49ers -- NFC West Champs?

Bac2Basics · Post #1 » by **Bac2Basics** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:53 am

Do The 49ers have enough to win the NFC West?

Post #2 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:58 am

No.

Every team that adds 390842390 new players expecting an upgrade almost always goes down somehow.....

Shzm13 · Post #3 » by **Shzm13** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:01 am

Agreed with NOKGAI..

Niners are last years Cardinals. One solid FA acquisition, and everyone thinks they can compete. Their defense is still questionable and other than Gore and Davis, their offense is pretty bad.

1.Seahawks
2.Niners
3.Cardinals
4.Rams

Believe it.

treiz · Post #4 » by **treiz** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Shzm13 wrote:Agreed with NOKGAI..

Niners are last years Cardinals. One solid FA acquisition, and everyone thinks they can compete. Their defense is still questionable and other than Gore and Davis, their offense is pretty bad.

1.Seahawks
2.Niners
3.Cardinals
4.Rams

Believe it.

Not really, they got Darrell Jackson, who should be a reliable receiver barring injuries, and Alex Smith did show signs of development last year an they're going to run the same offense....and how can you say their defense is questionable, it received massive upgrades such as Clements, Banta-Cain, Willis, Michael Lewis and many more.....

In paper, the should be NFC West Champions, but like NO-KG-AI said, anythings possible.

Monkeyfeng06 · Post #5 » by **Monkeyfeng06** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:56 pm

i still think seahawks are the nfc west champion. with hasselback and alexander healthy, that beats smith + gore.

Fatty · Post #6 » by **Fatty** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:48 pm

It is the NFC so every chance in the divison has a chance to win. So far I'd rate it as:
1.Rams
2.Seahawks
3.49ers
4.Cardinals

Post #7 » by **HCYanks** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:32 pm

The Niners actually outplayed their pythagorean record by two games last year, so just hitting 7-9 again would be a good showing for them.

Post #8 » by **J.Kim** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:05 pm

HCYanks wrote:The Niners actually outplayed their pythagorean record by two games last year, so just hitting 7-9 again would be a good showing for them.

Pretty much....

Although, as a sidenote, Pythagorean doesn't really account for the changes in personnel...
Though, if I had to bet my money, I'd say they'll severly 'underperform' for the early half of the season, until 'turning it up' towards the end, and nearing the .500 mark.

Fatty · Post #9 » by **Fatty** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:07 pm

are the 49ers a right triangle?

Post #10 » by **HCYanks** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:50 pm

J.Kim wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Pretty much....

Although, as a sidenote, Pythagorean doesn't really account for the changes in personnel...
Though, if I had to bet my money, I'd say they'll severly 'underperform' for the early half of the season, until 'turning it up' towards the end, and nearing the .500 mark.

Agreed. I'm just figuring the additions could make up for the flukish extra wins they had last year.

Fatty wrote:are the 49ers a right triangle?

I think they're closer to a dodecahedron.

Post #11 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:18 am

J.Kim wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Pretty much....

Although, as a sidenote, Pythagorean doesn't really account for the changes in personnel...
Though, if I had to bet my money, I'd say they'll severly 'underperform' for the early half of the season, until 'turning it up' towards the end, and nearing the .500 mark.

Agreed, they will play impressively down the stretch, just so we can have an entire offseason "They will be so great next year" :nonono:

Monkeyfeng06 · Post #12 » by **Monkeyfeng06** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:47 am

sideline comparison:

Hasselback + Alexander vs. Smith + Gore

who ya got?

Swift21 · Post #13 » by **Swift21** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:30 am

NO-KG-AI wrote:No.

Every team that adds 390842390 new players expecting an upgrade almost always goes down somehow.....

Funny because the Sants did the same thing last year and they did just fine.

Post #14 » by **PhilipNelsonFan** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:20 am

As of right now I would rank the division:

1. Seahawks
2. 49ers
3. Rams
4. Cardinals

The 49ers are clearly on the upside and the Seahawks are struggling a bit, but it'll be a dogfight this season.

bigboy1234 · Post #15 » by **bigboy1234** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:33 pm

Last year I would say the Rams were the best in that division, boy that is bad bad division. But I think the Seahawks will win it basically because they have more talent.

Post #16 » by **Icness** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:55 pm

What concerns me about the Niners is that the weakest spots on their team are OL and DL. That almost always means disappointment. I'm not a big fan of their WR corps either. When a division rival trades you a starter, you have to think they know what they're doing, and I agree with the Seahawks that Darrell Jackson is more heartache and headache than all the talent he has.

I'm still formulating this division. I kinda like the Rams a little more than the Niners right now, both a notch behind the Seahawks. And the Cards aren't far behind talent-wise either.

Ex-hippie · Post #17 » by **Ex-hippie** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:02 pm

Clarification: the idea of pythagorean records is well-established in baseball, but has anyone tested it in football?

Post #18 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:09 pm

hippie wrote:Clarification: the idea of pythagorean records is well-established in baseball, but has anyone tested it in football?

Yes:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=4

Post #19 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:00 pm

Juice23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Funny because the Sants did the same thing last year and they did just fine.

Still, how often does it work??

Also, the circumstances the team was in made the players bond REALLY fast, and they were playing for more than themselves.

49ers have a crapload of guys that are playing for bloated contracts, an unimpressive QB IMO, they still didn't get a go to reciever.

Defense doesn't fix itself by just adding talent, it takes time to gel, and until then, they are going to have to rely on their offense(Frank Gore)

They could be a really good offense, depending on Vernon Davis, but unless he can be the go to receiver, they will only be decent at best.

Icness wrote:What concerns me about the Niners is that the weakest spots on their team are OL and DL. That almost always means disappointment. I'm not a big fan of their WR corps either. When a division rival trades you a starter, you have to think they know what they're doing, and I agree with the Seahawks that Darrell Jackson is more heartache and headache than all the talent he has.

I'm still formulating this division. I kinda like the Rams a little more than the Niners right now, both a notch behind the Seahawks. And the Cards aren't far behind talent-wise either.

IMO the most important part of offense and defense, the front line.

Post #20 » by **J.Kim** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:13 pm

Icness wrote:What concerns me about the Niners is that the weakest spots on their team are OL and DL. That almost always means disappointment. I'm not a big fan of their WR corps either. When a division rival trades you a starter, you have to think they know what they're doing, and I agree with the Seahawks that Darrell Jackson is more heartache and headache than all the talent he has.

I'm still formulating this division. I kinda like the Rams a little more than the Niners right now, both a notch behind the Seahawks. And the Cards aren't far behind talent-wise either.

Their O-Line isnt too bad, IMO... their D-Line, however is a different story...