|
|
Post by kersting13 on Jan 2, 2024 13:42:52 GMT -8
Cardiac Dawgs. This team always plays to competition. In the last ten games, the biggest rout was Washington's 52-42 win over USC. And the game was tied at 42 with 13 minutes left and a three-point game until less than three minutes left. Exactly why it has been so difficult for the Pac-12 to produce a champion. Everyone can beat everyone else pretty much every week. Washington plays like they still have PTSD surviving the 10-game Pac-12 slate. Some of the throws and catches by Penix and his receivers last night were incredible. But yes, UW plays at the level of their competition, and other than a cinderella story type season, and the press fawning over their 21 straight wins, they are good - not great.
Great is the 49ers of the '90s, where the point spread against almost any NFL team was 20+ points with Montana at the helm - and they still covered. UW has been the cardiac kids all season. Who knows if we could have been their lone loss, if our Judas coach had his full attention on the game? Other than the money earned into the PAC coffers, still hoping for a face plant against hardballs and the Spartans next week. Joe Montana was the niners leading passer for exactly one season in the '90s. Steve Young was the 49ers leading passer from 1991-1998. Still, SF from 1983-1998 had a +100 season point differential 15 of 16 years. For the entirety of the Montana/Young starting QB tenure 1981-1998, SF had a +100 point differential in 16 of 18 seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 2, 2024 13:56:42 GMT -8
Some of the throws and catches by Penix and his receivers last night were incredible. But yes, UW plays at the level of their competition, and other than a cinderella story type season, and the press fawning over their 21 straight wins, they are good - not great.
Great is the 49ers of the '90s, where the point spread against almost any NFL team was 20+ points with Montana at the helm - and they still covered. UW has been the cardiac kids all season. Who knows if we could have been their lone loss, if our Judas coach had his full attention on the game? Other than the money earned into the PAC coffers, still hoping for a face plant against hardballs and the Spartans next week. Joe Montana was the niners leading passer for exactly one season in the '90s. Steve Young was the 49ers leading passer from 1991-1998. Still, SF from 1983-1998 had a +100 season point differential 15 of 16 years. For the entirety of the Montana/Young starting QB tenure 1981-1998, SF had a +100 point differential in 16 of 18 seasons. Thank God for McNeil v. Nat'l Football League! Rescued the NFL from themselves. Free agency in 1993. Salary cap in 1994. Made the game watchable again. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Jan 2, 2024 15:06:35 GMT -8
Joe Montana was the niners leading passer for exactly one season in the '90s. Steve Young was the 49ers leading passer from 1991-1998. Still, SF from 1983-1998 had a +100 season point differential 15 of 16 years. For the entirety of the Montana/Young starting QB tenure 1981-1998, SF had a +100 point differential in 16 of 18 seasons. Thank God for McNeil v. Nat'l Football League! Rescued the NFL from themselves. Free agency in 1993. Salary cap in 1994. Made the game watchable again. The NFL is a model for competitive play in a league. Really good revenue distribution and competitive balance rules. Teams have still been able to put together "dynasty" stretches, but most teams at least have been able to make themselves relevant at times. Definitely a different world from NCAAF or MLB. That said, the Brady Patriots era was longer and more dominant than the Montana/Young/Rice era. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Jan 2, 2024 15:22:16 GMT -8
21 Straight wins = good - not great? Something doesn't look right about that As another poster already eluded to, the record is misleading. When looking at the scores of those games, and the competition, they have been insanely lucky. Even one of our family friends who bleeds purple, said they should have lost to ASU at home in Seattle this year. They have some really good pieces, just not sold on the overall package. I can buy an 8-0, maybe even a 9-0 record being misleading. 21-0 though? Come on, that's a lot of luck. Our 11-1 best season ever could be called "misleading" for same reasoning. UCLA at the Rose Bowl ring any bells? The most important metric is wins and one thing that has impressed me with UW under DeBore is their ability to come through in the clutch time and time again. Is that luck? If it is, then they sure get lucky a lot and we've all been taught it's better to be lucky than good. So if they are lucky, and lucky is better than good, then they must be great!!! So where to do you come off saying they're lucky but only good, it's an oxymoron.   |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 15:36:23 GMT -8
As another poster already eluded to, the record is misleading. When looking at the scores of those games, and the competition, they have been insanely lucky. Even one of our family friends who bleeds purple, said they should have lost to ASU at home in Seattle this year. They have some really good pieces, just not sold on the overall package. I can buy an 8-0, maybe even a 9-0 record being misleading. 21-0 though? Come on, that's a lot of luck. Our 11-1 best season ever could be called "misleading" for same reasoning. UCLA at the Rose Bowl ring any bells? The most important metric is wins and one thing that has impressed me with UW under DeBore is their ability to come through in the clutch time and time again. Is that luck? If it is, then they sure get lucky a lot and we've all been taught it's better to be lucky than good. So if they are lucky, and lucky is better than good, then they must be great!!! So where to do you come off saying they're lucky but only good, it's an oxymoron. Every season no matter the w/l record has luck. Many people have spoke to it and my old mentor said to layman luck was when situations presented turnout positive. But, to him luck was skill and will to take advantage of those situations. Not all people/teams have that. Those that don't chalk it up to "fate" like they had zero control of what happened. When in fact both parties acted to create those possible opportunities. To his way of thinking you create "luck", it's just a matter if you'regoodenough to seize it. UT has one last night. They didn't capitalize. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jan 2, 2024 15:56:15 GMT -8
As another poster already eluded to, the record is misleading. When looking at the scores of those games, and the competition, they have been insanely lucky. Even one of our family friends who bleeds purple, said they should have lost to ASU at home in Seattle this year. They have some really good pieces, just not sold on the overall package. I can buy an 8-0, maybe even a 9-0 record being misleading. 21-0 though? Come on, that's a lot of luck. Our 11-1 best season ever could be called "misleading" for same reasoning. UCLA at the Rose Bowl ring any bells? The most important metric is wins and one thing that has impressed me with UW under DeBore is their ability to come through in the clutch time and time again. Is that luck? If it is, then they sure get lucky a lot and we've all been taught it's better to be lucky than good. So if they are lucky, and lucky is better than good, then they must be great!!! So where to do you come off saying they're lucky but only good, it's an oxymoron. So - if the Wolverines face plant the leg humpers next Monday, will that be a lack of luck, or lack of skill? Asking for a friend  Here's to hoping the dawgs and the quacks earn another "almost natty" on Monday! |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 16:18:19 GMT -8
I can buy an 8-0, maybe even a 9-0 record being misleading. 21-0 though? Come on, that's a lot of luck. Our 11-1 best season ever could be called "misleading" for same reasoning. UCLA at the Rose Bowl ring any bells? The most important metric is wins and one thing that has impressed me with UW under DeBore is their ability to come through in the clutch time and time again. Is that luck? If it is, then they sure get lucky a lot and we've all been taught it's better to be lucky than good. So if they are lucky, and lucky is better than good, then they must be great!!! So where to do you come off saying they're lucky but only good, it's an oxymoron. So - if the Wolverines face plant the leg humpers next Monday, will that be a lack of luck, or lack of skill? Asking for a friend Here's to hoping the dawgs and the quacks earn another "almost natty" on Monday! If they do not pressure/sack MP the UW receiving corp will run free all night. I thought UW tossed away a couple scoring opportunities pretending they were a running team in the red zone. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 2, 2024 17:01:13 GMT -8
Thank God for McNeil v. Nat'l Football League! Rescued the NFL from themselves. Free agency in 1993. Salary cap in 1994. Made the game watchable again. The NFL is a model for competitive play in a league. Really good revenue distribution and competitive balance rules. Teams have still been able to put together "dynasty" stretches, but most teams at least have been able to make themselves relevant at times. Definitely a different world from NCAAF or MLB. That said, the Brady Patriots era was longer and more dominant than the Montana/Young/Rice era. One year longer? 1981-1998 versus 2001-2019? San Francisco Seeds: 1, X, 2, 1, 5, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 7, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 1, & 4
New England Seeds: 2, 8, 1, 2, 4, 4, 1, 7, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, & 3
Number of regular season conference championships:
San Francisco 8 - New England 7
Who was more dominant again?
Number of times each team choked away homefield advantage throughout the playoffs:
San Francisco 4 - New England 1
The 49ers unbelievably lost to the 8-7 Vikings at Candlestick in 1988 36-24 and then lost to the Phil Simmsless Giants 15-13 at the NFC Championship Game in Candlestick in 1991. San Francisco lost the 1993 NFC Championship Game 30-20, -4 in turnovers. In the 1998 NFC Championship Game, Green Bay led 23-3 before San Francisco finally scored on Chuck Levy's 95-yard kick return for a touchdown to make it a more palatable 23-10 Green Bay win. That was the Niners' third consecutive postseason loss to The Niners, at home in 1996 and 1998 and on the road in 1997.
The Pats' lone loss was in 2011 to the 11-5 Jets and included a fumble on a fake punt and a Deion Branch drop on a key fourth-down pass.
Number of road wins in the Conference Championship Game:
New England 3 - San Francisco 1
And that is all why San Francisco was a more dominant regular season team than New England, but the Pats played in nine Super Bowls and the Niners only five.
But that all kind of muddies the jarring nonsense that was the NFL pre-1997: NFC 15 - AFC 1. The deck was stacked so far for the NFC and against the AFC that it was not fair at all.
Super Bowls in the Montana/Rice/Young Era (1981-1998): NFC 15 - AFC 3.
Super Bowls in the Brady Patriots Era (2001-2019): AFC 12 - NFC 7. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 2, 2024 17:30:03 GMT -8
The NFL is a model for competitive play in a league. Really good revenue distribution and competitive balance rules. Teams have still been able to put together "dynasty" stretches, but most teams at least have been able to make themselves relevant at times. Definitely a different world from NCAAF or MLB. That said, the Brady Patriots era was longer and more dominant than the Montana/Young/Rice era. One year longer? 1981-1998 versus 2001-2019? San Francisco Seeds: 1, X, 2, 1, 5, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 7, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 1, & 4
New England Seeds: 2, 8, 1, 2, 4, 4, 1, 7, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, & 3
Number of regular season conference championships:
San Francisco 8 - New England 7
Who was more dominant again?
Number of times each team choked away homefield advantage throughout the playoffs:
San Francisco 4 - New England 1
The 49ers unbelievably lost to the 8-7 Vikings at Candlestick in 1988 36-24 and then lost to the Phil Simmsless Giants 15-13 at the NFC Championship Game in Candlestick in 1991. San Francisco lost the 1993 NFC Championship Game 30-20, -4 in turnovers. In the 1998 NFC Championship Game, Green Bay led 23-3 before San Francisco finally scored on Chuck Levy's 95-yard kick return for a touchdown to make it a more palatable 23-10 Green Bay win. That was the Niners' third consecutive postseason loss to The Niners, at home in 1996 and 1998 and on the road in 1997.
The Pats' lone loss was in 2011 to the 11-5 Jets and included a fumble on a fake punt and a Deion Branch drop on a key fourth-down pass.
Number of road wins in the Conference Championship Game:
New England 3 - San Francisco 1
And that is all why San Francisco was a more dominant regular season team than New England, but the Pats played in nine Super Bowls and the Niners only five.
But that all kind of muddies the jarring nonsense that was the NFL pre-1997: NFC 15 - AFC 1. The deck was stacked so far for the NFC and against the AFC that it was not fair at all.
Super Bowls in the Montana/Rice/Young Era (1981-1998): NFC 15 - AFC 3.
Super Bowls in the Brady Patriots Era (2001-2019): AFC 12 - NFC 7.More dominant regular season team. Who cares? Patriots have more titles. You mean like what Ralph did in basketball here? Great in the regular season….not the same in the post season. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 17:59:03 GMT -8
One year longer? 1981-1998 versus 2001-2019? San Francisco Seeds: 1, X, 2, 1, 5, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 7, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 1, & 4
New England Seeds: 2, 8, 1, 2, 4, 4, 1, 7, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, & 3
Number of regular season conference championships:
San Francisco 8 - New England 7
Who was more dominant again?
Number of times each team choked away homefield advantage throughout the playoffs:
San Francisco 4 - New England 1
The 49ers unbelievably lost to the 8-7 Vikings at Candlestick in 1988 36-24 and then lost to the Phil Simmsless Giants 15-13 at the NFC Championship Game in Candlestick in 1991. San Francisco lost the 1993 NFC Championship Game 30-20, -4 in turnovers. In the 1998 NFC Championship Game, Green Bay led 23-3 before San Francisco finally scored on Chuck Levy's 95-yard kick return for a touchdown to make it a more palatable 23-10 Green Bay win. That was the Niners' third consecutive postseason loss to The Niners, at home in 1996 and 1998 and on the road in 1997.
The Pats' lone loss was in 2011 to the 11-5 Jets and included a fumble on a fake punt and a Deion Branch drop on a key fourth-down pass.
Number of road wins in the Conference Championship Game:
New England 3 - San Francisco 1
And that is all why San Francisco was a more dominant regular season team than New England, but the Pats played in nine Super Bowls and the Niners only five.
But that all kind of muddies the jarring nonsense that was the NFL pre-1997: NFC 15 - AFC 1. The deck was stacked so far for the NFC and against the AFC that it was not fair at all.
Super Bowls in the Montana/Rice/Young Era (1981-1998): NFC 15 - AFC 3.
Super Bowls in the Brady Patriots Era (2001-2019): AFC 12 - NFC 7.More dominant regular season team. Who cares? Patriots have more titles. You mean like what Ralph did in basketball here? Great in the regular season….not the same in the post season. I'd take Ralph's record any time. Biased because since then... yikes. Also seemed even the 32/48 teams field had zero patsies in the 1st game. No excuse, but definitely tougher than 1st round games of today. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 2, 2024 18:14:07 GMT -8
More dominant regular season team. Who cares? Patriots have more titles. You mean like what Ralph did in basketball here? Great in the regular season….not the same in the post season. I'd take Ralph's record any time. Biased because since then... yikes. Also seemed even the 32/48 teams field had zero patsies in the 1st game. No excuse, but definitely tougher than 1st round games of today. Lamar, Evansville and Ball St should have been patsies. Losing to a team that wears shooting shirts as game jerseys is a bad look. (Evansville) |
|
|
|
Post by bigorangebeaver on Jan 3, 2024 18:58:09 GMT -8
The most important metric is wins and one thing that has impressed me with UW under DeBore is their ability to come through in the clutch time and time again. Is that luck? If it is, then they sure get lucky a lot and we've all been taught it's better to be lucky than good. So if they are lucky, and lucky is better than good, then they must be great!!! So where to do you come off saying they're lucky but only good, it's an oxymoron. "Luck is the residue of design." --Branch Rickey |
|
Here's to hoping the dawgs and the quacks earn another "almost natty" on Monday!
