Are we "a very soft 9 - 2?" The WE DIDN'T PLAY ANYBODY argument.

That Raven's game was a lot closer than most think. Review it. We we're in that game until midway through the 4th. Despite all the sacks and mishaps. Could have went either way. THEY DID NOT MAN HANDLE US ALL OVER THE FIELD as the OP says they did. AND WE TRAVELED CROSS COUNTRY ON A REALLY SHORT WEEK. IMHO... It was more than evident to me that our boys were gassed... and still put up a decent fight.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Forget the subjectivity, of the teams that are at least 8-3 here are the strength of schedule numbers . . .

Strength of schedule in games played to date:
1. Baltimore: 65-56 (.537) - 4-0 against the top seven
2. Pittsburgh: 60-61 (.496) - 1-3 against the top seven
2. New England: 60-61 (.496) - 0-1 against the top seven
4. San Francisco: 59-62 (.488) - 0-1 against the top seven
5. New Orleans: 55-66 (.455) - 0-1 against the top seven
6. Houston: 54-67 (.446) - 1-2 against the top seven
7. Green Bay: 52-69 (.430) - 1-0 against the top seven

Aside from Baltimore's strength of schedule and 4-0 against the top seven, the rest of the pack doesn't separate itself.



Strength of schedule remaining games:
1. Green Bay: 31-24 (.564)
2. Pittsburgh: 26-29 (.473) - 1 game remaining vs top seven
3. New Orleans: 25-30 (.455)
4. Houston: 23-32 (.418)
5. San Francisco: 20-35 (.364) - 1 game remaining vs top seven
6. Baltimore: 19-36 (.345)
7. New England: 18-37 (.327)

Oh jeeze, there is nothing interesting about that post, just a bunch of fanciful numbers!! People, please understand that this is the NFL, decease free of BCS standards You know, where win and loses are the most important metric by which teams are judged and measured. Who a team looses to, points scored, etc., are reserved for rare tie-breakers, thankfully. So can we just get over the strength-of-schedule thing. It means absolutely nothing in the NFL.

Fanciful?




There's nothing fanciful about the strength of schedule numbers after 11 games of a 16 game season. I will agree that in the end they really mean nothing, but they are what they are and they point out that our schedule hasn't been the toughest nor the easiest and calling our record a soft 9-2 is inaccurate.

This thread is like winning a new car, then complaining that it has a drop of birds**t on it. Listen ppl, Ill take a "soft" 9-2 over a rock solid 3-8 each and every year. I don't care how it happens, a win is a win and that's all that matters. Leave the hair-splittin stat talks for non playoff teams.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Fanciful?




There's nothing fanciful about the strength of schedule numbers after 11 games of a 16 game season. I will agree that in the end they really mean nothing, but they are what they are and they point out that our schedule hasn't been the toughest nor the easiest and calling our record a soft 9-2 is inaccurate.

Fanciful is difined as:

1. Created in the fancy; unreal: a fanciful story.
2. Tending to indulge in fancy: a fanciful mind.
3. Showing invention or whimsy in design; imaginative

I used that word because to me the use of BCS metrics such as strength of schedule to judge a team takes a good amount of, yes, imagination in order to, for example, convince people that team A isn't as good as team D. So I used the word correctly. People weren't screeming "strength of schedule" when we were beating 5-0, 3-0, 3-1, or teams who just beat the Patriots, and that pisses me of most. I really do think people have the previous losing 49ers seasons in their minds and will use anything to minimize what they are doing this season. The optics of the 49ers being 9-2 after 11 games is really fu*king some people, really messing with their equilibrium. This is especially true for those who been forever predicting that Seattle is the best team in the west, or for those who keep having the Cowgirls, Jets and Chargers in the Super Bowl every year. So they need something - anything - to artificially square the niners record. And this strength of schedule crap dose that for them. It allows them to ignor their lying eyes.

lol. how are actual statistics imaginative?

no one is saying we should use a BCS metric to rank teams. The question is, "Is our record a mirage because we haven't played good teams?" In which case looking at strength of schedule is an entirely valid exercise in attempting to answer the question.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

lol. how are actual statistics imaginative?

no one is saying we should use a BCS metric to rank teams. The question is, "Is our record a mirage because we haven't played good teams?" In which case looking at strength of schedule is an entirely valid exercise in attempting to answer the question.

Damn. Logic, huh? That old trick

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
lol. how are actual statistics imaginative?

no one is saying we should use a BCS metric to rank teams. The question is, "Is our record a mirage because we haven't played good teams?" In which case looking at strength of schedule is an entirely valid exercise in attempting to answer the question.

Damn. Logic, huh? That old trick

fanciful! lofty!

Originally posted by HessianDud:
lol. how are actual statistics imaginative?

no one is saying we should use a BCS metric to rank teams. The question is, "Is our record a mirage because we haven't played good teams?" In which case looking at strength of schedule is an entirely valid exercise in attempting to answer the question.

Again, my problem with that is people weren't saying this when we were 3-1, 4-1, 5-1 or 7-1. In fact, people were praising the 49ers when they were winning the hard part of the schedule. No one was saying the Eagles, Lions, Buccs, Giants, and the Bengals soft when we beat them. Now that we lose against a quality opponent, and because those at-the-time quality teams we beat fell off, we somehow aren't as good now. Thats downright bogus logic.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
lol. how are actual statistics imaginative?

no one is saying we should use a BCS metric to rank teams. The question is, "Is our record a mirage because we haven't played good teams?" In which case looking at strength of schedule is an entirely valid exercise in attempting to answer the question.

