OMG, on a 49er forum about can the Seahawks be dethroned

[NINEster]

It's no great prognostication to say the Hawks don't win the 2014 title. It is difficult to do for anyone, but with the consistency of the roster and staff it should be easier to win it for the Hawks than a team that hasn't proven they can do it.

Talking about losing players? Who didn't lose players? What is important to note is that every area hit by the loss of a player is a position that can absorb it. The D line uses a rotation and a spot was back filled with talent, Thurmond and Browner? The Hawks already played a bunch of games without those guys. Same goes for Giaco and McQ. The only real concern I have is the change a PR. Losing Tate at WR isn't a problem to me, losing Tate the PR could be, but as long as the replacement isn't dropping kicks, the loss can be mitigated.

It isn't like the Ravens, who relied on a large number of expensive, veteran players or the Giants who consistently scraped into the playoffs and got Eli on his best for Playoff runs. The Hawks are not erratic, they have been a tough out since 2011.

The schedule? Not much different than the 49ers. The two games that are different are comparable. Would you rather play the Panthers or the Saints? Bears or Packers at home?

Whatever happens to the Hawks, they will remain in the conversation of a title until the core of the team cannot play well. Obviously this is a big deal to Niner fans because it has been a "us or them" thing. Just like the Niners are a big deal to us.

I think the loss of players has much more to do with big game showdowns in the playoffs than the ability to win 10-13 games in the regular season. Anyone who suggests that the Seahawks will become an 8 win team because of these losses is silly. But it could be the tipping point in games that are decided with 1 possession late.

The Niners have been here before with the Cowboys in the '90s. '92 the 49ers were outmatched in the trenches by Dallas, but had a bit more firepower to hide the real issues. '93 it came out more, and in the playoffs it was ugly, esp. on defense.

So the resolve in the '94 offseason was to admit the 49ers had some real issues and they would have to address them in free agency. They systematically hit all the areas of weakness and became world champions (barely).

Now I was addressing 49er additions, and not so much Cowboy subtractions. But you can look at it in similar ways if Seattle loses certain key guys that caused problems for SF -- particularly Red Bryant on defense, and Golden Tate on offense/special teams.

I've always expressed a bigger concern for the Seattle run defense more than the pass defense, as a 49er ground game that puts down 4.0+ YPC is a very tough team to beat. So if I could weaken the Seattle run defense further in the front 7 at the expense of you guys retaining Browner or Thurmond, I'd be for it.

As far as Tate is concerned he was an issue. I forget at what point of the NFCC it was when the Niners got a big score and Tate had a big return immediately after. I remember seeing similar breaking points against the Giants with David Wilson and Jacoby Jones with Baltimore.

I know Seahawks fans will spin it the other way, but I like the loss of Bryant and Tate going forward for critical matchups against the 49ers.

Meanwhile SF bolsters their WR corps, and appears to improve their running game. It very much feels like the '94 offseason where we're admitting we have to be more aggressive towards our rival.

As far as the schedule is concerned, I do feel the 49ers have a more favorable schedule as far as opponents and locations of games. Green Bay is clearly better than Chicago (or more consistently good in big games), and the Saints in their stadium is still a team that needs to be respected (we've yet to see these Seahawks play there yet). I think they still were a better home team than the Panthers were.

I like having the Chargers and Chiefs in Santa Clara while you get Denver and Oakland at home. You "waste" a home game versus Oakland, and possibly another against Denver. If SF beats Denver and Oakland on the road, they have it easier against the other two at home.

Looking at it historically, it's hard and pretty rare to go 4-0 against an intraconference division. Yes, Denver is the best team in that division but that only means over the course of a season not any one particular game. We're also assuming these teams stay the same from last year.

As far as the NFC East, SF goes to Dallas and to NYG, host Philly and Washington; you get the opposite. If we assume these teams stay the same from a year ago, I like that. The former two teams hardly have any home field advantage, and the Niners are assured warm weather games against the other two teams.

When I look at the Seahawks schedule overall, I see that they host a lot of very good teams. Depending on how you look at it, you can see that as a pro/con. Pro in that it gives the Seahawks a better chance to win, but Con in that the home schedule is noticeably tougher than last year's.

Can Seattle keep going 7-1 or 8-0 at home each year, while keeping up a 6-2 road record. That will be tough.

It's all about winning the NFC West for supremacy of the NFC IMHO. Based on the offseason transactions and schedule this year (and a little bit of homerism), I like SF.

I will admit that the secondary is a big question mark, and will continue to be until they prove themselves.

 

[hawkpride]

Hey guys & gals, OP of this thread here. I am glad to see that the topic is getting back on track. Now I have to admit I enjoyed the back and forth, and the exposing of a 9er troll (good stuff), but that was not my intent. When I saw the topic on Webzone that's what I wanted to really share, I have to say I was taken back at some of their nasty natured posts, but I am used to that as they are 9er fans and the hate runs rather deep over there.
I was going to chime in around page 2 or so but by then things were getting heated, and I kinda wanted by then to see how things all paned out.

