Seattle vs Atlanta

ramones951 · 01-09-13, 11:05 PM

Under is the play here... Seattle secondary will neutralize the Atlanta receivers... Atlanta will have to rely on their average rushing attack.. Seattle won't exactly light up the scoreboard either

Lakeshow_ds · 01-09-13, 11:23 PM

I love Atlanta in this spot!!! GO Falcons! To much matty ice!

rockhardfister · 01-10-13, 06:34 AM

What do you mean they wouldn't stand a chance in Seattle or SF? 6-2 on the road this year! and for the most part they dismantled every team they played on the road. Its at home against shitty teams where they tend to do just enough to win. Additionally, they beat the hawks in Seattle last year.

DirtyBird1500 · 01-10-13, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by rockhardfister

What do you mean they wouldn't stand a chance in Seattle or SF? 6-2 on the road this year! and for the most part they dismantled every team they played on the road. Its at home against shitty teams where they tend to do just enough to win. Additionally, they beat the hawks in Seattle last year.

Yeah but if you listen to Seahawks fans they will tell you about how it is such a positive that the Seahawks losses to bad teams were all very close games. Then in the same breath they will tell you how it is a negative that the Falcons wins against bad teams were all very close games.

NOboy · 01-10-13, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by DirtyBird1500

Yeah but if you listen to Seahawks fans they will tell you about how it is such a positive that the Seahawks losses to bad teams were all very close games. Then in the same breath they will tell you how it is a negative that the Falcons wins against bad teams were all very close games.

I'm glad someone else agrees. I said this same thing in my write up. In all the forums I frequent, when I see someone back the dirty birds, I see people criticize them and say how they're overrated and long discussions ensue. Just funny I think...

Mr Handicapable · 01-10-13, 11:28 AM

I was getting out of my car this morning as they were just about to talk about playoff teams bad track record of having to travel east 2 weeks in a row.....and Seattle is not even getting the 2nd game. Kickoff 10 am their time

slacker00 · 01-10-13, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by NOboy

I'm glad someone else agrees. I said this same thing in my write up. In all the forums I frequent, when I see someone back the dirty birds, I see people criticize them and say how they're overrated and long discussions ensue. Just funny I think...

You go to forums and encounter criticism and long discussions? Unreal.

NOboy · 01-10-13, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by slacker00

You go to forums and encounter criticism and long discussions? Unreal.

Only to Atlanta backers. Lol... Everytime I see all the other games I see 'gl' 'bol' haha but yeah stupid me.

NOboy · 01-10-13, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Mr Handicapable

I was getting out of my car this morning as they were just about to talk about playoff teams bad track record of having to travel east 2 weeks in a row.....and Seattle is not even getting the 2nd game. Kickoff 10 am their time

I think the LA rams in 89 were the last to do it. It was posted in my write up I believe

SEAHAWKHARRY · 01-10-13, 11:51 AM

Well i guess we shouldnt even play the game seattle has no chance..lol vegas begging bettors to take the falcons lmao

rockhardfister · 01-10-13, 12:13 PM

Thats right Harry! Dont show up. You have no chance...and if by some chance you do win I will be pulling for you the rest ot the way, just like I always pull for underdog teams. No team in the history or football got a bigger screw job than the Seahawk's in that SB vs the Steeler's. I still cant get my mind around that offensive PI call on Darrell Jackson. Anyway, here is why my team will win:

Seattle is traveling again across the country,
We have lost 3 postseason games in 4 years and we are due
They have a rookie QB,
We are healthy for the most part,
We have 2 Probowl starting receivers,
We have a Probowl stating tightend,
We have a Probowl QB,
Our defense is Solid, even though not great!
We very seldom lose at home, much less back to back games,(in the Smith era)
We have had 2 weeks off and 1 week to game plan,
We have that us against the world mentality on our team that gives us another reason to play our best,
our offensive and def coordinators were the problem the last couple years and now we got new ones
and finally, the younger guys on the team want to send out the vets with a win or two in these Playoffs

NOboy · 01-10-13, 12:18 PM

I read somewhere matt Ryan has never lost back to back home games in his life. From hs to the pros.

suicidekings · 01-10-13, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by DirtyBird1500

Yeah but if you listen to Seahawks fans they will tell you about how it is such a positive that the Seahawks losses to bad teams were all very close games. Then in the same breath they will tell you how it is a negative that the Falcons wins against bad teams were all very close games.

The outcomes of one-score games are definitely less predictive than one where a team dominates (or is dominated by) their opponent because the expectation is for teams to go roughly 50/50 in those situations. The W-L record means nothing, but the underlying stats and play-by-play might tell a different story about who played better. In games with a larger margin of victory, whoever got the W was more likely to have been the better team and not just lucky.

It's not an Atlanta specific argument.

slacker00 · 01-10-13, 02:39 PM

I'm wondering if one reason ATL wins close games against bad teams is the head coach. Mike Smith has a background in defense, and these kind of guys tend to prefer a conservative game plan. The offense only needs to score enough to win and defense should keep the team in the game.

This is one reason the under might be a wise play. Both coaches are defensive minded and will probably play nip and tuck trying to accumulate small advantages like field position and FGs. Granted if turnovers start to blow the game open, anything might happen, but for the most part I expect a ball control game plan from both teams. Besides, SEA and ATL are tied at #7 for least offensive turnovers, so I don't expect turnovers either, again going with the theme of the head coaching low risk mentality.

suicidekings · 01-10-13, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by slacker00

I'm wondering if one reason ATL wins close games against bad teams is the head coach. Mike Smith has a background in defense, and these kind of guys tend to prefer a conservative game plan. The offense only needs to score enough to win and defense should keep the team in the game.

This is one reason the under might be a wise play. Both coaches are defensive minded and will probably play nip and tuck trying to accumulate small advantages like field position and FGs. Granted if turnovers start to blow the game open, anything might happen, but for the most part I expect a ball control game plan from both teams. Besides, SEA and ATL are tied at #7 for least offensive turnovers, so I don't expect turnovers either, again going with the theme of the head coaching low risk mentality.

I want to like the Under in this game, but when I think about Pete Carroll's coaching style I have second thoughts about it. The Seahawks have a solid defensive side, but they're not passive about it. They call aggressive plays on D that don't really lend themselves to a "war of attrition" kind of game, but they have superior special teams (except for FGs with Longwell) so I think Atlanta won't be able to rely on playing field position. I think if Atlanta wants to win this game, they need to be the aggressors because Carroll will have that mindset in this game. I kind of like the offense on both sides of the ball, moreso than the defense.

DirtyBird1500 · 01-10-13, 05:40 PM

One thing about special teams, and you may know this already but just trying to give info if some arent aware, Harry Douglas will likely be returning punts this week in place of Franks who has been pretty bad. Who knows if it will make any difference, but he probably can't be any worse.

Aussiefalconfan · 01-10-13, 05:54 PM

Wow before reading this this thread I was So confident on ATL to make it to the bowl now I'm worried that they won't pass the first game of the playoffs, I just don't see how the Seattle offence can be that threatening COME ON FALCONS!

slacker00 · 01-10-13, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by suicidekings

I want to like the Under in this game, but when I think about Pete Carroll's coaching style I have second thoughts about it. The Seahawks have a solid defensive side, but they're not passive about it. They call aggressive plays on D that don't really lend themselves to a "war of attrition" kind of game, but they have superior special teams (except for FGs with Longwell) so I think Atlanta won't be able to rely on playing field position. I think if Atlanta wants to win this game, they need to be the aggressors because Carroll will have that mindset in this game. I kind of like the offense on both sides of the ball, moreso than the defense.

Fair enough points. One thing about SEA, they have relied upon defensive turnovers to generate points, but I'm not sure ATL will oblige. Also, despite the emergence of RW, I still think SEA will rely on a core run game which means more ball control and clock control for a lower total. With ATL, they won't be able to run much, but maybe will try a simulated run game with screens, nevermind using Tony Gonzalez to move the chains and control the game. You might be right about Pete Carroll wanting to be aggressive, but we've only seen it happen from SEA a few times this year and it might be asking too much of RW at this point in his developement in this kind of game.

suicidekings · 01-10-13, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by slacker00

Fair enough points. One thing about SEA, they have relied upon defensive turnovers to generate points, but I'm not sure ATL will oblige. Also, despite the emergence of RW, I still think SEA will rely on a core run game which means more ball control and clock control for a lower total. With ATL, they won't be able to run much, but maybe will try a simulated run game with screens, nevermind using Tony Gonzalez to move the chains and control the game. You might be right about Pete Carroll wanting to be aggressive, but we've only seen it happen from SEA a few times this year and it might be asking too much of RW at this point in his developement in this kind of game.

Regarding Russell Wilson being a rookie, the Seahawks started the season not giving him much leeway in calling plays or improvising. Carroll talked about his approach with RW in multiple interviews and said that the coaching staff really started to loosen the reins after Week 5. The results were apparent immediately against New England and he's really excelled since he got that nod of approval from Carroll. A major component of what makes him so effective is that he's an extremely intelligent player that's confident in his abilities in and out of the pocket. He was the best QB in the NFL in the second half of the season despite facing: Team (Ranking in pass defense): MIN (24), NYJ (10), MIA (17), CHI (1), ARI (2), BUF (22), SF (6), STL (8).

Five of eight games played against top 10 pass defenses and he still managed to outperform many other top QBs. Atlanta is ranked 11th in pass defense, and granted the playoffs add to the pressure, but I don't think this game presents a substantially more difficult challenge than many of the games played in the second half of the season.

Rankings are based on DVOA stats from Football Outsiders