Concerns regarding the 49ers.

[MizzouHawkGal]

9 huh? That's worse then expected.

 

[Marvin49]

9 huh? That's worse then expected.

That's BS is what it is.

Supposed to take the 5 games into account fro last year, but instead if you add those 5 ists a total 13 games out. ridiculous.

I know 'hawk fans are loving it, but Goodell has his head up his a$$. 2 games for beating your girlfriend, 9 for this. Ludicrous.

 

[Melencause]

9 huh? That's worse then expected.

That's BS is what it is.

Supposed to take the 5 games into account fro last year, but instead if you add those 5 ists a total 13 games out. ridiculous.

I know 'hawk fans are loving it, but Goodell has his head up his a$$. 2 games for beating your girlfriend, 9 for this. Ludicrous.

If he didn't take those 5 Smith would probably have been out for the season.

 

[Tech Worlds]

Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless debate their level of concern for San Francisco's offense and whether the 49ers are still Super Bowl contenders. I usually don't have any love for these two clowns but...this IS a legit debate. Spin this as much as you want Whiners fans...the result will be the same (9-7).

[youtube]W1z50iMKvhk[/youtube]

Oh look yet another 49er thread, what a surprise.

I know. It gets kinda old. The obsession around here is bizarre.

 

[RichNhansom]

Does the number of fumbles Kaep has had in just 7 possessions worry you?

Also I can't look it up right now but seen a stat during the San Diego game that saod he had 8 and the didn't include the one they called wrong but didn't overturn because they said there wasn't a clear view of who recovered.

Has Kaep actually fumbled 9 times in 7 possessions?

uh...no.

Dunno where you see that.

He fumbled twice...once when blindsided and once while running (that's the one with the review you are talking about).

Jeez...how can you even try to make any points about the starting O if you have watched so little that you think its possible he fumbled 9 times. LOL.

Maybe you don't read good or the tears of preseason are clouding your eyes. I was at work and on a ten minute break when I asked the question and I even told you were I seen it. How hard is that to understand?

It's why I asked if he had actually (actually being the key word here) fumbled 9 times.

As for preseason being meaningless again you apparently couldn't grasp my point. The preseason is not completely meaningless or they wouldn't play it. There is good information to be drawn from the preseason but you have to take it with a grain of salt.

In other words if you put out two new players on your O-line and your best guard is playing like crap you can't just write it off. If those are going to be the guys starting for you in the regular season, how do you think they will look when teams are game planning, making adjustments and sending in blitz or exotic packages? If you think they are just suddenly going to play as good as ever without a hitch then you are the one being Naive.

Likewise if you have a running back or WR tearing it up in preseason it doesn't automatically translate to the regular season.

As a whole though you can bet the only fans saying preseason is completely meaningless are guys that are sweating bullets hoping that things get better. Its unrealistic to just assume the bad will suddenly improve and the good will stay the same. It's homeristic denial to ignore only the bad while trying to point out the good.

 

[rideaducati]

Substance abuse? I wonder what that was. He had to be in the program already because they don't issue a 4 game suspension til the third offense. The 5 games for conduct added to it is about right.

 

[GLOCKHAWK]

I dunno. I'm watching the Seahawks right now and it seems clear to me that they just have zero depth at all. Raiders just driving down the field time after time got TDs. You guys are in trouble.

49ers meanwhile just won 40-13, so obviously they are the greatest team of all time and on their way to 19-0 and their 6th Lombardi.

Obviously you can draw these conclusions from the preseason and any attempt to argue otherwise is just spin.



Seriously peoples, enough of taking preseason seriously. Means nothing. Thankfully real games about to start.

Too bad our starting O once again scored more than Kaep has all preseason in just 3 throws.

Methinks you missed my point.

if it helps, i understand your point
8)

Hahaha NO I see your "point!"

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith talking about the 49ers is the nexus of everything terrible about sports.

 

[GLOCKHAWK]

Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless debate their level of concern for San Francisco's offense and whether the 49ers are still Super Bowl contenders. I usually don't have any love for these two clowns but...this IS a legit debate. Spin this as much as you want Whiners fans...the result will be the same (9-7).

[youtube]W1z50iMKvhk[/youtube]

Lol that first sentence loosely translated

"I usually don't have any love for these two clowns but this is a legit debate"

So you mean

"I normally don't agree with 99% of what these two talk about, but since I want to make a point about a rival I'll go with it"

Am I right there?

WRONG! Nice try twisting my words with your "loose translation."

 

[GLOCKHAWK]

I can't believe people watch and post links to that garbage.

Then don't watch OR post...it's simple!

 

[GLOCKHAWK]

The Niners are most likely just fine, and if I change my opinion on that it won't be because of those idiots on ESPN.

Incorrect. The Niners are NOT just fine. I'm just glad to have your "uber knowledge" ha!

 

[Marvin49]

Does the number of fumbles Kaep has had in just 7 possessions worry you?

Also I can't look it up right now but seen a stat during the San Diego game that saod he had 8 and the didn't include the one they called wrong but didn't overturn because they said there wasn't a clear view of who recovered.

