Seahawks will win NFC west

Originally posted by tomtom232
Now you're just being idiotic. Teams that fumble don't usually recover almost all of their fumbles it tends to be closer to 50/50.

I didn't say Brady threw any pick sixes, my point is that he doesn't usually throw picks and the offense generally doesn't turn the ball over. When they do the defense is exposed. The 49ers played 49ers offense with a bunch ...[text shortened]... fficulties for a defense caused by their offense, like turnovers and avg field position.

Did you even watch the game or are you just looking at fumble stats?

Most of the "fumbles" happened (ON THE SNAP) and which would mean there are only 49ers near the ball. Most of those were recovered by Kaepernick himself. There was a play ruled a fumble on the pass to Delanie Walker on the 5, which was recovered by the Patriots.

I agree things like time of possession can affect how much you score. LOTS of things can affect how much you score. The WHY isn't as important as the WHAT, and the WHAT is the Patriots being middle of the road in terms of points allowed, vs. the Bills being last in points allowed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The NFL apparently went to a system defining a pass over 15 yards past the line of scrimmage as "deep" in 2006. I admit I was unaware of this and am a bit surprised by it. I've never heard a coach or commentator describing a route that breaks off at less than 20 yards (at least) as a "deep pass". But you are are technically correct under the NFL definitions now in force.

I do not consider such a change "reasonable".

And along those lines, my other statement has been validated that you disbelieved. That Alex Smith attempts passes beyond 10 & 15 yards at a very low rate compared to other quarterbacks.

Someone once told me he was quoted saying he looks for near receivers first and "checks up", although that's just second hand information.

A 16-20 yard pass actually looks further when you see it than when you look at the numbers.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Did you even watch the game or are you just looking at fumble stats?

Most of the "fumbles" happened (ON THE SNAP) and which would mean there are only 49ers near the ball. Most of those were recovered by Kaepernick himself. There was a play ruled a fumble on the pass to Delanie Walker on the 5, which was recovered by the Patriots.

I agree th ...[text shortened]... ng middle of the road in terms of points allowed, vs. the Bills being last in points allowed.

Fumbles on the snap are just as often recovered by the other team as it is behind the O lineman and in front of the d linemen and the QB is usually the only one on the offense near the ball who realizes the ball has been fumbled.

Just because these things didn't happen doesn't mean that a fumble is "ok" and all fumbles are treated the same regardless who recovers it by most advanced statiticians. I don't care what they looked like because they could have easily bounced the other way and just because it "looked" safe doesn't mean otherwise.


...The WHY isn't as important as the WHAT...

LMAO! This couldn't be further from the truth! I guess teams should just look at general stats when they make their game plans? The WHY or HOW is THE question in football. Coaches want to know the why so they can plan for it... You look at the best way to get points on the board without the other team scoring and you need to know how to do that by figuring out why other teams were succesful or unsuccesful. In this case other teams are unsuccesful at piling on points because of the Pats efficiency on offense not because their defense stops people... So, I don't know about you, but i'd say the recipe for success hinges on the defense getting stops and turnovers not on the offense playing super duper football.

Something that would probably be a better indicator of the strength of defense is the ratio of TDs given up to the amount of succesful stops or TDs given up to the total amount of tries against.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Fumbles on the snap are just as often recovered by the other team as it is behind the O lineman and in front of the d linemen and the QB is usually the only one on the offense near the ball who realizes the ball has been fumbled.

Just because these things didn't happen doesn't mean that a fumble is "ok" and all fumbles are treated the same regardless w ...[text shortened]... the amount of succesful stops or TDs given up to the total amount of tries against.

Bulls***. A botched snap is much more likely to be recovered by the offense.

The defense making stops and getting turnovers is a recipe for beating... oh I don't know, ANY team in the NFL not just the Patriots.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the offensive performance against the Patriots. You think it was a poor showing, and that's great. You absolutely do not have to worry about Kaepernick smoking the dogsh** out of the chickenhawks.

Originally posted by tomtom232
"[b]I did count this season's total, can you read? This season, the Seahawks opponents have a combined 129 wins while the Colts opponents have a combined 128 wins. Your claim that the Seahawks have played a tougher schedule doesn't hold water. The Seahawks have lost to 5 teams, one of which is a playoff contender. The other four are the rams 6-7-1, Detr ...[text shortened]... rtake him in the last two games of the season.

Luck shouldn't win.... Period.

Fine, you're right, I won't waste any more time trying to convince you. The seahawks opponents combined have one more win than the colts opponents, but clearly they have played a super duper tough schedule compared to the colts. Andrew Luck has thrown 200 more passes than your guy, but that doesn't mean anything. Your guy has a terrific running back and isn't expected to put the team entirely on his shoulders, but that doesn't mean anything either. Your team had a 7-9 record last year and has improved by at least two games this year while the colts had a 2-14 record last year and have improved by at least 7 games this year, but that doesn't mean anything either. Clearly the only way to judge players is by their raw stats and the impact on their teams doesn't mean anything.

Originally posted by dryhump
Fine, you're right, I won't waste any more time trying to convince you. The seahawks opponents combined have one more win than the colts opponents, but clearly they have played a super duper tough schedule compared to the colts. Andrew Luck has thrown 200 more passes than your guy, but that doesn't mean anything. Your guy has a terrific running back and i judge players is by their raw stats and the impact on their teams doesn't mean anything.

1)You need to recount.
2)impact of a player is measured by stats
3)the NFC west is agreed to be the toughest division by subjective and objective rankings.
4)The Colts aren't that great. Most overrated team in the NFL.

I don't think Wilson should win it at this point in the season but he is second to only Griffin. Don't believe the hype. Luck is playing to expectations, he was hyped as the the best QB coming out of the draft in years with an abundance of Manning comparisons, commentators all over the country were saying you could put him in the NFL right away because of how he was already trusted to run the offense in college. Maybe nobody expected the Colts to make the playoffs but he WAS expected to have an immediate impact and their schedule is powder puff. I like how you cherry pick though... You spout everything the pundits are saying then you reverse it and say they don't have an easy schedule when everybody on sports center says they had a record conducive to making a quick turn around.

If you count only games played their opponents have 88 wins out of 196 games so their opponents combined record is 88-108 at this point in the season. The Seahawks opponents have gone a combined 98-96-2 or above .500... You must've miscounted because a combined record of 128-68 by opponents is nigh on impossible. The 14 best teams in the NFL have combined for 132-63-1.

Also, you say their defense is crappy but wouldn't it be better if Luck didn't turn the ball over so often? You didn't think of this, a players impact on the game isn't all positive. Wouldn't you also expect him to get better as the season goes on? Luck hasnt , he has gotten slightly worse while RGIII and DangeRuss have gotten better.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And along those lines, my other statement has been validated that you disbelieved. That Alex Smith attempts passes beyond 10 & 15 yards at a very low rate compared to other quarterbacks.

Someone once told me he was quoted saying he looks for near receivers first and "checks up", although that's just second hand information.

A 16-20 yard pass actually looks further when you see it than when you look at the numbers.

We were talking about the TD passes that CK threw in the New England game. 3 of those were beyond 20 yards. You claimed that Alex Smith rarely attempts those passes. In fact, as a percentage of his passes he attempts them just as much as CK according to the ESPN stats.

Originally posted by no1marauder
We were talking about the TD passes that CK threw in the New England game. 3 of those were beyond 20 yards. You claimed that Alex Smith rarely attempts those passes. In fact, as a percentage of his passes he attempts them just as much as CK according to the ESPN stats.

We'll see how he does against the Seahawks the toughest defence yet to play him. If he messes up and costs the niners the game you will hear the cries for Alex Smith all the way in NY. Actually even if he plays better than Smith yet they lose many people will start doubting him... I know. I've already been through it with Wilson... Whenever we lost people were shouting to put Flynn in.

Originally posted by tomtom232
1)You need to recount.
2)impact of a player is measured by stats
3)the NFC west is agreed to be the toughest division by subjective and objective rankings.
4)The Colts aren't that great. Most overrated team in the NFL.

I don't think Wilson should win it at this point in the season but he is second to only Griffin. Don't believe the hype. Luck is play ...[text shortened]... uck hasnt , he has gotten slightly worse while RGIII and DangeRuss have gotten better.

The NFC West is the best division in football?????? LMAO!

