The "my god it's insane how drastically everyone is over-reacting" thread

I'm just mad cause we lost, and I hate losing. Don't need to be called an Over-reacting Oliver.

Originally posted by lordfangio:
The moral of the story is there's zero correlation between NEVER having a bad loss and playing ball deep into the winter.

There's plenty of correlation between having bad losses and not playing deep into the winter. There's a reason why they seed teams in the playoffs. It's not based off power rankings and polls.

Yes, every team loses. Yes, every team loses to a lesser football team as well doesn't mean that game didn't matter and didn't cost them in the long run.

To get out of the first 3 games at 2-1, considering who we played is impressive. I ain't even mad. Would like to see some adjustments to the coaching(play calling, using the rooks, substitutions, etc) but this is nothing to get worried about.

The team needs to refocus and wake up.

Originally posted by marshniners24:
To get out of the first 3 games at 2-1, considering who we played is impressive. I ain't even mad. Would like to see some adjustments to the coaching(play calling, using the rooks, substitutions, etc) but this is nothing to get worried about.

The team needs to refocus and wake up.

The loss definitely stings, no doubt about it. But it's by no means this armageddon that so many make it out to be. And as I initially said, there's clearly a reason the rookies aren't playing. Harbaugh and Roman didn't just forget about Jenkins and James. They're not playing because they're clearly not ready and/or better at this point than the guys above them on the depth chart. Again, suppose Harbaugh gave into the request to play them (and they're not ready). Would you be thrilled when James would miss an assignment in pass pro leading to Smith getting crushed or Jenkins running an imprecise/sloppy/incorrect route leading to a pick-6. Trust that they're not playing because they SHOULDN'T be playing. You don't see them practice. They do. Just trust. Harbaugh has shown he's not too stubborn to replace guys if the replacement will give us a better chance at winning (swapping Rachal for Snyder, Spencer for Culliver, etc). All of our core guys in the organization (Jed, Baalke, Marathe, Harbaugh and several of his assistants) have earned and deserve our trust which is the first time in so long that has been the case, so just sit back and let them continue to work the magic that they've so consistently worked.

Originally posted by jreff22:
great teams beat the teams they are supposed to beat

we lost to a few scrubs in 94 but it didnt stop us from winning a superbowl, bro

Originally posted by tjd808185:
There's plenty of correlation between having bad losses and not playing deep into the winter. There's a reason why they seed teams in the playoffs. It's not based off power rankings and polls.

Yes, every team loses. Yes, every team loses to a lesser football team as well doesn't mean that game didn't matter and didn't cost them in the long run.

I said there's zero correlation between NEVER having an ugly loss and playing deep into the winter because every elite team lost at least 1 (and usually multiple) game in an ugly fashion (and usually way uglier than our loss was today). Now, if we have another 3 or 4 embarrassing losses, then I'd agree with you (and even then, NYG probably had that many last year). But this is just 1.

Someone post a clip of that Eagles-49ers game in '94 it was downright disgusting, Young had to be pulled out of the game and got into a tussle with Seifert.

Could you imagine if the board was around in the 90s? Somebody would had a stroke with the surprise losses, like to the LA Rams when we were 10-0, or losing to the expansion Carolina Panthers at home as defending champs. s**t happens. Ironically, that same season where they lost to the first-year Panthers, they obviously go out and destroy the Cowboys with Elvis Grbac.

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by jreff22:
great teams beat the teams they are supposed to beat

we lost to a few scrubs in 94 but it didnt stop us from winning a superbowl, bro

LOL, and one of those scrubs was the Vikings at that same stadium in a 'morning' game!

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by jreff22:
great teams beat the teams they are supposed to beat

we lost to a few scrubs in 94 but it didnt stop us from winning a superbowl, bro

LOL, and one of those scrubs was the Vikings at that same stadium in a 'morning' game!

shake and bake! that just happened!

Originally posted by lordfangio:
I said there's zero correlation between NEVER having an ugly loss and playing deep into the winter because every elite team lost at least 1 (and usually multiple) game in an ugly fashion (and usually way uglier than our loss was today). Now, if we have another 3 or 4 embarrassing losses, then I'd agree with you (and even then, NYG probably had that many last year). But this is just 1.

Nobody has a crystal ball and can predict what our record ends up at. If we end up at 15-1 obviously this game had little effect on us but that's not something anyone can speak to right now.

What I can tell you is this loss is a blow to winning home field advantage thru out. Obviously not a deal breaker because nobody is going undefeated but realistically speaking 12-4 is the cut off line to secure a bye in the playoffs.

It doesn't take very many slips up to lose that spot.

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:
LOL, and one of those scrubs was the Vikings at that same stadium in a 'morning' game!

We were 13-2, already secured home field thru out and benched our starters half way during the game.

If you want to bring up the Philly game at least you'd have a point but Minnesota was the standard rest your starters because everything is already wrapped up.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:

LOL, and one of those scrubs was the Vikings at that same stadium in a 'morning' game!

We were 13-2, already secured home field thru out and benched our starters half way during the game.

If you want to bring up the Philly game at least you'd have a point but Minnesota was the standard rest your starters because everything is already wrapped up.

Oh come on. How about Philly in 94? They downright embarrassed us, and early in the reason as well.

Originally posted by English:
Oh come on. How about Philly in 94? They downright embarrassed us, and early in the reason as well.

I did mention that game.

If I remember correctly didn't Young get benched in that game? You guys think Alex has it rough imagine what the Zone would be like before Young win the big one.

Originally posted by jreff22:
great teams beat the teams they are supposed to beat

Yes, true..+

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by English:
Oh come on. How about Philly in 94? They downright embarrassed us, and early in the reason as well.

I did mention that game.

If I remember correctly didn't Young get benched in that game? You guys think Alex has it rough imagine what the Zone would be like before Young win the big one.

I was there, Siefert did pull Steve and did not allow him to return to play that day, he ranted behind his back for a good minute and a half, I've never seen him that pissed in all the years I saw him play or not play behind Montana. That game sucked but not as bad as the "fizzle in the drizzle" a divisional game at The Stick against the Vikes when of all things.... Montana was benched for Young..terrible loss that day..