance, let's just grant that there is something fishy with the 23% bump in ball security for those in Patriot jerseys. It isn't luck or coaching or offensive scheme, it's cheating. Where does that take us? Well, since Fustin demonstrated that NE's touch/fumble was a more reasonable 74, that means it would have been 57 if not for the 23% bump.
Why is that important? Because 57 would still have been 6th best in the league from 2010-2014! This completely invalidates any odds calculation of NE being 2nd based on pure chance. You'd have to create a formula to determine the odds of a baseline 6th place team being 2nd, which is obviously much more likely. It also entirely refutes those who question NE's rise in 2007 since their own data suggests NE would have surged to 6th anyway. Only if you presuppose additional currently unknown cheating to account for the first 10 places and then DFG for the final 4 spots are you being consistent.... and of course that's an absurd argument. "I'm trying to prove that NE cheats but I need to assume cheating to explain most of what I can't explain" Yeah, that makes sense.
Alright, on to the game.
* As the game approaches, I'm getting mildly more anxious, but I've been very confident for most of the last two weeks. I'm getting a decided 2004 Pitt feel from this Seattle squad right down to the "we do what we do!" defense and needing a complete melt-down by the opponent to even be here. I'm also not totally sold on whether Seattle has even been playing as well down the stretch as it's being made out to be (more on that later).
My biggest concern isn't the Seahawks, it's the Patriots. If this were the 2004 squad, I'd have no doubt whatsoever that they'd control the game throughout and walk off victorious. But after 10 seasons of not quite finishing the job, it is hard to say for certain what we are going to get.
* I see a lot of people comparing NE to last year's Denver team or using that to demonstrate how hard it will be for NE to score. Setting aside the fact that Seattle's line isn't nearly the caliber of last year and that they are beat up in the secondary, I don't think it is a fair comparison.
First off, Denver was the quintessential "dance, don't fight" team. They weren't grinders, they wanted to bet you with flash and skill. They also didn't have anyone really physical an offense, the toughest guys were probably the smallest, Wes and Knowshon.
More importantly, the Patriots will go in with a specific plan to attack Seattle's defense rather than simply rolling out the same stuff they've been doing all year and expecting it to work as well in the SB as it did against Oakland. The fact that, like the 2007 Pats, Denver had been trending down for months shouldn't be overlooked, either.
* If I were a Seattle fan, the numbers that would worry me the most are 9, 13, 10, 3, 14, 0, 14 and 0. That is the total first half points for every game they've played since the KC game. Of the four times they cracked double digits, two involved short fields after turnovers and that was with the benefit of a lot short opponent drives.
Are they just taking their time to grind opponents down? If you go to the end of the 3rd quarter, things improve to 19, 16, 24, 10, 14, 6, 10 and 7, but that is still five straight games where they only mustered two scores through the first 45 minutes. I know the defense is great, but I'm not sure that will work against the Patriots. While it could be said that they can take their time offensively, it should be pointed out that they were trailing at half-time for three of their last five games and were only up by four points on a middling Carolina team. It isn't as if they were in command of these games, they just legitimately couldn't get started in most of them.
* Of course, the flip side of that is that NE's first half defense isn't nearly as good as their second half. Ignoring the season ending Buffalo match, this is their run of points allowed in the first 30 minutes since the Indy game: 23, 14, 13, 10, 21, and 7.
What concerns me the most about this isn't that NE is allowing teams to average two TDs in the first half, it is how teams have scored. GB had only scored a reasonable 16 points before the ridiculous TD when all they were looking for was to get into FG range. Miami was on 6 prior to the awful last minute. NE's D had settled down and were looking at a 20 minute shut out of Baltimore prior to Tom's pick. Indy was likely going to go scoreless if not for another dumb interception late in the second.
This can't happen tomorrow. In some ways, the pathetic nature of Tom's picks is a good thing. It would be much more of a concern if it was symptomatic of NE's aggressive style and a necessary side effect. If that were the case, then avoiding turnovers would possibly diminish scoring as well. Thankfully, there is no reason to believe avoiding an awful throw before the half will impact NE's ability to move the ball otherwise.
* Seattle fans have downplayed how much playing lousy QBs down the stretch inflated their defense. I'm inclined to agree somewhat. As bad as they were, Seattle made them look even worse. It also could be pointed out that GB only scored 22 points despite 5 turnovers.
