Dear 49er Fans

[Marvin49]

Dear Seahawks Fans,

This is a serious question for you, not a rhetorical one:

Over the last three years Jimmy and Mullens have started 24 games for the 49ers. Three of those 24 games have been against the Seahawks.

Here's the question: Of those 24 games how many have you watched fully closely? Another way to put it is I'll spot you three for the games against the Seahawks, but how many more than those three have you also watched fully closely?

I want to make it clear why I'm dismissive of most of your opinions about this. It's NOT because you're Seahawks fans, it's because you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I absolutely promise that the same is true for 49ers fans who only rarely if ever watch 49ers games but have very strong opinions (there's these types of fans of every team). I'm 100% equally dismissive of their opinions too.

That said, if you can say with all sincerity that you're regularly watching 49ers games closely (let's be generous to you on "regularly" and say 80%, so you've watched 19 of those 24 games), by all means, let's have an actual conversation. :2thumbs:

If not though, why would anybody who knows what they're talking about care what you think?

Do you care what 9ers fans who have only watched Wilson play six times in the past three years think about Wilson? Of course you don't. Why would you? It's exactly the same.

I think honestly their entire opinion of Mullins is based on the two games they faced him and the now one game with Garoppolo...and they WANT that to be true.

Mullens is the guy that beat THEM, so he MUST be the best QB in SF. Nevermind that he's 3-5 as a starter, has a 13-10 TD/INT ration and Garoppolo is 16-3.

Nah...Mullens beat THEM, so he MUST be better.

 

[Maulbert]

Dear Seahawks Fans,

This is a serious question for you, not a rhetorical one:

Over the last three years Jimmy and Mullens have started 24 games for the 49ers. Three of those 24 games have been against the Seahawks.

Here's the question: Of those 24 games how many have you watched fully closely? Another way to put it is I'll spot you three for the games against the Seahawks, but how many more than those three have you also watched fully closely?

I want to make it clear why I'm dismissive of most of your opinions about this. It's NOT because you're Seahawks fans, it's because you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I absolutely promise that the same is true for 49ers fans who only rarely if ever watch 49ers games but have very strong opinions (there's these types of fans of every team). I'm 100% equally dismissive of their opinions too.

That said, if you can say with all sincerity that you're regularly watching 49ers games closely (let's be generous to you on "regularly" and say 80%, so you've watched 19 of those 24 games), by all means, let's have an actual conversation. :2thumbs:

If not though, why would anybody who knows what they're talking about care what you think?

Do you care what 9ers fans who have only watched Wilson play six times in the past three years think about Wilson? Of course you don't. Why would you? It's exactly the same.

I think honestly their entire opinion of Mullins is based on the two games they faced him and the now one game with Garoppolo...and they WANT that to be true.

Mullens is the guy that beat THEM, so he MUST be the best QB in SF. Nevermind that he's 3-5 as a starter, has a 13-10 TD/INT ration and Garoppolo is 16-3.

Nah...Mullens beat THEM, so he MUST be better.

I did see Mullens ruin the Raiders last year.

 

[Marvin49]

Dear Seahawks Fans,

This is a serious question for you, not a rhetorical one:

Over the last three years Jimmy and Mullens have started 24 games for the 49ers. Three of those 24 games have been against the Seahawks.

Here's the question: Of those 24 games how many have you watched fully closely? Another way to put it is I'll spot you three for the games against the Seahawks, but how many more than those three have you also watched fully closely?

I want to make it clear why I'm dismissive of most of your opinions about this. It's NOT because you're Seahawks fans, it's because you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I absolutely promise that the same is true for 49ers fans who only rarely if ever watch 49ers games but have very strong opinions (there's these types of fans of every team). I'm 100% equally dismissive of their opinions too.

That said, if you can say with all sincerity that you're regularly watching 49ers games closely (let's be generous to you on "regularly" and say 80%, so you've watched 19 of those 24 games), by all means, let's have an actual conversation. :2thumbs:

If not though, why would anybody who knows what they're talking about care what you think?

Do you care what 9ers fans who have only watched Wilson play six times in the past three years think about Wilson? Of course you don't. Why would you? It's exactly the same.

I think honestly their entire opinion of Mullins is based on the two games they faced him and the now one game with Garoppolo...and they WANT that to be true.

Mullens is the guy that beat THEM, so he MUST be the best QB in SF. Nevermind that he's 3-5 as a starter, has a 13-10 TD/INT ration and Garoppolo is 16-3.

Nah...Mullens beat THEM, so he MUST be better.

I did see Mullens ruin the Raiders last year.

...so that's 2 of his 3 wins....

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The Hawks were the better team. Why is it so hard to admit that? Geezus

 

[HawkStrong]

Dear Seahawks Fans,

This is a serious question for you, not a rhetorical one:

Over the last three years Jimmy and Mullens have started 24 games for the 49ers. Three of those 24 games have been against the Seahawks.

Here's the question: Of those 24 games how many have you watched fully closely? Another way to put it is I'll spot you three for the games against the Seahawks, but how many more than those three have you also watched fully closely?

I want to make it clear why I'm dismissive of most of your opinions about this. It's NOT because you're Seahawks fans, it's because you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I absolutely promise that the same is true for 49ers fans who only rarely if ever watch 49ers games but have very strong opinions (there's these types of fans of every team). I'm 100% equally dismissive of their opinions too.

That said, if you can say with all sincerity that you're regularly watching 49ers games closely (let's be generous to you on "regularly" and say 80%, so you've watched 19 of those 24 games), by all means, let's have an actual conversation. :2thumbs:

If not though, why would anybody who knows what they're talking about care what you think?

Do you care what 9ers fans who have only watched Wilson play six times in the past three years think about Wilson? Of course you don't. Why would you? It's exactly the same.

I think honestly their entire opinion of Mullins is based on the two games they faced him and the now one game with Garoppolo...and they WANT that to be true.

Mullens is the guy that beat THEM, so he MUST be the best QB in SF. Nevermind that he's 3-5 as a starter, has a 13-10 TD/INT ration and Garoppolo is 16-3.

Nah...Mullens beat THEM, so he MUST be better.

I've watched every single 49ers game last few season, technology is doing some amazing things up here in WA. Jimmy G is not the best QB in their roster, and they are only forcing the issue due to how much money they have invested in him. Sooner they move on the better off they will be. Sorry but it is true.

 

[Marvin49]

Dear Seahawks Fans,

This is a serious question for you, not a rhetorical one:

Over the last three years Jimmy and Mullens have started 24 games for the 49ers. Three of those 24 games have been against the Seahawks.

Here's the question: Of those 24 games how many have you watched fully closely? Another way to put it is I'll spot you three for the games against the Seahawks, but how many more than those three have you also watched fully closely?

I want to make it clear why I'm dismissive of most of your opinions about this. It's NOT because you're Seahawks fans, it's because you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I absolutely promise that the same is true for 49ers fans who only rarely if ever watch 49ers games but have very strong opinions (there's these types of fans of every team). I'm 100% equally dismissive of their opinions too.

That said, if you can say with all sincerity that you're regularly watching 49ers games closely (let's be generous to you on "regularly" and say 80%, so you've watched 19 of those 24 games), by all means, let's have an actual conversation. :2thumbs:

If not though, why would anybody who knows what they're talking about care what you think?

Do you care what 9ers fans who have only watched Wilson play six times in the past three years think about Wilson? Of course you don't. Why would you? It's exactly the same.

I think honestly their entire opinion of Mullins is based on the two games they faced him and the now one game with Garoppolo...and they WANT that to be true.

Mullens is the guy that beat THEM, so he MUST be the best QB in SF. Nevermind that he's 3-5 as a starter, has a 13-10 TD/INT ration and Garoppolo is 16-3.

Nah...Mullens beat THEM, so he MUST be better.

I've watched every single 49ers game last few season, technology is doing some amazing things up here in WA. Jimmy G is not the best QB in their roster, and they are only forcing the issue due to how much money they have invested in him. Sooner they move on the better off they will be. Sorry but it is true.

Sorry?

lol.

No need for sorry. Yer just wrong. That's OK tho.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The same Jimmy G who flat out looked SCARED for most of the game? The same Jimmy G who threw TWO dropped interceptions to KJ and Wags that were both dropped, and would have ended the game?
He looks like an average QB who could shred a team WITH blocking. But he also looks like Goff, pressure him and he folds like a tent.

 

[Popeyejones]

Your point is to suggest that people commenting on an internet forum can't be taken seriously because (unlike many people on TV who spend hours a day studying and can be taken seriously.. not all of course) they haven't studied enough to warrant a strong opinion... in your opinion.

It's a condescending premise.

It's only condescending if you believe that offering advice on topics that you know incredibly little about isn't foolhardy and condescending itself.

SOME EXAMPLES:

1) I've visited Seattle a few times over the past five years or so. If you were all talking about the best restaurants in Seattle and I came in and insisted you're all wrong about which restaurants are good and that I actually know what the best restaurants are, how would you respond? How about if I hadn't even eaten at most of the restaurants you all really like?

Would you be condescending for rolling your eyes at me or would I be condescending for giving you all advice about something you know a lot about and I know very little about?

2) Suppose you listen to rap music all the time, and you're talking about who the most talented rappers are. I rarely listen to rap music, and I say you guys are wrong about who good rappers are, and that Big Sean is clearly better than all of the good rappers you like.

Would you be condescending for yolling your eyes at me or would I be condescending for giving you advice about something you know a lot about and I know very little about?

I think honestly their entire opinion of Mullins is based on the two games they faced him and the now one game with Garoppolo...and they WANT that to be true.

Mullens is the guy that beat THEM, so he MUST be the best QB in SF. Nevermind that he's 3-5 as a starter, has a 13-10 TD/INT ration and Garoppolo is 16-3.

Nah...Mullens beat THEM, so he MUST be better.

Bingo. That and maybe the Raiders game, but basically this.

I just really struggle to understand how a knowledgeable football fan who actually knows both of their games thinks Mullens is a better QB.

 

[Popeyejones]

Also, I think it's worth making one thing clear, which might not be evident to some Seahawks fans.

Any smart 9ers fan would WANT Mullens to be a better QB than Jimmy.

With Jimmy's contract structure the 9ers can get out of it after this year without dead money and Mullens is an RFA.

IF Mullens was a better QB than Jimmy what that means for me as a 9ers fan is that:

(1) The team could get better QB play for 20 million or so less (more salary cap room to bring in more talent and resign more talent)

(2) The 8-1 team I root for already has the pieces on the roster to be better than it has been!

Simply put, I'd have to be a fool to not wish that Mullens was a better player than Jimmy.

It would, in short, be great for me if Mullens was a better QB than Jimmy. The problem is just that I've watched them both play a ton and I unfortunately have no reason to believe that's the case.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I trust that Shanahan would have Mullins play IF he was better. Jimmy G is proving to be an average QB who can't handle pressure. At least so far. Game was on the line and he looked scared. He basically threw TWO game ending picks that got dropped by KJ and Wags. The KJ one was about as easy as it gets. Shoot, my friends who went to the game said that the Niners fans said "how is this game not over, he threw it right to him?"

 

[Marvin49]

I trust that Shanahan would have Mullins play IF he was better. Jimmy G is proving to be an average QB who can't handle pressure. At least so far. Game was on the line and he looked scared. He basically threw TWO game ending picks that got dropped by KJ and Wags. The KJ one was about as easy as it gets. Shoot, my friends who went to the game said that the Niners fans said "how is this game not over, he threw it right to him?"

No defending Jimmy on those throws other than to say two vet LBs were reading his signals. Despite that, he still can't make those throws.

What I'd say tho is that Seattle was the outlier. He's been good under pressure all year and he's been great on 3rd down all year. He's been pretty damn good all year.

He looked very different down Kittle and Sanders.

Heres a weird stat:

The Seahawks were not the only team to stack the box and force him to throw. I games 1-8, when facing an 8 man box, he had a QB rating of 150.2.

Against Seattle? 64.1

So what the difference? Bright lights? Pressure? No Kittle or Sanders? Dunno.

I think a lot of Seahawks fans woke up Tuesday morning thinking this is what Jimmy has looked like all year. Its not.

 

[Popeyejones]

I trust that Shanahan would have Mullins play IF he was better. Jimmy G is proving to be an average QB who can't handle pressure. At least so far. Game was on the line and he looked scared. He basically threw TWO game ending picks that got dropped by KJ and Wags. The KJ one was about as easy as it gets. Shoot, my friends who went to the game said that the Niners fans said "how is this game not over, he threw it right to him?"

Jimmy had a very bad game. Without the nine drops by receivers the badness of his game would have been masked a little bit, but even without all those drops he still overall played very poorly.

It's probably the worst I've ever seen him play, and I've only seen him be what I'd call "bad" twice: this game and in Week 2 last year.

Anybody who tries to argue that he didn't play very poorly is IMO full of it.

At the same time, he very poor play didn't stand out from the rest of the offense from me. He played poorly in addition to the 9ers WRs playing poorly, the run game being non-existent, and the o-line being as bad as I've seen it in the last two years both on the interior and exterior.

Surprisingly (for me at least), the offensive/defensive matchups in this game played out in the exact opposite of how I was predicting them to.

The 49ers (very good) defense played MUCH better against the Seahawks (very good) offense than I expected them to.

The 49ers (pretty good) offense played MUCH MUCH worse agains the Seahawks (very mediocre) defense than I expected them to.

 

[Washington49er]

I trust that Shanahan would have Mullins play IF he was better. Jimmy G is proving to be an average QB who can't handle pressure. At least so far. Game was on the line and he looked scared. He basically threw TWO game ending picks that got dropped by KJ and Wags. The KJ one was about as easy as it gets. Shoot, my friends who went to the game said that the Niners fans said "how is this game not over, he threw it right to him?"

No defending Jimmy on those throws other than to say two vet LBs were reading his signals. Despite that, he still can't make those throws.

