If we lose Harvin are we still the favorite to win the NFC?

[bestfightstory]

Hate to break this to y'all, but even WITH Harvin we weren't the favorite to win the NFC.

Although my money is on it.

 

[NinerBuff]

There isn't a singular favorite, there are several teams (SF, SEA, GB, ATL, NO) that are NFC elite. Of those teams, SEA has the best home field advantage and SF has the best road record (for the last 2 seasons). Each has a legit QB and head coach, which are the two necessary ingredients for a SB run in the league today.

The Harvin injury definitely reduces some of your explosiveness, but you guys were a good team without him, and should be with or without him this year. The Vegas line says all you need to know... didn't move when the rumor of Harvin's injury came out, didn't move for SF when Crabtree went down, and didn't change for GB when Jennings left via FA. Receiving production can be replaced, QB play and coaching, not so much.

 

[davidonmi]

It's great to be the favorite but the reality is there's about 5 teams who can win it and it doesn't't necessarily come.down only to talent, we are definitely in that 5 , but when was the last time the favorite won the sb

 

[davidonmi]

And with our talent you could argue we still are the.favorite

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

With Harvin I don't think we were favourites.

San Francisco has 24 regular season wins in two years and made the Super Bowl last season.

They are the favourites.

 

[Hawkboi]

We win with or without Harvin... A team is not made up of one player, it's a team... We've got other's that will step up and make the plays to take us where we need to be....Hope Harvin is ready to go, but if not so be it.... We'll be fine one way or the other.... I have faith! :th2thumbs:

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

With Harvin I don't think we were favourites.

San Francisco has 24 regular season wins in two years and made the Super Bowl last season.

They are the favourites.

Until proven differently that is correct. Harvin would make it easier to accomplish the task but we have plenty of other talent that will step up and accomplish it anyway.

 

[bubbrubb]

I dont agree that Harvin makes us THAT much better....I'd even argue the opposite. Tate came up with big plays last year that brought more than just points to the pysche of the team. He will get less touches now...and less chances to contribute. He is a great example of organic growth within an organization. Much liek Sherman had a chance to become a premier CB from a late round draft pick, Tate could have that same oppurtunity....but with Harvin not as much. ANyways, without Harvin the Hawks are better IMO! It changes the team dynamic when you think you can cut-and-paste talent into a team.

 

[Scottemojo]

Last year is last year. It means little now.
IDK if we win the west. A road playoff tour doesn't really scare me, though.

Also, when it comes to Harvin, we don't even know what we don't know right now. So stop worrying.

 

[NorthVanHawker]

It's the same offence as last year so losing Harvin doesn't make us any worse off...It was a great second half and playoffs for this group so relax folks...SMH

 

[kearly]

Also, when it comes to Harvin, we don't even know what we don't know right now. So stop worrying.

I agree that there is still hope, but just FYI, being concerned over the unknown is pretty much the definition of worrying. Just ask any mother. They are very good at it.

 

[Scottemojo]

Also, when it comes to Harvin, we don't even know what we don't know right now. So stop worrying.

I agree that there is still hope, but just FYI, being concerned over the unknown is pretty much the definition of worrying. Just ask any mother. They are very good at it.

Your mom has multiple personality disorder too?

 

[TheWebHead]

Well, with oddsmakers they weren't favored to win the NFC before the injury was revealed, and really, no one team is "favored" to win the NFC over the field.. besides, the team in the preseason that Vegas thought was most likely to win the Super Bowl hasn't done it since 2007 with the Colts, so it doesn't mean a whole lot

 

[RichNhansom]

The odds makers don't favor any team. The odds are based solely on balancing out the betting. Their goal is to break even on the bets and make their money on the rake.

Both NFL.com and ESPN.com's power rankings had us ranked as #1 after Crabtree went down and ESPN had us ranked #1 even before.

PFF and FO has had us ranked #1 since before the super bowl and they are the the ones with the least to gain by promoting one team over another. They rely on their reputation and being correct is more important to them than who buys jersey's or advertising.

 

[Steve2222]

As long as our D is still intact and #3 is behind center, I'm not worried at all. Seattle and SF are even IMO.

 

[Pick6]

I rather not be the favorites. Its not often the favorites win the SB.

 

[KEWASTEES]

I agree we shouldn't be the favorites. Top 5 for sure. I hate guarantees. And your asking the entire NFC? Can you guarantee anything in the NFC? The answer is no. Harvin though has nothing to do with it.

 

[MrCarey]

42-13 was awesome, but we also lost in the playoffs. Get off that 42-13 shit.

 

[RichNhansom]

42-13 was awesome, but we also lost in the playoffs. Get off that 42-13 shit.

Uhm so did the Niners, what's your point? Are you implying it was last year so it doesn't matter? I would ask why losing in the playoffs or winning the division matters then.

We are pretty much returning that exact team that beat the Niners 42-13 while they are trying to replace many key players that made them the division champs. It is also the most relevant match up being it was the most recent. I'm not sure if I have ever used the 42-13 game as evidence of anything but saying it is not relevant but losing in the playoffs is, kinda doesn't make sense.

 

[LudwigsDrummer]

It stands to reason that with a phenomenal QB and a new veteran WR that was damn near an MVP at one point, combined with everything we already have, that we would be a reasonable pick to win the NFC and maybe the SB. So with the possibility of losing Harvin for half the season (if not more) does that change?

I think it does.

Remember the 49ers were actually in the SB last year. They already have accomplished a great deal. They have already gotten better, with additions to their secondary which was the weakness they had. They lost a key weapon, but did recently get a few potentially promising WRs back and I think that combined with the help to their secondary the loss of their best WR is probably a wash. They probably score less but give up less scores too. It also makes their pass rush more dangerous and it was frightening already. Adding to that, they also have more favorable scheduling than we do.

However, I don't think we are that far behind them. And one rule in life is generally that nothing is ever as good as you hope or as bad as you fear.

I think we can beat San Francisco in their house and I think we might have to in the playoffs. But on paper I have to give the edge to SF on this one.

To answer your question, no.
How did the 9ers improve?
They got older at WR and lost their #1. Now the #1 is Boldin. Who is their guaranteed #2? #3? Not even SF knows.
DG was allowed to walk, an average to above average safety. Expected to replace him is a rookie who has stiff hips and is more of a SS than the FS he will have top play.
They are below average in the rest of their defensive backfield.
Almost the entire D is dependent on Justin Smith. When he went down last year they looked very pedestrian on D giving of gobs of points later in the year. Smith is now another year older.
DW was also allowed to walk and in similar fashion to us will rely on unproven assets to get the job done.
Key starters are old...WR, C, RB, K.
I contend the Niner team was a better team in 2011 than 2012. Replacing Alice with Kaep improved production but I feel their overall squad has regressed just a little.
With or without Percy, we are a bit better than SF.