We don't get a whole lotta love
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview09/team?team=sfo, After reading that it seems as if every niners preview i've read, we're gonna finish 3rd in our divison, or come close to second. I liked how only a couple of the espn "experts" picked us to be 1st, and their analysis was great. I do think we'll be 1st in our divison, we're a better team than arizona and seattle's our ony competition. Kurt warner is not having the same performance from a year ago, and im hoping the madden curse kicks in(i like fitz, but hey we need to win). My prediction, 10-6 1st in our division with a wild card game against the pack at the 'stick. I wished we would get more love, but hey maybe we can surprise them. Thoughts?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
0 recs |
60 comments
Comments
I'm right there with you...
I haven’t really given much predictions to who we will play in the playoffs, but a 9-7, 10-6 record, first in the division is what I think/hope will happen.
Go Niners!
by ZonaBacks10 on Sep 7, 2009 9:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
that would be...
awesome. You put a smile on my face. Pack vs 49ers at the stick, i dont care how much but I would have to go to that game.
Quote of the year "I want to wear a Dwight Clark jersey to the new cowboy stadium."
by Tony C on Sep 7, 2009 9:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m just glad pundits consider the NFC West a division up for grabs. The last few years the talk has been about no competition in the NFC West, one decent team and the rest garbage.
by bignerd on Sep 7, 2009 9:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I enjoy sweetened lemonade.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 8, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Pink Lemonade
No ice please.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Sep 8, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
10-6 NFC West champs
I too see it. I only differ in that I see GB winning the North. If you want an expert who has been pretty darn fair over the years, check out Mike Silver at Yahoo! He picked the Niners to make the playoffs as a WC while challenging AZ for the division.
Remember when we were the chic West pick in ’07? Or AZ in ’05 & ’06? Seattle and AZ can have the love of the experts, I just want our guys to have the wins from the games. The first two weeks are a great opportunity to establish us as the team this season, much like AZ did early last September.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 8, 2009 12:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I CAN'T AGREE MORE!
The other day on ESPN I saw someone actually pick the Rams ahead of us…NO JOKE…the Rams. This is ridiculous. I hope the players are aware of this as much as we are. My friends laugh at me everyday when I say we finish ahead of Arizona. I’ll be there Sunday to show everyone that the Niners are for real.
In Singletary I trust.
by theduke85 on Sep 8, 2009 2:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's what Wisenhunt did to motivate the Cardinals
He was constantly telling the players that everyone thought they sucked and didn’t belong in the playoffs.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Sep 8, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whisenhunt didn't do that
The national media did, starting with Cris Collingsworth saying that the Cardinals “might be the worst playoff team in NFL history.”
Whisenhunt’s terrible coaching down the stretch gave some truth to that kind of sentiment.
by GeoMak on Sep 8, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree 10-6 but...
I hope that the Niners proves us wrong though and get more than 10. But hey, 10 is great
LA Lakers title Defense *Coming Soon*
Niners Nation, UNITE!
LA Dodgers with the grandslam!
Winning since the 1940's
by A.R. Steezy on Sep 8, 2009 4:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Realistically, I don't see why one would actually expect to get any love from the critics.
They haven’t had a winning record in 6 seasons. Almost all of their 1st round picks in that time frame have been underwhelming and definitely not impact players. They had a QB competition between 2 guys that likely wouldn’t start on more than 3 or 4 teams elsewhere.
Not saying they can’t defy expectations, but I can understand why the people predicting the season wouldn’t give the 9ers any benefit of the doubt at least.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 8, 2009 1:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It would also require some work
And be it due to busy schedules or lack of interest, I don’t hink most experts or talking heads spend much time following teams outside of the usual suspects from the previous postseason (and Dallas). It’s lazy but it’s what they do. Even most of their yearly predictions are 80% duplicative of the previous season with the occasional group think pick as the “surprise squad” for the year usually based on who finished the previous season hot (Houston this year, Cleveland last year) or had injuries (Seattle this year, Chicago last year). Then when a few teams start doing well they can play the “came out of nowhere” card and hype up that squad, even if in some cases the seeds for growth where kind of obvious.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 8, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then when a few teams start doing well they can play the "came out of nowhere" card and hype up that squad, even if in some cases the seeds for growth where kind of obvious.
