Merry Christmas to All

[SFAnthem]

That was a FORCED turnover. A great play by the Coons D. Unlike both of our blind squirrel finding an acorn turnovers. That wasn't a "good break" for the Falcons, it was a great play. According to Mike Perrera, the call on that catch was good.

The muffed punt in the Packers game was also unforced but the result is the same. Still need to capitalize on the play and GET the ball. Aldon fought for that loose ball and secured it. Culliver did not drop that pass.

The call on the catch was good only because there was insufficient evidence to overturn the initial call by the refs. They got it wrong initially, imo

The Niners were more lucky than good. Enjoy it. Celebrate it. But don't try to convince me that we played especially well.

They were definitely fortunate in the second than in the first. We agree here that they didn't play well.

My final argument is that when even playing subpar, their overall talent won out-that mean they're the better team to me.

 

[msgkings322]

tzill might give in, but that's not the way to bet.

Thread winner. Where's the like button?

 

[Stokes1931]

 

[Stokes1931]

A team that was merely "lucky" would have folded after being down 17-0 in the first quarter.

When I got home late from my Sunday morning duties (people offered me money to keep the sermon short!), it was already 17-0. My inner NN screamed, "Game over! Game over! Game over!" like some perverted Russ Hodges.

However, my inner Stokes told me to relax, grab some lunch, sit down and enjoy the rest of the game, no matter how it turned out. Glad I did.

Although, from my "absence" streak for the last seven Giants games of 2012, I was sorely tempted to go out for a nice looooooooong walk, just to give the Niners a chance. No need. Different strategies for different sports.

 

[tzill]

tzill might give in, but that's not the way to bet.

I see what you did there....:arg:

 

[tzill]

I dunno about that. Ryan's fumble was a fluke. But the interception was well played, jumped the route, and made the difficult INT. It's not like Ryan threw the ball right too him.

On the int, the WR slipped. Opportunistic play from Rogers, and credit for that. But it pretty much was a fluke.

 

[Toolrulzz]

tzill, your ability to crap on a win at all costs, never giving in lest you admit that you were wrong, is epic. Keep it going for one more game, please. I hope to be hearing in two weeks why the Niners are lucky to be celebrating a SB victory.

 

[Heathbar012]

tzill, your ability to crap on a win at all costs, never giving in lest you admit that you were wrong, is epic. Keep it going for one more game, please. I hope to be hearing in two weeks why the Niners are lucky to be celebrating a SB victory.

He'll be too busy dancing naked in the streets.

 

[msgkings322]

He'll be too busy dancing naked in the streets.

In other words, a typical Sunday night for tzill

 

[Heathbar012]

In other words, a typical Sunday night for tzill

Not if the Niners' D isn't getting any pressure on the QB and the Dubs are turning the ball over more than 15 times per game! Well, maybe the dancing is just a little less jovial. Look out Polk Street!

 

[tzill]

tzill, your ability to crap on a win at all costs, never giving in lest you admit that you were wrong, is epic. Keep it going for one more game, please. I hope to be hearing in two weeks why the Niners are lucky to be celebrating a SB victory.

Look:

I admitted I know nothing about handegg. That much has been made clear to me this season. I've no idea if the Niners will win the SB or not; I have no idea if the D will show up or not.

The main thing is: neither do you.

I'm not "crapping on a win." I'm voicing my opinion that the Niners were very lucky to win Sunday. An opinion, btw, that is also held by Greg Cosell:

KNBR-AM - Tom Tolbert Podcast

Listen from 8:30 to about 16:30. Cosell makes the following points:

1. The Niners didn't "stop the Falcons" in the second half;
2. Roddy White slipping on the INT was a fluke;
3. Ryan's fumble was a fluke.
4. On Douglas' disputed and non-reversed catch, if Douglas hadn't slipped out of his break, it would've been a TD.
5. The Falcons were very confident in their ability to move on the Niners D in the fourth quarter which is why they had such a slow, methodical drive.
6. The Niners didn't put much pressure on Ryan.

My point is that none of that is "crapping on the win," it's just unbiased analysis. The Niners were lucky to win. Last year in the NFC championship they were unlucky, so I guess it evens out.

Lastly: I've got no problem if you want to dispute what I've written; that can make for good and lively exchange. However, if you're going to attack ME instead of my post...you can fuck right off.

 

[tzill]

In other words, a typical Sunday night for tzill

That's what she said...

 

[Toolrulzz]

Look:

I admitted I know nothing about handegg. That much has been made clear to me this season. I've no idea if the Niners will win the SB or not; I have no idea if the D will show up or not.

The main thing is: neither do you.

I'm not "crapping on a win." I'm voicing my opinion that the Niners were very lucky to win Sunday. An opinion, btw, that is also held by Greg Cosell:

KNBR-AM - Tom Tolbert Podcast

Listen from 8:30 to about 16:30. Cosell makes the following points:

1. The Niners didn't "stop the Falcons" in the second half;
2. Roddy White slipping on the INT was a fluke;
3. Ryan's fumble was a fluke.
4. On Douglas' disputed and non-reversed catch, if Douglas hadn't slipped out of his break, it would've been a TD.
5. The Falcons were very confident in their ability to move on the Niners D in the fourth quarter which is why they had such a slow, methodical drive.
6. The Niners didn't put much pressure on Ryan.

My point is that none of that is "crapping on the win," it's just unbiased analysis. The Niners were lucky to win. Last year in the NFC championship they were unlucky, so I guess it evens out.

Lastly: I've got no problem if you want to dispute what I've written; that can make for good and lively exchange. However, if you're going to attack ME instead of my post...you can fuck right off.

Sensitive much? You seem like a passionate and knowledgeable guy so I'll chalk the part in bold up to that passion.

As for Cossell, he's not saying anything earth shattering. The Niners definitely got a few breaks. The Ryan fumble being the biggest. The pick was going to happen whether the receiver slipped or not (I'm not completely convinced that he actually slipped either but I haven't seen a definitive look at the play). Culliver jumped the route perfectly. The Falcons were lucky too that the Niners couldn't capitalize on the 2 turnovers. Atlanta was excellent in one phase of the game: passing the ball. They were somewhere between mediocre and plain bad at everything else. I felt the Niners were the better team before and Sunday only reinforced that feeling. They played a C+/B- game and still won on the road after falling behind 17-0. I know they can play much better and I have a lot of confidence that they will against the Ravens.

 

[tzill]

Sensitive much? You seem like a passionate and knowledgeable guy so I'll chalk the part in bold up to that passion.

As for Cossell, he's not saying anything earth shattering. The Niners definitely got a few breaks. The Ryan fumble being the biggest. The pick was going to happen whether the receiver slipped or not (I'm not completely convinced that he actually slipped either but I haven't seen a definitive look at the play). Culliver jumped the route perfectly. The Falcons were lucky too that the Niners couldn't capitalize on the 2 turnovers. Atlanta was excellent in one phase of the game: passing the ball. They were somewhere between mediocre and plain bad at everything else. I felt the Niners were the better team before and Sunday only reinforced that feeling. They played a C+/B- game and still won on the road after falling behind 17-0. I know they can play much better and I have a lot of confidence that they will against the Ravens.

Per Cosell, and this was how I saw it as well, that was not an interception if White doesn't slip. The Niners got at least five unforced error, flukey breaks: both turnovers, both PF calls, and the disputed catch. The Niners may be the better team, but they didn't PLAY better. For me, the convincing thing was the patient way the Falcons methodically drove down the field in the fourth quarter -- they were unconcerned about the Niner D and but for an amazing play by Brooks are first and goal at the three.

I've watched a ton of Niner games over the decades and went to SBs XVI and XIX. This was a lucky win. You take it, count your blessings, and move on. But you don't take it as an affirmation of superiority.

Put another way: how many great teams play C+/B- football in a Conference Championship? That type of performance should get you beat.

 

[SFAnthem]

However you describe it, the team came back from down 17-0 after sh*tting the bed from both sides of the ball for the first quarter and a half.

If we are going to downgrade them for giving up a 28 point lead, shouldn't we award them for winning a game after a 17 point deficit?

The comeback wasn't fueled by those fortunate breaks. That was the niners overall talent at oline, TE, QB and coaching that brought them back.

When the niners scored to open the second half, that was a new ball game, there were breaks on both sides and the niners ended up on top.

Any playoff team that loses a 17 point lead at home shouldnt deserve to win, either.

Almost reminds me of another SF vs ATL playoff matchup, in the 2010 NLDS. Should we point to the lack of offense and the implosion of Brooks Conrad and say the Giants were just lucky? Doesn't that discredit everything else (the pitching, the defense, the clutch hits) the Giants did to win that series?

 

[msgkings322]

Per Cosell, and this was how I saw it as well, that was not an interception if White doesn't slip. The Niners got at least five unforced error, flukey breaks: both turnovers, both PF calls, and the disputed catch. The Niners may be the better team, but they didn't PLAY better. For me, the convincing thing was the patient way the Falcons methodically drove down the field in the fourth quarter -- they were unconcerned about the Niner D and but for an amazing play by Brooks are first and goal at the three.

I've watched a ton of Niner games over the decades and went to SBs XVI and XIX. This was a lucky win. You take it, count your blessings, and move on. But you don't take it as an affirmation of superiority.

Put another way: how many great teams play C+/B- football in a Conference Championship? That type of performance should get you beat.

What SFAnthem said.

Also, re the bolded above, that answer depends entirely on your attitude about the team. If you are inclined to 'believe in' them, you say only a good team can win a big game not playing their best the whole game. If you are tzill, you decide a subpar performance means the team itself is subpar (and you also somehow think all other teams they are playing are better, for some reason). There's no winning or losing this argument, it all comes down to prior mood affiliation.

 

[msgkings322]

However you describe it, the team came back from down 17-0 after sh*tting the bed from both sides of the ball for the first quarter and a half.

If we are going to downgrade them for giving up a 28 point lead, shouldn't we award them for winning a game after a 17 point deficit?

The comeback wasn't fueled by those fortunate breaks. That was the niners overall talent at oline, TE, QB and coaching that brought them back.

When the niners scored to open the second half, that was a new ball game, there were breaks on both sides and the niners ended up on top.

Any playoff team that loses a 17 point lead at home shouldnt deserve to win, either.

Almost reminds me of another SF vs ATL playoff matchup, in the 2010 NLDS. Should we point to the lack of offense and the implosion of Brooks Conrad and say the Giants were just lucky? Doesn't that discredit everything else (the pitching, the defense, the clutch hits) the Giants did to win that series?

This actually gets to the heart of the delusions of all sports analysis. In all pro sports, the teams facing each other are composed of the best in the world at what they do. There's not that much delta between them. And when you get to the playoffs, the differences are really small, all the playoff teams are good and on any given day any of them can beat any other.

So you can look at almost any playoff game in any sport (except maybe basketball which has so much scoring) and usually point to one or two moments that the game turns on: that one play where a defender or receiver falls down, that one random fumble, Brooks Conrad, Kyle Williams, whatever. And then the analysts afterwards say 'well Atlanta just couldn't get it done, Ryan isn't a big game QB, etc' when in reality the breaks just went the other way and the teams are so close all it takes is a break or two.

So in effect ALL champions are 'lucky'. They had to be good to get lucky, but they all got more breaks than their equally good competition.

The Niners are good. They are at least as good as their opponents this year. The guys who's livelihoods depend on evaluating the teams (the bookies) rated the Niners 4 pts better than the Falcons (and they won by 4), now they have them 4 pts better than the Ravens. All that means is if that SF-Atl game was played 10 times, the Niners probably win 6. One of the six happened Sunday, because the Niners got more breaks.

No one can tell you what kind of fan to be, but tzill, you're just being weird on this.

 

[Toolrulzz]

Per Cosell, and this was how I saw it as well, that was not an interception if White doesn't slip. The Niners got at least five unforced error, flukey breaks: both turnovers, both PF calls, and the disputed catch. The Niners may be the better team, but they didn't PLAY better. For me, the convincing thing was the patient way the Falcons methodically drove down the field in the fourth quarter -- they were unconcerned about the Niner D and but for an amazing play by Brooks are first and goal at the three.

I've watched a ton of Niner games over the decades and went to SBs XVI and XIX. This was a lucky win. You take it, count your blessings, and move on. But you don't take it as an affirmation of superiority.

Put another way: how many great teams play C+/B- football in a Conference Championship? That type of performance should get you beat.

I agree they got some breaks but like a few others have said, it doesn't diminish what they've accomplished. I waited my whole life for the Giants to get some breaks and 2010 and 2012 were some of the best rides of my life in sports. Sometimes, you need a break or two. But you also have to be good enough to take advantage of them. Atlanta got two huge breaks they could do nothing with and they blew a 17 point lead at home. They had their chance and they couldn't take it.

Just thinking about a great team in a conference title game not playing well and winning, what about the Niners vs Cowboys in the last Super Bowl run? Three immediate Cowboy turnovers and a complete gag job at the end of the first half led to 28 points for SF. People don't really want to talk about that but without those breaks the game may have gone very differently. Even the truly great teams need a few breaks here and there.

 

[Toolrulzz]

This actually gets to the heart of the delusions of all sports analysis. In all pro sports, the teams facing each other are composed of the best in the world at what they do. There's not that much delta between them. And when you get to the playoffs, the differences are really small, all the playoff teams are good and on any given day any of them can beat any other.

So you can look at almost any playoff game in any sport (except maybe basketball which has so much scoring) and usually point to one or two moments that the game turns on: that one play where a defender or receiver falls down, that one random fumble, Brooks Conrad, Kyle Williams, whatever. And then the analysts afterwards say 'well Atlanta just couldn't get it done, Ryan isn't a big game QB, etc' when in reality the breaks just went the other way and the teams are so close all it takes is a break or two.

So in effect ALL champions are 'lucky'. They had to be good to get lucky, but they all got more breaks than their equally good competition.

The Niners are good. They are at least as good as their opponents this year. The guys who's livelihoods depend on evaluating the teams (the bookies) rated the Niners 4 pts better than the Falcons (and they won by 4), now they have them 4 pts better than the Ravens. All that means is if that SF-Atl game was played 10 times, the Niners probably win 6. One of the six happened Sunday, because the Niners got more breaks.

No one can tell you what kind of fan to be, but tzill, you're just being weird on this.

I think you hit that first bold part square on the head. I'm a bit of sports junkie (nerd?) and have watched a TON of old Niner games. Even the heartbreaking ones. In a lot of those games, you can pick out specific points where the game turned, good or bad. And there are usually more than one. The Niners have plenty of what if games and moments in NFC title games. '83, '90, '92 and 2011. Some of the most heartbreaking games in 49er history.

I got asked a lot this year how I felt about certain games and my answer was always the same: If the Niners bring it, they'll win because I feel they can beat anyone. I haven't been this confident in a Niners team since 1994. Unfortunately this year they've been a bit inconsistent at times.

 

[Stokes1931]

How could a thread that began with warm holiday wishes for Giants' fans have degenerated into a debate about the 49ers?



It's all good! Carry on.