The whole 9er hate in their posts reminds me of what my father used to say. "The ones that have only bad things to say about it, are only jealous of it". Think about it 9er fans.

Personally, the stats don't lie, the Hawks will have a very hard time repeating. But with this team, QB and all the coaches I put a better chance of it happening then not.

So please carry on.

 

[loafoftatupu]

For every reason a Niner fan thinks there is an advantage against the Hawks, there is an issue of their own that will get ignored.

There isn't a single thing the Niners have done in the offseason that has me thinking the Hawks are are any less likely to win the West. It is all the same talk we have heard before.

Niners: Here is the reality. Bowman is out for a good part of the season. We really don't know how long. In addition there is a chance that at the same time Smith misses games. Who knows? It is all speculation, but I avoid making any sort of success stories in Santa Clara until those situations are worked out.

At QB there is an extremely athletic player that doesn't spread the ball around well with any consistency, throws to the guy he decided to pre snap and has peppered the playoffs with interceptions, just think about the one that got dropped in GB though. You know, just like the one to Kam where he threw it right to the defender. If Hyde doesn't drop it, KaeperSpaz doesn't rear it's head in Seattle to turn the ball over 3 times in the 4th quarter and kick a fumble forward for a first down. The Niners are carrying quite a few players that past their prime and won't be making strides in their performance.

Hawks: loaded with 3-5 year players that have not reached their full potential yet, a QB that spreads the ball around and didn't throw a pick in the playoffs. In fact in 5 playoff games, his only pick came at the end of a hail Mary in 2012 and a rating off the charts.

Yeah, they lost Browner, Thurmond, Bryant and Tate, but they actually gain Percy Harvin and Kevin Williams. The Hawks already adjusted to playing without Browner and Thurmond. Maxwell has more picks on Kaeperchoke than those two combined. Niner fans dismiss the Harvin availability, I mean there are comments that just assume he will miss most of the season. Good luck with that, because if he doesn't miss most of the season? You can kiss the NFCW and HFA goodbye.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Also, if you are a 49ers fan, you have to be questioning the front office right now. Why in the world would you put your money on yet another receiver that the Seattle matches up with.

Uh, Stevie Johnson is the only receiver in the NFL to get consistent separation against both Darrelle Revis and Richard Sherman. He's one shifty excellent route-runner. I can promise you that Sherman's motivated a little somethin' extra to try his skills against him.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I saw him make catches in a blowout game when Gus Bradley had the Seahawks DB's playing more zone than usual because they knew the Bills had to take shots.

Um, forget catches. Look at separation when running routes when he's not even targeted, and look at his extensive film against Revis.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Ok you win, FEAR Johnson, he is the master stroke move by Baalke that is going to destroy the Seahawk secondary and send the 49ers to the Superbowl!

Yeah, that's what I said. :roll:

No middle ground with you, is there?

 

[Subzero717]

Sherm IIRC had no smack for Stevie. Said he respected him. FWTW.

 

[loafoftatupu]

If the guy throwing Johnson the ball continues to telegraph balls it won't matter where Johnson is, only where the ball is going. Fortunately, the Hawks have a deep fielder that can cover some ground and corners that are long. Johnson will get some balls, but we aren't talking Aaron Rodgers or Dan Marino here.

That just isn't the way the Niners play anyways. Are they going to turn into a passing team now and risk giving up what got them where they are? Just how many passes are they going to throw with all this massive stable of superior weapons they have? One thing can be said for the Alex Smith era, the defense was rested and the Niners would get first downs in their 12 play, 57 yard drives.

I'm not so sure the Niners defense will like a lot of extra time on the field.

 

[camdawg]

Um, forget catches. Look at separation when running routes when he's not even targeted, and look at his extensive film against Revis.

Ok you win, FEAR Johnson, he is the master stroke move by Baalke that is going to destroy the Seahawk secondary and send the 49ers to the Superbowl!

I think I'm in the middle between your view and Roland's. I don't have a problem with the idea of getting a receiver like Stevie, especially for the low compensation the 49ers gave for him. For any one single game, Stevie absolutely makes the 49ers offense more dangerous.

Over an entire season, though, I wonder if he'll just be an awkward fit for the offense, like he's their Deion Branch. I think Stevie can run some crazy, freelancing routes, that can make it really tough on a corner. But I think that will be tough on Colin as well. Over an entire season, there could be a lack of chemistry that leads to frustration, if not additional INTs for Colin.

 

[chris98251]

I disagree, Manning brought the Colts offense to Denver, he would want to run that same offense in S.F., we seen how that all worked out.

