There are 147 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

The Seattle losses all fit the same pattern in recent years.

Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:


This is SEATTLE SPECIFIC and I'm not only talking about season ending losses like the other thread. Regular season too. Just SEATTLE and why they keep beating us head to head.


They keep beating us in THEIR HOUSE head-to-head. When was the last time we lost to Seattle at home?

Ok. You need a better record than them to get the division win and homefield advantage. You have to figure 8 - 0 at home for them or at least 7 - 1. AZ beat them this year 1 game but it was shocking and unusual. They lost 1 game up there in 2 years ever. That's an amazing advantage IMO.

If you start out 8 - 0 from homefield advantage all you need to do is split the rest of your games 4 - 4 to get to 12 - 4. Or go 5 - 3 to get to 13 - 3. They are likely to have monstrous records for years to come. At least half of your away games got to be weak teams. So figure 4 - 4 at worst. Results in 12 - 4 at worst. We got to be 14 - 2 or 15 - 1 to beat them. That's really asking a lot. A lot!.....
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:


This is SEATTLE SPECIFIC and I'm not only talking about season ending losses like the other thread. Regular season too. Just SEATTLE and why they keep beating us head to head.


They keep beating us in THEIR HOUSE head-to-head. When was the last time we lost to Seattle at home?

Ok. You need a better record than them to get the division win and homefield advantage. You have to figure 8 - 0 at home for them or at least 7 - 1. AZ beat them this year 1 game but it was shocking and unusual. They lost 1 game up there in 2 years ever. That's an amazing advantage IMO.

If you start out 8 - 0 from homefield advantage all you need to do is split the rest of your games 4 - 4 to get to 12 - 4. Or go 5 - 3 to get to 13 - 3. They are likely to have monstrous records for years to come. At least half of your away games got to be weak teams. So figure 4 - 4 at worst. Results in 12 - 4 at worst. We got to be 14 - 2 or 15 - 1 to beat them. That's really asking a lot. A lot!.....

It is, but honestly the right 49er team can win up there. We don't quite have it, but I think we will next year.

Put it to you this way.....if we beat Seattle in Seattle during the regular season this year, esp. if the offense shows up, that might be the sign that we are ready more than a 13-3 record or anything else.
I'll take it a step further, good points above, but the pattern I see is, over the years, we couldn't beat the Cowboys in the early 90's when Irving and Alvin Harper beat up on us, then the many years of loosing to the Farve era Packers. From "96" to 2010 we played the Packers 13 times and won only 1 game against Farve and lost to Rogers from 09 to 2010. Seattle is the next team up that we can't win against right now on a consistent basis. Our problem is our Redzone offense. Too many Field goals this season. We also have to stop turning the ball over as well. Hopefully Harbaugh and crew can figure out how to get over the Seattle hump.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Ultimately you would have to say the Seattle RB, Seattle kick return game are far more explosive than the 49ers. And the Seattle defense may be even better than people give it credit for. Lynch and their return game is better than what we have. Only an insane homer would say otherwise.

If we can all agree on two things:

49er OL > Seahawks OL in run blocking
49er front 7 > Seahawk front 7 for run defense

Then the fact that Lynch constantly is 4-5 ypc against our defense while Gore can maybe get 1 or 2 of those runs the entire game means Lynch is clearly superior at this point. About the only thing Gore is better at at this point maybe is breaking off a sole long run based on pure vision alone, and that is happening less and less each year.

The homers in the house might feel that the 2006 Gore was better than Lynch ever was. Imagine if we had that Gore now??

Also agree about the difference in return games between our teams. Maybe one return the whole game Tate or baldwin gets stopped after a few yards, as opposed to the big returns they all seemed to have. We haven't been quite the same in this regard since Teddy left. Lavelle Hawkins was the biggest bright spot and unfortunately his antics cost him any possible shot at the roster.
[ Edited by JTsBiggestFan on Jan 21, 2014 at 4:50 AM ]
Originally posted by LanceQ:
I'll take it a step further, good points above, but the pattern I see is, over the years, we couldn't beat the Cowboys in the early 90's when Irving and Alvin Harper beat up on us, then the many years of loosing to the Farve era Packers. From "96" to 2010 we played the Packers 13 times and won only 1 game against Farve and lost to Rogers from 09 to 2010. Seattle is the next team up that we can't win against right now on a consistent basis. Our problem is our Redzone offense. Too many Field goals this season. We also have to stop turning the ball over as well. Hopefully Harbaugh and crew can figure out how to get over the Seattle hump.

Redzone offense has been a killer especially against excellent teams. Too many FG's. Not enough TD's. We always do self destruct with turnovers. I wonder how it would turn out if we didn't turn the ball over up there in Seattle? I'd like to find out sometime.
Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Ultimately you would have to say the Seattle RB, Seattle kick return game are far more explosive than the 49ers. And the Seattle defense may be even better than people give it credit for. Lynch and their return game is better than what we have. Only an insane homer would say otherwise.

If we can all agree on two things:

49er OL > Seahawks OL in run blocking
49er front 7 > Seahawk front 7 for run defense

Then the fact that Lynch constantly is 4-5 ypc against our defense while Gore can maybe get 1 or 2 of those runs the entire game means Lynch is clearly superior at this point. About the only thing Gore is better at at this point maybe is breaking off a sole long run based on pure vision alone, and that is happening less and less each year.

The homers in the house might feel that the 2006 Gore was better than Lynch ever was. Imagine if we had that Gore now??

Lynch certainly seems more explosive and powerful now. Gore has taken a lot of pounding over the years and he is older now. I wonder if it has started taking a toll.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
This is SEATTLE SPECIFIC and I'm not only talking about season ending losses like the other thread. Regular season too. Just SEATTLE and why they keep beating us head to head.


They keep beating us in THEIR HOUSE head-to-head. When was the last time we lost to Seattle at home?

Ok. You need a better record than them to get the division win and homefield advantage. You have to figure 8 - 0 at home for them or at least 7 - 1. AZ beat them this year 1 game but it was shocking and unusual. They lost 1 game up there in 2 years ever. That's an amazing advantage IMO.

If you start out 8 - 0 from homefield advantage all you need to do is split the rest of your games 4 - 4 to get to 12 - 4. Or go 5 - 3 to get to 13 - 3. They are likely to have monstrous records for years to come. At least half of your away games got to be weak teams. So figure 4 - 4 at worst. Results in 12 - 4 at worst. We got to be 14 - 2 or 15 - 1 to beat them. That's really asking a lot. A lot!.....

You're assuming that they will be able to maintain the current talent level, which they probably won't. If they start to lose a few key players in free agency, the crowd isn't going to be making tackles or blocking for them. I don't think they'll be undefeated at home next year. Browner and Thurmond are both unrestricted free agents after this season.
[ Edited by trogdor on Jan 21, 2014 at 5:07 AM ]
Originally posted by trogdor:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
This is SEATTLE SPECIFIC and I'm not only talking about season ending losses like the other thread. Regular season too. Just SEATTLE and why they keep beating us head to head.


They keep beating us in THEIR HOUSE head-to-head. When was the last time we lost to Seattle at home?

Ok. You need a better record than them to get the division win and homefield advantage. You have to figure 8 - 0 at home for them or at least 7 - 1. AZ beat them this year 1 game but it was shocking and unusual. They lost 1 game up there in 2 years ever. That's an amazing advantage IMO.

If you start out 8 - 0 from homefield advantage all you need to do is split the rest of your games 4 - 4 to get to 12 - 4. Or go 5 - 3 to get to 13 - 3. They are likely to have monstrous records for years to come. At least half of your away games got to be weak teams. So figure 4 - 4 at worst. Results in 12 - 4 at worst. We got to be 14 - 2 or 15 - 1 to beat them. That's really asking a lot. A lot!.....

You're assuming that they will be able to maintain the current talent level, which they probably won't. If they start to lose a few key players in free agency, the crowd isn't going to be making tackles or blocking for them. I don't think they'll be undefeated at home next year. Browner and Thurmond are both unrestricted free agents after this season.

We need to hope they lose some of those guys. Because if they don't they are really tough at home especially.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Ok. You need a better record than them to get the division win and homefield advantage. You have to figure 8 - 0 at home for them or at least 7 - 1. AZ beat them this year 1 game but it was shocking and unusual. They lost 1 game up there in 2 years ever. That's an amazing advantage IMO.

If you start out 8 - 0 from homefield advantage all you need to do is split the rest of your games 4 - 4 to get to 12 - 4. Or go 5 - 3 to get to 13 - 3. They are likely to have monstrous records for years to come. At least half of your away games got to be weak teams. So figure 4 - 4 at worst. Results in 12 - 4 at worst. We got to be 14 - 2 or 15 - 1 to beat them. That's really asking a lot. A lot!.....

relax. stop looking at the score and look at the actual game of the 1st one at c-link this year. it was 0-5 at half, we could've easily been up and that game is completely different. 2 days ago, we had the ball at the 18 w/ 2 timeouts, another one we could've snuck by. and if it wasn't for a phantom call up in New Orleans, we would've been the #2 seed and there's no way seattle beats at candlestick in the playoffs. AREA for concern: seattle is the youngest team in the NFL (I think). they're gonna be good for years to come w/ team friendly contracts all across the board.
Originally posted by trogdor:
You're assuming that they will be able to maintain the current talent level, which they probably won't. If they start to lose a few key players in free agency, the crowd isn't going to be making tackles or blocking for them. I don't think they'll be undefeated at home next year. Browner and Thurmond are both unrestricted free agents after this season.

don't think they'll miss Browner too much since they're in the superbowl w/o him
Originally posted by enchantedskillz:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Ok. You need a better record than them to get the division win and homefield advantage. You have to figure 8 - 0 at home for them or at least 7 - 1. AZ beat them this year 1 game but it was shocking and unusual. They lost 1 game up there in 2 years ever. That's an amazing advantage IMO.

If you start out 8 - 0 from homefield advantage all you need to do is split the rest of your games 4 - 4 to get to 12 - 4. Or go 5 - 3 to get to 13 - 3. They are likely to have monstrous records for years to come. At least half of your away games got to be weak teams. So figure 4 - 4 at worst. Results in 12 - 4 at worst. We got to be 14 - 2 or 15 - 1 to beat them. That's really asking a lot. A lot!.....

relax. stop looking at the score and look at the actual game of the 1st one at c-link this year. it was 0-5 at half, we could've easily been up and that game is completely different. 2 days ago, we had the ball at the 18 w/ 2 timeouts, another one we could've snuck by. and if it wasn't for a phantom call up in New Orleans, we would've been the #2 seed and there's no way seattle beats at candlestick in the playoffs. AREA for concern: seattle is the youngest team in the NFL (I think). they're gonna be good for years to come w/ team friendly contracts all across the board.

So you see what I'm saying. They are likely to have good records for yeas to come.
err1 so angry. It's a fkn game, it's a form of entertainment, don't let it ruin your goddamn life.
Seahawks have 19 free agents this offseason. No way they can sign even half of the guys who contributed on those short term "prove me something" deals. A number of those players will be looking for very decent money.

Sherman and Thomas are free agents after next season too so they'll be spending (a lot of) money tying up those, spending a lot on safety and corner (aikes)

And they're very close to the cap, they gambled the house this year and (to be honest) seem to have won. Not sure if there's as much longterm.

And they have no first round draft pick. Not huge but something, considering they won't be up until right at the end of the second round.

And Harvin will always be injured.

And they were pretty lucky with injuries anyways and the glue-and-string-plug-and-play-backups seemed to work for them a good deal, whether that can continue...? Who knows.

And they can't keep picking up 4th and 5th rounders to plug in the way they have straight away (well, history would suggest not, no matter how well teams draft)

And there's the guys who will be suspended. It'll happen.

And the guys who were thought to be OK but not all that (and not worth other teams holding onto) who seem to have played well this year but may regress to mean.

And they took risks on character in free agency and that sometimes can come back to haunt.

And maybe after what Galbraith said and the media seem to have picked up on, there may be more flags next year. Considering, I know it's a moan, they hold just about every darned play. Whilst teams don't like to comment on this pre or post game, we might see more noise in the NFL about that "number one defence". And if that happens and they start getting flags all over the place and the secondary can't maintain for as long as they do, that pass rush might start to look a lot more ordinary.

And we saw what can happen to that noise if an opposition goes one or two scores up. Maybe teams have noticed this ? All very subjective I know.

And they won a lot of very close games (with a play here and there), whilst the Niners lost a couple (of those)

And Wilson may be as much of a question mark as Kaepernick will be for the Niners, seems teams are managing to contain him more (even with the odd flushed play/near miracle long throw)

And potentially we have very good young guys to plug in who played very little, or not at all, this year and have hopefully been learning. Whereas the Seahawks used (almost) all of their guys.

And can you think of any team who should be more fired up going into 2014-15 season ? With more big players potentially in their last year ?

Of course The Rams and Cards (both fairly well built and young) should be even better next season and the thought of Clowney (maybe) opposite Long is a bit worrying. And the Niners have a lot of decisions to make for 2015 but...

there's a LOT to be optimistic about (with a truckload of draftpicks and potential manoeverability as well).
Originally posted by UKNiner:
Seahawks have 19 free agents this offseason. No way they can sign even half of the guys who contributed on those short term "prove me something" deals. A number of those players will be looking for very decent money.

Sherman and Thomas are free agents after next season too so they'll be spending (a lot of) money tying up those, spending a lot on safety and corner (aikes)

And they're very close to the cap, they gambled the house this year and (to be honest) seem to have won. Not sure if there's as much longterm.

And they have no first round draft pick. Not huge but something, considering they won't be up until right at the end of the second round.

And Harvin will always be injured.

And they were pretty lucky with injuries anyways and the glue-and-string-plug-and-play-backups seemed to work for them a good deal, whether that can continue...? Who knows.

And they can't keep picking up 4th and 5th rounders to plug in the way they have straight away (well, history would suggest not, no matter how well teams draft)

And there's the guys who will be suspended. It'll happen.

And the guys who were thought to be OK but not all that (and not worth other teams holding onto) who seem to have played well this year but may regress to mean.

And they took risks on character in free agency and that sometimes can come back to haunt.

And maybe after what Galbraith said and the media seem to have picked up on, there may be more flags next year. Considering, I know it's a moan, they hold just about every darned play. Whilst teams don't like to comment on this pre or post game, we might see more noise in the NFL about that "number one defence". And if that happens and they start getting flags all over the place and the secondary can't maintain for as long as they do, that pass rush might start to look a lot more ordinary.

And we saw what can happen to that noise if an opposition goes one or two scores up. Maybe teams have noticed this ? All very subjective I know.

And they won a lot of very close games (with a play here and there), whilst the Niners lost a couple (of those)

And Wilson may be as much of a question mark as Kaepernick will be for the Niners, seems teams are managing to contain him more (even with the odd flushed play/near miracle long throw)

And potentially we have very good young guys to plug in who played very little, or not at all, this year and have hopefully been learning. Whereas the Seahawks used (almost) all of their guys.

And can you think of any team who should be more fired up going into 2014-15 season ? With more big players potentially in their last year ?

Of course The Rams and Cards (both fairly well built and young) should be even better next season and the thought of Clowney (maybe) opposite Long is a bit worrying. And the Niners have a lot of decisions to make for 2015 but...

there's a LOT to be optimistic about (with a truckload of draftpicks and potential manoeverability as well).

You make some interesting points there and I agree with some. I hope they begin to get depleted by FA over the next few years.
roman doesnt know how to do shiiiiyyyyeeettttt

/thread