Again, my problem with that is people weren't saying this when we were 3-1, 4-1, 5-1 or 7-1. In fact, people were praising the 49ers when they were winning the hard part of the schedule. No one was saying the Eagles, Lions, Buccs, Giants, and the Bengals soft when we beat them. Now that we lose against a quality opponent, and because those at-the-time quality teams we beat fell off, we somehow aren't as good. Thats downright bogus logic.

i get ya. i think the question is stupid too, but i don't think "attacking" the guy who brought proof as to how asinine the question was solves anything.

Originally posted by HessianDud:
i get ya. i think the question is stupid too, but i don't think "attacking" the guy who brought proof as to how asinine the question was solves anything.

I don't intend to attack anyone and if someone feels that I have please forgive me . I just think the "proof" brought forth isn't applicable to any team, much less an NFL team.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
That game was far worse than a 10 point loss. If we didn't go 3 and out so much our offense would have spent more time on the field. And if they did would it be 15 sacks? The abuse at the line of scrimmage was unbelievable. We are not ready for the big time IMO based on this team. We are physically overmatched vs. top tier teams.

Do you think our TEAM is over matched against top tier teams? or do you think that our OL is over matched with top tier teams? Because to be completely honest I think the only weakness we really have is our OL. I don't believe we can survive the playoffs IMHO with the way our line plays at times and i think the Ravens exploited this. I made a poll that I know WZ fans didn't want to hear but the other problem we have is scoring TD's in the red zone that needs to be fixed if we expect to beat teams like GB and NO. Because when offenses like GB and NO get into goal line areas their putting up 6.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
i get ya. i think the question is stupid too, but i don't think "attacking" the guy who brought proof as to how asinine the question was solves anything.

I don't intend to attack anyone and if someone feels that I have please forgive me . I just think the "proof" brought forth isn't applicable to any team, much less an NFL team.

It's all good guys. It seems like we're on the same side of the argument but disagree on how/why people decide a winning team is for real or not. I agree that the eyeball test is first and foremost, but for people who don't pay close attention and are used to a past perceptions, in the NFL one can empirically use the strength of schedule when you're looking at 11 games into a 16 game season in a single 32 team league. This doesn't fit the BCS model where a team's opponent strength can vary wildly.

Lol 9-2 and we are soft... really? Had we played all 6 games against our division then I would agree, but we played good teams and beat good teams... making us a better team, thats all there is too it.

-Philly is a good team but forgets to play the 4th quarter, its not like they are getting blown out like the rams are everygame.
-Lions are good but not great, they only lose to teams with winning records.
-Giants are just bipolar.

I could go on but the main point is the NFL is all about keeping teams as close to eachother in talent level as possible, and its showing up this season. One advantage is all it takes to win the game, whether its homefield, a sh*tty right guard, RB gets a concussion, etc. GB looks like the only team that seems like it can overcome everything outside of losing Rodgers. Theres very little that seperates the rest of the winning teams. We are good because we are beating the teams we should and taking good teams down to the last drive. The overeaction to the Ravens game is out of hand, they got more calls than we did, if it was the other way around there was a good chance we walk out with a W.

Originally posted by Natewillis2252:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
That game was far worse than a 10 point loss. If we didn't go 3 and out so much our offense would have spent more time on the field. And if they did would it be 15 sacks? The abuse at the line of scrimmage was unbelievable. We are not ready for the big time IMO based on this team. We are physically overmatched vs. top tier teams.

Do you think our TEAM is over matched against top tier teams? or do you think that our OL is over matched with top tier teams? Because to be completely honest I think the only weakness we really have is our OL. I don't believe we can survive the playoffs IMHO with the way our line plays at times and i think the Ravens exploited this. I made a poll that I know WZ fans didn't want to hear but the other problem we have is scoring TD's in the red zone that needs to be fixed if we expect to beat teams like GB and NO. Because when offenses like GB and NO get into goal line areas their putting up 6.

The O Line is terrible at pass blocking with Chilo for sure. We are poor at come from behind IMO. We have some weaknesses. We are an in control team when ahead due to our defense and running game. But behind we can be beat I would say.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Natewillis2252:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

That game was far worse than a 10 point loss. If we didn't go 3 and out so much our offense would have spent more time on the field. And if they did would it be 15 sacks? The abuse at the line of scrimmage was unbelievable. We are not ready for the big time IMO based on this team. We are physically overmatched vs. top tier teams.

Do you think our TEAM is over matched against top tier teams? or do you think that our OL is over matched with top tier teams? Because to be completely honest I think the only weakness we really have is our OL. I don't believe we can survive the playoffs IMHO with the way our line plays at times and i think the Ravens exploited this. I made a poll that I know WZ fans didn't want to hear but the other problem we have is scoring TD's in the red zone that needs to be fixed if we expect to beat teams like GB and NO. Because when offenses like GB and NO get into goal line areas their putting up 6.

The O Line is terrible at pass blocking with Chilo for sure. We are poor at come from behind IMO. We have some weaknesses. We are an in control team when ahead due to our defense and running game. But behind we can be beat I would say.

so can anyone