Projected Standings: NFC West 2008
by John Morgan on May 13, 2008 5:07 PM PDT
in Seahawks Player Analysis
Email
Print
Seattle Seahawks 13-32007 DVOA: 11.7% |
Passing Offense: 17.2%+Replaced Shaun Alexander with Julius JonesReplaced Marcus Pollard with John CarlsonReplaced Chris Gray with Rob Sims-Lost DJ HackettDeion Branch recovering from ACL tear |
Rushing Offense: -9.9%+Replaced Shaun Alexander with Julius JonesReplaced Rob Sims with Mike WahleReplaced Chris Gray with Rob SimsReplaced Marcus Pollard with John Carlson-n/a |
Pass Defense: -0.2%+Added Lawrence JacksonAdded Red BryantMoved Darryl Tapp to situational dutyYear 3: Kelly JenningsDarryl Tapp: 24Hill’s late season development in coverage-Patrick Kerney: 31Rocky Bernard: 29 |
Rush Defense: -12.1%+Added Lawrence JacksonAdded Red BryantMoved Darryl Tapp to situational dutyMebane: 23Hill: 26-n/a |
+Replaced Josh Brown with Olindo Mare on kickoffsReplaced Boone Stutz (et al) with Tyler Schmitt-Replaced Josh Brown with Olindo Mare on field goals (maybe) |
Summary: Anything short of 6-0 in division would be very disappointing. |
Arizona Cardinals 9-72007 DVOA: -10.1% |
Passing Offense: 6.6%+Replaced Kurt Warner with Matt Leinart (maybe)Added WR Early Doucet-Lost WR Bryant Johnson |
Rushing Offense:-11.3%+Added RB Tim Hightower-Edgerrin James: 30; 2,849 rushing attempts |
Pass Defense: 10.3%+Added CB Dominique Rogers-CromartieAdded DL Calais CampbellReplaced FS Terrence Holt with Antrel Rolle-Lost OLB Calvin Pace |
Rush Defense: -1.2%+Added CB Dominique Rogers-CromartieAdded DL Calais Campbell-n/a |
Special Teams:-3.9%+Added Early Doucet to punt returns |
Summary: A below average team that rolls out practically the same unit as last season, the Cardinals miserable cap shape prevented them from adding much talent in free agency. If Campbell rebounds, Leinart realizes some of his potential and Hightower is an above average feature back, this team could compete. That’s not terribly likely. Still a good sight better than the Rams or 49ers. |
Saint Louis Rams: 6-102007 DVOA: -33.9% |
Passing Offense: -18.0%+Replaced Andy McCollum with Jacob BellAdded Keenan BurtonAdded John GrecoAdded Donnie Avery-n/a |
Rushing Offense: -19.6%+Replaced Andy McCollum with Jacob BellSteven Jackson: 25Richie Incognito: 25-n/a |
Pass Defense: 18.1%+Added Chris Long-Leonard Little, La'Roi Glover: 34 |
Rush Defense: 3.1%See above |
Special Teams: -4.3%Replaced Jeff Wilkins with Josh Brown |
Summary: The Rams are in a similar position with Orlando Pace as the Hawks are with Marcus Tubbs, except where Seattle only needs Tubbs to contribute as a second or third string rotational defensive tackle, the Rams are relying on Pace to start the season at left tackle. …! Without Pace, the Rams are a team with a few pronounced strengths (two members of the defensive line, running up the middle, Torry Holt) and a team’s worth of weaknesses (linebacker, secondary, pass rush, pass protection, receiver, special teams, 2nd string quarterback, depth at any position). I think a bounce back in team health, an improved offensive line, a return to respectability by Marc Bulger and 400 carries by Steven Jackson will keep Saint Louis from a second year of embarrassment, but just barely. |
San Francisco 49ers 3-132007 DVOA: -38.0% |
Passing Offense: -43.9%+Replaced LT Jonas Jennings with Joe Staley-n/a |
Rushing Offense: -11.1%+Added G Chilo Rachal-Added RB DeShaun FosterAdded OC Mike Martz |
Passing Defense: 20.8%+Added DB Reggie SmithManny Lawson: 24Patrick Willis: 23-Replaced Bryant Young with Kentwan BalmerReplaced Marques Douglas with Justin SmithWalt Harris: 34 |
Rush Defense: 1.3%See Above |
Special Teams: 4.1%Added Returner Josh Morgan |
Summary: A miserable team in the midst of a miserable offseason. Bryant Johnson is a mediocre wide receiver that benefitted from good surrounding talent and a strong scheme. Isaac Bruce will turn 36 November 10th. Presumed 3-4 end Justin Smith will turn 29 September 30th, is fresh off a 2 sack season and weighs less than Darryl Tapp. Yeah, that’s worth $45M/6 yrs, $20M guaranteed. Just a phenomenally stupid move. For much of 2007, the Niners were flirting with all-time ineptness. They’ve lost talent and added Mike Martz. Martz was so bad the Detroit Lions ran him out of depression town on a rail. On the plus side, I bet Patrick Willis racks up the tackles. |
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If I understand DVOA correctly, which I think I do,
I’m surprised to see you rating our pass offense so high and our rush offense so low. Every move this offseason seems to be geared toward shoring up the running game, and, by this point, I expect that to be our primary means of attack. With Hacks gone, Branch injured, and Walt and Engram even older, I fully expect a huge de-emphasis on the passing attack in conjunction with a steep decline in its effectiveness. Success in the air will depend, maybe for the first time since Holmgren’s been here, on a rock-solid ground game.
Yes, I should have been clearer about that.
And no, I’m no so arrogant as to think I can predict DVOA.
I really like the new digs, SBN 2.0 that is, but man it gives me agita. I wrestled with this format for over an hour and it’s still ugly as sin.
I don't expect much if any decline from our passing game.
Better pass blocking, better receiving running backs, better tight end and I don’t think Hackett was anything special. Very productive, solid, but I a player that can be reasonably replaced.
I guess I'm just wary
about Engram and Walt falling off a cliff. I have no faith in Obomanu or Taylor, though I am intrigued by Logan Payne. Stepping back, I know that Obomanu and Taylor should, with another year of experience under their belts, grow into productive receivers, that Holmgren’s system is much more dependent on knowledge of the system than on exceptional talent. I have doubts about Carlson’s ability to contribute much in the receiving game in his first year with Holmgren, but you’re obviously much more knowledgeable about this than I am, so I’ll trust your (and Ruskell’s) judgement.
I'm wary, too
but I will say that I’m optimistic about Taylor; he looked better to me than Hackett coming out of college, and I thought Hackett was a steal in the 5th. I think there’s a good chance that Taylor’s a significant contributor this season. (I’m not so sure about Obomanu, but there’s reason for hope.)
As for Carlson, in Holmgren’s system, the TE doesn’t need to be much to contribute; if he’s as smart and hard-working as he looks, barring injury, he’ll be a productive player.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 14, 2008 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
As a rule, rookie tight ends don't contribute much.
However, I wouldn’t apply that to Carlson. At Notre Dame he ran Charlie Weis’s pro style offense, one that is very demanding on its tight ends. We’re talking legitimate double moves. Carlson is an excellent route runner and I think he’ll take to Holmgren’s offense very quickly. Most tight ends need a season to get up to speed, but I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush. I think Carlson can and should buck that trend.
True, but
a) I think that’s a judgment focused more on TEs as receivers than as blockers (although it might be hard to tell, given how many college TEs aren’t really TEs, and b) as you showed with Pollard, Holmgren’s system is pretty TE-friendly. As you say, Carlson’s well prepared for the NFL by Weis, and he’s a great fit for Holmgren; maybe it would take him a while somewhere else, but it seems to me he’s in a perfect situation to succeed quickly.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 14, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
For Arizona
wouldn’t losing Gabe Watson to a freak treadmill accident factor into their defense somewhere, at least on rushing defense I would guess.
And for San Fran, how is DeShaun Foster a -? I know he’s not very good, but he’s not actually going to hurt them, same as Bryant Johnson isn’t really a plus, but it wouldn’t make much sense to mark him as a -.
Foster'll get carries and he will suck.
Suck more than the man he replaced, Maurice Hicks, and get more carries because the coaching staff will see him as a proven rusher.
Hicks only got 20 carries
and like you said, it’s safe to assume Martz will run even less. You’re right about Foster sucking though, his DPAR and DVOA are worse than Alexanders…..
Watson
He did hurt his knee during the offseason but all reports have him ready to go by the beginning of the preseason if not the beginning of training camp.
It's not that kind of a knee injury
He fell on the treadmill and broke his knee cap. I don’t believe there was ligament damage or anything serious like that.
Hm, I seem to remember him being out for the season
but you’re right, they’re saying just training camp.
Holy crap 13-3?
Does that take into account our rather obnoxious looking schedule?
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on May 13, 2008 8:12 PM PDT reply actions
If were good
why not 13-3. Its not like its improbable, we did do just three years ago
I agree totally with the 13-3
Look at our schedule. 6-0 in the division is easily obtainable and should be expected, frankly.
Other NFC opponents are at New York, Green Bay at home, at Tampa Bay, home versus the Eagles, at Dallas, and home versus Redskins. Just glancing at them 4-2 is not outrageous to predict, with the two presumed losses coming at NY and at Dallas. That puts us at 10-2.
AFC comp is at Buffalo, at Miami, home versus Patriots, and home versus Jets. That could easily be 3-1, with the loss coming versus the Pats.
That would put us at 13-3, something that would be ideal and put us in position for the number 1 or 2 seed in the NFC.
What are you talking about?
Guessing any sort of record is assuming. I can back up the reasoning behind my choices and you probably could do the same for yours. At this point 13-3 is just as realistic as 11-5.
For my part
I’m going into this year the same as I did in ‘05, figuring 11-5 is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Anything more than that depends on how the ball bounces (as it does for all but the blazingly elite teams).
by The Ancient Mariner on May 14, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
FWIW
Minus the fumble in Arizona and given a reason to win in week 17, the 2007 Seahawks would have been 12-4.
I don’t really agree our schedule is terribly difficult. We think of the Giants as Super Bowl champions, but they were a below average team for most of the season. The Redskins are an old mediocre team that got hot, I’ll be amazed if Tampa Bay doesn’t regress, Green Bay has an old defense and instability at quarterback, the Eagles and Cowboys are tough, but every game can’t be a cake walk. To me, the Seahawks schedule looks roughly in the lower third in terms of “strength of schedule”. Seattle’s defense is young, it’s offense stable and vastly improved at its weakest position, and though I don’t have the numbers handy, I’m pretty sure Seattle is due some bounce back offensively and defensively when it comes to third down success versus 1st and 2nd down success. That same effect helped propel the 2005 Hawks to the Super Bowl.
11
I would say the expected # of wins for the hawks this year is 11.
Using Engram/Burleson/Carlson as the primary receivers will leave us with essentially the same level of passing game we had last year. Remember we didn’t get too many games from Branch or Hackett last year either so thats a wash. One of Obomanu/Taylor/Kent/Payne might step it up but still won’t displace Engram or Burleson as a starter, so that isn’t a source of much volatility- they are fighting for the 3rd receiver spot.
The running game has nowhere to go but up, but might not go up much. It isn’t like we brought in McFadden or Hutchinson. There are good arguments to suggest some of the new backs and O-line changes will improve our play, but it may not be by much. This is the major source of volatility in the expected wins. I could see the running game being slightly better than last year up until about 10th in the league at best.
The defense is bringing back almost all of the same starters. With this group, I don’t think they can regress much, and there isn’t that much improvement they can make considering they are already among the best units in the league. Again, not a source of much volatility in the wins estimate here. Except very good to elite.
Special teams will be better now that we have a LS.
While there isn’t a lot of ‘downside’, there isn’t a ton of ‘upside’ for this estimate either. I think 11 wins is a fair estimate.
13 wins is the number we will probably need to get a first round bye. I think we need a first round bye to make the SB again.
13-3 is a real possibility
Barring that monumentally stupid fumble against the Cards we would’ve been 6-0 in the division last year, and we’ve only gotten better since then while they’ve pretty much gone nowhere (Or gotten worse, if you think Leinart is a bust like I do and figure he’ll get more playing time than he did last year). Then there’s the Rams who still have enormous holes all over the place, and the Niners who somehow managed to make themselves even worse. 6-0 should happen.
Then we play the weakest division in the AFC (Patriots aside) we’ll probably pull 3 wins out of. That’s 9 games we should win, and it’s not a stretch to think we’ll go 4-3 against the stiffer competition, with 4 of those games at home. 13-3 probably means 1st round bye and home field throughout the playoffs, too…...Hmmmm I really get this sense of the stars aligning for Holmgren’s final year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Peyton Manning’s face on all 32 NFL logos
- Todd Haley could be in for a bumpy ride in Pittsburgh
- Alex Smith caddied for Jim Harbaugh at AT&T Pro-Am
- Boston (in) Common: Kevin Youkilis set to marry Tom Brady’s sister
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
