Interesting pattern regarding Seattle's defense

[MVPccaffrey]

Something that seems to be missed by the media is how much of a split there is when Seattle plays above average scoring teams compared to below average.

 

First of all, I found out they only played 6 times against teams in the top half of the 31 other offenses in the league.  You'd expect that number to be 8 by chance.  It becomes 5.5 when you take into account Arizona pulling their starters at the half.

 

Points given up when playing above average NFL offenses: 27,27,27,39,30,6*.  That's an average of 28.4 points per game if you take into account Arizona pulling their starters at half.

They got to feast on bottom tier offenses six times(!!!) against the BOTTOM FOUR scoring offenses in the league.  That's incredible, a rare feat I imagine.  In those games they gave up 34, 3, 12, 13, 13, 23 points, for an average of 16.3 points a game.  That doesn't even include two additional games against Jimmy Clausen led teams, who scored 0 and 6, respectively.  When you consider that Clausen led teams scored an average of 11 points per game or so, you can think of that as another two games against bottom NFL scoring offenses, as it would be by far the worst.  So eight games against the bottom FIVE scoring offenses in the league in one season, that is something I doubt a team gets the benefit of playing against very often.  That means the final splits are:

28.4 points given up per game against above average scoring NFL offenses

15 points givne up per game against bottom four scoring NFL offenses + Clausen offenses.

 

Talk about skewed!  For comparisons sake, Panthers only had ONE such games against bottom four scoring offenses + Clausen.  That was Dallas which we held without a touchdown until Cassell scored in garbage time.

[TalonNC]

Good numbers... pie

[Frank Hollywood]

Great analysis. I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed. Here's to putting up 40+ on them now that our offense has found its groove.

[manu4t]

Good analysis and good post. Even better, hopefully it will wake up some of the people who are scared to death to play Seattle.

[Doyle]

I'm getting sick of hearing about a team we already beat on their field.  Especially since they still have to beat the Vikings on their field before coming to ours.   

[LA_Panther]

2 minutes ago, Doyle said:

I'm getting sick of hearing about a team we already beat on their field.  Especially since they still have to beat the Vikings on their field before coming to ours.   

Exactly! We may not even play them ... This is nuts

[TN05]

If you exclude Clausen games (guaranteed victories), they are only 8-6. They are 3-4 against teams with winning records. We are 4-0 against winning teams.

[Doyle]

1 minute ago, LA_Panther said:

Exactly! We may not even play them ... This is nuts

I'm not knocking this thread and appreciate the numbers but they are just one of many good teams we may face.   

[cgarsmoker]

8 minutes ago, LA_Panther said:

Exactly! We may not even play them ... This is nuts

Nuts!?  Whoever we play will be kissing Deez Nuts after getting spanked in Charlotte.  

People around here have an obligation to poo talk the Seahawks after hearing all babbling yippety yap they spewed last year and earlier in the season.  It's hard for me to hate the Vikings ever since they went on that stripper cruise years ago.  #madrespect  #loveboatstevesmithtouchdowncelebration 

[*FreeFua*]

I did something similar this morning just based off rushing attempts with their RB's and then total attempts combined with Wilson's rushing attempts. Their 4 lowest rushing totals all resulted in losses. 

Wk 17: 27 (5) 17 Michael 10     32
*L Wk 16: 16 (6) 7 Brown.          (22)
Wk 15: 30 (5) 16 Michael.        35
Wk 14: 32 (1) Harris 18.            33
Wk 13: 24 (9) 19 Rawls.           33
Wk 12: 23 (4) 21 Rawls.           27
Wk 11: 34 (9) 30 Rawls.           43
*L Wk 10: 12 (6) 8 Lynch          (18)
Wk 8: 25 (6) 21 Lynch.             31 
Wk 7: 34 (7) 27 Lynch.             41
*L Wk 6: 18 (8) 17 Lynch.        (26)
*L Wk 5: 27 (3) 23 Rawls.       (30)
Wk 4: 20 (10) 17 Rawls.           30
Wk 3: 23 (6) 16 Rawls.             29
*L Wk 2: 15 (10) 15 Lynch.       (25)
*L Wk 1: 24 (8) 18 Lynch.         (32)

Running Backs : (12) (15) (16) (18) 20, 23, 23,(24), 24, 25, (27), 27, 30, 32, 34, 34

RB+QB : (18) (22) (25) (26), 27, 29, (30), 30, 31, (32), 32, 33, 33, 35, 41, 43

 

The first number after the week number is the total rushing attempts by running backs. I added their top rusher in each game just because. The number in brackets is the number of rushing attempts by Wilson. I wanted to do both with and without because not all off Russell's attempts are planned. The number on the far right is the total of rushing attempts that week. Tyler Lockett had a few carries that I left out because I wanted to keep it simply running backs and then Wilson. I know lots of other things factor in but it was interesting to see that Seattle's offense seems to be dependant on a run first attack which plays into our favor.

They had their 4th lowest totals in both categories against us in week 6. When the Hawks went on their 5 game winning streak after losing to AZ they began rushing the ball a lot and it paid off but dialed it back against StLouis only to lose. 

 

[IGSaint]

May anyone who needs to trash talk a Seattle fan use this as their ammo. 

[t96]

1 hour ago, Camvp said:

Talk about skewed!  For comparisons sake, Panthers only had ONE such games against bottom four scoring offenses + Clausen.  That was Dallas which we held without a touchdown until Cassell scored in garbage time.

And Dallas' offense with Romo/Dez is much better than without Romo/Dez like they were for most of the season. With Romo/Dez both 100% they probably could've been a top 5 offense, maybe top 10.

[propagandamachine]

Vikings are going to destroy them lol... and it will be Hilarious... lol 

[the butch]

Pie for creating a separate Clausen category.