That loss has made me optimistic and I will not be deterred.

[The Twelvethman]

It's all about fan preferences.

For me, there is nothing better than an outcome decided in the closing snaps of a game. It's the final minutes of a game that are most memorable.

2019 has been a very special year.

Looking forward to the game in Philly.

I agree 100% don't know how many here know of the All Blacks Rugby team but they are super successful at what they do, they dominate the opposition half of the time and win easily 20% of the other half, they are ranked the number 1 side in the world more times than not, they have a winning record against every team they've faced and they are national heroes in my country but I don't like watching them play because the result is almost a foregone conclusion.

But when a team pushes and challenges them to the end, whether they win or lose I find myself satisfied with what I've witnessed. Winning is great if your a player but the feelings you get when both teams have thier backs against the wall, do or die, all on the line come crunch time is the best a spectator can ask for IMHO.

 

[Hockey Guy]

I'm way more optimistic of our chances in the playoffs than I was a week ago after the loss to the Cardinals.

It's no guarantee, but we can beat the Eagles in Philly because we just did it last month in convincing fashion & we've been great on the road all year. We are also potentially getting healthier(Clowney, Wagner, etc.) & if we can get Diggs back he, along with a healthy Clowney, changes our defensive scheme as we have all seen.

If we get by the Eagles we probably play the 49ers again & that's a coin flip as long as we are not decimated by more injuries. Anything can happen.

As I said, I'm more optimistic now than a week ago.

 

[Popeyejones]

During the second half, Pete's depleted team outscored the peaking, fully healthy 49ers

LOL WHUT?


"Peaking" is going 4-3 in your last seven after having gone 8-0 in your first 8!??!!

"Fully healthy" is being down your starting DE, your starting DT, your starting MLB, your starting SS, and two starting o lineman? You know the 9ers were down both more starters and more second stringers in that game than the Seahawks, right?

By all means, feel good about your team, but don't just make stuff up for the feel goods.

 

[Scorpion05]

During the second half, Pete's depleted team outscored the peaking, fully healthy 49ers

LOL WHUT?


"Peaking" is going 4-3 in your last seven after having gone 8-0 in your first 8!??!!

"Fully healthy" is being down your starting DE, your starting DT, your starting MLB, your starting SS, and two starting o lineman? You know the 9ers were down both more starters and more second stringers in that game than the Seahawks, right?

By all means, feel good about your team, but don't just make stuff up for the feel goods.

Yes, because the teams you beat while going 8-0 were questionable.

Also, would you be able to elaborate on your point about having more injuries than the Seahawks? Let's review:

- Lost 3 tight ends (Dissly, Dickson, and Willson). Had to pull two tight ends from the practice squad.

- Lost 3 running backs (Carson, Penny, and Prosise). Had to pick up two older HBs off the street, and start the 4th string rookie.

- Lost Diggs, who is arguably just as, if not more important to our defense as Bosa or Sherman is to yours.

- Lost two wide receivers (Gordon, Brown). Although I personally see the loss of Brown as a plus, time will tell.

- Lost our Left Tackle, and our Center (Brown, and Britt). The O-line has struggled even more than usual since the loss of Britt, who was mainly responsible for communications.

- Clowney has a core injury and needs surgery.

- Lost Pocic, who was a backup Center/Guard and played really well this season.

- Lost Kendricks, our starting LB

- Lost Al Woods, one of our main NTs

And as a side note, Lockett was injured in the closing moments of the last Niners game, and just started to get back healthy.

So to review, up to this point we've lost 3 tight ends, 3 running backs, two wide receivers, an LT, C, and backup G, a FS, an LB, an NT, and a DE hampered by a core injury. So basically, 7 starters not playing, 1 starter very injured, and 3 semi-starters/backups.

Explain to me how the 49ers are harder hit by injuries. Because even when healthy, you still have the more talented team.

