Hawks vs Packers.. Stat Happy thread!

[Pack93z]

Seattle at Green Bay

SEA 9th OFF; GB 11th DEF

SEA 20th RUN; GB 14th VS. RUN

SEA 8th PASS; GB 12th VS. PASS

SEA 9th PTS; GB 6th PTS ALLOWED

GB 2nd OFF; SEA 15th DEF

GB 21st RUN; SEA 12th VS. RUN

GB 2nd PASS; SEA 19th VS. PASS

GB 4th PTS; SEA 6th PTS ALLOWED

SEA 5th TO/TA; GB 10th TO/TA

SEA is 3-5 on the road this season, compared to 8-1 at home.

SEA last had a playoff meeting with GB in a wild-card game during the 2003 season, which GB won in OT, 33-27.

SEA’s LBs had 35 of the team’s 76 tackles last week in a 35-14 win over WAS.

SEA has won just 1 road playoff game in its history and hasn’t won a road playoff game since it beat MIA in 1983.

SEA QB Matt Hasselbeck has thrown more than 1 TD pass in 10 of 17 games this season.

GB QB Brett Favre is 7-2 in playoff games at Lambeau Field.

GB had more than 83 yards rushing just twice in its first 8 games, but had at least 100 yards rushing in 7 of its last 8 games.

GB is 7-1 at home this season.

GB went 3-1 against playoff teams in the regular season.

GB WR Donald Driver hasn’t scored a TD since Week Three and has just 2 TDs this season.

 

[Packnic]

i think a big stat (as you have highlighted) is their road record.

everyone wants to get all excited about that game against the Redskins. and says that Seattle's defense is playing outside their minds.

But im here to tell you... half of that was the amped defense due to a home crowd. Not to mention it was Todd Collins at QB not Brett Favre.

I dont think it will be a blowout like 41-0 or anything... but i dont expect this to be as tough of a test as a few would have you believe. two touchdown win.

They beat a Redskins team that barely made it into the playoffs. AT HOME . This ones at Lambeau....

 

[Pack93z]

Here is a telling stat and a key to the game..

How important are sacks to the Seahawks' chances of winning?

They have 43 sacks in their 11 victories, but just five sacks in their six losses.

To me.. that exposes the weakness of this defense.. the secondary.. if we have time we will pick it apart.

BTW.. we only gave up 19 sacks all year.. tied for 3rd in the league.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Here is a telling stat and a key to the game..

How important are sacks to the Seahawks' chances of winning?

They have 43 sacks in their 11 victories, but just five sacks in their six losses.

To me.. that exposes the weakness of this defense.. the secondary.. if we have time we will pick it apart.

BTW.. we only gave up 19 sacks all year.. tied for 3rd in the league.

This is a VERY important stat. As us Packer fans know, several of Favre's INTs have been when his arm was in motion and he got hit and the ball went up in the air where it was not supposed to go.

We're going to have to protect Favre. Seattle's D is downright sick at generating INTs and getting Sacks.

 

[Rios39]

Here is a telling stat and a key to the game..

How important are sacks to the Seahawks' chances of winning?

They have 43 sacks in their 11 victories, but just five sacks in their six losses.

To me.. that exposes the weakness of this defense.. the secondary.. if we have time we will pick it apart.

BTW.. we only gave up 19 sacks all year.. tied for 3rd in the league.

Yeah we don't get too many sacks Un-Fortunately.

 

[MarkAshton]

Despite Green Bay's superior offense, time of posession is pretty close for the two teams: 30.19 for GB and 29.59 for Seattle. That surprised me since the Hawks don't run the ball well.

Another intersting one. Green Bay was the 2nd most penalized team in the NFL this year (after lowly Arizona) with 1006 total penalty yards. Seattle, on the other hand, was the last peanlized team in the NFL with only 428 yards. What's up with all those penalty yards for the Pack? How did they get them? Pass interference calls?

I agree that the Hawks record away from Seattle could be telling. They have a huge home field advantage in Seattle. However, a few of our key players play better away than at home - particularly Tatupu (MLB).

All I can say is, the Seahawks are probably glad to be underdogs. That definately takes the pressure off them so they'll (hopefully) play loose.

