2009 49ers acccording to Football Outsiders...

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Are you people really sweating about projected numbers? Whether the source is legit or not you have to factor in how random the sport is. Stats change every week and luck is such a factor. To alter your perception based on projected numbers by a magazine is ridiculous

exactly

this is what we have to deal with for the next couple weeks until they get into TC

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Are you people really sweating about projected numbers? Whether the source is legit or not you have to factor in how random the sport is. Stats change every week and luck is such a factor. To alter your perception based on projected numbers by a magazine is ridiculous

While I kind of agree with you, professional betters put enough faith in stats that they use them to earn a wage. When money is on the line, you use stats, however you obtain them. Fans tend to dismiss stats if they don't fit into their view of their team.

That being said, the 49er will be 10-6 this year, and win the NFC West!

No doubt 10-6!

We will be better then writers sat we will. This defense. Gore + Coffee. Division we are in. Playoffs.

the nytimes did a write up on what they said about the rams:

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/2009-predictions-look-out-for-rams-and-chargers/

I wonder if FO calculated the statistics based on the entire 2008 season or just the Sing games. I think we can all agree the team changed dramatically after Nolan left, so it would make sense to parse out different datasets. Here's to hoping that the Nolan/JTO games are just dragging down the Niners' Sing-era statistics.

Originally posted by Louiecomelately:
the nytimes did a write up on what they said about the rams:

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/2009-predictions-look-out-for-rams-and-chargers/

I wonder if FO calculated the statistics based on the entire 2008 season or just the Sing games. I think we can all agree the team changed dramatically after Nolan left, so it would make sense to parse out different datasets. Here's to hoping that the Nolan/JTO games are just dragging down the Niners' Sing-era statistics.

Anyone of you that put any stock in what these dweebs are spouting out, can stop now based on this assumption alone. What a bunch of chuckleheads. They should be ashamed of themselves to even print such garbage, and ask people to pay for it.

I completely disagree with the argument that this team is nothing like the pre-greatness early 80's team.

Before the '81 season, these were the knocks on the team: unproven head coach, no running game, no legitimate #1 receivers, small line, untested secondary filled with rookies, unproven QB with suspect arm backed by mediocre vet, no pass rush.

Now come on, everyone. Anybody who was around in early '81 knows these were the knocks on the team. And, a stat-based outfit like this would have said largely the same things about that team. Anyone who says they picked the Niners to achieve greatness in early '81 is a damn liar and you know it.

They do make some good points

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by singfan:
Followers of Singfan will remember that he laid out the striking comparisons between the 2008 Lions and the 2009 49ers about 2 months ago. These comparisons ranged from the type of head coach we selected, to the dismissal of Martz, to the addition of Moran Norris to the previous years record. It was, of course, a highly detailed analysis that was met with much skepticism and anger. It looks as if Singfan hit the nail on the head. Always ahead of the curve, I say.

Follower. Singular.

Your only follower is Sabrason.

-9fA

Are you sure that Sabrason didn't just invent Singfan so someone would agree with him?

hopefully Mike S. use these articles to motivate the teams....

It would be interesting to know how FO rated the Falcons last year. My guess is they didn't have them reaching the playoffs. Still, if I were just making an objective bet I would have to go with their recommendations. Big turnarounds are possible in the NFL but they are somewhat rare and the smart money is on statistical trends overall.

I hope the niners can make a quantum leap but I am skeptical with the QB situation and the lack of offensive continuity.

The niners of the early 80's had a certifiable genius as their HC and OC, had several years of offensive continuity, and had recently drafted a bunch of guys on both sides of the ball who had amazing talent. We have some talent right now, but I am not sure it is spead evenly enough and is cohesive enough to really make a run at a team like the cardinals (who know have several years continuity and excellent drafting).

I also think trading Mike Martz for Jimmy Raye was a mistake, maybe a big mistake. We'll see if I am right on this soon enough, and I hope I am wrong

About 6-7 wins is about right for 2009. I think their analysis leans a bit too much on the skeptical side, but this team is not ready for the playoffs yet.

The Niners did win 7 games last year, but the majority of wins last season were against teams that were crashing and burning late in 2009.

I think the 7 wins were deceptive, and I could see the team improving in play, and yet still only come up with 7 wins this seaon.

Originally posted by Roxy:
It would be interesting to know how FO rated the Falcons last year. My guess is they didn't have them reaching the playoffs. Still, if I were just making an objective bet I would have to go with their recommendations. Big turnarounds are possible in the NFL but they are somewhat rare and the smart money is on statistical trends overall.

I hope the niners can make a quantum leap but I am skeptical with the QB situation and the lack of offensive continuity.

The niners of the early 80's had a certifiable genius as their HC and OC, had several years of offensive continuity, and had recently drafted a bunch of guys on both sides of the ball who had amazing talent. We have some talent right now, but I am not sure it is spead evenly enough and is cohesive enough to really make a run at a team like the cardinals (who know have several years continuity and excellent drafting).