Like the Cardinals.
I wasn’t surprised last year.
They have had all of that talent for a while now.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Sep 8, 2009 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I like low expectations, we can surprise some teams like the colts and eagles this year. I am more skeptical about Seattle, prior to injuries they were the team to beat, so Arizona is like the Falcons with Jamaal Anderson, they got really hott at the right time!!
AKA.............Optimist Prime
Banned in 13 comments from the Gulls and I am proud!!
by rlott#42 on Sep 8, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Want Some
That must be some serious humboldt your smoking..Mediocre QB, bad pass blocking offense line, no pass rush, Clements looks terrible, if everything goes well, we might go back to 7-9..If things don’t go well, 4 to 6 wins..
Playoffs, just keep smoking the humby, because your fantasy is as close as this team is going to the playoffs, until it gets a QB and two solid pass rushing ends..
by The Sear on Sep 8, 2009 4:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Close
A good prediction would be somewhere between the nay-sayers and the over optimistic.
Let’s hope for 8-8 and pray for our division to suck.
It’s footbal, we could be like last years Miami or like the Raiders every year.
I think Shaun will perform better than mediocre. But our pass rush and offensive pass blocking looks rather poor. I’m not about to hate though. Go niners.
Use the law of attraction to make us go 10-6.
by carbone on Sep 8, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be interested
In what your honest predictions were last year for Miami, Atlanta and Arizona. Some teams look good on paper others less so. You’re acting as tho a team can’t win with a mediocre QB (Carolina, Minnesota, Tennessee, Miami). We also don’t know what kind of pass blocking the team has as they only played what, one series all together in the preseason? Pass rush i s alegt concern, yet team won 7 games with a poor pass rush last year. So any improvement there or elswhere on the team can easily push the win total up to 8 or 9 right?
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 8, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last years 49ers
had three more sacks than the Bears had.
by GeoMak on Sep 8, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And correspondingly, the Bears had a very bad defense.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 8, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually Frog
They were ranked 16th in points allowed.
Exactly in the middle. (Not ‘very bad’).
by GeoMak on Sep 8, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FO would disagree
As always, not the be all end all, but they finished 7th in defensive DVOA (10th passing, 5th rushing).
by Fooch on Sep 8, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What (in plain English)
does 7th in DVOA mean? (and no wise-Ass answer please).
by GeoMak on Sep 8, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
DVOA is a statistical model that rates football efficiency on per play basis. It’s a better way rate offensive and defensive rankings instead of points and yardage because it accounts for some situational football, however the model isn’t perfect.
It admits not all 3rd and 9’s are same but they grade them the same. If you’re an efficient football team that wilts in big situations than the DVOA score will probably skew higher than reality. If you’re an inefficient team that comes up aces when it really matters your ranking will skew lower. Not to mention it adds or detracts from the DVOA score by strength of schedule . . . probably puts too much emphasis on schedule strength.
by bignerd on Sep 8, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With all due respect
you didn’t answer my question.
They ranked 16th in points allowed. He says 7th in DVOA.
Does that mean tha using that criteria (DVOA) that they were the 7th best defense in the NFL last year.
I would assume so but I just want to be sure.
by GeoMak on Sep 9, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is
Those teams made meaningful personnel changes. Arizona went to a hall of famer at QB (and they did finish just 9-7 – while they got hot in the playoffs, they didn’t exactly tear up the regular season). Atlanta got the best performance from a rookie QB ever and also added Sam Baker, Michael Turner, and Curtis Lofton. Miami had a totally different set of players and coaches – they fired just about everybody. They got rid of Jason Taylor and Zach Thomas (and many others). They added Jake Long, Justin Smiley, Chad Pennington and got Ronnie Brown back from injury.