 

[johnny_blood]

Green Bay's time of possession is not higher because our running game isn't consistent throughout an entire football game.

We do have a consistent running game, in that we now get a lot of yards per game. But a substantial percentage of the yards come in huge chunks, instead of smaller, clock-grinding runs.

 

[gopackgo]

Another intersting one. Green Bay was the 2nd most penalized team in the NFL this year (after lowly Arizona) with 1006 total penalty yards. Seattle, on the other hand, was the last peanlized team in the NFL with only 428 yards. What's up with all those penalty yards for the Pack? How did they get them? Pass interference calls?

Mostly PI. We have a first year player at SS and had his fair share of stupid penalties. Although, I do not remember many in the past several games. And our corners are physical corners, which in turn get called often for their aggresive play.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Another intersting one. Green Bay was the 2nd most penalized team in the NFL this year (after lowly Arizona) with 1006 total penalty yards. Seattle, on the other hand, was the last peanlized team in the NFL with only 428 yards. What's up with all those penalty yards for the Pack? How did they get them? Pass interference calls?

Mostly PI. We have a first year player at SS and had his fair share of stupid penalties. Although, I do not remember many in the past several games. And our corners are physical corners, which in turn get called often for their aggresive play.

Mark - gopackgo hit the nail on the head. Our DBs probably draw most of the penalties. Our CBs are very aggressive, but we like that about them. They can be downright intimidating and screw up opposing WRs' timing.

 

[MarkAshton]

Green Bay's time of possession is not higher because our running game isn't consistent throughout an entire football game.

We do have a consistent running game, in that we now get a lot of yards per game. But a substantial percentage of the yards come in huge chunks, instead of smaller, clock-grinding runs.

Interesting. The Seahawks are...mediocre in terms of the number of long runs they allow. They allowed 12 runs of 20+ yards and 3 of 40+ compared to only 7 of 20+ and 2 of 40+ for the Pack. Both teams are equal in terms of yards/rushing attempt allowed: 3.9. So it sounds like the Hawks either stuff the other team pretty well or give up a big run...

 

[MarkAshton]

Green Bay had an amazing season record (13-3 like you need to be reminded). Seattle was...mediocre at 10-6. As others have pointed out, the Seahawks also didn't play great on the road, going just 3-5.

But when you look at Seattle's road record...or their season record for that matter...it's pretty clear that while they struggled early in the season, they grew stronger as the year went along. Let's look at some numbers.

Seattle went 4-4 in the first half of the season...which means four of their six losses happend before mid-season. After mid-season they went 6-2. Of those six wins after the mid-point, two were on the road (STL and Philly). Their road losses in the second half were to Cleveland, Carolina and (meaningless game they easily could have won if they didn't rest starters) Atlanta.

Let's compare that to the Packers. The Packers went 7-1 in the first half. In the second half, however, they went "only" 6-2...which happens to be the same as the Seahawks. Interesting. The Pack won two road games in the 2nd half of the Season...same as the Seahawks. Neither team won rough games on the road in the 2nd half (BG won against Detroit and St. Louis and Seattle beat St Louis and Philly).

Admittedly, one of Green Bay's 2nd half road losses was a real toughy - Dallas. The other was against Chicago (again, Seattle beat Chicago). Seattle's two road losses in the 2nd half were against Carolina (mediocre team) and Atlanta (less than mediocre team...but again, Hawks rested most starters so sort of a gimme).

It's worth mentioning that Seattle has one more win to their credit - against Washington. A playoff game. A game that REALLY mattered. Which brings me to another important point. Seattle has played 6 playoff games in the last three years...with a record of 4-2. The Pack has played a total of 1 playoff game in the last three years - a "stunning overtime loss" to the Vikes. I wonder how those young'ins are going to hold up under the pressure of playoff football?

I don't know what this all really means (I'm a numbers freak) but I guess one conclusion might be that Green Bay had an AMAZING first half of the season and a good second half...as did Seattle. From a record standpoint, the teams are at parity since mid-November.

It's also worth noting that in the second half of the season - when Green Bay started really running the ball well - they played teams with a combined 43% winning pct. Maybe that had something to do with it?