I also think trading Mike Martz for Jimmy Raye was a mistake, maybe a big mistake. We'll see if I am right on this soon enough, and I hope I am wrong

When Walsh was hired,there was no general consensus that he was a football genius,he earned that over career in the NFL.As for Martz,the numbers do not lie,sure we scored more points and gained more yards,but we also lead the league in turnovers,sacks and were 26th in rushing despite having one of the elite backs in the NFL.There was no way that we were gonna win with the sacks and turnovers that Martz's offense consistently produces.Martz's offense is only good between the 20's,then it bogs down and becomes a hindrance.I am not sure about Raye myself,but Martz being here was only good in one way,it got Nolan fired.

Originally posted by Roxy:
It would be interesting to know how FO rated the Falcons last year. My guess is they didn't have them reaching the playoffs. Still, if I were just making an objective bet I would have to go with their recommendations. Big turnarounds are possible in the NFL but they are somewhat rare and the smart money is on statistical trends overall.

I hope the niners can make a quantum leap but I am skeptical with the QB situation and the lack of offensive continuity.

The niners of the early 80's had a certifiable genius as their HC and OC, had several years of offensive continuity, and had recently drafted a bunch of guys on both sides of the ball who had amazing talent. We have some talent right now, but I am not sure it is spead evenly enough and is cohesive enough to really make a run at a team like the cardinals (who know have several years continuity and excellent drafting).

I also think trading Mike Martz for Jimmy Raye was a mistake, maybe a big mistake. We'll see if I am right on this soon enough, and I hope I am wrong

- FO picked the Falcons to win 3.5 games and gave them a 1-2% chance of reaching the playoffs. They also picked Seattle to win 10.5 games.
-The Cardinals were not a good team last year, they were an OK team in a weak division who peaked at the right time. The Cardinals went 9-7 and that was in the NFC West. They only won a few games against opponents with winning records.
-Can someone explain to me what makes Martz a good OC? He hasn't matched his success with the Rams with any other team and is currently unemployed!

Originally posted by KasparHauser:

Originally posted by Roxy:
It would be interesting to know how FO rated the Falcons last year. My guess is they didn't have them reaching the playoffs. Still, if I were just making an objective bet I would have to go with their recommendations. Big turnarounds are possible in the NFL but they are somewhat rare and the smart money is on statistical trends overall.

I hope the niners can make a quantum leap but I am skeptical with the QB situation and the lack of offensive continuity.

The niners of the early 80's had a certifiable genius as their HC and OC, had several years of offensive continuity, and had recently drafted a bunch of guys on both sides of the ball who had amazing talent. We have some talent right now, but I am not sure it is spead evenly enough and is cohesive enough to really make a run at a team like the cardinals (who know have several years continuity and excellent drafting).

I also think trading Mike Martz for Jimmy Raye was a mistake, maybe a big mistake. We'll see if I am right on this soon enough, and I hope I am wrong

- FO picked the Falcons to win 3.5 games and gave them a 1-2% chance of reaching the playoffs. They also picked Seattle to win 10.5 games.
-The Cardinals were not a good team last year, they were an OK team in a weak division who peaked at the right time. The Cardinals went 9-7 and that was in the NFC West. They only won a few games against opponents with winning records.
-Can someone explain to me what makes Martz a good OC? He hasn't matched his success with the Rams with any other team and is currently unemployed!

Nice. Thanks for the info. I imagine they didn't call the dolphins in the playoffs either.

Yes, Martz's system has problems, especially in pass protection (and the fact that he's the only one that runs it), but it's also eerily effective at moving the ball. I saw the light really starting to go on at the end of last year with Hill and his receivers. They were making extended drives at the end of games and it looked like they were really just starting to play his sytem instictively. Maybe I am alone in my observation, but I think Martz's system and coaching at the end of the year was nearly as responsible as Sings presence for the winning streak.

Some other things I am influenced by; The Lions went from 7-9 to 0-16 once Martz left. His ex-players swear by his system, and he gets props from guys like Bellicheck for being a true innovator.

I hope I am wrong and that Martz sucks. I am afraid I am not and fear we will be feeling the pain of not keeping him on when the season starts. I think that's a real possibility though. We'll find out soon enough!

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
About 6-7 wins is about right for 2009. I think their analysis leans a bit too much on the skeptical side, but this team is not ready for the playoffs yet.

The Niners did win 7 games last year, but the majority of wins last season were against teams that were crashing and burning late in 2009.

I think the 7 wins were deceptive, and I could see the team improving in play, and yet still only come up with 7 wins this seaon.

Wins are wins in my opinion. But luck and capitalizing on given opportunities is what makes good teams good. I think with a little luck we can be 9-7 or even 6-10. If we have some bad luck I can see 5-7 wins also. But thats what makes the NFL the NFL.