a legitimate worry if you're a 49ers fan

[CaptainSkybeard]

We sucked and looked pretty much like shit at Carolina and look how we played at home against the ninnirs.

Wasn't the best game ever but looked like shit? I think not. Defense had an amazing game. On offense, Wilson threw for over 300 yards. Wilson was a boss. Receivers came through clutch big time.

What was wrong with that game? Wilson was running for his life, and the running game stunk. What's the common denominator? The o-line! So,if you are going to say they played like shit confine it to the o-line only please.

but there is the question of whether is was so much our o-line or their d-line/linebackers. I honestly think that unit in Carolina is vastly underrated. I know buffalo scored more points on them, but that was mostly through exposing Carolina's weak secondary (and as the game progressed, increasingly an injured one) ,if you remember buffalo had a ho-hum running game for the most part, and they have a top 10 back in CJ Spiller.

 

[Popeyejones]

After your team was humiliated, you only had to win a single home game against the Cards and had a bye.

And after that bye they went on to beat the two other division winners from the NFC and went to the Super Bowl, including a Falcons team the red-hot Hawks lost to. So what?

A hypothetical in which the Hawks didn't lose to the Falcons is no better or worse than an annoying hypothetical about what would have happened if RGIII wasn't injured. It's pointless.

The difference is that now the Niners have the entire season to deal with the Hawks.

The 9ers don't have an entire season to deal with the Hawks. They have to play them twice, and at most three times. And they lost against the Hawks in the CLink, and spectacularly so. And they might lose again at home, which may be very, very bad for them in the NFCW race and very, very good for the Hawks. Or they might win again at home and in the race for the NFC West the games they play against the Hawks will have essentially been meaningless (assuming the Rams or Cards aren't in the race).

Perhaps I'm not clear on the point you're making, which seems to be more involved than "Hawks rule, 9ers drool!"

 

[loafoftatupu]

The 9ers don't have an entire season to deal with the Hawks. They have to play them twice, and at most three times. And they lost against the Hawks in the CLink, and spectacularly so. And they might lose again at home, which may be very, very bad for them in the NFCW race and very, very good for the Hawks. Or they might win again at home and in the race for the NFC West the games they play against the Hawks will have essentially been meaningless (assuming the Rams or Cards aren't in the race).

Perhaps I'm not clear on the point you're making, which seems to be more involved than "Hawks rule, 9ers drool!"

You're not clear. Last year the Hawks had to go 7-1 in the last half of the season to even be a threat. They won't be 4-4 this year. It is their position in the West that the Niners have to deal with, where last year they started on top, with the juggernaut Cards and the Hawks came up .5 games short. So when a Niner fan minimizes the early season win and relates it to last year they are looking back at much less of an accomplishment.

Niner fans are counting on the Seahawks of the first 8 games, not the second 8. They are dismissing that the Hawks are 4-1 in their last 5 road games and making assumptions based on the history of a team that has changed drastically from the team they played in SF last year.

Last week the defense should have showed you that. Not because the Niners lost, but because of how the Niners lost.

 

[Popeyejones]

Oh, so it's one of those 'the past matters when convenient, but doesn't matter when not convenient' posts. Gotcha.

Trust me, you'd be hard pressed to find a single NFL fan (and you couldn't find a single informed NFL fan) who doesn't think the Hawks have as a good of a chance as anybody of making it to the Super Bowl this year. Everyone knows the Hawks are a very, very, very, very good team.