 

[Zombieslayer]

Green Bay had an amazing season record (13-3 like you need to be reminded). Seattle was...mediocre at 10-6. As others have pointed out, the Seahawks also didn't play great on the road, going just 3-5.

But when you look at Seattle's road record...or their season record for that matter...it's pretty clear that while they struggled early in the season, they grew stronger as the year went along. Let's look at some numbers.

Seattle went 4-4 in the first half of the season...which means four of their six losses happend before mid-season. After mid-season they went 6-2. Of those six wins after the mid-point, two were on the road (STL and Philly). Their road losses in the second half were to Cleveland, Carolina and (meaningless game they easily could have won if they didn't rest starters) Atlanta.

Let's compare that to the Packers. The Packers went 7-1 in the first half. In the second half, however, they went "only" 6-2...which happens to be the same as the Seahawks. Interesting. The Pack won two road games in the 2nd half of the Season...same as the Seahawks. Neither team won rough games on the road in the 2nd half (BG won against Detroit and St. Louis and Seattle beat St Louis and Philly).

Admittedly, one of Green Bay's 2nd half road losses was a real toughy - Dallas. The other was against Chicago (again, Seattle beat Chicago). Seattle's two road losses in the 2nd half were against Carolina (mediocre team) and Atlanta (less than mediocre team...but again, Hawks rested most starters so sort of a gimme).

It's worth mentioning that Seattle has one more win to their credit - against Washington. A playoff game. A game that REALLY mattered. Which brings me to another important point. Seattle has played 6 playoff games in the last three years...with a record of 4-2. The Pack has played a total of 1 playoff game in the last three years - a "stunning overtime loss" to the Vikes. I wonder how those young'ins are going to hold up under the pressure of playoff football?

I don't know what this all really means (I'm a numbers freak) but I guess one conclusion might be that Green Bay had an AMAZING first half of the season and a good second half...as did Seattle. From a record standpoint, the teams are at parity since mid-November.

It's also worth noting that in the second half of the season - when Green Bay started really running the ball well - they played teams with a combined 43% winning pct. Maybe that had something to do with it?

Are you an engineer?

 

[MarkAshton]

Green Bay had an amazing season record (13-3 like you need to be reminded). Seattle was...mediocre at 10-6. As others have pointed out, the Seahawks also didn't play great on the road, going just 3-5.

But when you look at Seattle's road record...or their season record for that matter...it's pretty clear that while they struggled early in the season, they grew stronger as the year went along. Let's look at some numbers.

Seattle went 4-4 in the first half of the season...which means four of their six losses happend before mid-season. After mid-season they went 6-2. Of those six wins after the mid-point, two were on the road (STL and Philly). Their road losses in the second half were to Cleveland, Carolina and (meaningless game they easily could have won if they didn't rest starters) Atlanta.

Let's compare that to the Packers. The Packers went 7-1 in the first half. In the second half, however, they went "only" 6-2...which happens to be the same as the Seahawks. Interesting. The Pack won two road games in the 2nd half of the Season...same as the Seahawks. Neither team won rough games on the road in the 2nd half (BG won against Detroit and St. Louis and Seattle beat St Louis and Philly).

Admittedly, one of Green Bay's 2nd half road losses was a real toughy - Dallas. The other was against Chicago (again, Seattle beat Chicago). Seattle's two road losses in the 2nd half were against Carolina (mediocre team) and Atlanta (less than mediocre team...but again, Hawks rested most starters so sort of a gimme).

It's worth mentioning that Seattle has one more win to their credit - against Washington. A playoff game. A game that REALLY mattered. Which brings me to another important point. Seattle has played 6 playoff games in the last three years...with a record of 4-2. The Pack has played a total of 1 playoff game in the last three years - a "stunning overtime loss" to the Vikes. I wonder how those young'ins are going to hold up under the pressure of playoff football?

I don't know what this all really means (I'm a numbers freak) but I guess one conclusion might be that Green Bay had an AMAZING first half of the season and a good second half...as did Seattle. From a record standpoint, the teams are at parity since mid-November.

