ESPN NFC West Q&A: Was Kaepernick exposed last season?

[rideaducati]

That game was also the tie breaker that gave the 9ers the #2 seed instead of Seattle. If that field goal counts the Seahawks probably have two Lombardi's and three consecutive trips to the bowl.

Not sure how that works considering the Seahawks were eliminated in Atlanta and the Niners won in Atlanta. Why would the game vs. Atlanta change?

Probably, because the wild card team would have been the niners and THEY would have beaten Atlanta prior to getting curbstomped IN Seattle.

 

[RichNhansom]

That game was also the tie breaker that gave the 9ers the #2 seed instead of Seattle. If that field goal counts the Seahawks probably have two Lombardi's and three consecutive trips to the bowl.

Not sure how that works considering the Seahawks were eliminated in Atlanta and the Niners won in Atlanta. Why would the game vs. Atlanta change?

Probably, because the wild card team would have been the niners and THEY would have beaten Atlanta prior to getting curbstomped IN Seattle.

The Niners would have had to play at FedEx field like we did and if the lost Aldon and the kicker while Gore sprained his ankle and then had to play Atlanta at 10:00 west coast time and the 2nd week on the road, they might not have beaten Atlanta either.

 

[Marvin49]

That game was also the tie breaker that gave the 9ers the #2 seed instead of Seattle. If that field goal counts the Seahawks probably have two Lombardi's and three consecutive trips to the bowl.

Not sure how that works considering the Seahawks were eliminated in Atlanta and the Niners won in Atlanta. Why would the game vs. Atlanta change?

Probably, because the wild card team would have been the niners and THEY would have beaten Atlanta prior to getting curbstomped IN Seattle.

The Niners would have had to play at FedEx field like we did and if the lost Aldon and the kicker while Gore sprained his ankle and then had to play Atlanta at 10:00 west coast time and the 2nd week on the road, they might not have beaten Atlanta either.

I was only half serious, but for the sake of just BSing here, they DID have to play with Justin Smith with a useless arm and Aldon with a torn labrum. The Niners faced Green Bay in their first game instead of "gasp", the Redskins...who lost their QB during the game to a torn ACL (and has never been the same since).

Nah...all seriousness, I don't really play the "if this then that" game. If defensive holding is called on 4th down in the SB, Niners might have a 6th Lombardi. Same if holding is called on the two defenders holding and actually lifting Bruce Miller off the ground on the second half kickoff. Every team can say th4e same thing in just about every game.

I don't remember the Rams call in question, but even if it's correct, I'm sure there was another call that if it does the other way its a different result. Niners were one play away from winning the game several times last year. They were also 1 play away from losing several times. It is what it is. Can't change it.

 

[Maulbert]

I was only half serious, but for the sake of just BSing here, they DID have to play with Justin Smith with a useless arm and Aldon with a torn labrum. The Niners faced Green Bay in their first game instead of "gasp", the Redskins...who lost their QB during the game to a torn ACL (and has never been the same since).

Nah...all seriousness, I don't really play the "if this then that" game. If defensive holding is called on 4th down in the SB, Niners might have a 6th Lombardi. Same if holding is called on the two defenders holding and actually lifting Bruce Miller off the ground on the second half kickoff. Every team can say th4e same thing in just about every game.

I don't remember the Rams call in question, but even if it's correct, I'm sure there was another call that if it does the other way its a different result. Niners were one play away from winning the game several times last year. They were also 1 play away from losing several times. It is what it is. Can't change it.

Just imagine this though... if the Rams beat the 49ers in that game and Seattle got the 2nd seed, then that would have set up a rematch with Green Bay in Seattle the same year as the so-called 'Fail Mary' game. The pissing and moaning from Green Bay would never have been louder.

 

[NINEster]

The Rams the last few years have been the ultimate "any given Sunday team":

2011 win against Saints
2012 win and tie against 49ers, win against Seahawks
2013 wins against Colts, Texans
2014 wins against Seahawks, Broncos

There's another Saints win in there somewhere, and probably another win against a perennial playoff contender.

The Rams appear to be the scariest team to choose against in a knockout pool.

I respect that ability, but their overall execution as a team over a season has yet to yield at least .500 winning percentage over the last few years while that was a down year for SF last season.

So after all of these big out of division and conference upsets, why would anyone make a big deal about how the Rams fare against the NFC West?

 

[NINEster]

Yea his numbers against us are ridiculous.

Wilson has had a few good games against us, but by and large we struggle with Kap a lot more. I don't get it...except our defense usually starts really slow and we typically play the Niners before we play the Hawks....only thing I can think of to explain it.

Perception is a funny thing. Wilson has been sacked 17 times in the last 2 years against the Rams. Our average OL struggles badly against your elite DL. On average, our games against the Rams the last 2 years are way closer than any of our other division rivals.

