Merry Christmas to All

[powerchord86]

Merry Christmas guise!

 

[calsnowskier]

Merry Christmas guise!

And a happy 4th of July to you, sir!

 

[SFAnthem]

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.

lol

tz's just a hard guy to please

now if only we led off with Happy Hanukkah to all..

 

[calsnowskier]

lol

tz's just a hard guy to please

now if only we led off with Happy Hanukkah to all..

He is just a good lawyer.

He accepted a retainer from the Anti-49er Guild. He MUST argue against them

 

[tzill]

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?

You're conflating things, lets take these serially:

1. I don't know if the comeback was "fueled" by the turnovers, but without them the Niners lose. Also, you neglect the two PF penalties and the slip on the disputed catch.
2. There were breaks on both sides, but they weren't equal breaks. Hence, the Niners were lucky.
3. Neither team played like a champion, but the Niners were luckier.
4. The Giants WERE lucky wrt Conrad, but I don't recall enough of the series to say whether or not the breaks evened out. I doubt they got as lucky as the Niners got last Sunday.

 

[tzill]

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.

Red Herring.

Again, how many SB champs played a mediocre Conf Champ game to get there?

Also, this is not A subpar defensive performance, it's one of several this year. They are what they are: overrated.

 

[tzill]

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.

A couple of thoughts:

1. I appreciate that luck is involved in all sporting events, but I don't agree that all champions are just luckier than their opponents. Conversely, I think most champs rely less on luck than their opponents. It's about magnitude of luck, that's why we even compare teams.
2. The Niners are good; I never said they weren't. In my experience, defenses that collapse like the Niners has don't go to the SB. This year, IMO is unique.
3. Don't fall into the "bookies evaluate the relative strength of the teams" myth. They don't. They set lines to attract equal money on both sides...THAT'S their livelihood.
4. I'm not sure how you got from 4 point line to winning 60% of the time, but that's not supported by any math I've ever seen.
5. If I'm being "weird" about this, it's because this Niner team is fucking weird. I'm trying to make sense of a pretty nonsensical NFC Championship.

 

[Toolrulzz]

You're conflating things, lets take these serially:

1. I don't know if the comeback was "fueled" by the turnovers, but without them the Niners lose. Also, you neglect the two PF penalties and the slip on the disputed catch.
2. There were breaks on both sides, but they weren't equal breaks. Hence, the Niners were lucky.
3. Neither team played like a champion, but the Niners were luckier.
4. The Giants WERE lucky wrt Conrad, but I don't recall enough of the series to say whether or not the breaks evened out. I doubt they got as lucky as the Niners got last Sunday.

The Niners left 10 guaranteed points on the field in the missed FG and fumble inside the 1 yard line. Those seem like pretty big breaks.

Serious question. Did you enjoy the win at all?

 

[SFAnthem]

You're conflating things, lets take these serially:

Yeah, Im having similar debates with other fans and I think I've lost track of what I have or haven't stated already

1. I don't know if the comeback was "fueled" by the turnovers, but without them the Niners lose. Also, you neglect the two PF penalties and the slip on the disputed catch.

1. The niners offense was driving at will after those first two drives. I'm pointing out that the turnovers weren't the beginning of comeback and that it was the niner's talent advantage that brought them back into the game.

-I'm not trying to neglect the PF penalties. How much of an impact did it have on the final score? The one on #54 I can easily attribute to a player succumbing to pressure of the playoff atmosphere and losing his composure..Composure under pressure is one of the factors that define a champion. Besides, it was a 15 yard penalty on a drive where the niners were getting 8 yards/play, that defense showed no signs of stopping the niners.

-The one on Kaep was very ticky tack and while it did prolong a drive late in the game (it did not result in points)

-The slip on the disputed catch? Why do you thnk he was so open? did you see what the receiver did to Rogers? He grabbed Rogers' shoulder pad and tackled him down. You say potential TD for the falcons, I say at the least no catch and possibly offensive PI. That's a break for the Falcons.


2. There were breaks on both sides, but they weren't equal breaks. Hence, the Niners were lucky.
[/QUOTE]

2. How do you define the value of each break and what's the total that shows the Niners benefitted more? The only quantifiable way I can see is points off turnovers=none for both teams.

3. Neither team played like a champion, but the Niners were luckier.

3. I noticed your definition for what a team has to do to be considered playing like a champion might be excessive. If that standard is set by championship niner teams of the past, then no team might qualify for a championship this year!

4. The Giants WERE lucky wrt Conrad, but I don't recall enough of the series to say whether or not the breaks evened out. I doubt they got as lucky as the Niners got last Sunday.

4. I was throwing that example in hopes you could see my position. I had so many "luck" debates during both series runs. The most aggravating conclusion of the Giants lucking out into two rings was that they were fortunate that all the teams they played against just happened to undergo slumps at the time, oblivious of the fact there was another team on the field that might have something to do with it







.

 

[SFAnthem]

Red Herring.

Again, how many SB champs played a mediocre Conf Champ game to get there?

Also, this is not A subpar defensive performance, it's one of several this year. They are what they are: overrated.

Just looking at the last two SB winners, the NY Giants weren't all that great last year and the Packers barely beat a Cutlerless Bears team?

 

[SFAnthem]

He is just a good lawyer.

He accepted a retainer from the Anti-49er Guild. He MUST argue against them

Yeah, I'd expect nothing less from tz

...this anti-49er Guild you speak of, secretly funded by Baer and Co.? The Giants have become the predominant sports team of the bay and want to exercise their right to the bay area fan merchandise dollar?

 

[tzill]

The Niners left 10 guaranteed points on the field in the missed FG and fumble inside the 1 yard line. Those seem like pretty big breaks.

Serious question. Did you enjoy the win at all?

The niners fumble wasn't a "break," it was a great play by a Falcon defender. I think the missed FG could be considered a break. Compare that to the two turnovers we had which were unforced, the two personal foul calls (also unforced), and the slip on the disputed catch. Not even close to even breaks.

Serious answer: I was kind of shocked, but pleased.

My question: why do you care if I enjoyed the win or not? It seems to have nothing to do with our discussion.

 

[tzill]

Yeah, Im having similar debates with other fans and I think I've lost track of what I have or haven't stated already



1. The niners offense was driving at will after those first two drives. I'm pointing out that the turnovers weren't the beginning of comeback and that it was the niner's talent advantage that brought them back into the game.

-I'm not trying to neglect the PF penalties. How much of an impact did it have on the final score? The one on #54 I can easily attribute to a player succumbing to pressure of the playoff atmosphere and losing his composure..Composure under pressure is one of the factors that define a champion. Besides, it was a 15 yard penalty on a drive where the niners were getting 8 yards/play, that defense showed no signs of stopping the niners.

But it doesn't matter to what you attribute the errors, my point is that they were unforced; i.e. the Niners did nothing to cause them. Further, I can't minimize the effect of a 15 yard penalty, even if the Niners were rolling. They'd still have to get that yardage otherwise.

-The one on Kaep was very ticky tack and while it did prolong a drive late in the game (it did not result in points)

It didn't just "prolong a drive," it was the difference between a punt and continuing to keep the defense on the field. It was an EXTREMELY lucky break. That the Niners missed a FG doesn't mitigate that.

-The slip on the disputed catch? Why do you thnk he was so open? did you see what the receiver did to Rogers? He grabbed Rogers' shoulder pad and tackled him down. You say potential TD for the falcons, I say at the least no catch and possibly offensive PI. That's a break for the Falcons.

Re-watch it. Watch his cut where he slips. If he doesn't slip, he's gone. That was a TD. Greg Cosell confirms this. Again, unforced error.

2. There were breaks on both sides, but they weren't equal breaks. Hence, the Niners were lucky.

2. How do you define the value of each break and what's the total that shows the Niners benefitted more? The only quantifiable way I can see is points off turnovers=none for both teams.

I look at the number of breaks and when they occured. The first PF was less of a break for the Falcons than the second PF. However, both turnovers were huge -- our D was not stopping them all day.

3. I noticed your definition for what a team has to do to be considered playing like a champion might be excessive. If that standard is set by championship niner teams of the past, then no team might qualify for a championship this year!

This year, that might be true. It's a fucking weird year.

4. I was throwing that example in hopes you could see my position. I had so many "luck" debates during both series runs. The most aggravating conclusion of the Giants lucking out into two rings was that they were fortunate that all the teams they played against just happened to undergo slumps at the time, oblivious of the fact there was another team on the field that might have something to do with it

I thought I made it pretty clear: I take the other team out of it when I look at unforced errors. The niners didn't make the Falcons commit PFs, turn the ball over, or slip on the turf. Sorry if that wasn't clear.





.[/QUOTE]

 

[Toolrulzz]

The niners fumble wasn't a "break," it was a great play by a Falcon defender. I think the missed FG could be considered a break. Compare that to the two turnovers we had which were unforced, the two personal foul calls (also unforced), and the slip on the disputed catch. Not even close to even breaks.

Serious answer: I was kind of shocked, but pleased.

My question: why do you care if I enjoyed the win or not? It seems to have nothing to do with our discussion.

I could make a case that the only reason the DB had an opportunity to strip the ball was because the throw was slightly behind Crabtree and he had to adjust a bit to make the catch. If the ball is put out in front he scores rather easily. But, it's kind of nitpicky given the eventual outcome of the game.

I only ask because it genuinely seems like you didn't enjoy the game at all. Now obviously you're a fan, but it seems like you took no joy in the win because you're focusing on everything that went wrong and every little break the Niners received and ignoring the many good things the Niners did and the only thing that really matters, which is them winning the game. I understand being concerned with lack of performance in some areas, because I have concerns as well, but it seems as if you're going out of your way to be overly critical. Then again, I may just be reading too much into all this.

 

[tzill]

I could make a case that the only reason the DB had an opportunity to strip the ball was because the throw was slightly behind Crabtree and he had to adjust a bit to make the catch. If the ball is put out in front he scores rather easily. But, it's kind of nitpicky given the eventual outcome of the game.

I only ask because it genuinely seems like you didn't enjoy the game at all. Now obviously you're a fan, but it seems like you took no joy in the win because you're focusing on everything that went wrong and every little break the Niners received and ignoring the many good things the Niners did and the only thing that really matters, which is them winning the game. I understand being concerned with lack of performance in some areas, because I have concerns as well, but it seems as if you're going out of your way to be overly critical. Then again, I may just be reading too much into all this.

I guess we look at it differently. The MOST important thing is the win, but it's not the ONLY thing. I feel like we won a game we should have lost. Much like last year in the NFC Championship where we lost a game we should have won.

I just can't reconcile the final score to the performance. It's truly one of those "weird, lucky" things. I'm not saying they resolutely sucked; they didn't. There were a lot of nice things they did: the OL played very well, the RBs ran well, VD was excellent, and Crab was very good. On D, Soap played extremely well, the LBs were stout. On ST, Ackers kickoffs were great, the coverage teams were outstanding, and Andy Lee was solid. A lot of things to like. But given my personal belief that we have the most talented roster in the NFL and purportedly the "best defense," I expected a much better performance from that unit overall. I'm having trouble adjusting to the Niners becoming an offense-centric team. I preferred the 2011 version in terms of D.

Then again, a D like that doesn't come along very often. Our PR the last 6 weeks reminds me a lot of the Lost Decade between Mooch and Harbaugh...opposing QBs just standing in the pocket forever. Makes watching the game somewhat unfun from that perspective.

 

[SFAnthem]

In regards to unforced errors, I think omitting the other teams' involvement in the play is a fallacy.

The NFL is a read and react league, and that applies most to the QB. The QB must read the defensive alignment and make adjustments to the play as necessary.

On a blitz by the defense, the offense may have an alternate play The QB must either communicate these adjustments to the other players (or they just both read the bltiz) so that they are on the same alternate play.

When Matt Ryan fumbled the snap, the niners were in a linebacker blitz formation. Ryan had to scan the field and anticipate which passing route would be the best way to go. That slight adjustment can throw off the timing of the QB.

At the time of the snap, Matt Ryan's eye level was still reading the defense. So what caused Matt Ryan to "take his eye off the ball"?

Does Matt Ryan have a physical issue which causes him to occasionally fumble a shotgun snap?

One of the objectives of the defense is to throw the timing of the offense off. Forcing the QB to make adjustments, whether during the play or before the snap should by attributed to the defense.

As for pressure, it isn't measured solely on sack total. Even collapsing the pocket or forcing the QB to throw earlier that ideal is good pressure.

The niners did have some pressure in the second half but I agree they'll need more of it to win on Super Sunday.

 

[tzill]

I heard this on the radio yesterday, and I think it bears on this whole discussion-- for many (if not most) Niner fans, this is their first SB experience. I remember the 1981 season and getting into discussions with other fans. I didn't want to hear anything negative and would vehemently oppose any criticism. I need to remember that this week.

 

[msgkings322]

I heard this on the radio yesterday, and I think it bears on this whole discussion-- for many (if not most) Niner fans, this is their first SB experience. I remember the 1981 season and getting into discussions with other fans. I didn't want to hear anything negative and would vehemently oppose any criticism. I need to remember that this week.

I think this misses the point. Your 'opponents' in these arguments aren't plugging their ears and trying not to hear anything negative about the Niners. They are all acknowledging that the Niners aren't perfect, that they've gotten some breaks, that they've won games they 'should have' lost and vice versa.

It seems to me that you are grading the team too harshly as a 'pretender' that is only where they are because of lots of luck. The reason I say this is that a blind man can see they are demonstrably as good as any other team in football right now...winning lots of games, winning 2 playoff games incl one on the road, being favored in all of their playoff games incl the SB....if they are 'pretenders' then by your own logic every other team is a pretender too. And if that's the case then the word has no meaning.

This year there's clearly no dominant, superb-in-all-phases-every-single-game team. So they are all 'pretenders'? Frankly it's pretty rare that ANY team is strong in every phase, and doesn't also have a few bad games and a few lucky wins. That's sports, man. Don't you see it?

 

[Heathbar012]

I heard this on the radio yesterday, and I think it bears on this whole discussion-- for many (if not most) Niner fans, this is their first SB experience. I remember the 1981 season and getting into discussions with other fans. I didn't want to hear anything negative and would vehemently oppose any criticism. I need to remember that this week.

Obviously, the criticism is warranted. Everyone who has watched games has seen the inconsistency. The only words that get resistance from me are "pretender" and "overrated." That leads to positions that certain teams are "far better" than others. In reality, the final 8-10 teams are very close in talent level, coaching, inconsistencies and injuries that have affected all three.

It remains true that QB pressure (or lack thereof) will be an integral part to success (or failure) for each team, and the Niners have struggled with consistently excelling at that aspect of their game. That is increasingly frustrating because of its importance and the fact that SF has done very well in that department (while suffering in others) for the last few years. I certainly don't buy the Niner blow-out victory talk (nor did I buy it for the NFC Championship Game), but without question, they have (and have had) a roster that is capable of winning the Super Bowl.

 

[tzill]

I think this misses the point. Your 'opponents' in these arguments aren't plugging their ears and trying not to hear anything negative about the Niners. They are all acknowledging that the Niners aren't perfect, that they've gotten some breaks, that they've won games they 'should have' lost and vice versa.

It seems to me that you are grading the team too harshly as a 'pretender' that is only where they are because of lots of luck. The reason I say this is that a blind man can see they are demonstrably as good as any other team in football right now...winning lots of games, winning 2 playoff games incl one on the road, being favored in all of their playoff games incl the SB....if they are 'pretenders' then by your own logic every other team is a pretender too. And if that's the case then the word has no meaning.

This year there's clearly no dominant, superb-in-all-phases-every-single-game team. So they are all 'pretenders'? Frankly it's pretty rare that ANY team is strong in every phase, and doesn't also have a few bad games and a few lucky wins. That's sports, man. Don't you see it?

Yes, I see that. The pretender moniker was earned after the Hawks game, and I was clearly wrong. I was wrong for two reasons: one, the offense had become a genuinely good unit, carrying the mediocre defense; and two, the league doesn't have a dominant team this year. I don't know if anybody saw either thing coming -- I certainly did not.

The Niners are not pretenders, there really are no pretenders in the playoffs this year.