Five things I hope to be wrong about, 2013 edition

[Scottemojo]

Kip, I wasn't trying to comfort you. Fact is, Hill was awful in zone. He would hand off players when he had no help to hand off to. Hill looked poorly conditioned at the end of the year. KJ would not have to be very good to be better than Hill.

I do realize we would need investment to be good at rush up the middle. I don't think it is a huge priority for this staff. They have not spend high draft capital at the DT spot at all.

Branch, as a sidenote, is the guy who primarily did not show on the road. I liked him as a run stopper, but he was invisible in a handful of road games. I still don't know if McDaniel or Williams will be as good.

 

[hoxrox]

Some good points.

#2 In a tight division, against good teams, this is a valid concern, but I feel like the team is much more mature and disciplined than they were last year. Even in the 5 losses last year, they were all by a score or less. If we can continue to pound the rock, limit penalties and not get cute on 3rd down, this team is talented and mentally strong enough to beat that 10 AM monkey. Of course, they cannot come out flat in the first half, and rely on second half heroics.

#3 I think Kaepernick will develop too, but he is more likely to have a "sophomore" slump than Wilson is simply because he lost his favorite receiver and because defenses will be better prepared for his style of play. He had success against GB and Falcons because... just look at their defenses. Against us and the Ravens, not so much. I think the success of the 9ers offense will depend more on their power run game, versus trying to air it out like they did toward the end of the season. Gore is on the wrong side of 30 and the Vernon Davis to receiver experiment will be interesting to see.

#4 I think KJ Wright will be just fine. He is very smart and versatile with great instincts. I thought he was one of the more underrated players last year. I'm more concerned about the TE position group than I am about the linebackers. Wagner, another underrated player, can only get better and bolster this group as well.

#5 I don't think Clemons injury was all that bad. He was with the guys cheering in the locker room right after that Redskins win. From what I've heard, rehab is going well and ahead of schedule. Also think Quinn and the new acquisitions will bring much more versatility to the pass rush so we won't be as reliant on Clemons. We should see more rush from the LBer's and maybe even the secondary. Missing Irvin for the first four games will suck though.

 

[Tical21]

I can't buy into Kaepernick. I am not a hater by any stretch. I don't rag on him simply because he is our rival's QB. Wearing a Dolphins hat bothers me zero. But that throwing motion, my goodness. It is just so incredibly rare that a guy with a hitch in his giddy-up becomes an elite passer. Maybe he doesn't have to become a great passer to be successful. Call me an elitist or QB snob or whatever, but that throwing motion is a disaster. I have serious doubts that he ever gets over the wall to elite because of it.

 

[kearly]

I don't know where you got those percentages, so I can't do the math myself, but I'm guessing that if you added them up you'd have Seattle and SF as 10 win, maybe 11 win teams. That feels like an undershoot for the two best NFL teams playing schedules that are easier this season. Some of those percentages feel overly conservative. I assume those percentages are based on historic rates at those betting lines. But judging win probably based on a betting line is probably a mistake when two teams are extremely mismatched.

I used the percentages from the chart here that converts point spreads to win probabilities. I think you're underestimating the variance in the NFL where bad teams beat good teams every week. It's also worth noting that things change so much year to year that opening point spreads at the beginning of the season are somewhat deflated until there's a clearer picture of how the teams will be this year, so you're right that the early lines seem conservative based on how good we think the Seahawks will continue to be. If the Seahawks and 49ers pick up where they left off last year and the weaker teams on the schedule don't improve, then those lines and corresponding win percentages will be higher by the times those games are played.

I also don't think the schedule will be easier. All four NFC South teams could be tough, Houston and the Giants/Redskins should still be good, and the Colts should improve from the 6-7 win team they really were last year. Winning 12+ against our schedule is certainly possible, but if the season could be played out 1000 times I would expect our average to be about 10.5-11 wins.

The real betting line for Tennessee at Seattle should probably be -20 or -25, something like that, but of course a gambling service would never offer a line like that.

Actually, they would. If week 6 comes around, Seattle is still playing at the historically great level they were the second half of last year, and Tennessee is one of the league's worst teams, the line could be close to 20. The Patriots were 21 point favorites against the Colts in the Suck For Luck year. They were also favored by 20 or more in four games in 2007. Based on the chart, a 20 point favorite should expect to win 93.1% of the time. Even if the Seahawks continue at last year's second half level, I would expect even a bad NFL team to get 7 wins out of 100 in Seattle.

Regardless, this discussion is kind of a sidetrack from the point of my first post that facing the Texans and Colts on the road and the Titans and Jaguars at home isn't a disadvantage from the other way around. It's just a difference of being moderate favorites in all four games versus small favorites in two and heavy favorites in two. You're right about the five 10am games being a disadvantage, but we have the advantage of playing Minnesota instead of Green Bay. Overall, I don't see the schedule favoring the 49ers in a way that would expect to impact the standings much at all.

Well, it shouldn't be at -14. Do you honestly believe that the Titans have a 20% win probability? Please say no, because to me, that is way off base. Seattle does not turn the ball over and they crush bad offenses at home. The Titan's defense blows. Whatever odds an inferior team has of a fluke victory are squashed by those factors. If the Titans beat us, it would be the stunner of all stunners. When was the last time that a good Seattle team lost to a terrible team in Seattle, anyway? Add em up, it's not 20%.

Seattle's home record in Qwest during 10+ win seasons is 31-1.*

And that's against all teams, great, good, bad, and awful.

I also think a 10.5 to 11 win projection is a minor undersell. The NFL has a lot of variance, but usually the elite teams perform on the better half of those variances (Patriots, Peyton Manning teams, etc). If the 2013 Seahawks played 100 seasons, I do not find it likely that they would have enough 9-7 seasons to cancel out the 13-3 ones.

Last year, the game at Detroit scared me more than hosting the 49ers, and next year the opener at Carolina scares me more than hosting the 49ers. We root for a weird football team that smacks good teams at home yet finds ways to lose to struggling outfits at 10am. The Ravens are probably the only other NFL team that I could say that about.

It's not really that I think you are wrong, I just think the Seahawks are very context dependent and not that cut and dry to project. Most teams don't have the same extreme splits and weird nonsensical shit that we have to deal with. If we were fans of almost any other team, I'd completely agree with your point on the schedule variance.

You make a good point on Green Bay, but that was out of the schedule makers hands. The schedule makers control where and when, not who. And I think the schedule makers made the tough games much more winnable while making the gimme's slightly less gimme for SF, while doing the opposite for Seattle. And that's a significant exchange, IMO.

If there is one way that I can agree with you, it's that the Seahawks are such brutal under-achievers at 10am that it might be somewhat of a good thing to get good teams at that slot. If we played Tennessee at 10am, they would actually have a prayer. On that point, I'd agree that getting Tennessee in Seattle might not be something to downplay. Seattle's schedule setup is good for winning 11 or so games, but very tough for winning 13+. Had it been flipped, they'd have more risk of a 9-7 season but would have a much easier path to 13-3. In a distant sense, I could see how you think this balances.

On the schedule difficulty, I'd be surprised if next year's won't be easier. Ours was the 4th hardest in 2012. The NFC South is rising and the NFC North fading, but the NFC North was really tough last season. Their combined DVOA was right up there with the NFC West. The NFC South has Atlanta and then a bunch of Kansas City Chiefs, teams that could be good if certain things break right. It's more of a dangerous lineup than a tough one.

* (Interestingly, that one loss was in 2007 to a then 0-4 Saints team. Three weeks later, the Saints were 4-4. Even when the Saints are bad, Drew Brees remains a terror).

 

[kearly]

Kip, I wasn't trying to comfort you. Fact is, Hill was awful in zone. He would hand off players when he had no help to hand off to. Hill looked poorly conditioned at the end of the year. KJ would not have to be very good to be better than Hill.

I do realize we would need investment to be good at rush up the middle. I don't think it is a huge priority for this staff. They have not spend high draft capital at the DT spot at all.

Branch, as a sidenote, is the guy who primarily did not show on the road. I liked him as a run stopper, but he was invisible in a handful of road games. I still don't know if McDaniel or Williams will be as good.

It kind of seemed like Branch faded a bit near the end of the year. I thought he looked good early, he was even generating pressures. It actually ticked me off that everyone was bagging him when he was generating almost as much pressure as Jones was during the early portion. But later in the year, he seemed to decline in both phases. Saying he was invisible might be too nice.

Hill was actually pretty good in 2011 playing WILL, but I dunno, I think the similarities between the two end in pass coverage. Wright's effectiveness has a direct correlation to his distance from the LOS. At the line, he's damn good. 15 yards downfield... you don't want him 15 yards downfield ever. Playing him at WILL puts him much further from the LOS than SAM. Maybe the coaches have some secret info that's of major importance (like Ryan Swope's brain health on his medical report). The WILL LB needs to be a sideline to sideline player. From 2005 to 2011, Hill could do that. But that's not Wright.

Maybe I am overvaluing our backups, but I'm pretty sure that a Morgan/Smith tandem at WILL would be at least NFL average, maybe more than that as 4.5 forty LBs don't grow on trees.

If there is one thing that causes me to chill out on this issue- it's that the WILL linebacker spot could be a totally different position in 2013. It might lineup at the same spot, but who knows how Dan Quinn will use it. The fact that Smith is being moved to SAM makes me even more suspicious that the OLB roles could be very different than they were in 2012, and this hand wringing could be for nothing. Maybe the SAM is the new sideline to sideline player, and maybe the WILL crashes the run more than it previously did, etc. Something strange and interesting is going on with this defense.

 

[Scottemojo]

I can't buy into Kaepernick. I am not a hater by any stretch. I don't rag on him simply because he is our rival's QB. Wearing a Dolphins hat bothers me zero. But that throwing motion, my goodness. It is just so incredibly rare that a guy with a hitch in his giddy-up becomes an elite passer. Maybe he doesn't have to become a great passer to be successful. Call me an elitist or QB snob or whatever, but that throwing motion is a disaster. I have serious doubts that he ever gets over the wall to elite because of it.

I am so afraid to even comment on this subject, the niner fans hiding in the bushes jump out every time.
Kaepernick has some stunning accuracy on certain types of throws. His pitcher roots show when he gets to stride into throws, and I am really impressed by his mid-deep accuracy (not his deep accuracy, which is OK, but he tends to over throw a lot), and he has the 20 yard spot throw down to an art. As long as he gets to step into it. But it is a long stride, and I'm not so sure that long stride is ever going to allow quick pocket footwork. He steps into pockets real well, but his sideways movement in the pocket is pretty slow.

The throwing motion? A long motion is a tell for any secondary guy looking in, but he throws hard enough to make up for most of that. He does look a bit like a pitcher with no changeup when he tries to take some off on his short passes, though.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I don't know where you got those percentages, so I can't do the math myself, but I'm guessing that if you added them up you'd have Seattle and SF as 10 win, maybe 11 win teams. That feels like an undershoot for the two best NFL teams playing schedules that are easier this season. Some of those percentages feel overly conservative. I assume those percentages are based on historic rates at those betting lines. But judging win probably based on a betting line is probably a mistake when two teams are extremely mismatched.

I used the percentages from the chart here that converts point spreads to win probabilities. I think you're underestimating the variance in the NFL where bad teams beat good teams every week. It's also worth noting that things change so much year to year that opening point spreads at the beginning of the season are somewhat deflated until there's a clearer picture of how the teams will be this year, so you're right that the early lines seem conservative based on how good we think the Seahawks will continue to be. If the Seahawks and 49ers pick up where they left off last year and the weaker teams on the schedule don't improve, then those lines and corresponding win percentages will be higher by the times those games are played.

I also don't think the schedule will be easier. All four NFC South teams could be tough, Houston and the Giants/Redskins should still be good, and the Colts should improve from the 6-7 win team they really were last year. Winning 12+ against our schedule is certainly possible, but if the season could be played out 1000 times I would expect our average to be about 10.5-11 wins.

The real betting line for Tennessee at Seattle should probably be -20 or -25, something like that, but of course a gambling service would never offer a line like that.

Actually, they would. If week 6 comes around, Seattle is still playing at the historically great level they were the second half of last year, and Tennessee is one of the league's worst teams, the line could be close to 20. The Patriots were 21 point favorites against the Colts in the Suck For Luck year. They were also favored by 20 or more in four games in 2007. Based on the chart, a 20 point favorite should expect to win 93.1% of the time. Even if the Seahawks continue at last year's second half level, I would expect even a bad NFL team to get 7 wins out of 100 in Seattle.

Regardless, this discussion is kind of a sidetrack from the point of my first post that facing the Texans and Colts on the road and the Titans and Jaguars at home isn't a disadvantage from the other way around. It's just a difference of being moderate favorites in all four games versus small favorites in two and heavy favorites in two. You're right about the five 10am games being a disadvantage, but we have the advantage of playing Minnesota instead of Green Bay. Overall, I don't see the schedule favoring the 49ers in a way that would expect to impact the standings much at all.

Well, it shouldn't be at -14. Do you honestly believe that the Titans have a 20% win probability? Please say no, because to me, that is way off base. Seattle does not turn the ball over and they crush bad offenses at home. The Titan's defense blows. Whatever odds an inferior team has of a fluke victory are squashed by those factors. If the Titans beat us, it would be the stunner of all stunners. When was the last time that a good Seattle team lost to a terrible team in Seattle, anyway? Add em up, it's not 20%.

Seattle's home record in Qwest during 10+ win seasons is 31-1.*

And that's against all teams, great, good, bad, and awful.

I also think a 10.5 to 11 win projection is a minor undersell. The NFL has a lot of variance, but usually the elite teams perform on the better half of those variances (Patriots, Peyton Manning teams, etc). If the 2013 Seahawks played 100 seasons, I do not find it likely that they would have enough 9-7 seasons to cancel out the 13-3 ones.

Last year, the game at Detroit scared me more than hosting the 49ers, and next year the opener at Carolina scares me more than hosting the 49ers. We root for a weird football team that smacks good teams at home yet finds ways to lose to struggling outfits at 10am. The Ravens are probably the only other NFL team that I could say that about.

It's not really that I think you are wrong, I just think the Seahawks are very context dependent and not that cut and dry to project. Most teams don't have the same extreme splits and weird nonsensical shit that we have to deal with. If we were fans of almost any other team, I'd completely agree with your point on the schedule variance.

You make a good point on Green Bay, but that was out of the schedule makers hands. The schedule makers control where and when, not who. And I think the schedule makers made the tough games much more winnable while making the gimme's slightly less gimme for SF, while doing the opposite for Seattle. And that's a significant exchange, IMO.

If there is one way that I can agree with you, it's that the Seahawks are such brutal under-achievers at 10am that it might be somewhat of a good thing to get good teams at that slot. If we played Tennessee at 10am, they would actually have a prayer. On that point, I'd agree that getting Tennessee in Seattle might not be something to downplay. Seattle's schedule setup is good for winning 11 or so games, but very tough for winning 13+. Had it been flipped, they'd have more risk of a 9-7 season but would have a much easier path to 13-3. In a distant sense, I could see how you think this balances.

On the schedule difficulty, I'd be surprised if next year's won't be easier. Ours was the 4th hardest in 2012. The NFC South is rising and the NFC North fading, but the NFC North was really tough last season. Their combined DVOA was right up there with the NFC West. The NFC South has Atlanta and then a bunch of Kansas City Chiefs, teams that could be good if certain things break right. It's more of a dangerous lineup than a tough one.

* (Interestingly, that one loss was in 2007 to a then 0-4 Saints team. Three weeks later, the Saints were 4-4. Even when the Saints are bad, Drew Brees remains a terror).

I don't know where you're getting this win probability from... The 80% is speaking in terms of covering the spread. Not a straight up win/loss scenario.

Further.. The easier game will be Jacksonville, not Tennessee. Though neither game should be especially close.

 

[Sarlacc83]

If there is one thing that causes me to chill out on this issue- it's that the WILL linebacker spot could be a totally different position in 2013. It might lineup at the same spot, but who knows how Dan Quinn will use it. The fact that Smith is being moved to SAM makes me even more suspicious that the OLB roles could be very different than they were in 2012, and this hand wringing could be for nothing. Maybe the SAM is the new sideline to sideline player, and maybe the WILL crashes the run more than it previously did, etc. Something strange and interesting is going on with this defense.

Well, you're one of our draft gurus. Don't you have reams of video data you could look through to see what Quinn did at Florida.

 

[ivotuk]

Love and respect your work Kip but you are way off on KJ Wright. He will be a machine in the open field with his instincts and long arms. Teams will probably think they exact same thing you stated but will be shocked when he bursts within reach of INTs with those long arms and steals the ball. He will be overlooked. And I know we a need a little "Talcum for Malcom" but I think if he gets down, gets compact, and lays the wood he will be just fine. His problem seems to be when he gets going too fast and his arms and legs are splayed all over the place. For such a compact LB, he can sure look gangly sometimes.

One of the the secret weapons of Petes is first as we all know, he finds players with unique abilities, but then he deftly puts those unique players in to elite positions that other people are unable to recognize because they are so set on the "status quo." Like it says in your posts, "If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking." Pete shocks opposing coaches and he does it unintentionally much like a Mad Christopher Lloyd. It all seems to obvious to him, but that's because he has been looking at it differently than anybody else and it makes sense.

I'll give you an example, our family had a lodge in Umiat, Alaska on the Colville River for 25 years. There was no one there, 80% of the time it was my dad, my brother and I. There was tons of old junk from the the WWII Lend Lease program, stuff left over from Naval Petroleum Exploration from 1940 to 1985, untold numbers of Airlines and Air Taxis as well as Seismic outfits that went belly up and abanded camps, heavy equipment and tools. GSI, Global Universal Services, Western, etc etc. It was paradise for a 16 year old boy who had rows of Nodwells, ARDCOs, Cats, Road Graders, you name it to drive and no one around to say boo.

The upshot of all of that was, my brother and I had to fix everything, the generators, the toilets, the airpplanes and helicopters, heavy equipment, buildings, wiring and so on and so on. But there were no stores an no one to call so over the years we learned to look at anything laying on the ground and figure out how to make it work on what we needed. A Cessna 185 and a Ford F250 had the same exact alternator, just one had a fancy tag and cost $450.00. That Detroit Diesel blew up? No big deal, torch the frame and drop a Cummins in it. Cat needed a bucket? Cut it off the 955, torch slots in it and bolt it to the blade.

I believe that is how Pete sees football players and why he values players with athleticism and unique skills over all other, because he can find a spot where they will excel and have all the other coaches shitting their pants saying "how did he do that?" You know who else can do that? Chip Kelly...

 

[kearly]

I don't know where you're getting this win probability from... The 80% is speaking in terms of covering the spread. Not a straight up win/loss scenario.

Further.. The easier game will be Jacksonville, not Tennessee. Though neither game should be especially close.

Jewhawk was using a conversion table that converted point spread into win probability. He is saying 80% win probably, not 80% of covering spread.

I think Jacksonville gets crushed too. But I think Locker will have a meltdown here, whereas I could see Gabbert being okay.

 

[kearly]

Love and respect your work Kip but you are way off on KJ Wright. He will be a machine in the open field with his instincts and long arms. Teams will probably think they exact same thing you stated but will be shocked when he bursts within reach of INTs with those long arms and steals the ball. He will be overlooked. And I know we a need a little "Talcum for Malcom" but I think if he gets down, gets compact, and lays the wood he will be just fine.

Wright is just okay in the open field, and his coverage sucks. I will give you one thing though- he has very soft hands. If you throw it at him, he'll probably get it. Big catch radius, too. Browner is similar- big radius, soft hands.

 

[kearly]

I am so afraid to even comment on this subject, the niner fans hiding in the bushes jump out every time.

lol.

Kaepernick has some stunning accuracy on certain types of throws. His pitcher roots show when he gets to stride into throws, and I am really impressed by his mid-deep accuracy (not his deep accuracy, which is OK, but he tends to over throw a lot), and he has the 20 yard spot throw down to an art. As long as he gets to step into it. But it is a long stride, and I'm not so sure that long stride is ever going to allow quick pocket footwork. He steps into pockets real well, but his sideways movement in the pocket is pretty slow.

The throwing motion? A long motion is a tell for any secondary guy looking in, but he throws hard enough to make up for most of that. He does look a bit like a pitcher with no changeup when he tries to take some off on his short passes, though.

Leading up to the 2011 draft, I touched on this with my CK scouting report, though not as eloquently as you did. Basically, the reason a big windup is bad is because it means longer delivery time, and maybe a very slight increased risk for fumbles/injury. The 2nd factor is important to know but is basically negligible. The first factor can be career threatening.

Thing is, Kaepernick's arm is so flippin fast that his overall release time is still good even with the windup. Maybe he ends up getting a rotator cuff in a few years or something, and maybe he has a few sack-fumbles that a QB with good mechanics wouldn't have, but in terms of delivery time, he's fine. And like you said, the ball zips 20 yards so stinkin' fast. Even with the windup, Kaepernick's time from decision to reception is up there with anybody just because of pure arm talent.

 

[Anonymous]

I say Kaep's long and skinny lower legs get snapped long before his shoulder goes.