Relative History Of SEA and SFO Since Realignment

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Note: Most of this data and information isn’t really relevant to the current up-coming season, just showing where the Seahawks and 49ers stand relatively to each other in history since Division Re-Alignment in 2002.
I broke it down pretty much in 3 areas:

1) General Data, QB Matchups, QB Wins- Showing which QBs had the most success vs each team since 2002.

2) Head 2 Head Wins- Showing point differential of wins to show which team had blow-out wins or close losses and stuff in between.

3) Win-Loss Record Potpourri- Where I break down overall W-L and the competitiveness of each team since 2002.

* denotes playoff appearance

2002: SEA (7-9), SFO (10-6)*
W-QB: Jeff Garcia x 2: @SF (28-21), @SEA (31-24)
L-QB: Trent Dilfer, Matt Hasselbeck
Division Winner: SFO

2003: SEA (10-6)*, SFO (7-9)
W-QB: Matt Hasselbeck x 2: @SEA (20-19), @SF (24-17)
L-QB: Jeff Garcia x2
Division Winner: STL

2004: SEA (9-7)*, SFO (2-14)
W-QB: Matt Hasselbeck x2: @SEA(34-0), @SF (42-27)
L-QB: @SEA (Ken Dorsey), @SF (Tim Rattay)
Division Winner: SEA

2005: SEA (13-3), SF (4-12)
W-QB: Matt Hasselbeck x2: @SF (27-25), @SEA (41-3)
L-QB: @SF (Ken Dorsey), @SEA (Alex Smith)
Division Winner: SEA

2006: SEA (9-7)*, SF (7-9)
W-QB: Alex Smith x2: @SF(20-14), @SEA((14-24, Wind Storm Game)
L-QB: @SF (Seneca Wallace), @SEA (Matt Hasselbeck)
Division Winner: SEA

2007: SEA (10-6), SF (5-11)
W-QB: Matt Hasselbeck x 2: @SF (23-3), @SEA (24-0)
L-QB: @SF (Trent Dilfer), @SEA (Alex Smith)
Division Winner: SEA

2008: SEA (4-12), SF (7-9)
W-QB: J.T. Sullivan @ SEA (30-33), Seneca Wallace @ SF (34-13)
L-QB: @ SEA(Seneca Wallace), @SF (J.T. Sullivan)
Division Winner: ARZ

2009: SEA (5-11), SFO (8-8)
W-QB: Shaun Hill @ SF (10-23), Matt Hasselbeck @SEA (20-17)
L-QB: @ SF (Seneca Wallace), @SEA (Alex Smith)
Division Winner: ARZ

2010: SEA (7-9)*, SFO (6-10)
W-QB: Matt Hasselbeck @SEA (31-6), Alex Smith@21-40
L-QB: @SEA(Alex Smith), @SF (Matt Hasselbeck)
Division Winner: SEA

2011: SEA (7-9), SF0 (13-3)*
W-QB: Alex Smith x2: @SF (33-17), @SEA (19-17)
L-QB: Tarvaris Jackson x2
Division Winner: SFO

2012: SEA (11-5)*, SF (11-4-1)*
W-QB: Alex Smith @ SF (13-6), Russell Wilson (42-13)
L-QB: @SF (Russell Wilson), @SEA (Colin Kaepernick)
Division Winner: SFO

SF QB’s W-L vs SEA
Shaun Hill: 1-0
Alex Smith: 6-4
J. Garcia: 2-2
J.T. Sullivan: 1-1
T. Rattay: 0-1
T. Dilfer: 0-1
C. Kaepernick: 0-1
K. Dorsey: 0-2

SEA QB’s W-L vs SFO
Matt Hasselbeck: 10-4
Russell Wilson: 1-1
Seneca Wallace: 1-3
Trent Dilfer: 0-1
Tarvaris Jackson: 0-2

The only match-up that really is relevant towards 2013, is the current QB match-up(Wilson Vs Kaepernick)
Wilson: 1 Win @ SEA (42-13)
Kaepernick: 1 Loss

With only 1 game thus far, it’s way too early to tell, which QB is getting the better of which team, but its worth-noting after a lackluster first game @SFO, Russell Wilson, adjusted and dominated the 2nd game @SEA. While Kaepernick had the worst game of his short career as a starter. In 2013, there is a highly possible chance both teams could see each other 3 times.. And it will be interesting how those games will play out.

HEAD TO HEAD WINS SINCE REALIGNMENT (Win Differential)
11 SEASONS: 22 GAMES

SEATTLE: 12 WINS: 1, 7, 34, 15, 2, 38, 20, 24, 21, 3, 25, 29
SAN FRANSISCO: 10 WINS: 7, 7, 6, 10, 3, 13, 19, 16, 2, 7

Blowout Wins (18 or more Points): SEA (7), SFO (2)
I chose an 18 or more points deficit because it would take 3 scores: 2 TDs (12 points) + 2 PATS (up to 4 points) + FG/TD (up to 3-6 points) for an opposing team to Win.

Close Wins (6 or less Points): SEA (3), SF (3)
I chose 6 or less because it would have only taken 1 Score (TD + PAT) for losing team to win.

2 Digit Wins (10+ Points): SEA (8); SFO (4)
Wins By A TD (7 Points): SFO (3), SEA (1)

Analysis: Overall the Seahawks and 49ers are pretty even with ‘Hawks at 2 game advantage in the series but the biggest thing to notice is that 7 of the 12 times Seattle has won, it has given the 49ers a BEATDOWN with all 7 games being by at least 20 points or more. Only once in 10 wins/22 games played has SFO blown-out SEA under my terms.

Even taking the winning point differential down to 10+ points the Seahawks still dominated the series with 8 wins to 4. On the flipside, the 49ers have won games with a TD or less, 6 times to Seattle’s 4.

Total Wins-Losses out of 176 Regular Season games (11 Seasons from 2002-2012)
Seattle Seahawks (92-84) or .523 Win %
San Francisco 49ers (80-95-1) or .457 Win %

Division Championships + (Wild Card) = Total Playoff Appearances
SEA: 5: ’04, ’05, ’06, ’07, ’10; 2: (’03, ’12) = 7 Total
SFO: 3: ’02, ’11, ’12 = 3 Total
OTHERS in NFC WEST: ARZ 2(0), STL 1 (1)
SUPERBOWLS: SEA (L-2005), SFO (L-2012), ARZ (L-2008)

Overall Competitiveness H2H: SEA vs SFO
Competitive Seasons (9+ Wins): SEA (6), SFO (3)
Mediocre Seasons (7 to 8 Wins): SEA (3), SFO (4)
Poor Seasons (10+ Losses): SEA (2), SFO (4)

Competitive Vs Mediocre, Poor Seasons: SEA (6-5), SFO (3-8)
Competitive, Mediocre Vs Poor Seasons: SEA (9-2), SFO (7-4)
Competitive Seasons Vs Poor Seasons: SEA (6-2), SFO (3-4)
Competitive, Mediocre Vs Mediocre, Poor: SEA (9-5), SFO (7-8)

Analysis: While it doesn’t really matter in 2013 as both teams are considered elite teams in the NFL. Its nice that Seattle’s history in the NFC West since Realignment has been bright for the most part with Seahawks fielding poor teams only twice in 11 seasons. SFO’s has been rather bleak with only their CM v P earning a positive result. However, the win-loss stat data I liked the most to compare how dominate each team has been in the last 11 years is CM vs MP because it shows how close a team could have been competitive or how close a team could’ve been poor. Using CM vs MP, Seattle’s winning percentage was 64.3% (9/14) and San Fran’s winning percentage was 46.7% (7/15). A differential of 17.6.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

First, who the hell is Ken Dorsey? Second you need a job or woman, preferably both because you sir have too much time on your hands, yes you do.

 

[The Radish]

Lots of work there and good information but KC Girl is right, you seem to have to much time on your hands.

I clicked on this expecting to see these few lines.

HEAD TO HEAD WINS SINCE REALIGNMENT (Win Differential)
11 SEASONS: 22 GAMES

SEATTLE: 12 WINS: 1, 7, 34, 15, 2, 38, 20, 24, 21, 3, 25, 29
SAN FRANSISCO: 10 WINS: 7, 7, 6, 10, 3, 13, 19, 16, 2, 7

All else matters little to me but thank you for all the work.

:les:

 

[kearly]

I read the whole thing!

You'd assume that Seattle had been better from 2002 on given the division titles, but some of the stuff you uncovered in the details is interesting. I hadn't realized that Seattle had blown out the 49ers so many times.

It's too bad they couldn't have kept Mike Singletary forever.

 

[Stephen SeaHawking]

Oh man, don't bring up the last 10 years to 49ers fans. They will say, why not the last 25 years??? (Browns fans chime in, why not the last 80 years??)

 

[loafoftatupu]

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.

 

[v1rotv2]

Never mind what the doubters say about the op. This is the kind post you copy and print out fold it up and put in your wallet/purse. Then the next time you engage a neener fan whip that on them.

Good work sir!

 

[RichNhansom]

Never mind what the doubters say about the op. This is the kind post you copy and print out fold it up and put in your wallet/purse. Then the next time you engage a neener fan whip that on them.

Good work sir!

Agreed, these are called fun facts. Great filler material in a slow info time.

Keep em coming.

 

[chris98251]

Hmmm, that silence you hear is all 49er fans hoping not to be noticed.

 

[Giedi]

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.

:kool-aid: Heh, if you agree with the analysis then I have a bridge I own that You'd love to buy.

 

[loafoftatupu]

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.

:kool-aid: Heh, if you agree with the analysis then I have a bridge I own that You'd love to buy.

Translation please? I don't speak Giedish. Only dreamers and Niner fans with their head in the sand can understand it.

 

[Johnny]

First, who the hell is Ken Dorsey? Second you need a job or woman, preferably both because you sir have too much time on your hands, yes you do.

Maybe he is just a genius and this only took a few minutes out of his busy day

I hope so, because this took me 45 mins. to read! :shock:

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Lots of work there and good information but KC Girl is right, you seem to have to much time on your hands.

I clicked on this expecting to see these few lines.

HEAD TO HEAD WINS SINCE REALIGNMENT (Win Differential)
11 SEASONS: 22 GAMES

SEATTLE: 12 WINS: 1, 7, 34, 15, 2, 38, 20, 24, 21, 3, 25, 29
SAN FRANSISCO: 10 WINS: 7, 7, 6, 10, 3, 13, 19, 16, 2, 7

All else matters little to me but thank you for all the work.

:les:

This was actually one of the easiest things to put together as its just really numbers and fact and I really didn't put any pro-longed opinion in it. Pro-Football-Reference.Com made it easy, I just had to put all the ingredients together and cook it up.

But if you must know, I am currently jobless... so I do have more time than usual. My GF works the nightshift, to stay on the sleeping schedule as her, I have to stay up and waste time. Plus, I'm preparing to go back to college, so doing stuff like this helps to polish out the educational rust built up over the years.

 

[The Radish]

Lots of work there and good information but KC Girl is right, you seem to have to much time on your hands.

I clicked on this expecting to see these few lines.

HEAD TO HEAD WINS SINCE REALIGNMENT (Win Differential)
11 SEASONS: 22 GAMES

SEATTLE: 12 WINS: 1, 7, 34, 15, 2, 38, 20, 24, 21, 3, 25, 29
SAN FRANSISCO: 10 WINS: 7, 7, 6, 10, 3, 13, 19, 16, 2, 7

All else matters little to me but thank you for all the work.

:les:

This was actually one of the easiest things to put together as its just really numbers and fact and I really didn't put any pro-longed opinion in it. Pro-Football-Reference.Com made it easy, I just had to put all the ingredients together and cook it up.

But if you must know, I am currently jobless... so I do have more time than usual. My GF works the nightshift, to stay on the sleeping schedule as her, I have to stay up and waste time. Plus, I'm preparing to go back to college, so doing stuff like this helps to polish out the educational rust built up over the years.

Thumbs up for staying on the same sleep cycle as the GF. Man I hate having to say that makes you a nice guy. lol

:th2thumbs:

 

[kearly]

This was actually one of the easiest things to put together as its just really numbers and fact and I really didn't put any pro-longed opinion in it. Pro-Football-Reference.Com made it easy, I just had to put all the ingredients together and cook it up.

But if you must know, I am currently jobless... so I do have more time than usual. My GF works the nightshift, to stay on the sleeping schedule as her, I have to stay up and waste time. Plus, I'm preparing to go back to college, so doing stuff like this helps to polish out the educational rust built up over the years.

Since 2007 I've been in a similar situation to yours more than I'd like. Now all the super long posts make complete sense. :thirishdrinkers:

 

[Marvin49]

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.

 

[chawx]

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?

 

[Marvin49]

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. I feel you have to earn it more when you don't get to easily just 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?

I understand your thinking, but I think there are some serious flaws.

1) While I agree that it is more difficult now to have a dynasty due to the salary cap, its not because teams could "buy" a championship in the past. There was no salary cap, but there was also no Free Agency. It was simply easier for teams who drafted very, very well to RETAIN their players and be very good for a longer period of time. What makes MLB so unfair is that some teams seem to have unlimited budgets in a time of Free Agency.

2) The 49ers won their last Super Bowl after the 1994 season...which was the first year of the salary cap. They continued to compete for a title every year until 1998....then rebuilt for a few years with TO and Jeff Garcia and competed for a title till 2002. Then Donahue got Mariucci fired and the wheels fell off the wagon.

 

[Hawks46]

I for one appreciate the conglomeration of stats and info PH brings to the table. I sure as hell don't have time to look stuff up like this.

The few things I've learned:

The Niners were actually better than I thought the last decade. I thought they've had more really bad seasons than just mediocre seasons. I rememember them being tough in the early 2000's, with Garcia and Owens on offense with Waters running the ball, and they had a very tough defense. But I remember them having more terrible seasons; it's what an imperfect memory will do to your perception.

I'm surprised we've had so many blowout games against them. I remember winning a lot more than losing, and evidently the memory of those big wins probably lead to the perception that they've had a terrible team for so long.

I find it patently hilarious that most Niner fans will talk about how we've never amounted to anything and bring up the past, when they've only had two really good seasons in the last 10 years, and they were the last two. I went to the game in 2007 at Candlestick where Rocky Bernard separated Alex Smith's shoulder. That was a great time to watch a game there; the fan base was so beat down and expecting to lose, that they weren't overly upset when they did. Halfway through the 3rd quarter, there were more Hawks fans than Niner fans in that stadium.

 

[Marvin49]

I for one appreciate the conglomeration of stats and info PH brings to the table. I sure as hell don't have time to look stuff up like this.

The few things I've learned:

The Niners were actually better than I thought the last decade. I thought they've had more really bad seasons than just mediocre seasons. I rememember them being tough in the early 2000's, with Garcia and Owens on offense with Waters running the ball, and they had a very tough defense. But I remember them having more terrible seasons; it's what an imperfect memory will do to your perception.

I'm surprised we've had so many blowout games against them. I remember winning a lot more than losing, and evidently the memory of those big wins probably lead to the perception that they've had a terrible team for so long.

I find it patently hilarious that most Niner fans will talk about how we've never amounted to anything and bring up the past, when they've only had two really good seasons in the last 10 years, and they were the last two. I went to the game in 2007 at Candlestick where Rocky Bernard separated Alex Smith's shoulder. That was a great time to watch a game there; the fan base was so beat down and expecting to lose, that they weren't overly upset when they did. Halfway through the 3rd quarter, there were more Hawks fans than Niner fans in that stadium.

A couple things...

1) Its Watters, not Waters.
2) Watters never played with Garcia or Owens. His final year in SF was 1994.
3) Garcia DID play with Garrison Hearst and Charlie Garner at RB.
4) I remember that year as well....the season effectively ended when Alex got hurt. He then came back when he shouldn't have and Mike Nolan questioned his toughness in front of the team...which mercifully effectively ended HIS tenure with the team.