PDA

View Full Version : By The Numbers: Seahawks Historical Defense Created By Soft Schedule



BSN Denver
02-01-2014, 01:56 PM
The Seahawks have had one of the best seasons defensively we have seen in a good while. They are allowing a league best 14 points per game. They were the only team to allow less than 300 total yards per game. They were one of three teams to allow less than 200 yards per game through the air. They have an above average rush defense, ranked seventh. But if you take a closer look at the stats they haven’t had the hardest schedule.

STATS:

-9 of the 13 teams Seattle played this season were ranked in the bottom half of the league in scoring offense.

-They played only one team ranked in the top 10 in scoring offense the entire season.

-9 of the 13 teams were ranked in the bottom half of the league in red zone touchdown percentage.

-7 of the 13 teams were ranked in the bottom half of the league in yards per game.

-9 of the 13 teams were ranked in the bottom half of the league in pass yards.

-11 of the 13 were ranked in the bottom half in passing touchdowns.

-10 of the 13 were ranked in the bottom half in rushing yards.

-9 of the 13 were ranked in the bottom in yards per carry.

-Seattle played only one offense ranked in the top 10 in yards. And only one offense that was ranked...CONTINUE READING (http://www.brandonspano.com/headlines.html?entry=by-the-numbers-seahawks-d)

WTE
02-01-2014, 02:13 PM
The best defenses Denver played this year were Indy and NE, ranked 9th & 10th, respectively.

Denver went 1-2 in those games.

Forgive me if you heard that from me already.

BroncoJoe
02-01-2014, 02:15 PM
The best defenses Denver played this year were Indy and NE, ranked 9th & 10th, respectively.

Denver went 1-2 in those games.

Forgive me if you heard that from me already.

Based on what? KC's defense was ranked #5 in points and we swept them.

slim
02-01-2014, 02:19 PM
WTE, don't you dare troll The Brandon Spano Network....don't you dare!

MOtorboat
02-01-2014, 02:33 PM
Not possible. Clearly the NFC is better.

- Joel

Joel
02-01-2014, 02:50 PM
SOFT schedule?! Are you serious? Let's see:

12-4 San Francisco, defending NFC Champs (X2)
10-6 Arizona, who narrowly missed a wildcard and probably would've won any division but theirs and ours (X2)
12-4 Carolina
11-5 New Orleans
11-5 Indianapolis

For those of you scoring at home, that's SEVEN playoff teams, nearly half their schedule. We could even throw in the Rams, who played all those same games AND Seattle twice, yet still finished just a game below .500; by Power Rating, St. Louis was actually the NFLs 12th best team. Yes, you heard me right: ALL NFC West teams were was playoff caliber; and you're going to sit there telling me the team that won the division AND the NFCs #1 seed had an "easy schedule"?

Did you consider that part of why the teams Seattle played had such low offensive ranking may have had something to do with playing Seattle, SF and Carolina, three of the best defenses in the whole NFL, plus pretty good New Orleans, Houston and Arizona defenses? Let's take a look:

San Francisco: Played Seattle and Arizona twice each, plus Houston, Carolina and New Orleans; 7 games against top defenses.
Arizona: Same as above, except replace Arizona with SF; 7 games against top defenses.
New Orleans: Played Carolina twice, plus Seattle, SF and Arizona; 5 games against top defenses.
Carolina: Same as above, except replace Carolina with New Orleans; 5 games against top defenses.
Indy: Played Houston twice, plus KC, Cincy, Seattle, SF and Arizona; 7 games against top defenses.

Stuff like this is why Power Ratings exist; overall, the NFC was better than the AFC this year, going 34-30 in interconference play. Again, what Justin Taylor said with additional notes on Seattles loss @Indy:

1) Indy had homefield advantage.
2) Indys OFFENSE did NOT put up 34 pts on Seattle; Indys special teams blocked a Seattle FG and ran it back for a TD to turn a 4 pt loss into a 6 pt win.
3) That was before Indy lost Reggie Wayne at the end of the game against us Week 7; the Colts were a much weaker team after that, which their stats for the next 9 games reflect.

In other words, when Indy hosted Seattle Week 5 their offense was MUCH better than their SEASON average of 24 pts/game, and Seattles DEFENSE still only allowed them 27.

Seattle benefits greatly from their entire roster ignoring NFL rules against PEDs and PI, and from the NFL ignoring Seattle ignoring them. Within that context though, Seattle is a VERY good and effective team, and nowhere more so than on defense. Denying that reality can't even be excused by homerism, because if Seattle's a statistical anomaly and a crap team that only got into the SB by sheer luck, that means beating them won't be an accomplishment and losing to them will be an embarrassment.