It's also worth noting that in the second half of the season - when Green Bay started really running the ball well - they played teams with a combined 43% winning pct. Maybe that had something to do with it?

Are you an engineer?

Yes. Software engineer. God help me.

 

[PackerLegend]

I am sick and tired of hearing about how our team is fairly inexperienced in the playoffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS NOT GOING TO MATTER!! Look at how everyone talked about the emotional wave the Redskins were on because of the loss of there fellow teamate. The talked like the Redskins would be impossible to beat. The Packers lack in playoff experience. Wow thats great because every single game is just as important as the one we play Saturday. All those games were important and got you to this point you cant tell me they werent. We also have one of the most important positions (QB) with the most playoff experience out of boths at the helm.
I cant wait until the game and everybody with stop talking about the lack of experience because it wont matter.

Since this is the Stat happy thread how about we point out stats? Ryan Grant's avg rush by month.

December-5.5 avg per rush
November-4.9 avg per rush
October-4.7 avg per rush
September-4.5 avg per rush

As the season has wore on he has gotten better and better and better. Not like this stat makes a difference but on days other then (Sunday and Monday) he has an avg rush of 6.7 yards.

People also forgot to mention the fact he was the only one to rush 100 + yards on the number 1 run D (Vikings).

This is almost no use at all but the Packers beat the Seahawks 48-13 in preseason. It does show that the Packers have better depth.

 

[PackerLegend]

Here is a stat...

The Seahawks are 3-3 vs teams .500+ while the Packers are 6-1 vs teams .500+.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Are you an engineer?

Yes. Software engineer. God help me.

:lol:

Me too. The way you looked at numbers looked familiar.

Anyways, one of these days, in the Atrium I'll post some engineering jokes. you've probably heard half of them.

 

[MarkAshton]

I am sick and tired of hearing about how our team is fairly inexperienced in the playoffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS NOT GOING TO MATTER!! Look at how everyone talked about the emotional wave the Redskins were on because of the loss of there fellow teamate. The talked like the Redskins would be impossible to beat. The Packers lack in playoff experience. Wow thats great because every single game is just as important as the one we play Saturday. All those games were important and got you to this point you cant tell me they werent. We also have one of the most important positions (QB) with the most playoff experience out of boths at the helm.
I cant wait until the game and everybody with stop talking about the lack of experience because it wont matter.

Since this is the Stat happy thread how about we point out stats? Ryan Grant's avg rush by month.

December-5.5 avg per rush
November-4.9 avg per rush
October-4.7 avg per rush
September-4.5 avg per rush

As the season has wore on he has gotten better and better and better. Not like this stat makes a difference but on days other then (Sunday and Monday) he has an avg rush of 6.7 yards.

People also forgot to mention the fact he was the only one to rush 100 + yards on the number 1 run D (Vikings).

This is almost no use at all but the Packers beat the Seahawks 48-13 in preseason. It does show that the Packers have better depth.

Two things. Every team that lacks playoff experience says it doesn't matter. Until they lose. Playoff experience does matter. Just a fact of life. Some teams overcome lack of experience and the Pack could be one of those teams. Or the youngsters (in your secondary) might just get burned bad.

Second, your average yards/rush stats over the course of the season is interesting but look at it this way:

September-4.5 avg per rush (Opponents Win %: 57.8)
October-4.7 avg per rush (Opponents Win %: 47.9)
November-4.9 avg per rush (Opponents Win %: 40.6)
December-5.5 avg per rush (Opponents WIN %: 42.5)

So, they sucked early against better teams and cleaned up later against weaker teams. Just to show it's not smoke and mirrors, you can also look at this stat by comparing the Packers average yards/game gained vs. the average yards allowed for the Packers opponents. In 11 of the Packers games this year they gained FEWER yards than the average allowed by their opponents over the course of the season. It was only against five teams that the Packers actually gained more than the average allowed by their opponents.

But wait, the story gets even uglier for the Packers. If you look at their actual yards gained rushing game by game (yes, I have too much time on my hands) you see that they only outgained the average yards allowed by their opponents five times...against Minnesota, Dallas, Oakland, Chicago (barely in one game) and Detroit.

By the way, of the total yards the Packers gained rushing for the year (1600 and change), 14% of those yards came against Detroit (23rd worst rushing defense in the NFL) in the last game of the season and another 11% came against Oakland (31st worst rushign defense in the NFL). That means 25% of the total yards gained on the ground by the Packers for the year came against two very bad teams.

And finally, you seem very confident in your nice young running back Ryan Grant. Well, he was the 19th best rusher in the NFL this year with 956 yards gained. Of those 956 yards, 418 came in four games - two against Detroit, Oakland and Denver. In the other 12 games of the year he average (DRUMROLL) 44.83 yards/game. OUCH.

The more I look at this the more I start to think that the Packers won't be able to run the ball against Seattle.

 

[Zombieslayer]

I am sick and tired of hearing about how our team is fairly inexperienced in the playoffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS NOT GOING TO MATTER!! Look at how everyone talked about the emotional wave the Redskins were on because of the loss of there fellow teamate. The talked like the Redskins would be impossible to beat. The Packers lack in playoff experience. Wow thats great because every single game is just as important as the one we play Saturday. All those games were important and got you to this point you cant tell me they werent. We also have one of the most important positions (QB) with the most playoff experience out of boths at the helm.
I cant wait until the game and everybody with stop talking about the lack of experience because it wont matter.

Since this is the Stat happy thread how about we point out stats? Ryan Grant's avg rush by month.

December-5.5 avg per rush
November-4.9 avg per rush
October-4.7 avg per rush
September-4.5 avg per rush

As the season has wore on he has gotten better and better and better. Not like this stat makes a difference but on days other then (Sunday and Monday) he has an avg rush of 6.7 yards.

People also forgot to mention the fact he was the only one to rush 100 + yards on the number 1 run D (Vikings).

This is almost no use at all but the Packers beat the Seahawks 48-13 in preseason. It does show that the Packers have better depth.

Playoff experience is probably the most overrated jargon announcers talk about. The reason that stat has any relevance is teams that continually make the playoffs are better than teams who make it once in a blue moon. Well, no ****. Of course there will be something to that.

Perennial playoff teams in the 60s - Green Bay and Dallas
in the 70s - Pittsburg, Dallas and Minnesota
in the 80s it was the Niners and the Giants
in the 90s, Niners, Packers, and Dallas.
in the 00s, Pats and Colts

If you look statistically, those teams have pretty good playoff records. Is it because of Playoff experience? No. It's because they're pretty dang good teams.

 

[PackerLegend]

Let me point out 1 thing. The Packers finished 13-3 while the Seahawks finished 10-6. You most have missed my point earlier where the Seahawks are 3-3 againist teams .500+ while the Packers are 6-1 againist teams .500+. Bring up all the stats you want but the Packers find ways to win.

I know the NFC North isnt that tough but you forgot to mention the Seahawks play in one of the weakest divisons there is in the NFL.

The Seahawks have failed to impress me. Maybe you are overconfident because the Seahwaks won 35-14 over the Redskins. Or maybe you just forgot the fact that the Seahawks were winning 13-0 in the 3rd/4th and watched that change in about 2 min as the Redskins were winning 14-13. The game was alot closer then the score shows. Lets compare the likes of the Packers vs Redskins

QB-GB, Brett Favre over Todd Collins x10000000000000000000000000
RB-WAS, I will give Was the slight edge because they have Portis but Ryan Grant has came on hot and is the 2nd leading rusher in NFL since week 8
WR-GB Who do the Redskins have Moss and thats about it? Try covering Driver, Jennings, Robinson, Jones and Martin
O-Line-GB Washingtons line was totaly gone because of injury and of course Kerney is going to be able to take on a UDFA rookie. Try Kerney againist Tauscher he isnt going to get that much pressure on Favre as he did in the skins. O and Tapp isnt going to get past Clifton. Favre was sacked only 14 times this season so ya.
D-Line-GB The depth GB has and quaility is one of the best D-lines in the NFL
LB-GB Barnett, Hawk and Poppinga are better then London-Fletcher and Marcus Washington
CB-GB Harris and Woodson easily over Springs and Smoot
S-Tie it would have easily been Washington but the Loss of Taylor really hurt.