 

[IndyHawk]

I disagree, Manning brought the Colts offense to Denver, he would want to run that same offense in S.F., we seen how that all worked out.

I got to agree with Chris..SF defense would also suffer under that quick score Colts/Donkey offense and just like the Super Bowl when they can't get their quick score and get behind Manning folds most of the time..

 

[Sherminator]

While I'm not going to sit here and lie saying that I wouldn't enjoy having Manning as my QB
Part of me is glad that he didn't come. I think we can develop Kap into a great QB (tagging my optimism here)

I also don't think Harbs and Manning would have gotten along very well. Harbaugh likes to be the shot caller and make crucial decisions during the 4th as does Manning. I don't think Harbs is comfortable relinquishing that kind of power to any player on his team.

Also, whomever brought up the salary cap had a great point. No way we are keeping our depth with him on the books

 

[RichNhansom]

We will miss Golden Tate in the punt return game, true. We will also miss his hands and ability to make plays after the catch.

We will not miss the fact that any "good" starting CB in the NFL can take him completely out of the game because he struggles running pass routes. That has always been his problem, dude just doesn't run good routes - and how important are routes? Receivers who run 4.3 40's and have great hands but never made an impact in the NFL are numerous... too many to discuss or count. But when you start talking about receivers who ran "great routes" despite being "slow" you start listing names like Steve Largent, Art Monk, Jerry Rice, et.

The job of the receiver is to get open and do it as quickly as possible so the QB can deliver the ball. Last year GT made some great plays, but more often than not, when Russel Wilson needed to get the ball out, Tate was NOT open, he was easily covered by one "good" or at times, even "average" NFL starter. He's a #2 or #3 receiver... good when a play breaks down, or good for beating substandard NFL corners that you can beat without running a good route.

He played well against teams that lacked DB depth... the Rams, the 49ers, et. But going forward he was a liability against teams like the Cardinals and their ilk, who can put 2 or 3 good DB's on the field. The reason we lost that home game last year, was that they took away Baldwin with Peterson, and then took Golden Tate away with a backup guy. You can't pay a receiver millions of dollars when an average starter or quality backup can take him away.

I'm more worried about Red Bryant... Like you said... dude was an absolute rock against teams like the 49ers in the past. Yet, it seemed to me, that in the NFC Championship game, the 49ers had finally solved him.

Red was losing playing time because teams figured out how to beat him and then schemed for him. Red was excellent for us when they moved him over to DE because no one knew his weakness or how to exploit it. I think in 2012 teams started to figure out that if you draw him inside that he can be beat around the edge fairly easily. Since then he has often been a liability against any decent OC when schemed properly. It is why he played less than 50% of snaps last year and his snap count decreased as the season went along. I also believe it was a large part of the reason for not trying to restructure him. Remember, he was outright released and there was no attempt to negotiate a restructure. In an interview he intimated he would have loved to stay in Seattle but they didn't call.

Big Red will always be one of those Hawks that I love but I also understand why moving on was not a bad move for the team. I expect he will be a big part of helping Bradely build a good defense. Besides his physical tools he is a mentor and team leader that a young rebuilding team will really benefit from his presence.

 

[SeahawkFrost]

It's no great prognostication to say the Hawks don't win the 2014 title. It is difficult to do for anyone, but with the consistency of the roster and staff it should be easier to win it for the Hawks than a team that hasn't proven they can do it.

Talking about losing players? Who didn't lose players? What is important to note is that every area hit by the loss of a player is a position that can absorb it. The D line uses a rotation and a spot was back filled with talent, Thurmond and Browner? The Hawks already played a bunch of games without those guys. Same goes for Giaco and McQ. The only real concern I have is the change a PR. Losing Tate at WR isn't a problem to me, losing Tate the PR could be, but as long as the replacement isn't dropping kicks, the loss can be mitigated.

It isn't like the Ravens, who relied on a large number of expensive, veteran players or the Giants who consistently scraped into the playoffs and got Eli on his best for Playoff runs. The Hawks are not erratic, they have been a tough out since 2011.

The schedule? Not much different than the 49ers. The two games that are different are comparable. Would you rather play the Panthers or the Saints? Bears or Packers at home?

Whatever happens to the Hawks, they will remain in the conversation of a title until the core of the team cannot play well. Obviously this is a big deal to Niner fans because it has been a "us or them" thing. Just like the Niners are a big deal to us.

I think the loss of players has much more to do with big game showdowns in the playoffs than the ability to win 10-13 games in the regular season. Anyone who suggests that the Seahawks will become an 8 win team because of these losses is silly. But it could be the tipping point in games that are decided with 1 possession late.

The Niners have been here before with the Cowboys in the '90s. '92 the 49ers were outmatched in the trenches by Dallas, but had a bit more firepower to hide the real issues. '93 it came out more, and in the playoffs it was ugly, esp. on defense.