That is to say, we not only don't NEED to tear them down to build ourselves up, but tearing them down actually tears us down, too—win or lose. Just as when people did it before the KC games. Denver and Seattle are both great teams, even if one did it by shredding the record book and the other by shredding the rule book. Hopefully we're better, though if the refs don't actually start using that rulebook I'm inclined to doubt we'll be on the right side of the final score, especially bringing just 8 defensive linemen to play a ground 'n pound team in the cold.

I'm sorry, but ya'll are doing a great job of making it hard to take BSN seriously these days. I've already got an online source for blind homerism fitting data to its curve. ;)

Joel
02-01-2014, 02:54 PM
Not possible. Clearly the NFC is better.

- Joel
Not just that, not by half, but certainly that, TOO. The 10-6 Cards couldn't have made the playoffs at 11-5, yet the 8-8 Bolts got the AFCs #6 seed. Should be pretty obvious which was better.

MOtorboat
02-01-2014, 02:59 PM
Too funny.

VonDoom
02-01-2014, 03:12 PM
I guess we shouldn't even show up tomorrow

MOtorboat
02-01-2014, 03:47 PM
SOFT schedule?! Are you serious? Let's see:

12-4 San Francisco, defending NFC Champs (X2)
10-6 Arizona, who narrowly missed a wildcard and probably would've won any division but theirs and ours (X2)
12-4 Carolina
11-5 New Orleans
11-5 Indianapolis

For those of you scoring at home, that's SEVEN playoff teams, nearly half their schedule.

Um. Arizona didn't make the playoffs. So, that's five playoff teams. Not nearly half their schedule.

Now, Denver, on the other hand did play seven playoff teams.
San Diego (twice)
Kansas City (twice)
Indianapolis
Philadelphia
New England

Using false information to make a bad point again, I see. Didn't bother reading the rest of it, because you were already making shit up in the first two paragraphs.

Joel
02-01-2014, 04:01 PM
Um. Arizona didn't make the playoffs. So, that's five playoff teams. Not nearly half their schedule.

Now, Denver, on the other hand did play seven playoff teams.
San Diego (twice)
Kansas City (twice)
Indianapolis
Philadelphia
New England

Using false information to make a bad point again, I see. Didn't bother reading the rest of it, because you were already making shit up in the first two paragraphs.
C'mon, man, Arizona would've made the playoffs in any other division except (maybe) ours, and almost certainly have WON any division but ours and (maybe) the NFCS. They missed out because of the misfortune of being in by far the NFLs toughest division and playing by far its HARDEST (not EASIEST) schedule. The only team that could credibly claim a tougher schedule than Arizona was St. Louis, because they had to play all the same teams except St. Louis played Arizona twice, and Arizona was a better team.

OUR schedule's largely irrelevant to that, except that we and the AFCW and NFCW both played the AFCS; we and Seattle both beat 3 of those teams and lost by 6 @Indy thanks to 4 turnovers. Kind of eerie how similarly we both performed vs. Indy, really. Anyway, the point of this little section is (and I can't stress this enough)

Denvers greatness doesn't automatically make Seattle crap, nor vice versa.

We wouldn't want to even if it did, because then tomorrows possibilities would consist of:

1) Denver won the Super Bowl by beating a team that didn't belong there in the first place or 2) Denver LOST the Super Bowl to a crappy team.

Forced to pick, I'd definitely choose the first option, but neither is much of a tribute to our excellence or accomplishments. When people look back on SB XIII they don't say, "Well, big deal; the Steelers only beat a crappy team." They don't even say that about the wins against Minnesota, because it's not true, but Steelers fans wouldn't say it if it were, because they have enough snap to realize running down the teams they beat in SBs would just diminish Pittsburghs Super Bowl wins.

Mostly the same arguments made when everyone was dismissing KC before we played them, except without the added point that we played almost an identical schedule. If you look up, you'll see BroncoJoe telling WTE that we did so too play a good D because KC was ranked #5 in PA. Suddenly it's no longer "KC sucks; they just beat a lot of crappy teams, so we'll sweep them easily" it's "KC was a really great team and we SWEPT them!" Gah! And I thought the homerism was bad in the offseason. :rolleyes:

MOtorboat
02-01-2014, 04:09 PM
C'mon, man, Arizona would've made the playoffs in any other division except (maybe) ours, and almost certainly have WON any division but ours and (maybe) the NFCS. They missed out because of the misfortune of being in by far the NFLs toughest division and playing by far its HARDEST (not EASIEST) schedule.