 

[Popeyejones]

During the second half, Pete's depleted team outscored the peaking, fully healthy 49ers

LOL WHUT?


"Peaking" is going 4-3 in your last seven after having gone 8-0 in your first 8!??!!

"Fully healthy" is being down your starting DE, your starting DT, your starting MLB, your starting SS, and two starting o lineman? You know the 9ers were down both more starters and more second stringers in that game than the Seahawks, right?

By all means, feel good about your team, but don't just make stuff up for the feel goods.

Yes, because the teams you beat while going 8-0 were questionable.

Also, would you be able to elaborate on your point about having more injuries than the Seahawks? Let's review:

- Lost 3 tight ends (Dissly, Dickson, and Willson). Had to pull two tight ends from the practice squad.

- Lost 3 running backs (Carson, Penny, and Prosise). Had to pick up two older HBs off the street, and start the 4th string rookie.

- Lost Diggs, who is arguably just as, if not more important to our defense as Bosa or Sherman is to yours.

- Lost two wide receivers (Gordon, Brown). Although I personally see the loss of Brown as a plus, time will tell.

- Lost our Left Tackle, and our Center (Brown, and Britt). The O-line has struggled even more than usual since the loss of Britt, who was mainly responsible for communications.

- Clowney has a core injury and needs surgery.

- Lost Pocic, who was a backup Center/Guard and played really well this season.

- Lost Kendricks, our starting LB

- Lost Al Woods, one of our main NTs

And as a side note, Lockett was injured in the closing moments of the last Niners game, and just started to get back healthy.

So to review, up to this point we've lost 3 tight ends, 3 running backs, two wide receivers, an LT, C, and backup G, a FS, an LB, an NT, and a DE hampered by a core injury. So basically, 7 starters not playing, 1 starter very injured, and 3 semi-starters/backups.

Explain to me how the 49ers are harder hit by injuries. Because even when healthy, you still have the more talented team.

Remember, the two claims I was objecting to were that last week the 9ers were 1) peaking and 2) fully healthy.

As for my claim that the 9ers were missing more starters than the Seahawks, that claim is based on the complex mathematical formula of addition. :lol:

STARTERS: DT + DE + MLB + SS + C + RG = 6 (if you want to count slot receivers as starters it would be 7, and if you want to count Goodwin as the starter -- which he was -- until he got injured and went on IR that would be 8, although I counted neither of them)

STARTERS: TE + RB + 1 C + LT + FS = 5 (if you want to pretend that Kendricks playing half a game counts as him never having played at all that's 6, but I didn't because as you can see above I'm not weasal counting on either side; I'm actually punishing the 9ers more than the Seahawks by not weasal counting).

If you want to do second stringers go for it for both teams and I'll fill in anything you left out and then we can count that up too. Maybe I'm wrong about second stringers but if you really want to know, by all means, do the work.

The discrepancy is that you want to engage in weasal counting for the Seahawks but not the 9ers, and I'm not engaging in weasal counting for either (e.g. you seem to want to count Clowney having been a limited practice participant on Wednesday and Thursday despite playing the whole game as a "missing starter", which I guess means Deebo Samuel (also an LP on Wed and Thurs) didn't play the game either :lol: . You also want to count a rotational lineman like Al Woods? Okay. Cool. If we're adding rotational lineman let's count Taylor, Blair, and Moore for the 49ers too. :roll:


Remember tho, I'm objecting to the claim that the 9ers were "fully healthy" -- that they were in fact missing more starters than the Seahawks was just a factual statement to rhetorically make the point.

At the end of the season every fanbase has convinced itself that their team is the only team with injury problems. It's just simply not true.

 

[Sports Hernia]

During the second half, Pete's depleted team outscored the peaking, fully healthy 49ers

LOL WHUT?


"Peaking" is going 4-3 in your last seven after having gone 8-0 in your first 8!??!!

"Fully healthy" is being down your starting DE, your starting DT, your starting MLB, your starting SS, and two starting o lineman? You know the 9ers were down both more starters and more second stringers in that game than the Seahawks, right?

By all means, feel good about your team, but don't just make stuff up for the feel goods.

Yes, because the teams you beat while going 8-0 were questionable.

Also, would you be able to elaborate on your point about having more injuries than the Seahawks? Let's review:

- Lost 3 tight ends (Dissly, Dickson, and Willson). Had to pull two tight ends from the practice squad.

- Lost 3 running backs (Carson, Penny, and Prosise). Had to pick up two older HBs off the street, and start the 4th string rookie.

- Lost Diggs, who is arguably just as, if not more important to our defense as Bosa or Sherman is to yours.

- Lost two wide receivers (Gordon, Brown). Although I personally see the loss of Brown as a plus, time will tell.

- Lost our Left Tackle, and our Center (Brown, and Britt). The O-line has struggled even more than usual since the loss of Britt, who was mainly responsible for communications.

- Clowney has a core injury and needs surgery.

- Lost Pocic, who was a backup Center/Guard and played really well this season.

- Lost Kendricks, our starting LB

- Lost Al Woods, one of our main NTs

And as a side note, Lockett was injured in the closing moments of the last Niners game, and just started to get back healthy.

So to review, up to this point we've lost 3 tight ends, 3 running backs, two wide receivers, an LT, C, and backup G, a FS, an LB, an NT, and a DE hampered by a core injury. So basically, 7 starters not playing, 1 starter very injured, and 3 semi-starters/backups.

Explain to me how the 49ers are harder hit by injuries. Because even when healthy, you still have the more talented team.

Remember, the two claims I was objecting to were that last week the 9ers were 1) peaking and 2) fully healthy.

As for my claim that the 9ers were missing more starters than the Seahawks, that claim is based on the complex mathematical formula of addition. :lol:

STARTERS: DT + DE + MLB + SS + C + RG = 6 (if you want to count slot receivers as starters it would be 7, and if you want to count Goodwin as the starter -- which he was -- until he got injured and went on IR that would be 8, although I counted neither of them)

STARTERS: TE + RB + 1 C + LT + SS = 5 (if you want to pretend that Kendricks playing half a game counts as him never having played at all that's 6, but I didn't because as you can see above I'm not weasal counting on either side; I'm actually punishing the 9ers more than the Seahawks by not weasal counting).

If you want to do second stringers go for it for both teams and I'll fill in anything you left out and then we can count that up too. Maybe I'm wrong about second stringers but if you really want to know, by all means, do the work.

The discrepancy is that you want to engage in weasal counting for the Seahawks but not the 9ers, and I'm not engaging in weasal counting for either (e.g. you seem to want to count Clowney having been a limited practice participant on Wednesday and Thursday despite playing the whole game as a "missing starter", which I guess means Deebo Samuel (also an LP on Wed and Thurs) didn't play the game either :lol: . You also want to count a rotational lineman like Al Woods? Okay. Cool. If we're adding rotational lineman let's count Taylor, Blair, and Moore for the 49ers too. :roll:


Remember tho, I'm objecting to the claim that the 9ers were "fully healthy" -- that they were in fact missing more starters than the Seahawks was just a factual statement to rhetorically make the point.

At the end of the season every fanbase has convinced itself that their team is the only team with injury problems. It's just simply not true.

:177692:
Oh boy.................
Nevermind, not worth it.

 

[Popeyejones]

Nevermind, not worth it.

Wise choice.

 

[olyfan63]

Nevermind, not worth it.

Wise choice.

I was questioning the "Healthy 49ers" line in that post as well.
Popeye broke it down nicely and accurately, from what I can tell.
What I knew, roughly:
* "Yeah, but Kittle..." was back.
* Their starting DT was out
* SS Tartt, the one who ripped the fumble from DK Metcalf, was still out

So to me it seemed the Niners were "slightly" more healthy than the Hawks compared to last game, mostly because we were missing Diggs. And with Clowney being an unknown. And I wasn't sure about our #1 CB Quill, but he was playing and on his game.

49ers were healthier for us Week 17 than they were for, IIRC, the Atlanta game, and a couple other games where they basically trotted out the JV defense. I confess I was "hoping" to still get the Niners JV defense. Nope, we got their Varsity defense, still a bit depleted though. And Deebo Samuel healthy enough to play--once again made key plays against us.

Anyway, thank you Popeye for responding with facts and data, football-related. A couple other threads lately turned into 80% pissing match content with NO actual football content, just steady yellow streams.

 

[fenderbender123]

I'm excited for this team. I think at the very least they will win the Super Bowl this year.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

During the second half, Pete's depleted team outscored the peaking, fully healthy 49ers

LOL WHUT?


"Peaking" is going 4-3 in your last seven after having gone 8-0 in your first 8!??!!

"Fully healthy" is being down your starting DE, your starting DT, your starting MLB, your starting SS, and two starting o lineman? You know the 9ers were down both more starters and more second stringers in that game than the Seahawks, right?

By all means, feel good about your team, but don't just make stuff up for the feel goods.

You make fair points. I stand corrected.

It wasn't a deliberate fabrication, just kind of an instance where I could have looked at the facts more closely before posting.

Still optimistic.

 

[olyfan63]

I agree 100% don't know how many here know of the All Blacks Rugby team but they are super successful at what they do, they dominate the opposition half of the time and win easily 20% of the other half, they are ranked the number 1 side in the world more times than not, they have a winning record against every team they've faced and they are national heroes in my country but I don't like watching them play because the result is almost a foregone conclusion.

But when a team pushes and challenges them to the end, whether they win or lose I find myself satisfied with what I've witnessed. Winning is great if your a player but the feelings you get when both teams have thier backs against the wall, do or die, all on the line come crunch time is the best a spectator can ask for IMHO.

At least a few here know of the All-Blacks Rugby team, but then a few might misinterpret the name. I have known them as a dominant team but that was 10ish years ago, so nice to hear they have maintained form. I've actually been to your fine country, but only for an airport layover, so that doesn't really count. I didn't get the Lord of the Rings sets tour. :-( I recently sent a Kiwi-born housemate to NZ for the holidays, but he's back now. I'll ask him if he's an All-Blacks fan and how they're doing.

 

[scutterhawk]

2010 ...GB made post as a wild card...got to and won the SB....so anything is possible .

2005 the Stealers id the exact same thing when they played against the Seahawks to win the Betis Bowl.
Wonder if the NFL will let us win a BEASTMODE BOWL?...…..nahh.

 

[Popeyejones]

During the second half, Pete's depleted team outscored the peaking, fully healthy 49ers

LOL WHUT?


"Peaking" is going 4-3 in your last seven after having gone 8-0 in your first 8!??!!

"Fully healthy" is being down your starting DE, your starting DT, your starting MLB, your starting SS, and two starting o lineman? You know the 9ers were down both more starters and more second stringers in that game than the Seahawks, right?

By all means, feel good about your team, but don't just make stuff up for the feel goods.

You make fair points. I stand corrected.

It wasn't a deliberate fabrication, just kind of an instance where I could have looked at the facts more closely before posting.

Still optimistic.

All good, and (sincerely) sorry for being a jerk about it; there was a less jerkish way for me to make the same post for sure.

And really no reason to not feel optimistic IMO.

If you guys get past the Eagles (which I'd expect you to) the 9ers and Seahawks split this year, and both games were coinflip games too (one score or less). Against each other there's no reason to believe these aren't entirely evenly matched teams.

If I'm the 5th seed and all the head up information so far says I have a 50/50 shot to beat the one seed, that's absolutely something to feel good about.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

2010 ...GB made post as a wild card...got to and won the SB....so anything is possible .

