Q: what do these teams have in common?

[BallsOfFury]

Raiders, Bengals, Panthers, Chargers, Rams.
A: Each team threw for over 300 yds...and lost.
In fact, more teams lost with 300+ yd passing games (5) than won with them (4).
This indicates to me that passing efficiency and overall team play are much more critical to a victory than mere passing numbers. The 9ers are near the bottom in passing yards and total yards, and yet are among the top ten teams in points scored, which shows they've been reasonably efficient with their offense (and of course special teams).
It seems Harbaugh had this kind of philosophy at Stanford, where points on the board trumped yardage numbers.
My intention is not to praise or criticize Harbaugh, Smith, etc., just to see what others here have to say about the stats I've pointed to. I'm sure if I brought this up on the board-which-shall-not-be-named, I'd be drowning in all the spittle from foaming-at-the-mouth trolls.

 

[sayheykid1]

Raiders, Bengals, Panthers, Chargers, Rams.
A: Each team threw for over 300 yds...and lost.
In fact, more teams lost with 300+ yd passing games (5) than won with them (4).
This indicates to me that passing efficiency and overall team play are much more critical to a victory than mere passing numbers. The 9ers are near the bottom in passing yards and total yards, and yet are among the top ten teams in points scored, which shows they've been reasonably efficient with their offense (and of course special teams).
It seems Harbaugh had this kind of philosophy at Stanford, where points on the board trumped yardage numbers.
My intention is not to praise or criticize Harbaugh, Smith, etc., just to see what others here have to say about the stats I've pointed to. I'm sure if I brought this up on the board-which-shall-not-be-named, I'd be drowning in all the spittle from foaming-at-the-mouth trolls.

The Ginn TDs have a lot to do with that, they move down to around 20 I believe when you take out the return TDs.

 

[imac_21]

The Ginn TDs have a lot to do with that, they move down to around 20 I believe when you take out the return TDs.

This is true to an extent. We don't know how those drives would have ended with an average return.

Also, by having Ginn return a kick and a punt for TDs, that meant the offense didn't get 2 possessions where they could move the ball. We might not have shredded the Seahawk defense on those two drives (the second one in particular as we had a 9 point lead and likely would have leaned on the run game), but we may have added another 20 or 30 yards (or more) through the air on those two drives.

 

[MW49ers5]

Raiders, Bengals, Panthers, Chargers, Rams.
A: Each team threw for over 300 yds...and lost.
In fact, more teams lost with 300+ yd passing games (5) than won with them (4).
This indicates to me that passing efficiency and overall team play are much more critical to a victory than mere passing numbers. The 9ers are near the bottom in passing yards and total yards, and yet are among the top ten teams in points scored, which shows they've been reasonably efficient with their offense (and of course special teams).
It seems Harbaugh had this kind of philosophy at Stanford, where points on the board trumped yardage numbers.

My intention is not to praise or criticize Harbaugh, Smith, etc., just to see what others here have to say about the stats I've pointed to. I'm sure if I brought this up on the board-which-shall-not-be-named, I'd be drowning in all the spittle from foaming-at-the-mouth trolls.

Very interesting, my initial response would be to ask if the losing teams were in comeback mode and what the TO +/- line was. As for the efficiency, ours is skewed by our field position against Seattle and balanced by our horrible red-zone proficiency.

 

[luckyluke22]

Horrible red zone efficiency? I'm in transit so can't really look up stats, so correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I remember our red zone efficiency being great, the problem was we don't get to the red zone...

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Horrible red zone efficiency? I'm in transit so can't really look up stats, so correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I remember our red zone efficiency being great, the problem was we don't get to the red zone...

He may be talking about having to settle for 4 field goals on the 5 trips into the red zone against Seattle.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

Horrible red zone efficiency? I'm in transit so can't really look up stats, so correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I remember our red zone efficiency being great, the problem was we don't get to the red zone...

If efficiency is percentage of scoring in the redzone...yeah, we did great. But if you want to win in the NFL you have to score touchdowns when you get in the redzone. Field goals are for shitty teams and Patriots superbowls..... I want 6.

 

[luckyluke22]

Your right, just looked at it and we were efficient w/scoring but FGs and not TDs. Maybe I was thinking of last year, but was def wrong.