The Rams will be tough week 1.

 

[Rex]

The Rams the last few years have been the ultimate "any given Sunday team":

2011 win against Saints
2012 win and tie against 49ers, win against Seahawks
2013 wins against Colts, Texans
2014 wins against Seahawks, Broncos

There's another Saints win in there somewhere, and probably another win against a perennial playoff contender.

The Rams appear to be the scariest team to choose against in a knockout pool.

I respect that ability, but their overall execution as a team over a season has yet to yield at least .500 winning percentage over the last few years while that was a down year for SF last season.

So after all of these big out of division and conference upsets, why would anyone make a big deal about how the Rams fare against the NFC West?

Because the Rams are improved from last season.

 

[hawknation2015]

So after all of these big out of division and conference upsets, why would anyone make a big deal about how the Rams fare against the NFC West?

You should care more than us, since Tomfoola's Whiners will, in all likelihood, be battling them for last place in the division.

 

[Rex]

Yea his numbers against us are ridiculous.

Wilson has had a few good games against us, but by and large we struggle with Kap a lot more. I don't get it...except our defense usually starts really slow and we typically play the Niners before we play the Hawks....only thing I can think of to explain it.

Perception is a funny thing. Wilson has been sacked 17 times in the last 2 years against the Rams. Our average OL struggles badly against your elite DL. On average, our games against the Rams the last 2 years are way closer than any of our other division rivals.

The Rams will be tough week 1.

I don't know. The Rams are built to play the Seahawks but the Rams usually don't have their collective act together to start the season. I like the continuity on Rams defense but offense early in the season is a concern. I sure hope the Rams sweep the division this year!

 

[Sports Hernia]

Yea his numbers against us are ridiculous.

Wilson has had a few good games against us, but by and large we struggle with Kap a lot more. I don't get it...except our defense usually starts really slow and we typically play the Niners before we play the Hawks....only thing I can think of to explain it.

Perception is a funny thing. Wilson has been sacked 17 times in the last 2 years against the Rams. Our average OL struggles badly against your elite DL. On average, our games against the Rams the last 2 years are way closer than any of our other division rivals.

The Rams will be tough week 1.

I don't know. The Rams are built to play the Seahawks but the Rams usually don't have their collective act together to start the season. I like the continuity on Rams defense but offense early in the season is a concern. I sure hope the Rams sweep the division this year!

I hope to win the Mega Milliions lottery tomorrow night too. 8)

 

[Ramfan128]

The Rams the last few years have been the ultimate "any given Sunday team":

2011 win against Saints
2012 win and tie against 49ers, win against Seahawks
2013 wins against Colts, Texans
2014 wins against Seahawks, Broncos

There's another Saints win in there somewhere, and probably another win against a perennial playoff contender.

The Rams appear to be the scariest team to choose against in a knockout pool.

I respect that ability, but their overall execution as a team over a season has yet to yield at least .500 winning percentage over the last few years while that was a down year for SF last season.

So after all of these big out of division and conference upsets, why would anyone make a big deal about how the Rams fare against the NFC West?

The common sense answer here is that because we've done that the past two years without a starting caliber NFL QB. For as much flack as Kap gets, let's have every team in the NFC West play 16 games without their starting QB. IMO, the Rams finish 1st or 2nd place in that hypothetical scenario.

So what would a full season of a starting QB mean? I think potentially 2nd place. That's why it's exciting.

It's easy for other fans to just say the Rams haven't done anything in years...well, when you look at where each team would be without a starting QB....I think we're closer than people think to being contenders.

 

[hawknation2015]

Bottom line: Kaepernick will continue to fall apart in the 4th Quarter of games, just as he did in 2013 and 2014, because he has no mental fortitude.

 

[rideaducati]

The Rams the last few years have been the ultimate "any given Sunday team":

2011 win against Saints
2012 win and tie against 49ers, win against Seahawks
2013 wins against Colts, Texans
2014 wins against Seahawks, Broncos

There's another Saints win in there somewhere, and probably another win against a perennial playoff contender.

The Rams appear to be the scariest team to choose against in a knockout pool.

I respect that ability, but their overall execution as a team over a season has yet to yield at least .500 winning percentage over the last few years while that was a down year for SF last season.

So after all of these big out of division and conference upsets, why would anyone make a big deal about how the Rams fare against the NFC West?

The common sense answer here is that because we've done that the past two years without a starting caliber NFL QB. For as much flack as Kap gets, let's have every team in the NFC West play 16 games without their starting QB. IMO, the Rams finish 1st or 2nd place in that hypothetical scenario.

So what would a full season of a starting QB mean? I think potentially 2nd place. That's why it's exciting.

It's easy for other fans to just say the Rams haven't done anything in years...well, when you look at where each team would be without a starting QB....I think we're closer than people think to being contenders.