What I'd say tho is that Seattle was the outlier. He's been good under pressure all year and he's been great on 3rd down all year. He's been pretty damn good all year.

He looked very different down Kittle and Sanders.

Heres a weird stat:

The Seahawks were not the only team to stack the box and force him to throw. I games 1-8, when facing an 8 man box, he had a QB rating of 150.2.

Against Seattle? 64.1

So what the difference? Bright lights? Pressure? No Kittle or Sanders? Dunno.

I think a lot of Seahawks fans woke up Tuesday morning thinking this is what Jimmy has looked like all year. Its not.

Read my post in main forum about paying Clowney.

I get we are 49er fans. But is it really that hard to admit that circumstances can create misleading results.

Wasn't that long ago Seattle's Oline was a revolving door, RW managed to deal with it as best he could but it still effected his overall performance.

I will go dig them up if I have to, but there were a lot 12s on here talking about how the Hawks Oline were making crap defenses look stellar.

People saying we are making excuses for Jimmy and the 9ers in general, what a joke. They're all acting like they suddenly have the #1 D in the league 1 week after questioning their D and in particular Clowney.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

All week we hear about how the starting Tackles are back and they are gonna' dominate the Hawks.
Now it's Clowney was good because those guys are Rusty.

Make up your damn minds. Or, here's an idea, GIVE SOME CREDIT to your opponent.
The Hawks were the better team, period.

 

[Popeyejones]

All week we hear about how the starting Tackles are back and they are gonna' dominate the Hawks.
Now it's Clowney was good because those guys are Rusty.

Make up your damn minds. Or, here's an idea, GIVE SOME CREDIT to your opponent.
The Hawks were the better team, period.

Clowney played out of his mind and had a game-wrecking game AND both starting tackles also played like crap.

Why can't both be true?

I know that a fair number of Hawks fans like to interpret everything through a psychopathic victim complex, but where is this lack of credit you're talking about?

My very first observation in my first post after the game to congratulate you guys on the win said that I thought Wilson played a lot better than his stat line suggested, and that Clowney and your DTs had monster games.

What validation are you desperately thirsty for that I haven't given you? :lol:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Fair enough. Not all Niners fans are full of excuses. Cheers :irishdrinkers:

 

[Washington49er]

All week we hear about how the starting Tackles are back and they are gonna' dominate the Hawks.
Now it's Clowney was good because those guys are Rusty.

Make up your damn minds. Or, here's an idea, GIVE SOME CREDIT to your opponent.
The Hawks were the better team, period.

I did right after the game.

All you Hawk fans seem to be able to do is talk about how bad Jimmy G was.

Talk about giving credit, ya Hawks won by 3 after the toughest game they've played in years. Could've gone the other way just as easily.

All I'm saying is before you crown your D, you should consider if it was the circumstances or really good play by the D. Think about it you go from having doubts all season long, and not just Hawk fans doubting Hawk D, to suddenly they're lights out? I'm sorry but the jury is still out.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=158569

 

[Popeyejones]

Fair enough. Not all Niners fans are full of excuses. Cheers :irishdrinkers:

Thanks.

(And thanks for not holding my feet to fire for taking potshots at you guys while I was defending myself :lol: :2thumbs: )

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Nah, smack talk back and forth is fun. When some opposing fans act like what they say is etched in stone fact, that gets a tad annoying. Like saying the Hawks would lose by 30. Come on, these two teams are clearly very evenly matched.

 

[Marvin49]

All week we hear about how the starting Tackles are back and they are gonna' dominate the Hawks.
Now it's Clowney was good because those guys are Rusty.

Make up your damn minds. Or, here's an idea, GIVE SOME CREDIT to your opponent.
The Hawks were the better team, period.

Clowney played out of his mind and had a game-wrecking game AND both starting tackles also played like crap.

Why can't both be true?

I know that a fair number of Hawks fans like to interpret everything through a psychopathic victim complex, but where is this lack of credit you're talking about?

My very first observation in my first post after the game to congratulate you guys on the win said that I thought Wilson played a lot better than his stat line suggested, and that Clowney and your DTs had monster games.

What validation are you desperately thirsty for that I haven't given you? :lol:

Could not agree more.

Seahawks won the game. No excuses. Doing an autopsy of the game tho to figure out WHY it happened isn't an excuse. There are no excuses. Even injuries. Injuries are a part of the game. It ain't an excuse.

Discussing the reasons certain things happened doesn't excuse them...it simply gives you insight into what took place on the field.

RE Clowney, the dude played out of his mind. I've never seen Joe Staley get beat like that. Why? Rust? Does he not have it anymore? Is Clowney just that good?

IMO I think its a mix of all three. That's not an excuse.