Wildcard Weekend Predictions: Vikings vs Seahawks

[dead_poet]

@christomasson Sunday's playoff between #Vikings Seattle could be one of coldest games in NFL history High temp forecast: 1 degree:

[Mothman]

Yikes.

[dead_poet]

Yikes.

I kinda want Zimmer to come out of the tunnel wearing jorts and sandals. Then go up to 'ol Pete pregame and say "Nice coat."

[PacificNorseWest]

Take a look at this...Seattle's offense was struggling quite a bit in the group of games in that first image, then all of sudden, BAM! They take off? It intrigued me, so I looked into it.

Quality of defense played, specifically when it comes to rushing the passer with exception of Pittsburgh and Minnesota, was lacking during this "run." Pittsburgh's pash rush offset by a horribly inadequate secondary that gave up one of the leagues worst totals of yards through the air and Minnesota without it's 3 best defensive players. Other than that?...None of those teams can get after the quarterback the way the better teams in the league can and the one team that's near the top, St. Louis, and they mopped 'em (8 sacks).

Let's not be completely bias here though. Their offensive landscape has certainly changed and I belive it's quite a few factors. Lockett has emerged as a receiver since then...Marshawn got hurt at some point and even though Rawls played very well, they started to shift their focus from a running game that sets up the pass to a passing attack that sets up the run. Russell's ability to extend drives is a factor that mixes into all of this, but along with shifting their focus, Bevell is calling plays that get the ball out of Russell's hand quicker and less reliability on PA, so on and so forth. Here in Seattle, they also attribute a ton of this to a change on the offensive line, especially when it comes to the C position, but I'm not completely sold.

I'm glad Marshawn is back. He wasn't having the impact that he used to have in years past and he's probably going to come out a bit rusty. It may knock the Seahawks off their groove a bit. The key to me, is and will be, containing Russell Wilson. He killed the Vikes on third down in their first meeting and having Barr and Harrison back will help whomever spies on Russell, while not taking a key player out of plays where Russell isn't taking off with it. TOP was skewed heavily in favor of Seattle. Minnesota, in chorus with getting their defense off the field on third downs by making stops, needs to see their offense convert a few long drives to neutralize Seattle's offense and disallow both a rusty Marshawn and a scorching Russell to find a groove...

I have more, but this is long enough for now.

I also want to add that with the weather that's forecasted, If Vikings come out hype for this unique home playoff game and smack Seattle in the mouth, then that sting could last quite aqhile, so setting the tone early is paramount.

[cstelter]

I posted on another thread about this brutal injustice that officials have worked on the Lions and their fans this season. I don't think, though, that you're applying the NFL tie-breaking rules correctly. You're correct that, had the officials made the proper calls on those two plays, the Lions, Packers, and Seahawks would all have finished 9-7. But the very first step in the NFL's three-way tie-breaking procedure for determining wild card teams is: As a result, it's impossible for two NFC North teams to participate beyond Step 1 (above) of a three-way tiebreaker; Green Bay would never be able to compare itself to Seattle and get by on their head-to-head win. Instead, by virtue of the above rule, Detroit's should-have-been sweep over the Packers would have meant that Green Bay was immediately eliminated. Detroit would get the #5 seed and Seattle the #6, by virtue of Detroit's victory in the illegal-bat game.

In other words, the Packers are currently in the playoffs only because of two flagrantly wrong game-turning calls that the Lions suffered. And it's for that reason that I've submitted a motion that whining about the "Fail Mary" (which did not, in any case, change any team's admission to or exclusion from the playoffs; it only affected the Packers' and 49ers' respective playoff seeds in January 2013) be ruled out of order forevermore.

Not sure I fully agree-- or I'm just not understanding the positions put forth.

This is the relevant section I believe (http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures):

TO BREAK A TIE FOR THE WILD-CARD TEAM

If it is necessary to break ties to determine the two Wild-Card clubs from each conference, the following steps will be taken.

1. If the tied clubs are from the same division, apply division tie breaker.
2. If the tied clubs are from different divisions, apply the following steps.

