curse of the 10 win season

[deep9er]

The curse of the 10-win comeback season - Yahoo! Sports

interesting stuff.

i believe most here are predicting 11 wins, some 10? if we win 10, then we won't fall under this 'curse'.

i'd be ok (obviously, not elated) with 10 wins this season, depending how many are against the NFC West? i'd think we'll need 4-2 at worse case?

 

[Voltaire26]

I would think San Francisco would be less likely to fall victim to this curse then my Lions. San Francisco is the real deal.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I agree the Lions seem the most likely to fit this bill. The Texans' division is pretty bad right now, especially Indy and Jax (I expect Indy to be much better, but they're so young it's an upset if they do all that well; not to mention they haven't needed coaching on offense since Jim Harbaugh was the QB). I think the NFC West is stronger than the AFC South, but it's still not a very strong division. The Lions play in by far the strongest division of the three, and their fate rests almost entirely on Matt Stafford's ever-so-delicate shoulders. They'll have a tough go of it IMO.

 

[Jikkle]

Agree with CC in that the Lions are the most likely to slip. Not a knock on them it's just the division is tough with the Packers and Bears being good. Though another 10 win season out of them wouldn't be a complete shock or anything.

Houston is just in a weak division so I have a tough time seeing them slip to under 10 games.

I have a tough time envisioning a scenario where the 9ers win less than 10 and that's not just homer speak there. Defense is 100% legit, offense should be better, and the team is well coached by Harbaugh and company.

I think when you look at the flash in the pan teams they feast on a last place schedule and play a little over their heads and than it comes crashing back down when they get a tougher schedule the next year.

 

[MHSL82]

I'd like to know how many of those 26 teams that jumped and then fell added a lot of personell changes between year 1 and year 2. The reason I wonder is that last year, one of the reasons it was so surprising was because we did it with largely the same people as the year before. Heck, the QB that needed to be replaced stayed and we won. Were the majority of teams that went from 7-9 or below to 10+, knocking on the door or did they have big changes? 13-3 is a lot harder than 10-6, so does that make us safer/more proven? Do you see any simularities to Chicago, Green Bay, or the Steelers?

While my first instinct was 9-7 isn't big enough of a drop-off when a lot of those teams that made the jump went to 10-6 or 11-5, my perspective/expectations has risen so much because of last year that 7 losses seems like a lot. 10-6, barring injury, is our floor, IMO. That said, we were very healthy last year. If we were completely healthy, we would have won the SB (Edwards and Morgan healthy). 13-3 is our ceiling most likely.

 

[MHSL82]

Having said the above, wouldn't big personel changes suggest better and more stable rosters, therefore more rare than our jump? I mean that's the reason many are confident in the lions not falling, because they now have Stafford, who wasn't there for their year 1. People have said we overacheived, but were we a 10-6 team that overachieved to 13-3? Or were we a 9-7 or 8-8 team who overacheived to 13-3. Is there any reason we shouldn't overachieve again? Did the guys we added in the off-season help offset any underachieving we would have had without? Is it going to stir things up unnecessarily? (To me, it's obvious it should help us, but what can we compare to the past 29 teams to know?)

 

[deep9er]

I'd like to know how many of those 26 teams that jumped and then fell added a lot of personell changes between year 1 and year 2. The reason I wonder is that last year, one of the reasons it was so surprising was because we did it with largely the same people as the year before. Heck, the QB that needed to be replaced stayed and we won. Were the majority of teams that went from 7-9 or below to 10+, knocking on the door or did they have big changes? 13-3 is a lot harder than 10-6, so does that make us safer/more proven? Do you see any simularities to Chicago, Green Bay, or the Steelers?

While my first instinct was 9-7 isn't big enough of a drop-off when a lot of those teams that made the jump went to 10-6 or 11-5, my perspective/expectations has risen so much because of last year that 7 losses seems like a lot. 10-6, barring injury, is our floor, IMO. That said, we were very healthy last year. If we were completely healthy, we would have won the SB (Edwards and Morgan healthy). 13-3 is our ceiling most likely.

yeah, agree with 10-6 being the floor....unless the injury bug is severe? injuries are part of the game and is expected, just hope its not a rash of injuries, multiple long term injuries, or hits one position excessively hard.


i'm not so sure i agree with "would have won the SB....."?

 

[MHSL82]

yeah, agree with 10-6 being the floor....unless the injury bug is severe? injuries are part of the game and is expected, just hope its not a rash of injuries, multiple long term injuries, or hits one position excessively hard.


i'm not so sure i agree with "would have won the SB....."?

Yeah, the SB comment was pure speculation. My thinking was we would have been at least 2-13 on third downs with Morgan/Edwards in there, Ginn would have fumbled only once if uninjured (if at all), and I think we would have beaten the Patriots team that showed up since they obviously weren't peaking.

 

[threelittleturds]

The curse of the 10-win comeback season - Yahoo! Sports

interesting stuff.

i believe most here are predicting 11 wins, some 10? if we win 10, then we won't fall under this 'curse'.

i'd be ok (obviously, not elated) with 10 wins this season, depending how many are against the NFC West? i'd think we'll need 4-2 at worse case?

It is interesting how all three teams that "bucked the trend", played in the Super Bowl the 3rd year. Along with having a disappointing near miss finish in the playoffs the 2nd year. With the Packers and Steelers winning, and the Bears losing to the Colts.

 

[MHSL82]

It is interesting how all three teams that "bucked the trend", played in the Super Bowl the 3rd year. Along with having a disappointing near miss finish in the playoffs the 2nd year. With the Packers and Steelers winning, and the Bears losing to the Colts.

If the Bears had won that game, I bet Peyton Manning would have been here. I understand that he still wants to win and Eli's second is motivation, but he wouldn't go ringless to play for the Broncos, would he? I guess any Manning team has a chance, but this had to be the best chance. Do you think not having one would have been all the difference? (Some suggested he went for the money, some said he didn't want to play his brother before the SB; heck, some crazies said he didn't want to come here to compete with Smith. (I understand the respect insult making him compete would be, but he'd suck it up and win the competition if needed to get one ring at least.))

 

[threelittleturds]

If the Bears had won that game, I bet Peyton Manning would have been here. I understand that he still wants to win and Eli's second is motivation, but he wouldn't go ringless to play for the Broncos, would he? I guess any Manning team has a chance, but this had to be the best chance. Do you think not having one would have been all the difference? (Some suggested he went for the money, some said he didn't want to play his brother before the SB; heck, some crazies said he didn't want to come here to compete with Smith. (I understand the respect insult making him compete would be, but he'd suck it up and win the competition if needed to get one ring at least.))

You forgot about the other rumor, how he didn't want to come to a team where he wouldn't be in charge of the offense. Something about how Harbaugh is in solid control here, and Peyton wants to be the top dog... blah blah.. rumor.. haha.

If the Bears did win that, we probably would have Manning in camp. That would be so exciting, but god what a distraction. It'd be like when Favre went to the Vikings and the national media just wouldn't shut the efff up about it. No matter what the players say, that is a pretty big distraction to hear about yourself every single time you turn on ESPN. Or after a good win with say someone like Aldon getting 3 sacks, having people ask Aldon... "So, what is it like to play with Peyton... he is so dreamy, tell me more about Peyton."

Oh well, instead we're stuck with McNabb begging the 49ers to take him... talking about how he wants to play for a team with good coaching, a great defense, solid running game and a young WR corps. He doesn't need to be coy, it is pretty obvious he meant the 49ers.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I misread. Thought it was 7-9 before and 7-9 after. Not at all surprising several 10-6 teams went 7-9 the following year. That does seem a bit silly.

 

[MHSL82]

I misread. Thought it was 7-9 before and 7-9 after. Not at all surprising several 10-6 teams went 9-7 the following year. That does seem a bit silly.

To list 9-7 makes the study less alarming to me. I know it's just 1 win over .500 but with the last 10 years, until last year, 9-7 was quite elusive.

They could have made it more dramatic and say "win their division" instead of "9-7 or worse," but with 7-9 working in 2010, I guess the numbers of those who lost division crowns would be fewer. 9-7 sometimes isn't good enough (Chicago 2008, for example).

Correct me if I'm wrong, I fixed your post to what I thought you meant in the quote (9-7, not 7-9).

 

[Bemular]

Save for the strike shortened season the last time the 49ers went 6-10 then 13-3 we stumbled onto a dynasty - If we stay healthy and Smith doesn't shit the bed then we are EASILY a 10+ win team.

 

[deep9er]

You forgot about the other rumor, how he didn't want to come to a team where he wouldn't be in charge of the offense. Something about how Harbaugh is in solid control here, and Peyton wants to be the top dog... blah blah.. rumor.. haha.

If the Bears did win that, we probably would have Manning in camp. That would be so exciting, but god what a distraction. It'd be like when Favre went to the Vikings and the national media just wouldn't shut the efff up about it. No matter what the players say, that is a pretty big distraction to hear about yourself every single time you turn on ESPN. Or after a good win with say someone like Aldon getting 3 sacks, having people ask Aldon... "So, what is it like to play with Peyton... he is so dreamy, tell me more about Peyton."

Oh well, instead we're stuck with McNabb begging the 49ers to take him... talking about how he wants to play for a team with good coaching, a great defense, solid running game and a young WR corps. He doesn't need to be coy, it is pretty obvious he meant the 49ers.

yeah, i can't help think this was the main reason. there are many factors to consider but this was likely the largest.

if thats the case, then he's not a good fit. adding Peyton would've been forcing the issue, not something we want.

 

[Bemular]

yeah, i can't help think this was the main reason. there are many factors to consider but this was likely the largest.

if thats the case, then he's not a good fit. adding Peyton would've been forcing the issue, not something we want.

I agree with all of this - I, for one, am glad we didn't get Manning, I think the risk far out-weighed what I believed then and still believe will be the reward.

 

[MHSL82]

I agree with all of this - I, for one, am glad we didn't get Manning, I think the risk far out-weighed what I believed then and still believe will be the reward.

You have the best of both worlds; if he succeeds, it'll help the Broncos, a team you like (not comparing your interest in the Niners). If he doesn't, then for us, it's great that Manning went there instead. If he had come here and succeeded, then great. If he failed here, then at least the Broncos can be saved of all that money. There would have been what-ifs regardless of what he chose for fans of either team.

 

[Bemular]

You have the best of both worlds; if he succeeds, it'll help the Broncos, a team you like (not comparing your interest in the Niners). If he doesn't, then for us, it's great that Manning went there instead. If he had come here and succeeded, then great. If he failed here, then at least the Broncos can be saved of all that money. There would have been what-ifs regardless of what he chose for fans of either team.

Yeah, I'm much happier with Peyton going to Denver than I would have been if he came here.

 

[MHSL82]

Yeah, I'm much happier with Peyton going to Denver than I would have been if he came here.

Not to disparage Tebow any further, but as a football fan, it seems that Tebow going back to the Broncos would be worse than Alex going back to the Niners, despite both teams winning a playoff game. Peyton liked Elway enough to have mercy on him, give him an unchallengeable transition away from Timmy.

I don't like Tebow. But relatively speaking, I tend to want to defend him because all the unabashed criticisms seem to me to make him an underdog; but the truth is, based on how he's played, he's not as great of a QB as his winning record shows. There was too much to overcome. People talk about having to overcome Alex, but his 5 INTs made that easier. Tebow *could* improve; I can't say never to him when I don't say never to Smith, but the deck is stacked higher for Tebow than Smith - especially considering our team is overall better.

To me, his maximum is someone like Cassell, Tebow could improve to be not bad, but he's never relevant to me. Not comparing stats, of course. What I mean is, no matter how good Cassell gets, I'll never think anything of him as far as run for the Super Bowl. It's not his fault per se, he just doesn't seem relevant. He's like Spain in international news. Besides getting bombed on 7/11 nine or so years back, when was the last time anything besides Running with the Bulls happen in Spain? (I heard this from a comedian, don't know where. To which, I thought, yeah, what has Spain been up to?) To me, same with Matt Ryan, until Ryan wins a postseason game, it's wasted space to report anything on him. But that's just me. I'm sure Alex is a waste of space on the newspaper when it's separate from the team. Cutler is better than some say but I've never really considered his Bears teams to be favorites. Once these guys do it, I'll be surprised. After about Week 4, if you would have asked me what would surprise me more, SF in the SB or Chicago, I would have said Chicago, despite all the conventional wisdom. (Chicago won their division the year before.)

 

[Bemular]

Not to disparage Tebow any further, but as a football fan, it seems that Tebow going back to the Broncos would be worse than Alex going back to the Niners, despite both teams winning a playoff game. Peyton liked Elway enough to have mercy on him, give him an unchallengeable transition away from Timmy.

I don't like Tebow. But relatively speaking, I tend to want to defend him because all the unabashed criticisms seem to me to make him an underdog; but the truth is, based on how he's played, he's not as great of a QB as his winning record shows. There was too much to overcome. People talk about having to overcome Alex, but his 5 INTs made that easier. Tebow *could* improve; I can't say never to him when I don't say never to Smith, but the deck is stacked higher for Tebow than Smith - especially considering our team is overall better.

To me, his maximum is someone like Cassell, Tebow could improve to be not bad, but he's never relevant to me. Not comparing stats, of course. What I mean is, no matter how good Cassell gets, I'll never think anything of him as far as run for the Super Bowl. It's not his fault per se, he just doesn't seem relevant. He's like Spain in international news. Besides getting bombed on 7/11 nine or so years back, when was the last time anything besides Running with the Bulls happen in Spain? (I heard this from a comedian, don't know where. To which, I thought, yeah, what has Spain been up to?) To me, same with Matt Ryan, until Ryan wins a postseason game, it's wasted space to report anything on him. But that's just me. I'm sure Alex is a waste of space on the newspaper when it's separate from the team. Cutler is better than some say but I've never really considered his Bears teams to be favorites. Once these guys do it, I'll be surprised. After about Week 4, if you would have asked me what would surprise me more, SF in the SB or Chicago, I would have said Chicago, despite all the conventional wisdom. (Chicago won their division the year before.)

I have mad love & respect for both Tim Tebow & Alex Smith - Neither are very good as an NFL QB; but as men and human beings, both are top-drawer individuals.