PFF: Highest Forced Missed Tackle %...

[CodeWarrior]

Petty arguments aside - Am I the only one who thinks Marshawn is a lock for the hall? He's a maniac.

My only hesitation is that the HoF too frequently rewards compilers rather than the most talented players and Lynch 1) had three pretty unproductive years in his last two years in buffalo and first year in Seattle, and 2) might retire early.

RB Inductees over the last 15 years:

Emmitt Smith: 21.5 K yards, 175 TDs
Marshall Faulk: 19K yards, 136 TDs
Barry Sanders 18K Yards, 110 TDs
Curtis Martin: 17K yards, 100 TDs
Thurman Thomas: 16.5 K yards,
Jerome Bettis: 15K yards, 95 TDs


Lynch right now: 10.5 K yards, 80 TDs.

For comparison's sake:

Gore: 14K yards, 75 TDs
Peterson 12K yards, 91 TDs

Lynch will be fine with the TDs, but will he play long enough to accumulate another 4,500 yards or so to even match the lowest yards total of a RB inductee in the 2Ks? I think that's not a given.

Shorter answer: I think he DESERVES to get in, but I'm not entirely convinced he will, as it will depend on how long he plays for and what he's able to do from this point forward. I friggin love him, but the HoF just loves long career compilers.

Terrell Davis will be a good barometer for Lynch's chances.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Yeah, I don't think he gets in. If he does it will be for being transcendent for three years before getting injured, but I think it's really pretty rare for them to reward that. Once you start rewarding folks like Davis it becomes hard to explain why someone like him belongs in the HoF and someone like Jamal Lewis doesn't (the problem being that Jamal Lewis doesn't belong). I mean heck, even if we're just talking Davis' Stephen Davis had as good or better of a three year run than Terrell Davis did.

 

[kearly]

I felt confident about the 49ers winning against Minny last week, the game kicked off at 9:20 pm body clock time for the Vikings. Try defending Kaep and Hyde at a time of day when you would normally be winding down for bed.

I think Hawknation overstated his case against Hyde, but in his defense: (a) He was really just trolling Marvin and (b) Hyde was at a HUGE advantage in week 1. And his opponent in week 2 is also pretty favorable. We should probably wait a month or two before we crown Hyde anything. That said, damn did he look awesome.

 

[Laloosh]

Found this kinda interesting.

Obviously incredibly small sample size on Hyde and the stat isn't the end-all, but interesting nonetheless.

THIS JUST IN: Marshawn Lynch is a monster.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... d-tackles/

Yeah, Hyde's legit with that burst.

I thought that the last of those tables was the most telling about two things:
1) Lynch is in a class of his own.
2) There really aren't very many backs that excel in this area and that does not bode well for Seattle's chances of effectively replacing him. Just have to pray that our OL turns into a really good run blocking line before next season.

 

[hawknation2015]

Hyde looks slow today, less than three yards per carry and looks like he may have hurt his ankle.

:stirthepot:

 

[WilsonMVP]

Hyde looks slow today, less than three yards per carry and looks like he may have hurt his ankle.

:stirthepot:

14 for 43 yards..guess its not as easy when you dont have a team coming from the other side of the country playing at 7:30 pacific time.

 

[Marvin49]

Oh pipe down you two. Lol

Short week, cross country trip to play team in their house on 10 days rest. Come on now. There was a reason a predicted a loss in this one.

Untimely penalties, injuries, DROPPED PASSES, and most if all complete inability to defend the deep pass or get pressure with 4 men are why they lost big.

 

[hawknation2015]

Oh pipe down you two. Lol

Short week, cross country trip to play team in their house on 10 days rest. Come on now. There was a reason a predicted a loss in this one.

Untimely penalties, injuries, DROPPED PASSES, and most if all complete inability to defend the deep pass or get pressure with 4 men are why they lost big.

Baghdad Bob is back to work.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Oh pipe down you two. Lol

Short week, cross country trip to play team in their house on 10 days rest. Come on now. There was a reason a predicted a loss in this one.

Untimely penalties, injuries, DROPPED PASSES, and most if all complete inability to defend the deep pass or get pressure with 4 men are why they lost big.

Baghdad Bob is back to work.

lol ya and im sure playing @SF at almost 7:30 with the Vikings also having 5 preseason games had nothing to do with it either.

 

[Marvin49]

Oh pipe down you two. Lol

Short week, cross country trip to play team in their house on 10 days rest. Come on now. There was a reason a predicted a loss in this one.

Untimely penalties, injuries, DROPPED PASSES, and most if all complete inability to defend the deep pass or get pressure with 4 men are why they lost big.

Baghdad Bob is back to work.

lol ya and im sure playing @SF at almost 7:30 with the Vikings also having 5 preseason games had nothing to do with it either.

Are you honestly going to tell me that a late start for an easy coast team IN WEEK ONE is the same thing as 4 fewer days rest? Please. Take off the glasses.

Lol. I predicted the loss. It was worse than I thought, but look in the prediction thread and you will see my prediction. They ran into a buzz saw today and it wasn't pretty.

 

[RichNhansom]

Oh pipe down you two. Lol

Short week, cross country trip to play team in their house on 10 days rest. Come on now. There was a reason a predicted a loss in this one.

Untimely penalties, injuries, DROPPED PASSES, and most if all complete inability to defend the deep pass or get pressure with 4 men are why they lost big.

Baghdad Bob is back to work.

lol ya and im sure playing @SF at almost 7:30 with the Vikings also having 5 preseason games had nothing to do with it either.

Are you honestly going to tell me that a late start for an easy coast team IN WEEK ONE is the same thing as 4 fewer days rest? Please. Take off the glasses.

Lol. I predicted the loss. It was worse than I thought, but look in the prediction thread and you will see my prediction. They ran into a buzz saw today and it wasn't pretty.

I would say it is much harder to play a game that goes until 1:00am your body clock time especially against an opponent that has been game planning against you for several months while you can't game plan at all against them because of an entirely new system.

Look at the Rams last week vs this week. Another situation of one team being able to game plan for months vs another who could not game plan at all. Then this week they lose to the Redskins. Probably one of the worst teams in football. Having game film on an opponent in the NFL is gigantic.

 

[Marvin49]

Baghdad Bob is back to work.

lol ya and im sure playing @SF at almost 7:30 with the Vikings also having 5 preseason games had nothing to do with it either.

Are you honestly going to tell me that a late start for an easy coast team IN WEEK ONE is the same thing as 4 fewer days rest? Please. Take off the glasses.

Lol. I predicted the loss. It was worse than I thought, but look in the prediction thread and you will see my prediction. They ran into a buzz saw today and it wasn't pretty.

I would say it is much harder to play a game that goes until 1:00am your body clock time especially against an opponent that has been game planning against you for several months while you can't game plan at all against them because of an entirely new system.

Look at the Rams last week vs this week. Another situation of one team being able to game plan for months vs another who could not game plan at all. Then this week they lose to the Redskins. Probably one of the worst teams in football. Having game film on an opponent in the NFL is gigantic.

Sigh.

You guys are right. Clearly the Vikings had a much tougher job when playing a late kickoff than the Niners with FOUR fewer days rest than their opponent. SMDH.

Amazes me sometimes the suspension of logic when it comes to critiques of rivals.

 

[Laloosh]

Sigh.

You guys are right. Clearly the Vikings had a much tougher job when playing a late kickoff than the Niners with FOUR fewer days rest than their opponent. SMDH.

Amazes me sometimes the suspension of logic when it comes to critiques of rivals.

 

[RichNhansom]

Sigh.

You guys are right. Clearly the Vikings had a much tougher job when playing a late kickoff than the Niners with FOUR fewer days rest than their opponent. SMDH.

Amazes me sometimes the suspension of logic when it comes to critiques of rivals.

HAHA, I know.

Marvin, there is a point of diminishing returns. These guys are all young and it is only week two. They don't benefit much from having a few more days off other than for game prep. But then you guys had a whole off season to game prep for the Vikings and they had zero prep time against your new system.

I don't know if it is tracked but if you looked up the stats for WC teams traveling east to play at 10am vs EC teams traveling west to play in a night game, I would bet the west coast teams have fared much better. In fact I bet it wouldn't even be remotely close. That being said I don't think the start time is the biggest factor. I think not being able to properly prepare your defense (or in the Vikings case even your offense) for what they are about to see is a much more difficult challenge. Adding the body clock to it only magnifies it.

 

[Marvin49]

Sigh.

You guys are right. Clearly the Vikings had a much tougher job when playing a late kickoff than the Niners with FOUR fewer days rest than their opponent. SMDH.

Amazes me sometimes the suspension of logic when it comes to critiques of rivals.

HAHA, I know.

Marvin, there is a point of diminishing returns. These guys are all young and it is only week two. They don't benefit much from having a few more days off other than for game prep. But then you guys had a whole off season to game prep for the Vikings and they had zero prep time against your new system.

I don't know if it is tracked but if you looked up the stats for WC teams traveling east to play at 10am vs EC teams traveling west to play in a night game, I would bet the west coast teams have fared much better. In fact I bet it wouldn't even be remotely close. That being said I don't think the start time is the biggest factor. I think not being able to properly prepare your defense (or in the Vikings case even your offense) for what they are about to see is a much more difficult challenge. Adding the body clock to it only magnifies it.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

The NFL really screwed the Niners on this one and IMO it's far, FAR worse for the. 49ers than it was for the Vikings. Sure, the Vikings didn't know exactly what the 49ers were going to do, but that sword cuts both ways. There is NOTHING fair about traveling to the east coast for an away game on 4 fewer days rest than your opponent.

Having said that, I want to be clear... I don't thing that's the only reason they lost not by a long shot. I think the age in the secondary got a brutal lesson at the hands of a great QB-WR combo. I think what I said last week on the webzine came to pass...all that blitzing was great against Bridgewater but what made the SF defense so good in the past was the ability to play guys like Roethlisberger with 4 down linemen and drop 7 and still get pressure. They couldn't do that today. Either they 'do send 4 and get no rush or they 'd blitz and he'd find the vacated spot.

Ugly on D today. No doubt about it. Also got exposed on the O-Line.

 

[Laloosh]

I don't know if it is tracked but if you looked up the stats for WC teams traveling east to play at 10am vs EC teams traveling west to play in a night game, I would bet the west coast teams have fared much better. In fact I bet it wouldn't even be remotely close. That being said I don't think the start time is the biggest factor. I think not being able to properly prepare your defense (or in the Vikings case even your offense) for what they are about to see is a much more difficult challenge. Adding the body clock to it only magnifies it.

For AFC/NFC North, East and South playing west coast night game (PST)
North 0-8
East 3-1
South 2-5

AFC/NFC playing east coast early games (EST)
West 41-56 (and that's with OAK being 0-14 lol)

Interesting note. Denver is 0-5 since 2010 in night games on the east coast.

 

[Marvin49]

I don't know if it is tracked but if you looked up the stats for WC teams traveling east to play at 10am vs EC teams traveling west to play in a night game, I would bet the west coast teams have fared much better. In fact I bet it wouldn't even be remotely close. That being said I don't think the start time is the biggest factor. I think not being able to properly prepare your defense (or in the Vikings case even your offense) for what they are about to see is a much more difficult challenge. Adding the body clock to it only magnifies it.

For AFC/NFC North, East and South playing west coast night game (PST)
North 0-8
East 3-1
South 2-5

AFC/NFC playing east coast early games (EST)
West 41-56 (and that's with OAK being 0-14 lol)

Interesting note. Denver is 0-5 since 2010 in night games on the east coast.

The thing is tho, the 10AM start wasn't the biggest factor to me. It's the 4 fewer days rest. I'm not going to suggest that if the rest is even then all of the sudden the Niners win the game, but I do think traveling on a short week against a team with 4 more days rest is a much bigger deal that an East Coast team travelling west and having not seen the other team before. Not seeing the other team play cuts both ways...the Niners hadn't seen the Vikings either.

 

[Laloosh]

I don't know if it is tracked but if you looked up the stats for WC teams traveling east to play at 10am vs EC teams traveling west to play in a night game, I would bet the west coast teams have fared much better. In fact I bet it wouldn't even be remotely close. That being said I don't think the start time is the biggest factor. I think not being able to properly prepare your defense (or in the Vikings case even your offense) for what they are about to see is a much more difficult challenge. Adding the body clock to it only magnifies it.

For AFC/NFC North, East and South playing west coast night game (PST)
North 0-8
East 3-1
South 2-5

AFC/NFC playing east coast early games (EST)
West 41-56 (and that's with OAK being 0-14 lol)

Interesting note. Denver is 0-5 since 2010 in night games on the east coast.

The thing is tho, the 10AM start wasn't the biggest factor to me. It's the 4 fewer days rest. I'm not going to suggest that if the rest is even then all of the sudden the Niners win the game, but I do think traveling on a short week against a team with 4 more days rest is a much bigger deal that an East Coast team travelling west and having not seen the other team before. Not seeing the other team play cuts both ways...the Niners hadn't seen the Vikings either.

Did the Vikings entire coaching staff and philosophy change? Honest question because if it didnt, I have no idea why you'd make the argument about not having seen the vikings.

 

[Marvin49]

I don't know if it is tracked but if you looked up the stats for WC teams traveling east to play at 10am vs EC teams traveling west to play in a night game, I would bet the west coast teams have fared much better. In fact I bet it wouldn't even be remotely close. That being said I don't think the start time is the biggest factor. I think not being able to properly prepare your defense (or in the Vikings case even your offense) for what they are about to see is a much more difficult challenge. Adding the body clock to it only magnifies it.

For AFC/NFC North, East and South playing west coast night game (PST)
North 0-8
East 3-1
South 2-5

AFC/NFC playing east coast early games (EST)
West 41-56 (and that's with OAK being 0-14 lol)

Interesting note. Denver is 0-5 since 2010 in night games on the east coast.

The thing is tho, the 10AM start wasn't the biggest factor to me. It's the 4 fewer days rest. I'm not going to suggest that if the rest is even then all of the sudden the Niners win the game, but I do think traveling on a short week against a team with 4 more days rest is a much bigger deal that an East Coast team travelling west and having not seen the other team before. Not seeing the other team play cuts both ways...the Niners hadn't seen the Vikings either.

Did the Vikings entire coaching staff and philosophy change? Honest question because if it didnt, I have no idea why you'd make the argument about not having seen the vikings.

No and I can see your point...

...but what killed the Vikings were all the runs utilizing zone-blocking. They had no answer every time Hyde would cut back. It wasn't exactly a secret that they had moved to that scheme and they'd been running it all preseason.

On DEFENSE you might have a point, but they blitzed in the preseason as well. Bowman had two sacks against Denver in a half of football.

I guess my objection is the assertion that the Monday night game was a mirage because they Vikings were at such a huge disadvantage while the Niners v Steelers was a truer picture since they didn't have nearly the same disadvantage going into Pittsburg on a short week, across the country, 10AM start, against a team on 10 days rest. Later assertions that the Vikings had a similar disadvantage the next week and won is even more ludicrous as they traveled back HOME for that game and didn't play a team with 4 more days rest.

I mean come on now. Certainly not saying the Vikings weren't at a disadvantage on Monday Night, but lets be reasonable. Even without the disadvantage, its very possible the score is exactly the same between SF and Pittsburg. I don't want to make out like it was THE reason they lost. But I think it IS fair to say the schedule makers didn't do them any favors in week 2. It was the perfect storm of bad schedule.

 

[Laloosh]

I'm not going to debate it because it wasn't my argument to begin with (and I've gotta get to work). I just provided the stats that someone asked for.