No. I'm not going to "c'mon, man." Your argument was that Seattle's schedule was tough because they played "SEVEN" playoff teams.

That was the argument.

It was false. It was wrong. Because Arizona, no matter how good you want them to be DIDN'T make the ******* playoffs, so that argument is null and void.


[/COLOR][/B]We wouldn't want to even if it did, because then tomorrows possibilities would consist of:

1) Denver won the Super Bowl by beating a team that didn't belong there in the first place or 2) Denver LOST the Super Bowl to a crappy team.

I don't even know what stupid ass point you're trying to make here. Just wanted to point that out.

slim
02-01-2014, 04:20 PM
Um. Arizona didn't make the playoffs. So, that's five playoff teams. Not nearly half their schedule.

Now, Denver, on the other hand did play seven playoff teams.
San Diego (twice)
Kansas City (twice)
Indianapolis
Philadelphia
New England

Using false information to make a bad point again, I see. Didn't bother reading the rest of it, because you were already making shit up in the first two paragraphs.

Denver, on the other hand, did actually play 7 playoff teams.

Interesting.

Ziggy
02-01-2014, 04:32 PM
Joel, here's a thought. Go post on the Seahawks board. They need the support you provide.

BroncoWave
02-01-2014, 04:40 PM
This really isn't true. Their defensive DVOA adjusted for SOS is still #1 in the NFL.

slim
02-01-2014, 04:46 PM
Super Bowl!

Joel
02-01-2014, 04:49 PM
No. I'm not going to "c'mon, man." Your argument was that Seattle's schedule was tough because they played "SEVEN" playoff teams.
That was the argument.
It was false. It was wrong. Because Arizona, no matter how good you want them to be DIDN'T make the ******* playoffs, so that argument is null and void.
I can say, "playoff caliber," if you like; that's 100% true, even by the strictest standards, and doesn't change the point one whit. Coming onto a Broncos site the day before the SB to say Seattle had an easy schedule, or even easy offenses, is just blind homerism, IMHO, but if you want to insist calling a 10-6 team a playoff team when they didn't make it is a bigger deal, go nuts.


I don't even know what stupid ass point you're trying to make here. Just wanted to point that out.
There are two points:

1) How many playoff teams we faced is IRRELEVANT to how many Seattle faced. It's a non sequitur; might as well bring up how many playoff teams Purdue faced.
2) Running down Seattle makes us no better, no more than running down KC did 3 months ago. No one would be impressed if we beat Rice in the SB, but if Rice beat US everyone would laugh.


This really isn't true. Their defensive DVOA adjusted for SOS is still #1 in the NFL.
So is their average victory margin adjustes for SoS. It's just bad analysis, however reassuring it may be to Broncos fans. I could post a story saying Marshawn Lynch ust broke his leg in three places, too; however much of a relief that might be to Broncos fans, it still wouldn't be true.

Ziggy
02-01-2014, 04:50 PM
Super Bowl!

Nothing else matters.

MOtorboat
02-01-2014, 04:50 PM
I can say, "playoff caliber," if you like; that's 100% true, even by the strictest standards, and doesn't change the point one whit. Coming onto a Broncos site the day before the SB to say Seattle had an easy schedule, or even easy offenses, is just blind homerism, IMHO, but if you want to insist calling a 10-6 team a playoff team when they didn't make it is a bigger deal, go nuts.

Here's the beauty of the NFL. You earn your playoff spot through the games you play.

You're not put in by a selection committee. So, no, Arizona is not a playoff caliber team because they didn't play in the playoffs.

:moonwalk:


There are two points:

1) How many playoff teams we faced is IRRELEVANT to how many Seattle faced. It's a non sequitur; might as well bring up how many playoff teams Purdue faced.
2) Running down Seattle makes us no better, no more than running down KC did 3 months ago. No one would be impressed if we beat Rice in the SB, but if Rice beat US everyone would laugh.

Oh, OK. Well, my point in pointing out Denver's games against playoff games was tongue in cheek. Mostly because you spent WEEKS during the regular season trying to find everything you could to run down Denver's schedule, it's play, the conference it played in, the quarterback it had, etc... THEN you use playoff teams payed (plus one who didn't even make the playoffs) to prop up Seattle.

slim
02-01-2014, 04:52 PM
Nothing else matters.

Ziggy, hold me.

Joel
02-01-2014, 04:55 PM
Joel, here's a thought. Go post on the Seahawks board. They need the support you provide.
How good Seattle is or isn't has NO bearing on how good we are. It can't until/unless we've played each other (for real, not in practice.) After that it bears very greatly on us, because we'll know who's better. Until then, all tearing them down can do is cheapen a win over such a bad team or make us ashamed to lose to such a bad team. Either way, tearing them down can't build us up, only tear us down with them. Just like when people did it with KC; we fully deserve to have WTE come back and say, "sweeping KC means nothing; ya'll said all year that KC suck."

Have we reached the point that we don't think we can beat a genuinely great team at a neutral site?

MOtorboat
02-01-2014, 04:59 PM
How good Seattle is or isn't has NO bearing on how good we are. It can't until/unless we've played each other (for real, not in practice.) After that it bears very greatly on us, because we'll know who's better. Until then, all tearing them down can do is cheapen a win over such a bad team or make us ashamed to lose to such a bad team. Either way, tearing them down can't build us up, only tear us down with them. Just like when people did it with KC; we fully deserve to have WTE come back and say, "sweeping KC means nothing; ya'll said all year that KC suck."

Have we reached the point that we don't think we can beat a genuinely great team at a neutral site?

LOL.

Says the wordiest person on the board who has SPAMMED the board about how great Kansas City was and Seattle is.

:priceless:

WTE
02-01-2014, 05:02 PM
Have we reached the point that we don't think we can beat a genuinely great team at a neutral site?

Are we even sure Seattle is a genuinely good team? After all, Brandon Spano said 7 out of 13 teams they played had an offense in the bottom half of the league. That's almost 50%.

:lol:

VonDoom
02-01-2014, 05:04 PM
Joel, here's a thought. Go post on the Seahawks board. They need the support you provide.
How good Seattle is or isn't has NO bearing on how good we are. It can't until/unless we've played each other (for real, not in practice.) After that it bears very greatly on us, because we'll know who's better. Until then, all tearing them down can do is cheapen a win over such a bad team or make us ashamed to lose to such a bad team. Either way, tearing them down can't build us up, only tear us down with them. Just like when people did it with KC; we fully deserve to have WTE come back and say, "sweeping KC means nothing; ya'll said all year that KC suck."

Have we reached the point that we don't think we can beat a genuinely great team at a neutral site?

No matter what anyone is saying today, I doubt a victory tomorrow would feel cheap in any way.

Joel
02-01-2014, 05:07 PM
Here's the beauty of the NFL. You earn your playoff spot through the games you play.

You're not put in by a selection committee. So, no, Arizona is not a playoff caliber team because they didn't play in the playoffs.

:moonwalk:
We both know it's not that simple, else a 10-6 team wouldn't have stayed home while an 8-7-1 and an 8-8 team went. The Bolts can't even say they earned it by winning their division: They finished THIRD, just like Arizona, yet went to the playoffs while the Cards stayed home, even though Arizona got 2 more wins out of a much tougher schedule. Sometimes—often, in fact—playoff caliber teams miss the playoffs. It's unfortunate, but true; until/unless a title contender misses (which I don't think was the case with Arizona) it won't bother me.


Oh, OK. Well, my point in pointing out Denver's games against playoff games was tongue in cheek. Mostly because you spent WEEKS during the regular season trying to find everything you could to run down Denver's schedule, it's play, the conference it played in, the quarterback it had, etc... THEN you use playoff teams payed (plus one who didn't even make the playoffs) to prop up Seattle.
I NEVER tried to run down our schedule, I simply said KC played almost exactly the same schedule, so all the homers who kept going on about how they weren't a "real" 9-0 team because they only beat crappy teams were unwittingly bashing Denver going 8-1 against the same teams. The same kind of addition by subtraction going on here: Of COURSE we'll beat them, because they SUCK; they're record's all smoke and mirrors. Whatever helps people sleep at night, I guess.

That said, our conference WAS weaker; we were head and shoulders above the rest, and the top five were very good (at least until NE died the Death of a Thousand Disembowelments,) but the AFC as a whole was VERY weak. Not only did the NFC win the majority of interconference games, but a 10-6 NFC team couldn't even reach the playoffs, while a 9-7 AFC team did. If KC hadn't benched EVERYONE for that final game the #6 seed almost certainly would've been an 8-8 team.

Joel
02-01-2014, 05:12 PM
LOL.

Says the wordiest person on the board who has SPAMMED the board about how great Kansas City was and Seattle is.

:priceless:
Again, what does that have to do with how good WE are? Other than the fact that if KC really was as good as I said and everyone else denied, that means we swept a really good team. Those were our two best quality wins of the entire regular season; if they were against a crap team, all that means is we haven't beaten anyone but crap teams.


No matter what anyone is saying today, I doubt a victory tomorrow would feel cheap in any way.
Depends how much and successfully people try to whittle Seattle down so they look like pushovers. Pushing over a push over isn't much of an accomplishment; a strong breeze can do that.

Here's a shocking thought: Maybe, albeit thanks to the freedom to ignore 'roids, PI and cheap shot bans that apply to all OTHER teams, Seattle's a great team but we're BETTER. Why is believing Seattle's as good as advertised tantamount to conceding the game? I sure hope the team doesn't see it that way.

Simple Jaded
02-01-2014, 05:12 PM
Funny how Manning had to actually take the Broncos to the SB for them to be considered a "SB contenders" (in order to validate his signing) but the Cardinals didn't even have to make the PO's to be considered "playoff caliber" (in order to validate Seattle's accomplishments).

Consistently and thoroughly inconsistent.

Joel
02-01-2014, 06:07 PM
Funny how Manning had to actually take the Broncos to the SB for them to be considered a "SB contenders" (in order to validate his signing) but the Cardinals didn't even have to make the PO's to be considered "playoff caliber" (in order to validate Seattle's accomplishments).

Consistently and thoroughly inconsistent.
It SHOULD, but doesn't, and I've been VERY consistent about that; just ask King87: http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/577769-Schefter-NFL-on-track-to-add-2-playoff-teams-by-2015?p=2127620#post2127620

Just two posts up I SAID OUTRIGHT Arizona wasn't a contender (IMHO,) but that doesn't mean they weren't playoff caliber. Sadly, the playoffs admit several non-contenders annually. Oh, and I didn't say Manning had to take Denver to the SB to validate his signing, I said we had to make the AFCCG. Are we back to criticizing what people WISH I said instead of what I ACTUALLY said?

Simple Jaded
02-01-2014, 06:14 PM
It SHOULD, but doesn't, and I've been VERY consistent about that; just ask King87: http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/577769-Schefter-NFL-on-track-to-add-2-playoff-teams-by-2015?p=2127620#post2127620

Just two posts up I SAID OUTRIGHT Arizona wasn't a contender (IMHO,) but that doesn't mean they weren't playoff caliber. Sadly, the playoffs admit several non-contenders annually. Oh, and I didn't say Manning had to take Denver to the SB to validate his signing, I said we had to make the AFCCG. Are we back to criticizing what people WISH I said instead of what I ACTUALLY said?

I know what you said about the Cardinals and I know what you've been spewing about Manning's signing, I'm not talking about your view on the AFCC, I'm talking about the argument that Manning didn't instantly make the Broncos a SB contender.

slim
02-01-2014, 06:15 PM
Are we even sure Seattle is a genuinely good team? After all, Brandon Spano said 7 out of 13 teams they played had an offense in the bottom half of the league. That's almost 50%.

:lol:

The only thing we're really sure of is the Broncos are better than the Patriots.

Simple Jaded
02-01-2014, 06:22 PM
Jeez, it's still just mind boggling to think that the Broncos had to justify signing Peyton Manning. I can't get that to make sense.

Joel
02-01-2014, 06:22 PM
I know what you said about the Cardinals and I know what you've been spewing about Manning's signing, I'm not talking about your view on the AFCC, I'm talking about the argument that Manning didn't instantly make the Broncos a SB contender.
Fine; I never said he had to take us to the SB to do that either. While we're talking consistently inconsistency though:

Why does whom one plays matter when when dismissing Seattles record, stats and Conference Championship as a sham, but with Arizona making the playoffs is proof a team's playoff caliber?

slim
02-01-2014, 06:25 PM
Super Bowl!

Simple Jaded
02-01-2014, 06:27 PM
Fine; I never said he had to take us to the SB to do that either. While we're talking consistently inconsistency though:

Why does whom one plays matter when when dismissing Seattles record, stats and Conference Championship as a sham, but with Arizona making the playoffs is proof a team's playoff caliber?


No idea, not my argument and I didn't implement any standards or requirements whatsoever. I couldn't possibly care any less what people think of Arizona. I hope you're not asking me to make sense of this.

Btw, are you certain you never made that argument?