I think your hypothetical scenario in which all NFC West teams play with backup QB's is just wrong. For one, Seattle won more games with Tarvaris Jackson and he is not starting material. Secondly, the cards just won 11 games with their starter out for most of the year. Finally, Jeff Fisher is your coach and has taken much better teams to within one game of 8-8 NUMEROUS times.

As "dominant" as the rams D-line was against the pass, they still finished 13th in sacks and their defense as a whole finished 17th by finishing 19th against the pass, 17th against the run and 16th in points against. Funny, the rams defense shows zero improvement over the past two years and in fact, seems to be getting WORSE. In 2013, the rams overall defense finished 15th and was 19th against the pass, 9th against the run and 13th in points against.

Considering that Arizona's offense and their defense was ranked 24th and they won 11 games with backup QBs playing most of the season, I think there is a better case to be made for the rams still finishing last in the division with all teams having to play with their backup QBs.

 

[rideaducati]

Bottom line: Kaepernick will continue to fall apart in the 4th Quarter of games, just as he did in 2013 and 2014, because he has no mental fortitude.

Blaine Gabbert had more 4th quarter touchdown passes last season than Kaepernick did.

 

[Ramfan128]

The Rams the last few years have been the ultimate "any given Sunday team":

2011 win against Saints
2012 win and tie against 49ers, win against Seahawks
2013 wins against Colts, Texans
2014 wins against Seahawks, Broncos

There's another Saints win in there somewhere, and probably another win against a perennial playoff contender.

The Rams appear to be the scariest team to choose against in a knockout pool.

I respect that ability, but their overall execution as a team over a season has yet to yield at least .500 winning percentage over the last few years while that was a down year for SF last season.

So after all of these big out of division and conference upsets, why would anyone make a big deal about how the Rams fare against the NFC West?

The common sense answer here is that because we've done that the past two years without a starting caliber NFL QB. For as much flack as Kap gets, let's have every team in the NFC West play 16 games without their starting QB. IMO, the Rams finish 1st or 2nd place in that hypothetical scenario.

So what would a full season of a starting QB mean? I think potentially 2nd place. That's why it's exciting.

It's easy for other fans to just say the Rams haven't done anything in years...well, when you look at where each team would be without a starting QB....I think we're closer than people think to being contenders.

I think your hypothetical scenario in which all NFC West teams play with backup QB's is just wrong. For one, Seattle won more games with Tarvaris Jackson and he is not starting material. Secondly, the cards just won 11 games with their starter out for most of the year. Finally, Jeff Fisher is your coach and has taken much better teams to within one game of 8-8 NUMEROUS times.

As "dominant" as the rams D-line was against the pass, they still finished 13th in sacks and their defense as a whole finished 17th by finishing 19th against the pass, 17th against the run and 16th in points against. Funny, the rams defense shows zero improvement over the past two years and in fact, seems to be getting WORSE. In 2013, the rams overall defense finished 15th and was 19th against the pass, 9th against the run and 13th in points against.

Considering that Arizona's offense and their defense was ranked 24th and they won 11 games with backup QBs playing most of the season, I think there is a better case to be made for the rams still finishing last in the division with all teams having to play with their backup QBs.

I disagree. Firstly, the Seahawks haven't played with Jackson under center in three years, so you can't use what he did 4 years ago as proof of how it would be now - the NFC West as a whole was much worse then.

Secondly, Palmer started 6 games last year. Thats almost 40% of the season. Without Palmer they won 5 games. Without a starting QB we won 6. Would they have gone 1-5 without Palmer? Probably not, but it is possible. That offense was very very bad at the end of the year.

Thirdly, the Cardinals defensive ranking of 24th is precisely why I like the Rams over them for a whole season. Also, our defense was terrible for the first 8 games or so, and top 5 in the last 8 games - so there was a lot of improvement shown during the season.

Finally, what "much better" teams has Jeff Fisher coached and been around 8-8?? Aside from his Titan teams that were in the playoffs, he hasn't coached a team nearly this talented.

Making a comment about not showing progress is ignorant if you haven't watched all the games. Year end stats might look the same, but this defense was way better than previous years.

 

[ringless]

The Rams the last few years have been the ultimate "any given Sunday team":

2011 win against Saints
2012 win and tie against 49ers, win against Seahawks
2013 wins against Colts, Texans
2014 wins against Seahawks, Broncos

There's another Saints win in there somewhere, and probably another win against a perennial playoff contender.

The Rams appear to be the scariest team to choose against in a knockout pool.

I respect that ability, but their overall execution as a team over a season has yet to yield at least .500 winning percentage over the last few years while that was a down year for SF last season.

So after all of these big out of division and conference upsets, why would anyone make a big deal about how the Rams fare against the NFC West?

The common sense answer here is that because we've done that the past two years without a starting caliber NFL QB. For as much flack as Kap gets, let's have every team in the NFC West play 16 games without their starting QB. IMO, the Rams finish 1st or 2nd place in that hypothetical scenario.

So what would a full season of a starting QB mean? I think potentially 2nd place. That's why it's exciting.

It's easy for other fans to just say the Rams haven't done anything in years...well, when you look at where each team would be without a starting QB....I think we're closer than people think to being contenders.

I think your hypothetical scenario in which all NFC West teams play with backup QB's is just wrong. For one, Seattle won more games with Tarvaris Jackson and he is not starting material. Secondly, the cards just won 11 games with their starter out for most of the year. Finally, Jeff Fisher is your coach and has taken much better teams to within one game of 8-8 NUMEROUS times.

As "dominant" as the rams D-line was against the pass, they still finished 13th in sacks and their defense as a whole finished 17th by finishing 19th against the pass, 17th against the run and 16th in points against. Funny, the rams defense shows zero improvement over the past two years and in fact, seems to be getting WORSE. In 2013, the rams overall defense finished 15th and was 19th against the pass, 9th against the run and 13th in points against.

Considering that Arizona's offense and their defense was ranked 24th and they won 11 games with backup QBs playing most of the season, I think there is a better case to be made for the rams still finishing last in the division with all teams having to play with their backup QBs.

I disagree. Firstly, the Seahawks haven't played with Jackson under center in three years, so you can't use what he did 4 years ago as proof of how it would be now - the NFC West as a whole was much worse then.

Secondly, Palmer started 6 games last year. Thats almost 40% of the season. Without Palmer they won 5 games. Without a starting QB we won 6. Would they have gone 1-5 without Palmer? Probably not, but it is possible. That offense was very very bad at the end of the year.

Thirdly, the Cardinals defensive ranking of 24th is precisely why I like the Rams over them for a whole season. Also, our defense was terrible for the first 8 games or so, and top 5 in the last 8 games - so there was a lot of improvement shown during the season.

Finally, what "much better" teams has Jeff Fisher coached and been around 8-8?? Aside from his Titan teams that were in the playoffs, he hasn't coached a team nearly this talented.

Making a comment about not showing progress is ignorant if you haven't watched all the games. Year end stats might look the same, but this defense was way better than previous years.

Defensive ranking of 24th in what yards? We were one of the best PPG defenses in the league and we dominated 4th quarters.

Palmer was 6-0 and had a top 10 QBR in the league last season. I can cherry pick too! We also had 32 million on IR last year including all 4 of our 3-4 LB's. Our starting QB, our backup QB. We were using a 4th String QB at the end of the season. Our RB was on IR, over half our starters on Defense were on IR before week 4! And we still managed to not allow many points.

Larry got an MCL tear, so we were down to our 4th String QB, 3rd string RB as well, and still won 11 games.

 

[Rex]

Get used to 3rd place ringless. The Rams have arrived!

 

[ringless]

Yes Rex, as they have been the sleeper pick every year for 10 years..... Even a squirrel finds a nut sometimes... Maybe this year is the year, I don't know. But I do know eventually you are correct. The Rams will finish better than 3rd.

 

[Marvin49]

I'm sorry...I simply can't buy into the Rams.

Every year I hear how they are loaded and this is the year...and every year they are under .500.

Last year, the Niners essentially imploded under the weight of legal and coaching drama and 17 players on IR....

Yet still managed to win 2 more games than the Rams. I can't deny that talent in the front 7, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Maulbert]

Hawks finishes since realignment: 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1 Avg: 1.85
49ers finishes since realignment: 1, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 3 Avg: 2.46
Cards finishes since realignment: 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 1, 1, 4, 2, 4, 3, 2 Avg: 2.85
Rams finishes since realignment: 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4 Avg: 2.92

Written another way:

1st Place finishes in NFC West since Realignment:
Hawks: 7
49ers: 3
Cards: 2
Rams: 1

2nd Place finishes in NFC West since Realignment:
Rams: 5
49ers: 3
Cards: 3
Hawks: 2

3rd Place finishes in NFC West since Realignment:
49ers: 5
Hawks: 4
Cards: 3
Rams: 1

4th Place finishes in NFC West since Realignment:
Rams: 6
Cards: 5
49ers: 2
Hawks: 0

In other words, shaddup, Rex. You don't even have the cachet to ridicule Cards fans. BTW, a couple of interesting facts I hadn't realized before I looked up these numbers: Hawks haven't had a 4th place finish since 2000, and haven't finished in last place in their division since 1994. Only the Pittsburgh Steelers have gone longer without a last place finish in their division (1969, the year before they drafted Bradshaw). Also, Seattle is one of only 3 teams (Steelers, Patriots are the others) that have not finished in last in their division since realignment, and Seattle is the only NFC team to have done this. Kind of awesome. :th2thumbs: