Are the 49ers Better than the Seahawks?

[MontanaHawk05]

[flash=][/flash]

Their defense is legit, but...

Russell Wilson > Jimmy Garoppolo

The ultimate equalizer.

I greatly agree russ is better however legit defenses shut down top Qbs and offenses a lot. We know this as well as anyone.

Have you ever seen Russ be shut down by ANY defense, ever?

Me neither.

Yeah, it's happened. Rams used to do it all the time under Fisher. 2016 against Tampa. Doesn't happen often, but if anyone's going to do it, it'll probably be SF.

 

[John63]

[flash=][/flash]

Their defense is legit, but...

Russell Wilson > Jimmy Garoppolo

The ultimate equalizer.

I greatly agree russ is better however legit defenses shut down top Qbs and offenses a lot. We know this as well as anyone.

Have you ever seen Russ be shut down by ANY defense, ever?

Me neither.

Yeah, it's happened. Rams used to do it all the time under Fisher. 2016 against Tampa. Doesn't happen often, but if anyone's going to do it, it'll probably be SF.

Not totally shut down, but more controlled, that said that was then. They have not faced this Wilson, with this good a run game to go with it.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Hard to say really, but they do look pretty damn good. And yes, that hurt to say.
However, unlike many fans out there, I don't fear the Niners or any other team. And I guarantee the team doesn't. I expect a split again like last season. But a couple great battles, and I think the rivalry is going to be back.

 

[Popeyejones]

Four of the Seahawks five wins have come against common opponents of the 9ers.

The Seahawks beat those four teams by a combined 8 points.

The 49ers beat those four teams by a combined 69 points.

Who knows what ends up happening, but I think it takes a heavy dose of fan logic to argue that the 9ers haven't been better so far (which tbf had surprised me as much as anybody).

Again, scores do not matter.

This is a bizarre claim that's not based in fact.

We're fully agreed that when it comes to making the playoffs or not (and playoff seeding if you make the playoffs) it doesn't really matter if you've been lucky or good, but that's not the question. The question is which team has been better so far.

The simplest way to do this is to look at coin flips games -- games decided by one score or less.

We have years, and years, and years of data showing that over time teams revert to the mean (.500) in one score games.

The 9ers are 1-0 in coin flip games. It is a matter of luck that they're not 4-1 right now.

The Seahawks are 4-1 in coin flip games. If they had been as unlucky as they've been lucky they'd be 1-5 or 2-4 right now.

Again, none of this matters for making the playoffs and playoff seeding (for making the playoffs, with 16 game seasons being lucky oftentimes matters as much as being good), but claiming that scores don't matter because it's temporarily convenient for you to do so is simply untrue.

 

[Boycie]

Four of the Seahawks five wins have come against common opponents of the 9ers.

The Seahawks beat those four teams by a combined 8 points.

The 49ers beat those four teams by a combined 69 points.

Who knows what ends up happening, but I think it takes a heavy dose of fan logic to argue that the 9ers haven't been better so far (which tbf had surprised me as much as anybody).

Again, scores do not matter.

This is a bizarre claim that's not based in fact.

We're fully agreed that when it comes to making the playoffs or not (and playoff seeding if you make the playoffs) it doesn't really matter if you've been lucky or good, but that's not the question. The question is which team has been better so far.

The simplest way to do this is to look at coin flips games -- games decided by one score or less.

We have years, and years, and years of data showing that over time teams revert to the mean (.500) in one score games.

The 9ers are 1-0 in coin flip games. It is a matter of luck that they're not 4-1 right now.

The Seahawks are 4-1 in coin flip games. If they had been as unlucky as they've been lucky they'd be 1-5 or 2-4 right now.

Again, none of this matters for making the playoffs and playoff seeding (for making the playoffs, with 16 game seasons being lucky oftentimes matters as much as being good), but claiming that scores don't matter because it's temporarily convenient for you to do so is simply untrue.

So was it the Rams game that solidified this belief that the Niners are the best in our division, or was it the Cleveland game?

 

[Popeyejones]

Four of the Seahawks five wins have come against common opponents of the 9ers.

The Seahawks beat those four teams by a combined 8 points.

The 49ers beat those four teams by a combined 69 points.

Who knows what ends up happening, but I think it takes a heavy dose of fan logic to argue that the 9ers haven't been better so far (which tbf had surprised me as much as anybody).

Again, scores do not matter.

This is a bizarre claim that's not based in fact.

We're fully agreed that when it comes to making the playoffs or not (and playoff seeding if you make the playoffs) it doesn't really matter if you've been lucky or good, but that's not the question. The question is which team has been better so far.

The simplest way to do this is to look at coin flips games -- games decided by one score or less.

We have years, and years, and years of data showing that over time teams revert to the mean (.500) in one score games.

The 9ers are 1-0 in coin flip games. It is a matter of luck that they're not 4-1 right now.

The Seahawks are 4-1 in coin flip games. If they had been as unlucky as they've been lucky they'd be 1-5 or 2-4 right now.

Again, none of this matters for making the playoffs and playoff seeding (for making the playoffs, with 16 game seasons being lucky oftentimes matters as much as being good), but claiming that scores don't matter because it's temporarily convenient for you to do so is simply untrue.

So was it the Rams game that solidified this belief that the Niners are the best in our division, or was it the Cleveland game?

The premise of your question is bizarre and flawed.

I say the following with total sincerity:

The Seahawks could end up going 15-1 and the 9ers could end up going 5-11 and it wouldn't change the fact that for the first six weeks of the season the 9ers were significantly better than the Seahawks.

While point differentials predict future winning better than winning does, that doesn't mean that the above scenario isn't going to happen or could not happen.

 

[Seymour]

Their defense is legit, but...

Russell Wilson > Jimmy Garoppolo

The ultimate equalizer.

I greatly agree russ is better however legit defenses shut down top Qbs and offenses a lot. We know this as well as anyone.

Have you ever seen Russ be shut down by ANY defense, ever?

Me neither.

Yes. Vs GB twice. Vs Niners in harbaugh days. We scored 5 points vs Tb a cpl years back. We scored 6 vs AZ. I mean top QBs get shut down vs top defenses. To say Russ has never been shut down is homerism at its finest.

This.

As much as I like Russ, he's definitely been shut down several times prior to this season. And it will happen again.

 

[Popeyejones]

This.

As much as I like Russ, he's definitely been shut down several times prior to this season. And it will happen again.

Yep.

That the best QB in the league so far this year is actually human isn't really a mark against him. :2thumbs:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

It's a roster full of players, not just one. Even if it does seem like he carries the team a LOT.

 

[Yxes1122]

The 2019 Seahawks are reliant on Russell playing at a 07 Brady/2011 Rodgers level. What's scary is that those years the Pats and Packers were blowing people out (NE was +138 through 6 weeks and GB was +83). Seattle is +19.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NFLResearch/status/1183491576544149504[/tweet]

Seattle needs to fix this defense. The running game also needs to improve. We need a counter punch if Russell struggles, which will undoubtedly happen. The good news, is that the running game has started to come alive after a slow start to the season. Blair stealing snaps from Tedric is also a good sign.

But the 49ers are the better team right now in just about every conceivable metric (DVOA, Point Differential, ANY/A). And that is with their own cavalcade of injuries.

I still think Seattle will be competitive. Pete Carroll teams have historically punched above their weight class. Plus, Seattle has shown the ability to shut down the run well this year, which is the first step to beating the Niners. But there are too many big plays and sloppy moments for me to confidently say Seattle is better than SF.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

It's October 15th, don't care. Just enjoying my time on SEAHAWKS dot net. I repeat, SEAHAWKS

 

[Uncle Si]

It's October 15th, don't care. Just enjoying my time on SEAHAWKS dot net. I repeat, SEAHAWKS

It's fine to compare the Seahawks to their primary rival at the moment.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I know, just having fun. I hate them, and it does make it more fun when both teams are good.

 

[John63]

Again, scores do not matter.

This is a bizarre claim that's not based in fact.

We're fully agreed that when it comes to making the playoffs or not (and playoff seeding if you make the playoffs) it doesn't really matter if you've been lucky or good, but that's not the question. The question is which team has been better so far.

The simplest way to do this is to look at coin flips games -- games decided by one score or less.

We have years, and years, and years of data showing that over time teams revert to the mean (.500) in one score games.

The 9ers are 1-0 in coin flip games. It is a matter of luck that they're not 4-1 right now.

The Seahawks are 4-1 in coin flip games. If they had been as unlucky as they've been lucky they'd be 1-5 or 2-4 right now.

Again, none of this matters for making the playoffs and playoff seeding (for making the playoffs, with 16 game seasons being lucky oftentimes matters as much as being good), but claiming that scores don't matter because it's temporarily convenient for you to do so is simply untrue.

So was it the Rams game that solidified this belief that the Niners are the best in our division, or was it the Cleveland game?

The premise of your question is bizarre and flawed.

I say the following with total sincerity:

The Seahawks could end up going 15-1 and the 9ers could end up going 5-11 and it wouldn't change the fact that for the first six weeks of the season the 9ers were significantly better than the Seahawks.

While point differentials predict future winning better than winning does, that doesn't mean that the above scenario isn't going to happen or could not happen.

OKay fine but by what measuring stick, given you have said that match ups matter. To make it simple 1 tam is 5-1 the other 5-0 that does not prove they are better given our loss came to a team they have not played yet. Then you want to bring in all these other things but then say match ups matter so then those other things dont. You cannot have it both ways. We play a particular style and way, we rarely try to blow people out, so saying they blew some out, notice some not all as they have a 4 point win, does not prove anything. I could easily say the mos important position is QB we have the better Qb, so we are better. It would not be right but it is as good a way as the BS you try to push. Point differential is a by product of matchups, systems, and philosophy. Not necessarily who is better.

 

[Popeyejones]

This is a bizarre claim that's not based in fact.

We're fully agreed that when it comes to making the playoffs or not (and playoff seeding if you make the playoffs) it doesn't really matter if you've been lucky or good, but that's not the question. The question is which team has been better so far.

The simplest way to do this is to look at coin flips games -- games decided by one score or less.

We have years, and years, and years of data showing that over time teams revert to the mean (.500) in one score games.

The 9ers are 1-0 in coin flip games. It is a matter of luck that they're not 4-1 right now.

The Seahawks are 4-1 in coin flip games. If they had been as unlucky as they've been lucky they'd be 1-5 or 2-4 right now.

Again, none of this matters for making the playoffs and playoff seeding (for making the playoffs, with 16 game seasons being lucky oftentimes matters as much as being good), but claiming that scores don't matter because it's temporarily convenient for you to do so is simply untrue.

So was it the Rams game that solidified this belief that the Niners are the best in our division, or was it the Cleveland game?

The premise of your question is bizarre and flawed.

I say the following with total sincerity:

The Seahawks could end up going 15-1 and the 9ers could end up going 5-11 and it wouldn't change the fact that for the first six weeks of the season the 9ers were significantly better than the Seahawks.

While point differentials predict future winning better than winning does, that doesn't mean that the above scenario isn't going to happen or could not happen.

OKay fine but by what measuring stick, given you have said that match ups matter. To make it simple 1 tam is 5-1 the other 5-0 that does not prove they are better given our loss came to a team they have not played yet. Then you want to bring in all these other things but then say match ups matter so then those other things dont. You cannot have it both ways. We play a particular style and way, we rarely try to blow people out, so saying they blew some out, notice some not all as they have a 4 point win, does not prove anything. I could easily say the mos important position is QB we have the better Qb, so we are better. It would not be right but it is as good a way as the BS you try to push. Point differential is a by product of matchups, systems, and philosophy. Not necessarily who is better.

Yeah, okay, if you just want to go the naive model route you go by record and the Seahawks have lost and the 49ers have not, and there's nothing more to talk about.

If you want to go a fully considered performance and competition model you go DVOA, and there's nothing more to talk about.

If you want to go in between you look at common opponents, wins, and score differentials, for which the 9ers have a 69 point score differential across four games to the Seahawks' 8 points across four games.

As the first two strategies don't get you to where you want to go, you're left with the third, which only leaves two arguments to make: 1) point differential has no explanatory power for performance, and 2) winning close games is a skill.

We have SO MUCH data on those claims. They're both plain and simply factually untrue.

Again, none of this means the Seahawks won't beat the 49ers by a combined 100 points in their two games this year, but that the 49ers have been better than the Seahawks *so far* this year is just not reasonably debatable IMO.

 

[chris98251]

The Seahawks are a team that sits on leads and doesn't push up scores, have seen it over and over again under Pete unless he was playing the 49ers with Harbaugh. Lynch has been seen asking if we can score again in a Video, we clock kill like nobody else rather then push yards and final scores, we take knees for 2 minutes at the end of games.

Why out right points isn't all telling, now if your the Patriots not only do you slit a teams throat you then dice and slice the body and blend it as a puree if you can.

 

[94Smith]

[flash=][/flash]

I greatly agree russ is better however legit defenses shut down top Qbs and offenses a lot. We know this as well as anyone.

Have you ever seen Russ be shut down by ANY defense, ever?

Me neither.

Yeah, it's happened. Rams used to do it all the time under Fisher. 2016 against Tampa. Doesn't happen often, but if anyone's going to do it, it'll probably be SF.

Not totally shut down, but more controlled, that said that was then. They have not faced this Wilson, with this good a run game to go with it.

We faced Wilson last year at Levis with a mash unit and won. You are not unbeatable.

 

[John63]

So was it the Rams game that solidified this belief that the Niners are the best in our division, or was it the Cleveland game?

The premise of your question is bizarre and flawed.

I say the following with total sincerity:

The Seahawks could end up going 15-1 and the 9ers could end up going 5-11 and it wouldn't change the fact that for the first six weeks of the season the 9ers were significantly better than the Seahawks.

While point differentials predict future winning better than winning does, that doesn't mean that the above scenario isn't going to happen or could not happen.

OKay fine but by what measuring stick, given you have said that match ups matter. To make it simple 1 tam is 5-1 the other 5-0 that does not prove they are better given our loss came to a team they have not played yet. Then you want to bring in all these other things but then say match ups matter so then those other things dont. You cannot have it both ways. We play a particular style and way, we rarely try to blow people out, so saying they blew some out, notice some not all as they have a 4 point win, does not prove anything. I could easily say the mos important position is QB we have the better Qb, so we are better. It would not be right but it is as good a way as the BS you try to push. Point differential is a by product of matchups, systems, and philosophy. Not necessarily who is better.

Yeah, okay, if you just want to go the naive model route you go by record and the Seahawks have lost and the 49ers have not, and there's nothing more to talk about.

If you want to go a fully considered performance and competition model you go DVOA, and there's nothing more to talk about.

If you want to go in between you look at common opponents, wins, and score differentials, for which the 9ers have a 69 point score differential across four games to the Seahawks' 8 points across four games.

As the first two strategies don't get you to where you want to go, you're left with the third, which only leaves two arguments to make: 1) point differential has no explanatory power for performance, and 2) winning close games is a skill.

We have SO MUCH data on those claims. They're both plain and simply factually untrue.

Again, none of this means the Seahawks won't beat the 49ers by a combined 100 points in their two games this year, but that the 49ers have been better than the Seahawks *so far* this year is just not reasonably debatable IMO.

Its okay if you wan tto use double talk to prove a point that your own talak says you cant prove.

 

[John63]

[flash=][/flash]

Have you ever seen Russ be shut down by ANY defense, ever?

Me neither.

Yeah, it's happened. Rams used to do it all the time under Fisher. 2016 against Tampa. Doesn't happen often, but if anyone's going to do it, it'll probably be SF.

Not totally shut down, but more controlled, that said that was then. They have not faced this Wilson, with this good a run game to go with it.

We faced Wilson last year at Levis with a mash unit and won. You are not unbeatable.

ahh who said we are? and FYI neither are you.The point is this team like yours is different from last year.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

No team in the NFL is unbeatable, including the perfect 49ers. All the teams have weaknesses, ALL of them.