Relative History Of SEA and SFO Since Realignment

[FidelisHawk]

Nah...doesn't drive me crazy at all.

Since Seattle joined the NFC West they have been a better team over the long term. Thats not really even debatable.

What drives me crazy is that some Seattle fans act as though the NFC West was created the day they joined it. Yes, you could call this ancient history, but it's history nonetheless. Every single post like the one above automatically removes everything that happened BEFORE Seattle joined the division. Thats fine because you are trying to make a point about the teams that are currently in the division, but if this situation were reversed don't act like you guys wouldn't have the exact same issue.

Like it or not the NFC West was created the day the Seahawks joined and the Saints, Falcons, and newly acquired Panthers left; this is our history (and future; yours and ours) forever linked by the realignment in 2002…

The Niners were down and out for some time after about 20 years of excellence. The downfall began with the firing of Steve Mariucci and the hiring of Dennis Erickson. It was also run into the ground by Terry Donahue. That just happens to coincide with Seattle joining the division.

The twenty years Walsh changed the way modern football is played is a thing of beauty and something to be proud of, but it IS ancient history, the league is different, the rules are different, the salary-cap, and free agency changes everything…

On these pages tho you'd think that the NFC West was born the day Seattle joined it and that Seattle had owned the division since inception.
I am old enough to remember the 49ers owning the division. I remember beating the hell out of the Rams. I remember Tim McDonalds "same old sorry ass Rams" comment (and it's interesting to me that the Rams selected his son in the draft this year).

And I’m old enough to remember John Brodie cranking out those 7/6/and 1 winning seasons. While the Walsh years WERE a thing of beauty they were sandwiched between a lot of god awful football; I remember because I too was a fan back then.

My issue has never been that I didn't like that Seattle had been the better team until very recently...my issue has always been the arrogance that seems to permiate the Seattle fanbase that you "own" a division with zero sense of the history within that division.

This may be true, but if Seahawk fans have “zero” sense of history from your side of the fence, from our side 'Niner fans seem to think history begins in the eighties (and until recently ended in 2000)and also seem to neglect/reject their first thirty years of irrelevant to poor performances.

This is becoming one of the great new rivalries in the NFL and I for one hope it goes on for years as we write our history anew; game after game, season after season…

 

[Giedi]

Ninerbuff your 0-1 is nice but realisticly 1-1 sounds more apt due to us not being able to win in SanFran last year as a complete ream and 3-1 is still valid when talking Carrol and Harbaugh but the 3-1 should be slightly tempered as Tarvaris Jackson was not someone any team should gain a ton of confidence beating and he obviously was a stopgap. In other words I wouldn't get all excited if Seattle won in Ninerland against McCoy.

Absolutely true. Wilson is an elite QB. It wouldn't surprise me if Wilson and Fran Tarkenton's career mirror each other - in terms of statistical excellence. Wilson is *that* good, in my opinion.

Here's the problem for the Hawk fans. If Tavares vs Alex was basically a wash (as in both QB's were roughly equal in skill set) wouldn't Kaep and Wilson be also a wash? As in both are elite QB's, no question about it. If the QB position is a wash - what determined the 3-1 record vs each other. I propose the coaching. Considering both teams are playoff caliber and have playoff caliber QB's then the facts point to the coaching being the difference.

At least it makes sense to me. I'm sure the opinion is **Dramatically** different from mine on this board, though. :mrgreen: and I'm actually looking forward to seeing that different viewpoint and learning a lot from it.

 

[HawkWow]

Hey Pandion, thanks for your hard work. Ignore those that are less than grateful. Continue to do what makes you feel good. I'll say it again.. you're a good fan.

 

[paramedic586]

This is going to set Niner fans on fire. They have real issues with any referenced period that isolates their term of overall losing. The 2000's didn't even happen. I have read many comments stating that "Seahawks fans think the league started in 2002", but they don't, it is just when they started playing the Niners with any regularity. It really doesn't mean anything in the big picture though.

The back and forth between Niner and Seahawk fans is pure entertainment. What era or history matters most? The next one.


I have realized this much though. When the Hawks beat the Niners, they beat tham badly in most cases. Not so much the other way around.

Nah...doesn't drive me crazy at all.

Since Seattle joined the NFC West they have been a better team over the long term. Thats not really even debatable.

What drives me crazy is that some Seattle fans act as though the NFC West was created the day they joined it. Yes, you could call this ancient history, but it's history nonetheless. Every single post like the one above automatically removes everything that happened BEFORE Seattle joined the division. Thats fine because you are trying to make a point about the teams that are currently in the division, but if this situation were reversed don't act like you guys wouldn't have the exact same issue.

The Niners were down and out for some time after about 20 years of excellence. The downfall began with the firing of Steve Mariucci and the hiring of Dennis Erickson. It was also run into the ground by Terry Donahue. That just happens to coincide with Seattle joining the division.

On these pages tho you'd think that the NFC West was born the day Seattle joined it and that Seattle had owned the division since inception.

I am old enough to remember the 49ers owning the division. I remember beating the hell out of the Rams. I remember Tim McDonalds "same old sorry ass Rams" comment (and it's interesting to me that the Rams selected his son in the draft this year).

My issue has never been that I didn't like that Seattle had been the better team until very recently...my issue has always been the arrogance that seems to permiate the Seattle fanbase that you "own" a division with zero sense of the history within that division.

Good point. I think most Seahawks fans realize that the NFC West didn't start the second they joined, many of us still remember the heated rivalries between the Raiders and Broncos back when we were in the AFC West. When we play those teams in pre-season, it still gets a little fire going in me, as I'm sure it does most Seahawks fans who remember those rivalry games of the 80s-90s...but

As much as I like seeing this data over the past 11 years and how it shows that the 49ers/Seahawks rivalry does have some steam/history behind it (with the Seahawks owning a slight edge) I would love to see a breakdown of these two teams from the post-Salary Cap era that the NFL operates in now.

I think that data would go to show A LOT about how strong a franchise has been in history. I tend to see accomplishments of teams in the pre-Salary Cap era as diminished compared to how it is nowadays. Those 49er, Cowboy, Raider, Steeler teams back then could simply buy a ring (much like the Yankees in MLB/Heat in NBA try and do now) and had it much easier than teams trying to build up and win one now. It's my feeling that you have to earn it more when you don't get to simply overpay for your "dynasty"

How many of those rings for the 49ers have come AFTER the salary cap changes? Off the top of my head, it's either 0 or they got the first one after the change was made that year...? Anyway, here ya go, OP...want to tackle this challenge? Which team has the better Post-Salary Cap era, Seattle or San Fran?

So since the the Salary cap era started in 1994 Sea hawks appear to have 6 division titles one super bowls appearance. The 49ers have 7 division titles and 2 super bowl appearances with one super bowl win. Over all the 49ers appear to Edge the hawks in the post cap era. But im only taking in to account division titles and superbowls.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Ninerbuff your 0-1 is nice but realisticly 1-1 sounds more apt due to us not being able to win in SanFran last year as a complete ream and 3-1 is still valid when talking Carrol and Harbaugh but the 3-1 should be slightly tempered as Tarvaris Jackson was not someone any team should gain a ton of confidence beating and he obviously was a stopgap. In other words I wouldn't get all excited if Seattle won in Ninerland against McCoy.

Absolutely true. Wilson is an elite QB. It wouldn't surprise me if Wilson and Fran Tarkenton's career mirror each other - in terms of statistical excellence. Wilson is *that* good, in my opinion.

Here's the problem for the Hawk fans. If Tavares vs Alex was basically a wash (as in both QB's were roughly equal in skill set) wouldn't Kaep and Wilson be also a wash? As in both are elite QB's, no question about it. If the QB position is a wash - what determined the 3-1 record vs each other. I propose the coaching. Considering both teams are playoff caliber and have playoff caliber QB's then the facts point to the coaching being the difference.

At least it makes sense to me. I'm sure the opinion is **Dramatically** different from mine on this board, though. :mrgreen: and I'm actually looking forward to seeing that different viewpoint and learning a lot from it.

It could be because we were a young and inexperienced team going through a rebuild.

In 2011, the 49ers were cream of the crop because it returned a strong nucleus that had already had great chemistry with each other plus always had a strong defense. 2011 was also an easy year to win a lot a games for teams who had a strong nucleus and chemistry because the lockout meant less preparation and 2010 was by far the least competitive season in the last 5 years. If I remember correctly, 6 teams in 2011 had 12-4 or better records but it was a 9-7 team that won it.

Also, injuries had a big reasonable effect on the Seahawks 2011 team, in comparison Seahawks had 69 active players that made their roster at one point or another and like 12 players ended up on I.R. and if I remember correctly 49ers had 55 with only Josh Morgan and Moran Norris ending up on I.R. Your most significant injury was losing Patrick Willis for 3 games.

In 2012, even with still averaging less than the 49ers in age and experience, with the 4th youngest roster, Seahawks only ended up half a game behind the 49ers. We also played more rookies than you by a lot. Young players make mistakes. Yet, only half a game behind. 49ers were blown out twice in 2012 and should have three times if not for the well-timed blackout. Seahawks were never out of a game losing 6 games with accumulative of 26 points with our 7 point loss to SFO has our biggest lost.

With all that said, Seahawks could easily be 3-1 vs Harbaugh, winning by 29 points, losing by 7 @ SF on a short week after playing the Patriots (remember that excuse, I heard it a lot from 49ers fans. No one seems to acknowledge Seahawks played 2 road games followed by the Patriots, then a short week to SF) and losing by 2 @ SEA.

So don't be too proud.