In contrast, we have essentially the same team we had last year. Without the team changing much why expect different results? We still have a weak pass rush. We still have a middle of the pack offensive line. We still have a journeyman QB. Here’s a interesting way to put it: who on this team would start for the Patriots? Willis, Gore, Smith, Clements, Rachal, Lawson and Andy Lee. That’s it. I’m not counting Staley because he would have to move over to the right side (he’s not displacing Matt Light). That’s 7 players out of 24 starters.
I expect our 2009 49ers to remind us a lot of our 2008 49ers (and they should because, again, its the same players). We’re going to be beaten soundly by the really good teams, much like in the Chargers preseason game. Last year it was the Patriots, Eagles (although we really gave that game away), Saints, Cowboys and Giants (combined, 0-5). This year it will be the Eagles, Vikings, Colts, Falcons and Titans. We’ll beat the really bad teams. Last year it was the Rams and Lions (combined, 3-0). We’ll beat those same teams again this year. And then we’ll split games against the mediocre teams. Last year it was the Seahawks, Cards, Bills, Jets, Dolphins and Redskins (combined, 4-4). This year it will be Seahawks, Texans, Packers, Bears, Jags and Cards. Maybe we steal one from an elite team that fumbles four times or give away a game to the Rams, but by and large we’ll finish right around the same as last year because, just like last year, we have middle of the pack talent.
There’s two ways I’m wrong about this (and boy I do hope I’m wrong about this). First, I’m wrong if a couple players make a huge leap in performance. If Goldson turns into the ballhawk we’ve been missing, Balmer turns into Richard Seymour, Lawson discovers how to rush the passer and Hill channels his inner Tom Brady, then we can do some things. While Goldson and Balmer look better than last year, they don’t look THAT much better. And Lawson and Hill look exactly the same.
Second, I’m wrong if Jimmy Raye and Mike Singletary are WAY better coaches than Nolan and Martz. Getting rid of Martz is a big change, but its hard to believe it will make a big enough difference to separate us from the pack.
The frustrating thing is that we’re so close to becoming a really good team. The fastest fix would be finding a franchise QB. That would change everything. But a pass rusher or two and a stud RT would turn us into a great defense/great running game team. We really are just a couple players away. But we’re not there yet.
by kiyoshi on Sep 8, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Willis, Gore, Smith, Clements, Rachal, Lawson and Andy Lee. + Staley, Heitmann and VD are our better players.
There are few players in development on this team: Balmer, Morgan, Goldson and Haralson. I agree that the team ended up spinning it’s wheels this offseason. Doesn’t mean some of these guys cannot develop and make a difference in this season compared to last. On the bright side we will have two 1st round picks next year, count Crabtree as a rookie along with another good prospect in the 2nd round.
Maybe shoot the 49ers front office again for false advertisement . . . this year the untruthful message was we are now serious about winning, in truth it looks like they have taken the year to build.
by bignerd on Sep 8, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not exactly
Kurt Warner started 11 games in 2007 (after Leinart was injured) and all 16 in 2008.
Record? 17-15.
Atlanta? Many people mistakenly think that they were a terrible team before Ryan & company took over in 2008. Not true.
The Falcons were basically a 500 team in 2005/2006 (15-17). They of course had a horrendous 2007 (4-12) with the Vick and Petrino situations.
Likewise, the Dolphins. Same record as Atlanta (15-17) in 2005/2006. Horrible year in 2007 (1-15) with a huge bounceback in 2008 (11-5).
No matter what changes Parcells and company made in 2008, they got extremely lucky in that the Jets CUT an excellent QB like Chad Pennington. That was almost like winning the lottery. No Pennington, no 11-5 in 2008.
In summary:
Arizona really didn’t add anybody in 2007/2008.
Both Miami & Atlanta were basically 500 teams in 2005/2006 who had terribles years in 2007 and bounced back in 2008. And yes, you are correct, they were helped by some new personnel in 2008.
by GeoMak on Sep 8, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well stated kiyoshi
I’m hoping S. Hill is going to have a 9+ Cinderella year but my self-preservation instinct is preparing for 6- .
Its going to be fun watching ‘frank and beans’ ( kudos to whoever coined that ) but if S. Hill is running around doing his best S. Young imitation it’s going to get ugly fast.
