tell me about the 49ers - Page 2

Spellmen · #11 04-30-2007, 02:21 PM

Their offensive numbers weren't great overall, but that was mostly due to the passing game. I believe they were in the 4-6 range in rushing, and should definitely be up there again. There was no real threat at receiver last year, Antonio Bryant never panned out, and Battle was the best receiver by far. Davis was also out over half the year with a broken leg, but he looked good as expected when he came back. I'm a little worried about the offense with Norv gone, but hope Alex will continue to develop.

The defense was definitely the weak link, but they made big moves in the offseason picking up Clements, Lewis, the Ravens nose tackle, and Banta-Cain. Lewis may not return to that probowl form, but I think he is better than what he showed last year and is certainly an improvement. If Willis performs I think the defense has a shot to be decent

capone0 · #12 04-30-2007, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
their division is nothing special and they've got some good weapons on offense...let's see how the defense plays against some solid offenses in their division...

my guess is 6-10...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why they would get worse when they improved their team substantially in the offseason? Their last 8 or 9 games was much more remenscent of how good they should in this coming season.

[/ QUOTE ]

this kind of gets to my FO/DVOA question. their Points Scores/Allowed would indicate that were fortunate to win 7 games, and 5 or 6 wins was more likely.

any thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

DVOA doesn't tell the whole story. As I stated earlier there are couple of games that they team got drilled. This was due to our starting set of DBs pretty much being out and us not having any depth at the position. When we had Harris and Spencer in the second half of the season, the team was pretty solid for the most part and the only disappointing loss were the St Louis game (Nolan made a tactical error in going for a FG instead of a TD near the goal) and the NO game in which we got killed by the best team in the NFC. But we beat Seattle twice albeit not at full strength and we won at Denver in a game they had to win to get into the playoffs.

Their are a couple of games against top flight teams that we just got slaugtered but I think the team, atleast on paper and barring injuries shoudl be better next year.

slothinator · #13 04-30-2007, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]

DVOA doesn't tell the whole story. As I stated earlier there are couple of games that they team got drilled. This was due to our starting set of DBs pretty much being out and us not having any depth at the position. When we had Harris and Spencer in the second half of the season, the team was pretty solid for the most part and the only disappointing loss were the St Louis game (Nolan made a tactical error in going for a FG instead of a TD near the goal) and the NO gamein which we got killed by the 2nd best team in the NFC But we beat Seattle twice albeit not at full strength and we won at Denver in a game they had to win to get into the playoffs.

Their are a couple of games against top flight teams that we just got slaugtered but I think the team, atleast on paper and barring injuries shoudl be better next year.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Bears beat the Saints and went to the Super Bowl.

battschr · #14 04-30-2007, 02:54 PM

I think somewhere around .500 seems right.

Jack of Arcades · #15 04-30-2007, 02:55 PM

A lot of teams get blown out, but they ususally have a few blowouts themselves. However, according to DVOA, SF had 6 losses more lopsided than their best win.

Patton4 · #16 04-30-2007, 03:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of teams get blown out, but they ususally have a few blowouts themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

That quote doesn't make much sense... the teams that get blown out are usually not teams that are going to blow anyone out.

TheNoodleMan · #17 04-30-2007, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of teams get blown out, but they ususally have a few blowouts themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

That quote doesn't make much sense... the teams that get blown out are usually not teams that are going to blow anyone out.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'd think that, but it is wrong.

Take the Cowboys last year for example. They had 10 games decided by 14+ points and were 6-4 in them.

Jack of Arcades · #18 04-30-2007, 03:22 PM

No, pretty much every teams gets blown out a couple times. The good teams are the ones that dominate their inferior competition.

A team that plays close most of the time but gets blown our multiple times isn't a good team, or even average.

Colt McCoy · #19 04-30-2007, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, pretty much every teams gets blown out a couple times. The good teams are the ones that dominate their inferior competition.

A team that plays close most of the time but gets blown our multiple times isn't a good team, or even average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you! I've been listening to local media people try to use this justification forever to claim teams "weren't that far away from being good". Teams that play close in most games but always find ways to lose them are not good teams or close to being good.

Patton4 · #20 04-30-2007, 03:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, pretty much every teams gets blown out a couple times. The good teams are the ones that dominate their inferior competition.

A team that plays close most of the time but gets blown our multiple times isn't a good team, or even average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, regardless... I watched every Niner game last year plus at least 4 other games every week. The Niners made a few mistakes that prevented them from having 2 more wins. They earned their victories though and are capable of being a much better team this season. Their record was no fluke. Their defense has made some major improvements which should afford them their share of the winning side of a few blowouts this year. Unless Alex Smith regresses somehow, or the injury bug plants itself on this team, the Niners will have a better record than last year.