Has Kaep actually fumbled 9 times in 7 possessions?

uh...no.

Dunno where you see that.

He fumbled twice...once when blindsided and once while running (that's the one with the review you are talking about).

Jeez...how can you even try to make any points about the starting O if you have watched so little that you think its possible he fumbled 9 times. LOL.

Maybe you don't read good or the tears of preseason are clouding your eyes. I was at work and on a ten minute break when I asked the question and I even told you were I seen it. How hard is that to understand?

It's why I asked if he had actually (actually being the key word here) fumbled 9 times.

As for preseason being meaningless again you apparently couldn't grasp my point. The preseason is not completely meaningless or they wouldn't play it. There is good information to be drawn from the preseason but you have to take it with a grain of salt.

In other words if you put out two new players on your O-line and your best guard is playing like crap you can't just write it off. If those are going to be the guys starting for you in the regular season, how do you think they will look when teams are game planning, making adjustments and sending in blitz or exotic packages? If you think they are just suddenly going to play as good as ever without a hitch then you are the one being Naive.

Likewise if you have a running back or WR tearing it up in preseason it doesn't automatically translate to the regular season.

As a whole though you can bet the only fans saying preseason is completely meaningless are guys that are sweating bullets hoping that things get better. Its unrealistic to just assume the bad will suddenly improve and the good will stay the same. It's homeristic denial to ignore only the bad while trying to point out the good.

I got your point....and responded to it. I bolded the part I thought was true. I realize you quickly qualified it afterward.

I'm not "ignoring the bad" BTW. I was one of the peeps talking about how horrific the backup QB situation is and how badly Iupati has played.

I just don't think the performance of the offense as a whole is as life changing as some here would like to believe.

As I said, if Lloyd makes the catch he should make in the endzone, Kap has a 95 QB rating and nobody is talking like he's terrible.

Meanwhile as I said, you are effectively saying I'm in denial about the teams performance when you actually had to ask to confirm if he'd fumbled 9 times in 7 drives. If you'd watched the games enough to somehow have a better understanding of what is happening to the 49er offense, you'd have been able to answer that question yourself.

Instead, it sounds like all you've done is looked at statsheets and listened to talking heads who also just look at statsheets.

 

[GLOCKHAWK]

9 huh? That's worse then expected.

That's BS is what it is.

Supposed to take the 5 games into account fro last year, but instead if you add those 5 ists a total 13 games out. ridiculous.

I know 'hawk fans are loving it, but Goodell has his head up his a$$. 2 games for beating your girlfriend, 9 for this. Ludicrous.

Jeezus...Denial isn't just a river in Egypt Marvin!! Your team can't do anything wrong huh? Please enjoy the following video:

[youtube]PGNiXGX2nLU[/youtube]

 

[GLOCKHAWK]

Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless debate their level of concern for San Francisco's offense and whether the 49ers are still Super Bowl contenders. I usually don't have any love for these two clowns but...this IS a legit debate. Spin this as much as you want Whiners fans...the result will be the same (9-7).

[youtube]W1z50iMKvhk[/youtube]

Oh look yet another 49er thread, what a surprise.

I know. It gets kinda old. The obsession around here is bizarre.

How is it bizarre? How is it old? Seahawks fans that I know ARE obsessed! This is a bad thing how?

 

[RichNhansom]

Does the number of fumbles Kaep has had in just 7 possessions worry you?

Also I can't look it up right now but seen a stat during the San Diego game that saod he had 8 and the didn't include the one they called wrong but didn't overturn because they said there wasn't a clear view of who recovered.

Has Kaep actually fumbled 9 times in 7 possessions?

uh...no.

Dunno where you see that.

He fumbled twice...once when blindsided and once while running (that's the one with the review you are talking about).

Jeez...how can you even try to make any points about the starting O if you have watched so little that you think its possible he fumbled 9 times. LOL.

Maybe you don't read good or the tears of preseason are clouding your eyes. I was at work and on a ten minute break when I asked the question and I even told you were I seen it. How hard is that to understand?

It's why I asked if he had actually (actually being the key word here) fumbled 9 times.

As for preseason being meaningless again you apparently couldn't grasp my point. The preseason is not completely meaningless or they wouldn't play it. There is good information to be drawn from the preseason but you have to take it with a grain of salt.

In other words if you put out two new players on your O-line and your best guard is playing like crap you can't just write it off. If those are going to be the guys starting for you in the regular season, how do you think they will look when teams are game planning, making adjustments and sending in blitz or exotic packages? If you think they are just suddenly going to play as good as ever without a hitch then you are the one being Naive.

Likewise if you have a running back or WR tearing it up in preseason it doesn't automatically translate to the regular season.

As a whole though you can bet the only fans saying preseason is completely meaningless are guys that are sweating bullets hoping that things get better. Its unrealistic to just assume the bad will suddenly improve and the good will stay the same. It's homeristic denial to ignore only the bad while trying to point out the good.

I got your point....and responded to it. I bolded the part I thought was true. I realize you quickly qualified it afterward.

I'm not "ignoring the bad" BTW. I was one of the peeps talking about how horrific the backup QB situation is and how badly Iupati has played.

I just don't think the performance of the offense as a whole is as life changing as some here would like to believe.

As I said, if Lloyd makes the catch he should make in the endzone, Kap has a 95 QB rating and nobody is talking like he's terrible.

Meanwhile as I said, you are effectively saying I'm in denial about the teams performance when you actually had to ask to confirm if he'd fumbled 9 times in 7 drives. If you'd watched the games enough to somehow have a better understanding of what is happening to the 49er offense, you'd have been able to answer that question yourself.

Instead, it sounds like all you've done is looked at statsheets and listened to talking heads who also just look at statsheets.

Uhm wouldn't a stat sheet prevent that misunderstanding?

I have told you the only game I have watched was the San Diego game and in that game is where I seen the fumble stat.

 

[loafoftatupu]

5) After having 60-80% likelihood of winning in the NFCC at different points through three quarters, Kap had three turnovers in the 4th quarter of the NFCC. He had as many turnovers in the 4th quarter of the NFCC as he does in his 5 and 3/4 other playoff games combined. If your projected to win in the NFCC and your QB has 3 TOs in the 4th quarter, that's an anchor that's going to stick with people for obvious reasons.

So the Niners had a chance to win the game in Seattle 1 time out of the last 3. Meaning they had a lead. The Hawks only got 3 points out of 2 turnovers the Niners made in Niner territory. How does that equate to 60-80% likeliness that the Niners win? Especially in Seattle.

What was the likelihood of Seattle beating SF in the Stick with a lead, minutes left in the game, SF deep in their own territory until Frank Gore breaks a run longer than his rushing total of the previous 2 games combined? The Niners were never projected to win the NFCC, ever. Not in Seattle. Were the Hawks projected to win in The Stick? No.. the game turned out how most of us thought it would even though the Hawks had a very late lead. Just like the NFCC, only the lead was lost much earlier.

The way I see it, the Hawks and Niners are an automatic home split unless something extraordinary happens. As I think about it more, Hawks and Niners are a football fan's wet dream at this point. To a fan that doesn't care who wins it must be a fantastic matchup to see. I don't think that changes regardless of all the stuff going on.

These are great days bros... whether you are a Hawks or Niners fan we will never forget this era of football. If the Niners won another Super Bowl this year by squeaking by the Hawks in the NFCC the hype surrounding the matchup would be biblical.

Oh and Popeye, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out how things tend to work out and how reality dictates when it comes to SF/SEA.

 

[Popeyejones]

5) After having 60-80% likelihood of winning in the NFCC at different points through three quarters, Kap had three turnovers in the 4th quarter of the NFCC. He had as many turnovers in the 4th quarter of the NFCC as he does in his 5 and 3/4 other playoff games combined. If your projected to win in the NFCC and your QB has 3 TOs in the 4th quarter, that's an anchor that's going to stick with people for obvious reasons.

So the Niners had a chance to win the game in Seattle 1 time out of the last 3. Meaning they had a lead. The Hawks only got 3 points out of 2 turnovers the Niners made in Niner territory. How does that equate to 60-80% likeliness that the Niners win? Especially in Seattle.

Was referring to (IIRCS) FO's projected win probability throughout the game, that's it. What Seattle did in games I wasn't talking about is neither here nor there with regards to what I said, as is what Seattle ended up doing throughout the 4th quarter when they were projected to win based on probability.

My point was that if your QB has three turnovers in the fourth quarter of a Championship game that you lost closely and were projected to win through most of the game, it's something that's probably going to stick with people. :lol: Do you disagree with that? If not, TBF, you might be picking a fight where there ain't one.

 

[loafoftatupu]

My point was that if your QB has three turnovers in the fourth quarter of a Championship game that you lost closely and were projected to win through most of the game, it's something that's probably going to stick with people. :lol: Do you disagree with that? If not, TBF, you might be picking a fight where there ain't one.

Not picking a fight at all. Remember, the Hawks had the lead when K-Choke turned the ball over. When K-Choke started the last drive he had thrown for under 90 yards. There was absolutely no reason for FO to factor a liklihood of anything. Every point the Niners scored came as a result of something extraordinary. A strip sack that is kicked forward and recovered, a RW fumble on first play of the game and the only big run K-Choke has ever enjoyed against the Hawks. Once the Hawks tied the game the projection should have been erased.

No fight, just disagree with FO projecting a Niner win at any point of that game. Maybe early with a 10 point lead, but after that forget it.

The part that sticks with me is that when the Hawks did get the turnovers that they didn't put the Niners down then. I do know this much, if SF is going to beat Seattle in the Clink, they are going to go back to K-Choke designed runs. Aside from the big run, Choke had some decent gains that in the end totaled with more offensive production than the passing game and Gore combined. That is real.

I love you man.. I would never pick a fight with you. [emoji7]