No pass rush is going to be the ultimate killer. Hope I’m wrong, gonna hope for the best, but again I gotta keep my sanity. Seeing Romo on his first series have 5 (00?) seconds to find a target was frightening.
But usual trepidation aside, I am excited about this season. Never liked Nolan and really admire Sing. Martz was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Don’t know much about Raye so at least he’s something new to look forward (?) to. Manusky has got his work cut out for him.
At least we’ve stopped digging the hole at this juncture. That could turn on a dime if we throw a huge chunk of money at a very questionable rookie WR. Maybe he signs and maybe he even performs, but I seriously doubt he will ever be an admired fixture in SF.
Holy manure, it all starts Sunday!
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
by riderless on Sep 8, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very well-stated.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 8, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You do remember
That under Hill and Singletary the 9ers had a winning record?
by Kaizre on Sep 8, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The players for other teams you mentioned were good role players
And we’ve done the same. Added a mixture of vet and young role players like Coffee, Jones, Spurlcok, Bly, Harris a healthy Spencer (missed 14 games last season), and made lineup changes at FS and RT. Also made a full season change at QB. You might remember that Hill was 5-3 last year. Extrapolate for a full season and that’s 10-6. We’ve got young players with upside like Morgan who’s no longer a rookie and is healthy (missed 4 games with staph infection and thus played sparingly in a few others), Rachal (8 starts), Balmer (now part of the rotation), Brooks, Reggie Smith, etc. All of these guys are not likely to pan out but there is potential throughout the roster that need not be like Seymour or Brady for us to succeed. We’ve also got size on the O-line, quickness at WR and DB and one of the best specials teams units in the league.
We should also focus on coaching. Sing was 5-4. He now has an OC that will properly utilize the talent he has. We’ve got a DC now running his full system without meddling. Looking at the rest of the NFC West, Seattle has a new HC and coordinators, AZ has new offensive and defensive coordinators and the Rams a whole new staff. Considering that each of these teams finished behind SF in defense last season I’m not seeing this huge amount of ground that we’ve got to make up. We were one Martz yard from having the same record as AZ. I wouldn’t take a huge improvement to win this division.
We don’t need pro-bowlers at every position. When comparing most positions on our roster to other teams, we’re fine. There are only so many Brady/Mannings per era much less season. You don’t need dominant players at most positions to have a winning record which is what I’m going for this season. Obviously what we lack to take that next step is a big time QB, pass rusher and alpha WR. I’m not looking at this as to whether we’re ready to win or even reach the SB. I’m looking for two things: are we continuing to get better by building a foundation and developing talent? Are we able to compete to win our division this year. The answer to both as I see it is yes.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 8, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Extrapolate for a full season and that’s 10-6"
No, you don’t extrapolate that. The 49ers faced the NFL’s easiest second-half schedule when Hill and Singletary took over, and only beat 1 team with a winning record in that span, that win being against the Jets, who were in no shape or form the same team they were during the first half of the season. Sweeping the Rams and beating crap like the Bills doesn’t change the fact the 49ers were soundly beaten by good teams.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 9, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soundly?
You sure about that? a 5 point loss in Miami without Gore and driving for the win. That’s not soundly. A 5 point loss at AZ were the cost themselves the win with Martz playcalling at the goal line (or just badl uck with Jason Hill slipping when going in for the score). That’s not soundly. Even the JTO games: vs Philly, up 9 in the 4th quarter before he showed his turnover genes and Martz forgot he had Gore. That’s not soundly. Or vs New England, when the defense wore out because Martz again became alergic to calling run plays before we finally lost by 9. That’s nout soundly. Better QB play from Hill instead of JTO would have certainly given us a minimum of 1-2 more wins. And that’s with last season’s team. All in the past now; the current roster is improved, starting at HC, OC and QB.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 9, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a few more days before the season starts and we can end this ridiculously deceptive and obnoxious argument.
First, the Redskins had a winning record of 8-8. Second, Buffalo would have had a winning record if we didn’t beat them. If we would have beat the Cowboys they would have been 8-8 and if we beat the Saints they would have been 7-9.
If we would have lost to the Jets, Bills and Redskins than the argument would have been reversed saying look at all the winning teams we had to play!
by bignerd on Sep 9, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 Thank you nerd
Outside of teams located in NE, Pittsburgh and Baltimore, most years beating a team brings them right around .500 whereas losing to them makes them a “winning team.” It’s a self fulfilling argument when people say we only beat “losing” teams like Buffalo and Washington.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 9, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
8-8 is a winning record?!?
More seriously, though, sure, if teams had won more games, they would have had winning records.
Obviously, there’s a lot of speculation about coulda-woulda-shoulda, but the truth is that a lot of us predicted that the Niners would have a second-half run last year – before the season started – and that run would be largely meaningless. I think it’s safe to say that none of our wins were particularly impressive.
On the other hand, winning unimpressively sure as hell beats losing.
According to DVOA, which is really the only reasonable attempt to understand how good teams were divorced from the context of their schedule, the Niners were solidly below average last year, and our record benefitted from a weak schedule, particularly in the second half. I don’t think people understand how bad, say, the Jets were when we played them.
Had we lost to them, no, I don’t think people would be saying, “wow, we lost to a good Jets team.” No, quite frankly, I think people would look at the context of how the Jets were playing in the second half and said, “Wow, we could beat the Jets even when Farve could barely lift a football” Because make no mistake about it: they were bad once Farve’s arm started to go.
From a personnel stand point, it’s hard to think we’ve made massive improvements. At best, our QB situation should be better. Our backup RB situation should be better. Our WR situation should be better. Our DL situation might be slightly better. Our FS situation might be slightly better. And, with luck, our RT situation will be improved, as well, although we have major depth issues at tackle. That’s not a lot. Most teams enter most seasons looking at one or two positions where they expect substantial improvement, simply from their first two draft picks, which has to be balanced against players getting worse or injured.
We are expecting nothing this year from the first and second round.
We were 18th in defense last year according to DVOA, and 27th in offense. There is no way that translates to a winning record this year without a tremendous amount of luck, a tremendous amount of improvement, or large personnel changes. As others have pointed out, our defensive DVOA didn’t actually improve significantly when Sing took over.
I think replacing JTO with Hill will improve our offensive ranking – but not by a lot. Let’s not kid ourselves that Hill will be an above-average starter this year – but I expect turnovers will drop off substantially, and that matters a lot.
So let’s be optimistic, and say that despite really only upgrading 1.5 starters (Morgan and half a season of Hill) we jump up 10 spaces in the offensive rankings. And let’s be optimistic and say that better coaching and motivation gets us three spaces in the defensive rankings.
We’re 15th in the league in defense, 17th in offense.
That’s about .500. Maybe you win a few extra games if you get lucky or have a really weak schedule, but talking about 10-6 … well, again … seem to require a lot of optimism.
by Ronaldinho on Sep 9, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This statement makes no sense Ronaldinho
Most teams enter most seasons looking at one or two positions where they expect substantial improvement, simply from their first two draft picks, which has to be balanced against players getting worse or injured.
Maybe for the Pats or the Steelers, but not ‘most teams.’
For example, the Bears (9-7 last season):
Offense:
They are expecting substantial improvement on the offensive line, where they have had a lot of changes in personnel.
The WR’s (obviously). The back-up RB. And of course the QB, with Cutler. Starting RB and TE’s? No problems.
Defense: The defense, despite ANY ‘stats and rankings’ was a major disappointment to anyone who WATCHED the games.
The D-Line: Major underachievment in this area (which led to the firing of their D-Line coach and the hiring of Rod Marinelli). All 49er fans bemoan their lack of a pass rush. the 49ers had three more sacks than did Chicago.
LB: Brian Urlacher: Hasn’t been dominant in two seasons (Briggs is great).
The secondary: Obvious weakness all around (as evidenced by their 30th ranked pass defense).
The Bears are clearly looking at ‘substantial improvement’ at more than ‘one or two’ positions as you say.
I would say that most teams in the NFL are similar to the Bears in that they are looking at substantial improvement in many areas, not just one or two.
by GeoMak on Sep 9, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You misread me -
- although I admit my wording wasn’t particularly clear.
I should have written “at least one or two positions.” However, I think the inclusion of the word “simply” should make clear that I was talking about improvement from the addition of draft picks alone.
I do not think, however, that the bears are a typical team. I think they expect (whether or not they’ll get it is something else) improvement in more positions than the average team, but that’s not the point.
If most teams expect at least two positions to be seriously upgraded every offseason, then the 49ers improved less than most teams this year.
by Ronaldinho on Sep 10, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well stated.
Bravo.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 9, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A 3 point win in Seattle the 49ers had no business winning considering they were dominated?
A marginal win over a Jets team that could have crushed them had Favre been healthy?
This is football, you cannot delve into hypothetical bullshit and expect to be taken seriously. The argument about games they could have won or lost goes both ways, in the end result is that the 49ers were not a good team in 2008 statistically or in the W column, made marginal improvements, and are not simply going to be better because Shaun Hill is starting and Samurai Mike is the head coach.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 9, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's an ignorant argument Frog (you look foolish making it)
Kurt Warner started 27 REGULAR season games in 2007/2008.
He beat exacttly THREE winning teams out of those 27 games.
Against the ‘good teams?’
Arizona lost by 28 to Philadelphia, 21 to Minnesota and 40 to New England.
That’s three losses by an average of 30 points!
This with a team with a HOF type QB, two of the best WR’s in the game, and a HC in his second year.
by GeoMak on Sep 9, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And your point is?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 9, 2009 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't need the love
We just need to bloody ever team that we play and thats that. The love may come then. If not who cares?! We aren’t going to give those team we rough up any love. And thats fine. I don’t care about predictions. Just win.
"Bar None!" - William Floyd
by maveric_87 on Sep 8, 2009 7:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Marshall Faulk
Picked the Niners as one of his five non-playoffs team from 2008 that will make it iin 2009. I agree with four of his choices (not Jacksonville): New Orleans, New England, Green Bay, San Francisco.
Add Marshall to Mike Silver as the only big names I’ve heard put us in the ’09 post-season.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 8, 2009 10:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But he did pick Jacksonville. New England, Green Bay and New Orleans are the trendy picks.
by bignerd on Sep 8, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reason we don't get media love
Is because it’s been nearly half a decade since we mattered. No one can correctly name the combined record of the Niners the past 4 years.
A)No QB: Hill is unproven and until he proves something he will remain just that and in the NFL unproven means jack.
B)Poor lines: No teams with lack luster offensive and/or poor defensive lines get very far in this league
C)Healthy history of losing recently:No one remembers our 7 win seasons so why would they think were going to make that significant jump now? Teams in the NFL for the most part go UP and then DOWN based yearly on schedule strength. A playoff run with a weak schedule is followed by a difficult schedule and usually poor record. Then the cycle continues. If you look at our last 4 seasons, history would argue we will struggle this season (5/6 wins) followed by that turnaround next year that we’ve been waiting years for (8/9 wins)
by KEGster on Sep 10, 2009 5:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Been over half a decade.
6 years
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Sep 10, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Difficult schedule no longer really applies
Schedules are rotated so only two teams per 16 games are based on the previous seasons record. And even that’s a crap shoot year to year. Example: AZ plays Carolina this year since both finished 1st, but the Rams play the Saints because both finished last. Which do you think is a tougher foe this season? I say Saints.
You are correct about the media not paying attention until you prove you matter. I still think it’s a bit lazy of paid people to make predictions without actually studying all the teams but, just like you earn primetime games on Sunday and Monday nights by winning, same for media attention. It very much sucks that it’s been since 2003 when we were defending division champs and a FG away from the playoffs.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 10, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a FG away from the playoffs.
shudders***
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Sep 10, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My mistake
Meant to say FG kicker. But it was our last season of truly mattering. Erickson years… Yeck.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 11, 2009 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















