This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The San Francisco 49ers

[Giedi]

No the 49er defense definitley wasn't at its best. Again, you have to factor in that Green Bay's offense is one of the better ones in the NFL. As for our Home record, it's been 4 years since Seattle has beat the 49ers at home. That means even during the pre-Harbaugh days, Seattle couldn't win. Having said that, I think Wilson is the X-factor and difference maker. But the problem is that Seattle's road record is average when compared to their home record. If there is a team that *needs* to win at home, it's Seattle.

We'll see how things play out, but they're very one dimensional. Of course Rodgers is a great QB, but he's all that they've got going for them.

So tired of stuff like this. Between the '05 and '07 seasons, we won three division titles and swept San Francisco twice. I'm not on your boards saying shit like that because I know how arbitrary those stats are. They mean nothing in the here and now just like all of you wads keep railing about how unimportant 42-13 is this year. I guarantee that 42-13 weighs more heavily on SF than those road losses in past years mean to the current Seahawks but again, doesn't matter. Both teams are completely confident in their ability to beat the other. San Francisco has won the same number of division titles that the freaking Cardinals won in the two years prior.

In order to match our home record, we'd have to go undefeated on the road. That doesn't exactly make us sound like a BAD team. Not sure why we should be upset about it. We have a confident team. We won our first road game of the season, do you really think we as fans or the players in our locker room are nervous?

I don't think this Sunday means much in the grand scheme. Both teams have key players out on either side of the ball. Later in the season, we'll know more about these two teams.

I think Green Bay will be a formidable offense this year. Eddie Lacy looks to be a decent short Yardage Power back, and the Green Bay Packer offense doesn't need an Adrien Peterson to be effective. With their aireal attack, a good top fifteen kind of running attack will make them unpredictable enough on critical downs to convert critical 3rd downs.

As for the Hawk road record, I bring it up because after the October 18 2012 matchup between the 49ers and the Hawks, which the 49ers won, the 49ers didn't lose a road game until the Superbowl, whereas the Hawks were .500 on the road after the loss to the 49ers.

Road record is important because if you look that the three most recent Superbowl winners, if they didn't win on the road, the wouldn't have won a Superbowl. In 1988 to 1990 the 49ers had 18 consecutive *road* wins - and two superbowls. Again, I apologise if you think I'm brining up past history and rubbing it in to be an annoyance. No, I bring up past history to highlight and educate the 'Hawk fans on the importance of winning on the road if you want to win superbowls.

 

[Popeyejones]

We'll see how things play out, but they're very one dimensional. Of course Rodgers is a great QB, but he's all that they've got going for them.

Huh? They also had the 11th ranked defense in the league last year despite all of their injuries.

I've always found it kind of odd how much the Packers get minimized around here. Is it just because the 9ers beat them, or you guys really don't think they're a good team?

I dunno. Does 11-5 and the divisional round qualify a team as good or not? It seems pretty inconsistently applied 'round these parts.

I dunno. They did only put up 12 points with the help of a terrible PI call here in Seattle last year.

Their defense gave up 34 points to a San Francisco team that could only muster 6 points in three quarters here in Seattle last year as well. Their only touchdown coming in garbage time when our backups were playing defense.

I know that you think you're being funny but does that sound like a wrecking ball of a team to you? Maybe the NFC North was soft last year?

Wasn't simply trying to be funny. I was referencing overall performance rather than picking a single data points that doesn't even fit the discussion about their defense making them not be one dimensional (if anything, your selection of the game against you guys at the Clink supports what I'm saying, given that they held you to two scores, and in your Mecca at that ) . More so I think calling them one - dimensional is an outmoded way of thinking given how much they've built up their defense and how well it has performed overall.

Either way though, I do think that the position that the Packers can just be brushed away and dismissed is a really weird one, regardless of who they're playing.