So the resolve in the '94 offseason was to admit the 49ers had some real issues and they would have to address them in free agency. They systematically hit all the areas of weakness and became world champions (barely).

Now I was addressing 49er additions, and not so much Cowboy subtractions. But you can look at it in similar ways if Seattle loses certain key guys that caused problems for SF -- particularly Red Bryant on defense, and Golden Tate on offense/special teams.

I've always expressed a bigger concern for the Seattle run defense more than the pass defense, as a 49er ground game that puts down 4.0+ YPC is a very tough team to beat. So if I could weaken the Seattle run defense further in the front 7 at the expense of you guys retaining Browner or Thurmond, I'd be for it.

As far as Tate is concerned he was an issue. I forget at what point of the NFCC it was when the Niners got a big score and Tate had a big return immediately after. I remember seeing similar breaking points against the Giants with David Wilson and Jacoby Jones with Baltimore.

I know Seahawks fans will spin it the other way, but I like the loss of Bryant and Tate going forward for critical matchups against the 49ers.

Meanwhile SF bolsters their WR corps, and appears to improve their running game. It very much feels like the '94 offseason where we're admitting we have to be more aggressive towards our rival.

As far as the schedule is concerned, I do feel the 49ers have a more favorable schedule as far as opponents and locations of games. Green Bay is clearly better than Chicago (or more consistently good in big games), and the Saints in their stadium is still a team that needs to be respected (we've yet to see these Seahawks play there yet). I think they still were a better home team than the Panthers were.

I like having the Chargers and Chiefs in Santa Clara while you get Denver and Oakland at home. You "waste" a home game versus Oakland, and possibly another against Denver. If SF beats Denver and Oakland on the road, they have it easier against the other two at home.

Looking at it historically, it's hard and pretty rare to go 4-0 against an intraconference division. Yes, Denver is the best team in that division but that only means over the course of a season not any one particular game. We're also assuming these teams stay the same from last year.

As far as the NFC East, SF goes to Dallas and to NYG, host Philly and Washington; you get the opposite. If we assume these teams stay the same from a year ago, I like that. The former two teams hardly have any home field advantage, and the Niners are assured warm weather games against the other two teams.

When I look at the Seahawks schedule overall, I see that they host a lot of very good teams. Depending on how you look at it, you can see that as a pro/con. Pro in that it gives the Seahawks a better chance to win, but Con in that the home schedule is noticeably tougher than last year's.

Can Seattle keep going 7-1 or 8-0 at home each year, while keeping up a 6-2 road record. That will be tough.

It's all about winning the NFC West for supremacy of the NFC IMHO. Based on the offseason transactions and schedule this year (and a little bit of homerism), I like SF.

I will admit that the secondary is a big question mark, and will continue to be until they prove themselves.

I am pretty sure the return your referring too was actually Baldwin that made that big return. Although Tate will be missed in the punt return duties until we have a proven replacement.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

The problem with all of the above is, you are assuming that Denver's O line is even in the same conversation as San Frans.

It is not.

On the other hand, had Manning come to Frisco, they could never have afforded to keep that O-line, let alone bring in Boldin and Johnson.

49ers O-Line SUCKED last year.... compared to what it was in 2011-2012.

 

[Ozzy]

That thread is pure gold and has only gotten better the last few pages. They are on a 3 page rant about how Seattle only won because of luck and because it cheats. I've visited a few opposing boards this year and that one is far and away the worst I've seen. The utter stupidity is baffling.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

I think the Whiners will still be talking about Kap's potential high ceiling on the day he retires / gets cut.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

Well at least for me, I have no reason to smack talk anyone here. Loafo is a very charming person on the 49er boards. I return the favor here because he's such a great chap on our boards. Several others are similar to Loafo on our boards, so it makes sense for me to hat tip the favor.

I'm assuming this guy got banned otherwise it will be hard to explain his bitter inane ramblings on the webzone. Other than the fact he's a hypocritical two faced waste of semen of course.

 

[Giedi]

Well at least for me, I have no reason to smack talk anyone here. Loafo is a very charming person on the 49er boards. I return the favor here because he's such a great chap on our boards. Several others are similar to Loafo on our boards, so it makes sense for me to hat tip the favor.

I'm assuming this guy got banned otherwise it will be hard to explain his bitter inane ramblings on the webzone. Other than the fact he's a hypocritical two faced waste of semen of course.

:thirishdrinkers: I'm not a glutton for punishment like Marvin. :mrgreen:

 

[Giedi]

I have nothing but Love and "The Tip" for all 49er fans. If I were in SF, the tip wouldn't be enough.

I heard Jerry Rice wore #80 in Seattle when it was supposed to be retired. :mrgreen: