Football Outsiders: 49ers #1 team by a mile | Page 2

johnnyredneat · 2012-10-10T07:58:56-07:00

According to their overall team ranking metric (DVOA) the 49ers are #1. And the gap to #2 (Houston) is bigger than the gap between Houston and #10 (Seattle). Damn. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/week-5-dvoa-ratings These were the same guys who projected our 2012 record at 7-9, so obviously stats can deceive. And DVOA loves blowouts against bad teams, of which we've obviously just had two in a row (although I personally think both the Bills and Jets are much better than they showed against us). Still, fun to bask in this for a moment.

Oct 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

#16

GoalLineStand
Veteran
Posts: 322

I'm still trying to figure out why a website that wants to have any credibility would call themselves "outsiders".

Oct 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM

#17

DRnSFw
BlessUp
Posts: 68,633

power rankings don't mean shyt

Oct 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM

#18

kw49
Veteran
Posts: 127

There was an interesting point made in the comments section about our special teams. The poster is replying to a post about special teams being worse because of the loss of Costanzo. This is a point I hadn't considered, but it makes a lot of sense.

by bravehoptoad :: Tue, 10/09/2012 - 8:45pm

Also they're missing Colin Jones, another special-teams ace, and they released Rock Cartwright, a guy brought in primarily for his special-teams ability.

In their place, the 9ers have a slew of skill-position players who make no contribution to special teams whatsoever.

In short, they seem to have redirected a lot of resources from special teams to offense. I'm wondering if they didn't make a conscious investment in special teams last year because it's a cheap and easy way to improve one of your units without needing an entire off season to install. Now that the team has a year of familiarity with their complex offense, and an entire off season, I'm thinking offense would be a more attractive investment.

So, "reversion" on special teams might be something they've consciously done to some extent. I'm wondering if some of the volatility of year-on-year special-teams performance is because it's rare for special teams units to remain constant. They are usually stocked with bottom-of-the-roster guys, after all.

At any rate, this site certainly was not the only advanced-statistics site predicting regression for the 9ers for all the same reasons.

[ Edited by kw49 on Oct 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM ]

Oct 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

#19

Cjez
Hall of Fame
Posts: 170,536

costanzo and jones were our biggest losses this offseason, no question.

Oct 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM

#20

fastforward
Veteran
Posts: 1,756

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
costanzo and jones were our biggest losses this offseason, no question.

Why did the 49ers trade Colin Jones for a mere 7th round (practically a camp fodder) pick?

Oct 10, 2012 at 11:29 AM

#21

jdt84_2
Veteran
Posts: 25,942

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
costanzo and jones were our biggest losses this offseason, no question.

This I think if they kept either one they would have been fine. But I would guess every STs tackle one if not both of them were in on it.

Oct 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

#22

Cjez
Hall of Fame
Posts: 170,536

Originally posted by fastforward:

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
costanzo and jones were our biggest losses this offseason, no question.

Why did the 49ers trade Colin Jones for a mere 7th round (practically a camp fodder) pick?

no idea. Doesn't make sense. Jones was always one of the first ones to make contact on kick offs.

Oct 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM

#23

DirtyP
Member
Posts: 1,210

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
no idea. Doesn't make sense. Jones was always one of the first ones to make contact on kick offs.

Because Jones isn't a functional safety and Costanzo isn't a functional LB