Two Clubs

1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.
6. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best net points in conference games.
9. Best net points in all games.
10. Best net touchdowns in all games.
11. Coin toss.

Three or More Clubs

(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of applicable two-club format.)

Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tie breaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two Wild-Card participants.

1. Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.
6. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best net points in conference games.
9. Best net points in all games.
10. Best net touchdowns in all games.
11. Coin toss

When the first Wild-Card team has been identified, the procedure is repeated to name the second Wild-Card, i.e., eliminate all but the highest-ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. In situations where three or more teams from the same division are involved in the procedure, the original seeding of the teams remains the same for subsequent applications of the tie breaker if the top-ranked team in that division qualifies for a Wild-Card berth.

So after GB is eliminated, SEA takes the #5 because it beat DET 13-10 in week 4. It reverts back to #1 under 'Two Clubs' after GB is eliminated.

Then for the final spot it would pit DET vs GB and DET would get the #6 seed for 2 HtoH wins. Not sure how you and the original poster both suggested DET would get the #5 seed over SEA, but if they had, then SEA would have gone against GB for the final position per the 2nd set of red text and GB would have gone. But I'm pretty sure this scenario has SEA at #5 and DET at #6.

[dead_poet]

‏@eric_j_thompson #Vikings chances heading into this week via @numberFire:
Beat Seattle: 36%
NFC Champions: 4.38%
Super Bowl Champs: 2.03%

[Mothman]

I kinda want Zimmer to come out of the tunnel wearing jorts and sandals. Then go up to 'ol Pete pregame and say "Nice coat."

[IrishViking]

I've never understood number chains like this. If we win against Seattle we instantly improve our odds at NFCC and the Superbowl. If we don't we are out and our odds are zero. The only odd there that matters is the 36% unless they are saying that we have a 4.38% chance of beating ANY two playoff teams and we only have a 2.03% chance of beating ANY AFC team this year.


In other words. The Outcome of the Seattle game instantly changes the odds of the following two and it must be played before we can play the next two so why bother listing them like that?

[cstelter]

[cstelter]

I've never understood number chains like this. If we win against Seattle we instantly improve our odds at NFCC and the Superbowl. If we don't we are out and our odds are zero. The only odd there that matters is the 36% unless they are saying that we have a 4.38% chance of beating ANY two playoff teams and we only have a 2.03% chance of beating ANY AFC team this year.

Almost what you say in the last sentence:


Odds of beating Seattle: 36%

Odds of beating Seattle *and* beating AZ *and* winning the NFCC: 4.38%

Odds of beating Seattle *and* beating AZ *and* winning the NFCC *and* winning the SB: 2.03%

Does that help?

Another way of stating that last one is if we make it to the SB, our odds are 2.03/4.38 = 46.3% of winning it.

Here's another way to think about it:

Odds of flipping one coin heads: 50% (2 options H or T)

Odds of flipping the 2nd coin heads given you just flipped a head: 50% (2 options H or T)

Odds of flipping a coin twice in a row heads: 25% (4 options HH, HT, TH, TT, only one is what you want so 25%)

You're talking about odds given one thing has happened. The odds given above for the playoffs are the odds of all of them happening before you start.

The odds will change if we win, and will most likely go up.

In other words. The Outcome of the Seattle game instantly changes the odds of the following two and it must be played before we can play the next two so why bother listing them like that?

If you're betting today on the Vikings to win the SB, those odds matter I suspect.

[PacificNorseWest]

I learnt something.

[Purple Reign]

I learnt something.

Are you British by chance?

[PacificNorseWest]

Nay.

[DK Sweets]

Seahawks are 1-7 in games played below 28 degrees

It's going to be considerably colder than that this weekend.

Now, the current heart of their roster has only played one game below 28 degrees (a loss against KC) and the sample size is small, but I think that's kind of the point. Our team has experience playing in the cold (and while it was a bit warmer, JUST finished playing a cold weather game at Lambeau). The weather might be a bigger factor than we thought.

[Mothman]

Seahawks are 1-7 in games played below 28 degrees

It's going to be considerably colder than that this weekend.

Yes! I LIKE that stat.