These Cats Are Predicting a Disaster For the Niners in 2012

[TobyTyler]

San Francisco 49ers – Niner Insider Blog – SFGate.com Why do some predict a losing 49ers season in 2012?

They claim some extensive research and some stats back up their claims but I see the Niners winning 10 or 11 barring key injuries, not 7.

 

[deep9er]

predictions are good for message boards.

its safe to say the majority predict (not following just stats) we win closer to 10 than 7. if Vegas put out a straight bet over or under 8 wins (8 is a tie), how many will bet Over?

most would agree we won't repeat 13-3, but falling to 7 wins is too much.

 

[grayghost668]

San Francisco 49ers – Niner Insider Blog – SFGate.com Why do some predict a losing 49ers season in 2012?

They claim some extensive research and some stats back up their claims but I see the Niners winning 10 or 11 barring key injuries, not 7.

don't you just love the doom and glummers,,,,,,I wouldn't worry about it

 

[deep9er]

don't you just love the doom and glummers,,,,,,I wouldn't worry about it

yep, we accept the statistics and we win less than 13, but 7 is too low.

 

[dlockwood8]

Yeah, you have to read the whole article. It seems football outsiders isn't taking into account the upgrades on offense, or having a real training camp and consistent coaching staff for consecutive years. So like deep9er said, less that 13 sure, but surely more than 7. I'm guessing 10-11.

 

[numone9er]

They make some good points about how healthy our football team was last year (other than WR's which they forgot to mention), our record in close games, and how few int's smith threw. I hope they keep doubting us. That's what we have come to expect and i actually prefer it so i can send them an e-mail reminding them they were wrong after the season is over.

 

[MHSL82]

They make some good points about how healthy our football team was last year (other than WR's which they forgot to mention), our record in close games, and how few int's smith threw. I hope they keep doubting us. That's what we have come to expect and i actually prefer it so i can send them an e-mail reminding them they were wrong after the season is over.

I don't get how one can expect any more than average amount of injuries. It isn't like being healthy causes us to be less healthy this year. I understand the law of numbers but it's like saying it hasn't rained for a month so it'll probably rain for the next four days (regardless of season) because there are around 48 days of rain a year (four a month). Unless they can show me we are going into a rainy season, I'm just going to assume 4 days of rain in the next month or so

Same with INTs from Smith. Yes, I assume it'll be more than 5 this year, but I wouldn't expect 15-19 INTs just so the average per year is 10-12. I assume 10-12 and will be happy with fewer. I guess what I'm trying to say is just because luck helped us, it doesn't mean we're going to be unlucky. We might just be neutral. Here, the opposite of all is "not all" not zero. Some of luck is purposeful, we took more sacks because we wouldn't throw questionable passes, thereforefewer INTs. Unless we are going to start throwing more risky passes, I wouldn't expect more than average numbers of INTs. We will throw more risky passes this year, but they didn't cite that as their reasoning; they're just looking at numbers,

 

[threelittleturds]

This is what July is all about, predicting the unpredictable and going against the grain to stir debate and claim that your system works if one of the 300 things you predicted comes true.

 

[Cali Steel]

Nobody expected the year they had last year.
Just keeps the prognosticators employed.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

They make some good points about how healthy our football team was last year (other than WR's which they forgot to mention), our record in close games, and how few int's smith threw. I hope they keep doubting us. That's what we have come to expect and i actually prefer it so i can send them an e-mail reminding them they were wrong after the season is over.

Based on Football Outsider's numbers, the Niners were 16th in the league in terms of games missed by offensive starters. The D was second, but they've been top-three in three of the last five years. There is something to say for players who don't miss a lot of games (J. Smith, Willis, Sop, Goldson) and a good training staff. Not saying we can expect it to stay that high, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think we'll be in the top-half of the league in terms of injuries on that side of the ball.

 

[deep9er]

This is what July is all about, predicting the unpredictable and going against the grain to stir debate and claim that your system works if one of the 300 things you predicted comes true.

yep, its good for message boards. the more "extreme" it is, the more intense the reactions are.

the FIRST priority is win the West so if we win it going 9-7, the stats people can celebrate all they want. but we'll be in the play-offs and it can't be all bad.

 

[threelittleturds]

Based on Football Outsider's numbers, the Niners were 16th in the league in terms of games missed by offensive starters. The D was second, but they've been top-three in three of the last five years. There is something to say for players who don't miss a lot of games (J. Smith, Willis, Sop, Goldson) and a good training staff. Not saying we can expect it to stay that high, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think we'll be in the top-half of the league in terms of injuries on that side of the ball.

Serious injuries can derail anyone's season, I just don't much care for how they are predicting it has to happen to the 49ers because they were relatively healthy a year ago. Well then, why doesn't it HAVE to happen to the Patriots or Packers, by that reasoning Brady or Rodgers HAVE to get injured for the year this season because they didn't get hurt a year ago.

To me, it seems more like wishful thinking on the football outsider guy's part. Especially when he throws in the stuff about how Smith's low INTs were an anomaly because he threw way more INTs with Singletary and Nolan coaching the team. What does that have to do with a Harbaugh coached team? Nothing.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Serious injuries can derail anyone's season, I just don't much care for how they are predicting it has to happen to the 49ers because they were relatively healthy a year ago. Well then, why doesn't it HAVE to happen to the Patriots or Packers, by that reasoning Brady or Rodgers HAVE to get injured for the year this season because they didn't get hurt a year ago.

To me, it seems more like wishful thinking on the football outsider guy's part. Especially when he throws in the stuff about how Smith's low INTs were an anomaly because he threw way more INTs with Singletary and Nolan coaching the team. What does that have to do with a Harbaugh coached team? Nothing.

Huh? Singletary/Nolan weren't even mentioned.

 

[threelittleturds]

Huh? Singletary/Nolan weren't even mentioned.

Well he didn't say it specifically, but isn't that what he was saying by writing that Smith's INTs were an anomaly?

"Hey, don't forget how bad Smith was when Singletary and Nolan coached."

I don't think anyone of us expect Smith to have the least amount of interceptions again, but it isn't like he is going to revert back to that 6 TDs for 9 INTs that gave the 49ers an 0-5 start in 2010. To me, saying that it was an anomaly is the same as expecting to get the 2010 Smith back.

Not when Harbaugh is still telling Smith to only make the safest throws and minimize mistakes. Smith said as much during minicamp when he said that stuff about how throwing for 300 yards is not important.

Of course, that Smith could show up again... he is still Alex Smith. I just think the way Harbaugh uses Smith will continue to minimize INTs. Plus, even if that Smith does show up the team can give Kaep a shot and who knows how good he'll be. It isn't like the team's success fully rides on Alex Smith

 

[numone9er]

Based on Football Outsider's numbers, the Niners were 16th in the league in terms of games missed by offensive starters. The D was second, but they've been top-three in three of the last five years. There is something to say for players who don't miss a lot of games (J. Smith, Willis, Sop, Goldson) and a good training staff. Not saying we can expect it to stay that high, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think we'll be in the top-half of the league in terms of injuries on that side of the ball.

It seemed like we had a lot more injuries on the offensive side of the ball. Morgan and Walker were big injuries. I think it's pretty clear that we are going to be better offensively this year.

 

[MHSL82]

Well he didn't say it specifically, but isn't that what he was saying by writing that Smith's INTs were an anomaly?

"Hey, don't forget how bad Smith was when Singletary and Nolan coached."

I don't think anyone of us expect Smith to have the least amount of interceptions again, but it isn't like he is going to revert back to that 6 TDs for 9 INTs that gave the 49ers an 0-5 start in 2010. To me, saying that it was an anomaly is the same as expecting to get the 2010 Smith back.

Not when Harbaugh is still telling Smith to only make the safest throws and minimize mistakes. Smith said as much during minicamp when he said that stuff about how throwing for 300 yards is not important.

Of course, that Smith could show up again... he is still Alex Smith. I just think the way Harbaugh uses Smith will continue to minimize INTs. Plus, even if that Smith does show up the team can give Kaep a shot and who knows how good he'll be. It isn't like the team's success fully rides on Alex Smith

I think they meant anomaly for any QB. Alex's 1.1% INT rate was the third lowest rate (second to Brady's 0.8% in 2010, Deberg 0.9% in 1990) of QBs who threw more than 300 passes (second for those throwing 445+). One of those INTs was off Ginn's hands and helmet, so that could have been even more rare (second to Brady). In that way, that is an anomaly, even for a more established QB with a better past. However, the strength of the anomoly could rely upon how much of a record it was or how poor the QB was before. If regression to the norm is what it should be, Alex should regress to 3%, which in a 450 attempt offense is 14 INTs.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Well he didn't say it specifically, but isn't that what he was saying by writing that Smith's INTs were an anomaly?

"Hey, don't forget how bad Smith was when Singletary and Nolan coached."