That said, and here is another time when this game makes me think of the 2004 AFCCG, I came away from the NFCCG feeling like Green Bay was able to move the ball much better than the score indicated. Beyond the conservative nature by the goal line and the melt down at the end, it seemed like there were plays to be made that the Packers just missed on. It felt to me like they were passing more easily than the post-game rhetoric would have you believe, only to go away from it on their own. It also should be pointed out that Rodgers' first pick was just taking a shot because he thought he had a free play due to a defender being offside (uncalled) and that the second pick was entirely miscommunication with two WRs open. Not only were they in FG range both times, but neither play had much to do with defensive prowess.
I felt the exact same way after that Jet/Pitt game in 2004, even going so far as saying to my dumbass Steeler fan boss, "if you think that was a good defensive performance, pull your head out of your ass. NE will put up 30 points easy if Pitt plays the same this week."
* Does anyone else find the stat about Wilson being 10-0 against SB winning QBs wholly unconvincing? Shouldn't someone at least mention that eight of those games were at home? And that the only road game in the group was against Eli Manning, the worst of the group by a substantial margin playing on a bad 2013 team?
* In the interest of fairness, I have plenty of concerns about the Patriots heading into the game. NE's run defense has come a long way, but zone rushing has always been a bugaboo for Bill. It's why Denver was NE's cryptonite and Baltimore did better than expected three weeks ago. Granted, NE won't be nearly as worried about the passing game and the Raven's OL is much better than Seattle's but I can see the Seahawks being frustratingly consistent at moving the ball.
* I'm also concerned that NE's offense is predicated on creating confusion and Seattle isn't likely to leave very many free runners out there. Sure, I think the Patriots will be able to scheme their way to guys getting space 5 yards down the field, but it takes a lot of those plays to move down the field and they tend to close up when the defense doesn't have to defend so much space near the goal line.
If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to make a prediction, it would probably be something similar to the 2003 SB. Both defenses start out hot and validate all those who said it would be a low scoring game only for things to take off from there. Like that game, I think it will be very close and could go either way. Seattle is a terrific team and, like the 2012 AFCCG, I think I could handle a loss where NE was legitimately outplayed.
My somewhat analytic, somewhat wishful thinking projection? 31-27, Pats.
* I'm completely sick of the DFG and have no intention of delving too deep into it, but while discussing the fumble issue with an idiot on another board I had a break through that I haven't seen anywhere.
First, if you haven't seen it, please go through Drew Fustin's reply to Warren Sharp's analysis. I'm not going to go through it, but I'll be using some of the information from it here. The other key piece is Daryl Sng's reply which demonstrates the same player fumble rate change for players in NE is only 23%. Sharp even admits that this is more accurate.
What I haven't seen anyone do yet is combine the data. For instance, let's just grant that there is something fishy with the 23% bump in ball security for those in Patriot jerseys. It isn't luck or coaching or offensive scheme, it's cheating. Where does that take us? Well, since Fustin demonstrated that NE's touch/fumble was a more reasonable 74, that means it would have been 57 if not for the 23% bump.
Why is that important? Because 57 would still have been 6th best in the league from 2010-2014! This completely invalidates any odds calculation of NE being 2nd based on pure chance. You'd have to create a formula to determine the odds of a baseline 6th place team being 2nd, which is obviously much more likely. It also entirely refutes those who question NE's rise in 2007 since their own data suggests NE would have surged to 6th anyway. Only if you presuppose additional currently unknown cheating to account for the first 10 places and then DFG for the final 4 spots are you being consistent.... and of course that's an absurd argument. "I'm trying to prove that NE cheats but I need to assume cheating to explain most of what I can't explain" Yeah, that makes sense.
Alright, on to the game.
* As the game approaches, I'm getting mildly more anxious, but I've been very confident for most of the last two weeks. I'm getting a decided 2004 Pitt feel from this Seattle squad right down to the "we do what we do!" defense and needing a complete melt-down by the opponent to even be here. I'm also not totally sold on whether Seattle has even been playing as well down the stretch as it's being made out to be (more on that later).
My biggest concern isn't the Seahawks, it's the Patriots. If this were the 2004 squad, I'd have no doubt whatsoever that they'd control the game throughout and walk off victorious. But after 10 seasons of not quite finishing the job, it is hard to say for certain what we are going to get.
* I see a lot of people comparing NE to last year's Denver team or using that to demonstrate how hard it will be for NE to score. Setting aside the fact that Seattle's line isn't nearly the caliber of last year and that they are beat up in the secondary, I don't think it is a fair comparison.
First off, Denver was the quintessential "dance, don't fight" team. They weren't grinders, they wanted to bet you with flash and skill. They also didn't have anyone really physical an offense, the toughest guys were probably the smallest, Wes and Knowshon.
More importantly, the Patriots will go in with a specific plan to attack Seattle's defense rather than simply rolling out the same stuff they've been doing all year and expecting it to work as well in the SB as it did against Oakland. The fact that, like the 2007 Pats, Denver had been trending down for months shouldn't be overlooked, either.
* If I were a Seattle fan, the numbers that would worry me the most are 9, 13, 10, 3, 14, 0, 14 and 0. That is the total first half points for every game they've played since the KC game. Of the four times they cracked double digits, two involved short fields after turnovers and that was with the benefit of a lot short opponent drives.
Are they just taking their time to grind opponents down? If you go to the end of the 3rd quarter, things improve to 19, 16, 24, 10, 14, 6, 10 and 7, but that is still five straight games where they only mustered two scores through the first 45 minutes. I know the defense is great, but I'm not sure that will work against the Patriots. While it could be said that they can take their time offensively, it should be pointed out that they were trailing at half-time for three of their last five games and were only up by four points on a middling Carolina team. It isn't as if they were in command of these games, they just legitimately couldn't get started in most of them.
* Of course, the flip side of that is that NE's first half defense isn't nearly as good as their second half. Ignoring the season ending Buffalo match, this is their run of points allowed in the first 30 minutes since the Indy game: 23, 14, 13, 10, 21, and 7.
What concerns me the most about this isn't that NE is allowing teams to average two TDs in the first half, it is how teams have scored. GB had only scored a reasonable 16 points before the ridiculous TD when all they were looking for was to get into FG range. Miami was on 6 prior to the awful last minute. NE's D had settled down and were looking at a 20 minute shut out of Baltimore prior to Tom's pick. Indy was likely going to go scoreless if not for another dumb interception late in the second.
This can't happen tomorrow. In some ways, the pathetic nature of Tom's picks is a good thing. It would be much more of a concern if it was symptomatic of NE's aggressive style and a necessary side effect. If that were the case, then avoiding turnovers would possibly diminish scoring as well. Thankfully, there is no reason to believe avoiding an awful throw before the half will impact NE's ability to move the ball otherwise.
* Seattle fans have downplayed how much playing lousy QBs down the stretch inflated their defense. I'm inclined to agree somewhat. As bad as they were, Seattle made them look even worse. It also could be pointed out that GB only scored 22 points despite 5 turnovers.
That said, and here is another time when this game makes me think of the 2004 AFCCG, I came away from the NFCCG feeling like Green Bay was able to move the ball much better than the score indicated. Beyond the conservative nature by the goal line and the melt down at the end, it seemed like there were plays to be made that the Packers just missed on. It felt to me like they were passing more easily than the post-game rhetoric would have you believe, only to go away from it on their own. It also should be pointed out that Rodgers' first pick was just taking a shot because he thought he had a free play due to a defender being offside (uncalled) and that the second pick was entirely miscommunication with two WRs open. Not only were they in FG range both times, but neither play had much to do with defensive prowess.
I felt the exact same way after that Jet/Pitt game in 2004, even going so far as saying to my dumbass Steeler fan boss, "if you think that was a good defensive performance, pull your head out of your ass. NE will put up 30 points easy if Pitt plays the same this week."
* Does anyone else find the stat about Wilson being 10-0 against SB winning QBs wholly unconvincing? Shouldn't someone at least mention that eight of those games were at home? And that the only road game in the group was against Eli Manning, the worst of the group by a substantial margin playing on a bad 2013 team?
* In the interest of fairness, I have plenty of concerns about the Patriots heading into the game. NE's run defense has come a long way, but zone rushing has always been a bugaboo for Bill. It's why Denver was NE's cryptonite and Baltimore did better than expected three weeks ago. Granted, NE won't be nearly as worried about the passing game and the Raven's OL is much better than Seattle's but I can see the Seahawks being frustratingly consistent at moving the ball.
* I'm also concerned that NE's offense is predicated on creating confusion and Seattle isn't likely to leave very many free runners out there. Sure, I think the Patriots will be able to scheme their way to guys getting space 5 yards down the field, but it takes a lot of those plays to move down the field and they tend to close up when the defense doesn't have to defend so much space near the goal line.
If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to make a prediction, it would probably be something similar to the 2003 SB. Both defenses start out hot and validate all those who said it would be a low scoring game only for things to take off from there. Like that game, I think it will be very close and could go either way. Seattle is a terrific team and, like the 2012 AFCCG, I think I could handle a loss where NE was legitimately outplayed.
My somewhat analytic, somewhat wishful thinking projection? 31-27, Pats.
Last edited:
