clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Seahawks pegged as candidate for regression using nonsensical criteria

Divisional Round - Seattle Seahawks v Green Bay Packers Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

There is a man, who believes after the trade for Jamal Adams, that the Seattle Seahawks will be a worse team than in 2019.

It’s the same man who predicted the quartet of Russell Wilson, Tyler Lockett, DK Metcalf and Chris Carson would front the 4th-worst offense in the NFL.

They were the 5th best unit by DVOA last year. Off by 22 spots.

It’s the same man who said only six teams have had a worse offseason than Seattle, although some of you may be more inclined to join that theory.

Hailing from the far East Coast reaches of ESPN, that man is Bill Barnwell and he is not done being down on the Seahawks. Not by a long shot.

And so Seattle finds itself, as one of the most likely candidates for regression, straight from the desk of Barnwell.

Unless one’s quarterback leaves, the path to predicting regression is generally one of two options. Either an unsustainable turnover margin or an unrepeatable amount of “fluke” wins points to a downturn next year. ESPN chose the latter.

However, it seemed clear from the article that Barnwell fundamentally does not understand the way that Pete Carroll does things out here in basically-Alaska. His arguments repeatedly showed that he might not have ever actually seen the second half of a game in Seattle.

Note - I do not care if he agrees with the philosophy of Seahawk football - few people do at the moment. But if you’re going to attack how they won their games, perhaps take a half second (what are you doing these days anyway, you can’t go to training camp) and consider how the team plays said games.

Example: Bill Barnwell declaring the rarity of a team that can win by coming from behind.

Reality: Russell Wilson is in fact the league’s best closer, and Pete Carroll strives to be the league’s slowest starter, resulting in a team that comes from behind.

Example: Barnwell claims that the Seahawks are an average team in close games, and since they won more close games last year they will regress.

Reality: It’s an irrelevant argument against this team in particular. Russell Wilson turns would-be blowout losses into wins or close game losses because of who he is, meaning that statistic is a poor predictor of a Seattle W-L record. If they play to the average of close games, they’re historically 2-3 games above other teams because they don’t lose big.

Final example: a revelation that Barnwell is just another national pundit who does not actually track a team’s overall season.

Reality: Nope.

If you think the Seahawks will regress, it’s because they will play without Jadeveon Clowney. If you think the Seahawks will regress, it’s because the high likelihood of starting three different offensive linemen this year. Or trying to rush Jordyn Brooks. Or the lack of a third receiver. Or Pete Carroll calling three timeouts in the first 11 minutes of the second half in five games.

But it’s not going to be for any of the above. In fact, it’s hard to consider the offensive injuries of last year, the addition of Quinton Dunbar and Jamal Adams, and peg the Seahawks as regression candidates at all.

Seattle has an even easier schedule than they did last year, when they went 11-5 in a season in which Tedric Thompson played meaningful football. Sorry Bill, you picked the wrong team for this.