I don't think anyone of us expect Smith to have the least amount of interceptions again, but it isn't like he is going to revert back to that 6 TDs for 9 INTs that gave the 49ers an 0-5 start in 2010. To me, saying that it was an anomaly is the same as expecting to get the 2010 Smith back.

Not when Harbaugh is still telling Smith to only make the safest throws and minimize mistakes. Smith said as much during minicamp when he said that stuff about how throwing for 300 yards is not important.

Of course, that Smith could show up again... he is still Alex Smith. I just think the way Harbaugh uses Smith will continue to minimize INTs. Plus, even if that Smith does show up the team can give Kaep a shot and who knows how good he'll be. It isn't like the team's success fully rides on Alex Smith

Really? You don't think Alex having one of the best INT ratios ever last year is an anomaly?

 

[Bemular]

I think they meant anomaly for any QB. Alex's 1.1% INT rate was the third lowest rate (second to Brady's 0.8% in 2010, Deberg 0.9% in 1990) of QBs who threw more than 300 passes (second for those throwing 445+). One of those INTs was off Ginn's hands and helmet, so that could have been even more rare (second to Brady). In that way, that is an anomaly, even for a more established QB with a better past. However, the strength of the anomoly could rely upon how much of a record it was or how poor the QB was before. If regression to the norm is what it should be, Alex should regress to 3%, which in a 450 attempt offense is 14 INTs.

Just as a sidenote to the dropped pass/INT by Ginn, keep in mind Smith had a few passes fall incomplete that were resting in the hands of the opposing defense. So, the "what if" conversation goes both ways.

On a related note to your INT percent topic and something I looked up recently. Smith's box-score over his last 24 games is as follows:

Att........Cmp.........%............Yds.......TD's....INT's
665.......395.......59.40%.......4780.......30.......6

 

[MHSL82]

Just as a sidenote to the dropped pass/INT by Ginn, keep in mind Smith had a few passes fall incomplete that were resting in the hands of the opposing defense. So, the "what if" conversation goes both ways.

On a related note to your INT percent topic and something I looked up recently. Smith's box-score over his last 24 games is as follows:

Att........Cmp.........%............Yds.......TD's....INT's
665.......395.......59.40%.......4780.......30.......6

You're absolutely right. It certainly does go both ways, but the more passes we assume are INT worthy, the lesser the anomaly it is. The fewer INTs there are, the more. So it definitely could have been a lesser anomaly, it's just I was stating how the way he played produced an anomaly and it could have produced more of one. So I would be wrong to take that INT away in judging him as a player, but it's not like I said, "if Braylon had cut inside..." or "if Smith had seen the defender in the endzone on his attempt to Crabtree." You're right, every QB gets away with some and every QB has some balls bounce the wrong way.

As for the last 24 starts, that's a 92.8 QB rating. I know that every rating is suspect, but that's the one we can best relate to, right? I think 92.8 is the floor of how he'll do, don't have a floor for TDs/Yards yet. He could fall, too but that to me would be surprising. I have drunken the kool-aid, just not all of it.

 

[Bemular]

You're absolutely right. It certainly does go both ways, but the more passes we assume are INT worthy, the lesser the anomaly it is. The fewer INTs there are, the more. So it definitely could have been a lesser anomaly, it's just I was stating how the way he played produced an anomaly and it could have produced more of one. So I would be wrong to take that INT away in judging him as a player, but it's not like I said, "if Braylon had cut inside..." or "if Smith had seen the defender in the endzone on his attempt to Crabtree." You're right, every QB gets away with some and every QB has some balls bounce the wrong way.

As for the last 24 starts, that's a 92.8 QB rating. I know that every rating is suspect, but that's the one we can best relate to, right? I think 92.8 is the floor of how he'll do, don't have a floor for TDs/Yards yet. He could fall, too but that to me would be surprising. I have drunken the kool-aid, just not all of it.

Well, actually I do believe these types of performances are anomalies especially when you consider that all QB's experience unfortunate INT's as well as fortunate non-INT's.

As for Alex, he has shown a zero propensity for this type of performance in the NFL - That said, however, the numbers I posted for his last 665 passes are very indicative of his college performance.

Soooo, who knows?? Right now, unlike you I'm not even close to the Kool-Aid stand; but, if he begins 2012 as he ended 2010 & played throughout 2011, I'll certainly get directions.

Incidentally, Brady's record is actually 4 INT's for 535 attempts = 0.7476%. In order for Alex to beat that, he will need to throw 138 passes to begin 2012. 6 INT's in 803 attempts equals 0.7471%