 

[Giedi]

No the 49er defense definitley wasn't at its best. Again, you have to factor in that Green Bay's offense is one of the better ones in the NFL. As for our Home record, it's been 4 years since Seattle has beat the 49ers at home. That means even during the pre-Harbaugh days, Seattle couldn't win. Having said that, I think Wilson is the X-factor and difference maker. But the problem is that Seattle's road record is average when compared to their home record. If there is a team that *needs* to win at home, it's Seattle.

Seattle has gone 4-1 in their last five road games fwiw. In the past, I'd say you were spot on, but this is a better team, capable of doing much better on the road, as proven by recent success. So, while I think every game is crucial in making the playoffs and obtaining a good seed, I don't feel like they need to sweep at home to get there. I think they need home wins exactly as much as everyone else.

Unfortunately to win superbowls, you have to have a perfect road record in the playoffs. That 1L (in the 4-1) was a loss to Atlanta, just as our loss was a loss to the Ravens. Neither of our teams were good enough - road recordwise - to win it all.

The secret to winning on the road (and Laofotatupu and I have had knock down drag out discussions on this on the 49ers.com boards [not the Webzone boards]) is first of all a good QB and a good above average balanced offense, and basically a top 3 defense. Now, that defense has to be structured in a specific way, ask Laofo if you want to know more about it - he and I were going back and forth on it for almost 3 days.

 

[NinerLifer]

We'll see how things play out, but they're very one dimensional. Of course Rodgers is a great QB, but he's all that they've got going for them.

Huh? They also had the 11th ranked defense in the league last year despite all of their injuries.

I've always found it kind of odd how much the Packers get minimized around here. Is it just because the 9ers beat them, or you guys really don't think they're a good team?

I dunno. Does 11-5 and the divisional round qualify a team as good or not? It seems pretty inconsistently applied 'round these parts.

I dunno. They did only put up 12 points with the help of a terrible PI call here in Seattle last year.

Their defense gave up 34 points to a San Francisco team that could only muster 6 points in three quarters here in Seattle last year as well. Their only touchdown coming in garbage time when our backups were playing defense.

I know that you think you're being funny but does that sound like a wrecking ball of a team to you? Maybe the NFC North was soft last year?

It's hard for any team to score in Seattle. That by no means is the measuring stick of a good team.

To claim that GB's offense isn't lethal....c'mon man! You are so desperately trying to down play our victory over GB that it is making you look "Smrt...I mean smart."

 

[Laloosh]

It's hard for any team to score in Seattle. That by no means is the measuring stick of a good team.

To claim that GB's offense isn't lethal....c'mon man! You are so desperately trying to down play our victory over GB that it is making you look "Smrt...I mean smart."

Okay, Green Bay is a juggernaut. Happy?

How many yards did your quarterback run for in the playoffs against them last year again?

As a previous poster mentioned, the 49ers were in Nickel most of the day. Don't expect the same in Seattle. They did that because they didn't respect GB run game. Lacy had 41 yards running against a Nickel D all game long.

Juggernaut...

 

[loafoftatupu]

No the 49er defense definitley wasn't at its best. Again, you have to factor in that Green Bay's offense is one of the better ones in the NFL. As for our Home record, it's been 4 years since Seattle has beat the 49ers at home. That means even during the pre-Harbaugh days, Seattle couldn't win. Having said that, I think Wilson is the X-factor and difference maker. But the problem is that Seattle's road record is average when compared to their home record. If there is a team that *needs* to win at home, it's Seattle.

Seattle has gone 4-1 in their last five road games fwiw. In the past, I'd say you were spot on, but this is a better team, capable of doing much better on the road, as proven by recent success. So, while I think every game is crucial in making the playoffs and obtaining a good seed, I don't feel like they need to sweep at home to get there. I think they need home wins exactly as much as everyone else.

Unfortunately to win superbowls, you have to have a perfect road record in the playoffs. That 1L (in the 4-1) was a loss to Atlanta, just as our loss was a loss to the Ravens. Neither of our teams were good enough - road recordwise - to win it all.

The secret to winning on the road (and Laofotatupu and I have had knock down drag out discussions on this on the 49ers.com boards [not the Webzone boards]) is first of all a good QB and a good above average balanced offense, and basically a top 3 defense. Now, that defense has to be structured in a specific way, ask Laofo if you want to know more about it - he and I were going back and forth on it for almost 3 days.

Look.. its Loaf... and to you, it is "daddy".

But yes, we have discussed this on numerous occasions.

I have seen hard proof that teams with a QB that has good ratings on the road are the ones playing at home in the playoffs.

To win on the road does take defense. There are plenty of examples. I think the QB rating thing is directly related to turnovers. INTs will ruin a rating pretty quickly. The great running game helps with ball control, limiting the number of possessions.

How does it apply to Sunday night? I dunno. Both teams are really, really good. Great systems and coaching, great QBs, RBs and Defenses.

The Clink welcomes the challenge.

 

[Popeyejones]

Okay, Green Bay is a juggernaut. Happy?

How many yards did your quarterback run for in the playoffs against them last year again?

Again, you're picking single data points rather than looking at overall performance. It's the equivalent of arguing that the Hawks defense isn't good because the Falcons put up 30 points on you guys that same weekend, or the Texans defense isn't good because they got toasted for 41 points that weekend (when they were the 7th ranked defense in the league; higher than both the Hawks and 9ers). These are obviously both really bad arguments to make.

 

[Laloosh]

Okay, Green Bay is a juggernaut. Happy?

How many yards did your quarterback run for in the playoffs against them last year again?

Again, you're picking single data points rather than looking at overall performance. It's the equivalent of arguing that the Hawks defense isn't good because the Falcons put up 30 points on you guys that same weekend, or the Texans defense isn't good because they got toasted for 41 points that weekend (when they were the 7th ranked defense in the league; higher than both the Hawks and 9ers). These are obviously both really bad arguments to make.

When your fellow 49er fan is admitting that your team was able to play nickel all day because the opposing team has no run game, I think it's a legitimate statement when I say that they're one dimensional. having a good passing game doesn't make them elite, it means that they'll usually beat average teams that cannot stop their passing game despite lacking a running game.

San Fran (like Seattle) has more balance than most teams and this makes life a bit harder for a one dimensional Green Bay team.

 

[Popeyejones]

When your fellow 49er fan is admitting that your team was able to play nickel all day because the opposing team has no run game, I think it's a legitimate statement when I say that they're one dimensional.

When a team's base offense is 3 receiver sets and they spend more time in 4 receiver sets than two receiver sets of course you're primarily in Nickel. The Hawks do the same thing.

An offense being pass focused (see: Pats, Falcons, Saints, Broncos, and most other really good offenses that aren't the Hawks, 9ers, and Texans) doesn't make a whole team one-dimensional. It's why I keep pointing out that overall there defense was really strong last year, in addition to them having probably the best QB in the NFL in a truly elite passing game.

having a good passing game doesn't make them elite, it means that they'll usually beat average teams that cannot stop their passing game despite lacking a running game.

And it's very, very, very rare for someone to stop their passing game, and nobody can really do it consistently.

If the Packers aren't elite, who is elite? By your argument the Broncos can't be elite either because their offense is pass focused.

If the Seahawks are elite and the Packers aren't, why? It's why I pointed out in the first place that both teams went 11-5 and made it to the divisional round, which is nothing to sniff at, IMO.

San Fran (like Seattle) has more balance than most teams and this makes life a bit harder for a one dimensional Green Bay team.

The numbers just don't bear this out, though. The Packers offense was 5th in the league in points per game. The Hawks were 9th and the 9ers were 11th. Your argument is that life is easier against offenses that put up more points than against offenses that put up less points?

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Texans ... were the 7th ranked defense in the league; higher than both the Hawks and 9ers.

In the 2012 regular season:
By points allowed, SEA was #1 and SF was #2.
By yardage allowed, SEA was #4 and SF was #3

So... how is #7 in yardage (#9 in points) ranked higher?

 

[Laloosh]

Popey, I'm not going to keep quoting your quotes. I'm fine with you thinking that Green Bay is elite this year.

 

[Popeyejones]

Texans ... were the 7th ranked defense in the league; higher than both the Hawks and 9ers.

In the 2012 regular season:
By points allowed, SEA was #1 and SF was #2.
By yardage allowed, SEA was #4 and SF was #3

So... how is #7 in yardage (#9 in points) ranked higher?

It's not.

I didn't click the right tab, and am honestly pretty embarrassed I didn't catch it.

Good correction.

 

[Popeyejones]

Popey, I'm not going to keep quoting your quotes. I'm fine with you thinking that Green Bay is elite this year.

Well of course you don't want to answer what makes the Hawks (or 9ers) elite that doesn't make the Packers or Broncos elite, because there's not a good answer for it.

Just as a point of clarification though, I'm not ready to make any pronouncements about any of these teams' "eliteness" for the year yet. We're only one game in. Any of these squads could crash and burn. I'm just saying right here right now going into week 2, I think it's hard to argue against any of these teams, and more importantly, I think dismissing any of them out of hand (what I initally responded to) is a strange position to take.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Texans ... were the 7th ranked defense in the league; higher than both the Hawks and 9ers.

In the 2012 regular season:
By points allowed, SEA was #1 and SF was #2.
By yardage allowed, SEA was #4 and SF was #3

So... how is #7 in yardage (#9 in points) ranked higher?

It's not.

I didn't click the right tab, and am honestly pretty embarrassed I didn't catch it.

Good correction.

Good on ya, man. :th2thumbs: I'm glad I didn't get all snarky about it.

But as we're glancing at last season, man our teams played some badass D. With both squads adding personnel in the off-season, this game and our week 14 matchup are going to be ... vicious/crazy/epic/brutal, etc... and very exciting to watch.

 

[NinerBuff]

My feeling about this game:

Obviously it would be great if the Niners won, but I wasn't expecting a win when the schedule was released, and I still doubt we win this game. As long as the Niners can hold serve in SF, I believe that our schedule plays out better over the duration of the season. This is our toughest game all year, and we're coming off a game where our running attack was particularly ineffective. The Packers obviously made it a point to make Kaep beat them with his arm, which he did. But that outcome is far more difficult on the road in the noisiest stadium in the league. I do think that Anquan matches up well with the SEA secondary (at least he can battle their toughness with his), but he definitely wont have a ridiculous day like last week. On defense, Carolina really played as sound a game defensively as you can... we need to emulate their game plan, and obviously we need to support the defense with more than 7 pts.

Areas of Encouragement:

Eric Reid - he didn't look lost, made a great tackle on 3rd and medium to stop a drive. Great hands on the INT... overall - great start.
Kaep - his stat line was actually more impressive than his play (he didn't hit receivers in stride on several occasions, which would have only increased his day), but he has obvious chemistry with Boldin and Davis and isn't afraid to let them make a play vs. double or even triple coverage.
Ian Williams / Glen Dorsey - after a tough first few series, they really buckled down and held the point of attack well. They are obviously not the key to our front 7, as just about everyone else is an all-pro, but there wasn't a serious performance drop-off.

Areas of Discouragement:

#2 WR - Williams is shifty but isn't really a threat. I was disappointed that Patton wasn't targeted. I expect that to change in this game.
Clock Management - this still remains Kaep's number 1 weakness, and it will only be exacerbated in the hostile environment.
Phil Dawson - I was skeptical of this addition, and we've recently been burned by bad kicking. We lost 2 games last year because we missed 40 yd FGs. Also, he doesn't drive the ball through the endzone, allowing KRs.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

I appreciate the analysis, NinerBuff. I'll be looking for these points when I re-watch games over the next few days. Regarding the lack of Patton, I've been wondering if both teams held just a little back for this game. I'm sure they both did everything feasible to win last week, but I wonder if in those borderline decisions (who to target, how many snaps per player, etc.) the deciding factor wasn't the fact that they could spring a few new wrinkles in week 2. Surely, neither team was going to put everything on tape in week 1, right? That's one of the more fascinating aspects of playing each other in week 2; anything can happen. We might see formations and fronts we haven't seen between these two teams before. I'm salivating for this one! Football anticipation at its finest.

 

[NinerBuff]

I appreciate the analysis, NinerBuff. I'll be looking for these points when I re-watch games over the next few days. Regarding the lack of Patton, I've been wondering if both teams held just a little back for this game. I'm sure they both did everything feasible to win last week, but I wonder if in those borderline decisions (who to target, how many snaps per player, etc.) the deciding factor wasn't the fact that they could spring a few new wrinkles in week 2. Surely, neither team was going to put everything on tape in week 1, right? That's one of the more fascinating aspects of playing each other in week 2; anything can happen. We might see formations and fronts we haven't seen between these two teams before. I'm salivating for this one! Football anticipation at its finest.

I try to be as logical and 'non' homer as I can... it's pretty obvious that both teams are elite, and this game should be a great game. I think it's more vital that SEA wins this game and puts the pressure on SF to win at home. If SF were to win, it would put SEA in a big hole in the division, making it difficult for them to surpass the Niners. That being said, the Niners do need to show that last years debacle was an aberration and not a pattern.

It will be interesting to see which team can re-establish the run, as both running attacks were held fairly ineffective in game 1.

 

[NinerLifer]

I appreciate the analysis, NinerBuff. I'll be looking for these points when I re-watch games over the next few days. Regarding the lack of Patton, I've been wondering if both teams held just a little back for this game. I'm sure they both did everything feasible to win last week, but I wonder if in those borderline decisions (who to target, how many snaps per player, etc.) the deciding factor wasn't the fact that they could spring a few new wrinkles in week 2. Surely, neither team was going to put everything on tape in week 1, right? That's one of the more fascinating aspects of playing each other in week 2; anything can happen. We might see formations and fronts we haven't seen between these two teams before. I'm salivating for this one! Football anticipation at its finest.

I try to be as logical and 'non' homer as I can... it's pretty obvious that both teams are elite, and this game should be a great game. I think it's more vital that SEA wins this game and puts the pressure on SF to win at home. If SF were to win, it would put SEA in a big hole in the division, making it difficult for them to surpass the Niners. That being said, the Niners do need to show that last years debacle was an aberration and not a pattern.

It will be interesting to see which team can re-establish the run, as both running attacks were held fairly ineffective in game 1.

Agree 100%

 

[Laloosh]

Popey, I'm not going to keep quoting your quotes. I'm fine with you thinking that Green Bay is elite this year.

Well of course you don't want to answer what makes the Hawks (or 9ers) elite that doesn't make the Packers or Broncos elite, because there's not a good answer for it.

Just as a point of clarification though, I'm not ready to make any pronouncements about any of these teams' "eliteness" for the year yet. We're only one game in. Any of these squads could crash and burn. I'm just saying right here right now going into week 2, I think it's hard to argue against any of these teams, and more importantly, I think dismissing any of them out of hand (what I initally responded to) is a strange position to take.

So disappointed in myself for responding to this but...

Seattle (or SF) could come out and completely flop. Wouldn't call either team elite if they did so. In that regard, I agree that it's a little early in the season to be calling anyone elite. I didn't call anyone elite however, that was you (talking about GB). If you were to ask me who I thought was more likely to flop out of those three teams, I'd pick GB in a heartbeat. Why? Because they lack balance. No running game makes them one dimensional and if you can shut down the pass, they're in real trouble (see Seattle last year as I mentioned).

Not sure how you got stuck on the idea of me completely discounting GB as being a bunch of chodes, but I thought I was clear in stating that they are a one dimensional team. Someone wants to argue how legit their defense is, fine, do it. I feel justified in disagreeing. They completely sold out on the run and couldn't have defended a pass from my grandmother on Sunday. As I said, I am fine with you thinking they're an unbelievably difficult defense to pass on. I just happen to disagree.

 

[Johnny]

For those that don't have Game Rewind.... Here's the games from week 16.... 42-13.

[youtube]bsALBWiSBk8[/youtube]