Davii
02-01-2014, 06:29 PM
I can't believe that we're 24 hours from kickoff of what will be the Broncos 3rd Super Bowl victory and you're still running around here trying to tell everyone how the Broncos suck, etc? Get bent already. ****.

WTE
02-01-2014, 06:31 PM
I would like to report Davii's avy. I find it offensive.

slim
02-01-2014, 06:31 PM
Super Bowl!

MOtorboat
02-01-2014, 06:33 PM
I would like to report Davii's avy. I find it offensive.

I find your face offensive.

WTE
02-01-2014, 06:47 PM
I find your face offensive.

Then call 1-800-EAT-SHIT

DenBronx
02-01-2014, 06:52 PM
I can't believe that we're 24 hours from kickoff of what will be the Broncos 3rd Super Bowl victory and you're still running around here trying to tell everyone how the Broncos suck, etc? Get bent already. ****.

Agreed. We have waited way too long for this and I just want to enjoy it.

We should sticky this.

Joel
02-01-2014, 07:04 PM
No idea, not my argument and I didn't implement any standards or requirements whatsoever. I couldn't possibly care any less what people think of Arizona. I hope you're not asking me to make sense of this.
Fair enough; it's probably beyond anyone (including its author) to make sense of that argument.


Btw, are you certain you never made that argument?
As sure as I can be without an exhaustive search. I've been VERY consistent that getting to (NOT necessarily winning) the AFCCG is my standard of actually accomplishing something in the playoffs rather than just showing up to get beatdown. I mean, OK, a team can win a playoff game without reaching the the Conference game if they play wildcard weekend, but they still haven't done much, and while a bye team had to accomplish something to earn that bye, they can't do jack IN the playoffs unless they reach the conference championship.

Make that game though and you're playing for the Lamar Hunt Trophy in what was originally the LEAGUE Championship for the whole AFL, plus a SB trip. That's where the big time starts in my book, what separates the Clevelands and Detroits who are just elated to be IN the playoffs finally from the great NFL teams seeking another Lombardi for an already stuffed trophy case.

Other folks have different standards and they're entitled to them, but that's mine and I'm entitled to it.


I can't believe that we're 24 hours from kickoff of what will be the Broncos 3rd Super Bowl victory and you're still running around here trying to tell everyone how the Broncos suck, etc? Get bent already. ****.
We're on page 3, so maybe I missed it: Please show me where I said ONE critical word about the BRONCOS in this thread? I've repeatedly said deriding Seattle doesn't make us any better, but can't recall saying anything about how good WE are one way or the other. I though this was a thread about Seattle being a paper tiger, not us being awesome? Okay, I lied: I didn't think that for a second, and my principal objection remains that Seattle doesn't have to be overrated crap for us to be great.

Simple Jaded
02-01-2014, 07:18 PM
If a team hasn't done jack in the PO's unless they get to the CCG how does that help the notion that a team that didn't make the PO's is actually a PO caliber team? If there are teams in the PO's that aren't PO caliber how is a team not in the PO's PO caliber?

CoachChaz
02-01-2014, 07:18 PM
This just in...the Broncos AND Seahawks are both very good teams

NightTrainLayne
02-01-2014, 07:19 PM
This just in...the Broncos AND Seahawks are both very good teams

Also.... No schedule in the NFL is soft. It's the freaking NFL.

BroncoWave
02-01-2014, 07:20 PM
Also.... No schedule in the NFL is soft. It's the freaking NFL.

Completely agree. This isn't college football. Any win in the NFL is an impressive one.

Joel
02-01-2014, 09:24 PM
If a team hasn't done jack in the PO's unless they get to the CCG how does that help the notion that a team that didn't make the PO's is actually a PO caliber team? If there are teams in the PO's that aren't PO caliber how is a team not in the PO's PO caliber?
I thought you weren't addressing that argument? However, if that's changed:

A team hasn't done jack IN THE PLAYOFFS unless they reach the CCG, because 4 teams have a good enough regular season every year they just have to show up to make the divisional round. That doesn't mean they didn't do a lot to earn that bye, but they haven't done anything IN THE PLAYOFFS till they reach the CCG.

For the rest, the system's not perfect; most years playoffs have some teams that aren't playoff caliber (e.g. Philly, GB, SD) and lack some that are (e.g. Arizona, arguably St. Louis.) That's life.

Joel
02-01-2014, 09:25 PM
This just in...the Broncos AND Seahawks are both very good teams
Thank you; that's all I was trying to say.