The Rams are 4-0-1 against the division and 2-7 against everybody else. Your best team got smashed at home in their big "revenge" game against the Giants. And you just had a team finally break a 9 game losing streak!

Be serious, homer.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The NFC West is the best division in football?????? LMAO!

The Rams are 4-0-1 against the division and 2-7 against everybody else. Your best team got smashed at home in their big "revenge" game against the Giants. And you just had a team finally break a 9 game losing streak!

Be serious, homer.

I am serious. Name a better division. The average power ranking of the NFC west is more than a full game ahead of the next closest division. Name any other division with two top ten teams. Name any other division that Tom Brady has a worse record against. In fact football outsider big four includes the seahawks and 49ers. Most odds makers give the 49ers the best shot to win the Superbowl with the seahawks at 15 to 1.

Stop cherry picking and generalising when it helps your case.

You must be the BIGGEST idiot who pretends to be smart I have ever met. You regularly get shown up in the debates forum and when you lose an argument you never concede you just stop posting. The signs of a real loser.

You're just mad that you're Giants probably aren't in the playoffs this year.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I am serious. Name a better division. The average power ranking of the NFC west is more than a full game ahead of the next closest division. Name any other division with two top ten teams. Name any other division that Tom Brady has a worse record against. In fact football outsider big four includes the seahawks and 49ers. Most odds makers give the 49ers th ...[text shortened]... real loser.

You're just mad that you're Giants probably aren't in the playoffs this year.

The NFC West is 7-8 against the NFC North which has three teams better than .500. And their last place team beat your mighty Seahawks with Matt Stafford lighting them up for 352 yards. Why, oh why, would anybody consider the the West stronger?

You have a big, ignorant mouth but you're just a pathetic homer.

As for the Giants, they are in the same position as they were last year with two games to go: they needed to win both to make the playoffs. That ended with them doing something your team has never done; hoisting a Super Bowl trophy.

We'll see what happens. In the meantime, it looks like you're headed to be sac's "yes man" for a month.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The NFC West is 7-8 against the NFC North which has three teams better than .500. And their last place team beat your mighty Seahawks with Matt Stafford lighting them up for 352 yards. Why, oh why, would anybody consider the the West stronger?

You have a big, ignorant mouth but you're just a pathetic homer.

As for the Gian t happens. In the meantime, it looks like you're headed to be sac's "yes man" for a month.

Except last year they were in if they won. This year their fate isn't in their own hands.

The seahawks losing was what you call an upset or a 4th quarter collapse. Besides that the hawks are 2-1 against the north and the niners haven't lost any. Just because the worst teams in our division lost to the best teams in their division more often means nothing.

When the pundits say something you agree with its all fine and dandy but when they don't you attempt to talk your way around it. Your have an obvious bias. Just watch when its the niners or the seahawks in the superbowl. I hope the seahawks get a rematch with the packers just to shut up all the haters.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Except last year they were in if they won. This year their fate isn't in their own hands.

The seahawks losing was what you call an upset or a 4th quarter collapse. Besides that the hawks are 2-1 against the north and the niners haven't lost any. Just because the worst teams in our division lost to the best teams in their division more often means nothin superbowl. I hope the seahawks get a rematch with the packers just to shut up all the haters.

Wrong again. If the Giants win their last two, they are in the playoffs. In fact, if they and Seattle wind up at 10-6, we'll be the higher seed whether we win the NFC East or not.

A division is composed of 4 teams; if you're going to claim a division is the best than all the teams count. Besides one of your two "worst" teams is 2-0-1 against your two "super" teams.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wrong again. If the Giants win their last two, they are in the playoffs. In fact, if they and Seattle wind up at 10-6, we'll be the higher seed whether we win the NFC East or not.

A division is composed of 4 teams; if you're going to claim a division is the best than all the teams count. Besides one of your two "worst" teams is 2-0-1 against your two "super" teams.

I forgot that Dallas still has to play Washington. I was thinking both teams go 10-6 and the Hawks go 11-5 then the Giants wouldn't make it in but this is obviously impossble.

Still, subjective and objective rankings have the NFC west as the strongest division, so I'm hardly exhibiting homerism.

Edit: here is the link

http://www.sbnation.com/2012/12/20/3788676/2012-advanced-nfl-power-rankings-week-16

I already posted a different link earlier in this thread which uses the exact same article.