2005 the Stealers id the exact same thing when they played against the Seahawks to be handed the Betis Bowl by the NFL.......

FIFY

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

During the second half, Pete's depleted team outscored the peaking, fully healthy 49ers

LOL WHUT?


"Peaking" is going 4-3 in your last seven after having gone 8-0 in your first 8!??!!

"Fully healthy" is being down your starting DE, your starting DT, your starting MLB, your starting SS, and two starting o lineman? You know the 9ers were down both more starters and more second stringers in that game than the Seahawks, right?

By all means, feel good about your team, but don't just make stuff up for the feel goods.

You make fair points. I stand corrected.

It wasn't a deliberate fabrication, just kind of an instance where I could have looked at the facts more closely before posting.

Still optimistic.

All good, and (sincerely) sorry for being a jerk about it; there was a less jerkish way for me to make the same post for sure.

And really no reason to not feel optimistic IMO.

If you guys get past the Eagles (which I'd expect you to) the 9ers and Seahawks split this year, and both games were coinflip games too (one score or less). Against each other there's no reason to believe these aren't entirely evenly matched teams.

If I'm the 5th seed and all the head up information so far says I have a 50/50 shot to beat the one seed, that's absolutely something to feel good about.

Unfortunately for the Seahawks the week off your team has makes the odds more in the neighborhood of 55-45 in the 9ers' favor imo. Those could increase depending on how healthy Seattle comes out of the Philly game if we do win.

 

[Scorpion05]

Remember, the two claims I was objecting to were that last week the 9ers were 1) peaking and 2) fully healthy.

As for my claim that the 9ers were missing more starters than the Seahawks, that claim is based on the complex mathematical formula of addition. :lol:

STARTERS: DT + DE + MLB + SS + C + RG = 6 (if you want to count slot receivers as starters it would be 7, and if you want to count Goodwin as the starter -- which he was -- until he got injured and went on IR that would be 8, although I counted neither of them)

STARTERS: TE + RB + 1 C + LT + FS = 5 (if you want to pretend that Kendricks playing half a game counts as him never having played at all that's 6, but I didn't because as you can see above I'm not weasal counting on either side; I'm actually punishing the 9ers more than the Seahawks by not weasal counting).

If you want to do second stringers go for it for both teams and I'll fill in anything you left out and then we can count that up too. Maybe I'm wrong about second stringers but if you really want to know, by all means, do the work.

The discrepancy is that you want to engage in weasal counting for the Seahawks but not the 9ers, and I'm not engaging in weasal counting for either (e.g. you seem to want to count Clowney having been a limited practice participant on Wednesday and Thursday despite playing the whole game as a "missing starter", which I guess means Deebo Samuel (also an LP on Wed and Thurs) didn't play the game either :lol: . You also want to count a rotational lineman like Al Woods? Okay. Cool. If we're adding rotational lineman let's count Taylor, Blair, and Moore for the 49ers too. :roll:


Remember tho, I'm objecting to the claim that the 9ers were "fully healthy" -- that they were in fact missing more starters than the Seahawks was just a factual statement to rhetorically make the point.

At the end of the season every fanbase has convinced itself that their team is the only team with injury problems. It's just simply not true.

Awesome 8) , I love it. Let's jump right into it then.

First off, to start, since the Regular Season the 49ers, by my count have had 16 players injured. The Seahawks have had 19. Click https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/SEA/seattle-seahawks/injuries/ and https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/SF/san-francisco-49ers/injuries/ if you want to correct me or verify.

Since the Preseason, the 49ers have had 19 injuries, the Seahawks have had 22. I mentioned prior to the Regular season first though because...well..after the preseason players get cut right? Okay, let's move on.

I for one love to "weasal" count. Why? Because context matters. By analyzing the injuries in and of themselves, we get to factor in logic and reason as well, not just 3rd grade arithmetic :lol: . So I'm going to do what you really, probably don't want me to do. I'm going to "weasal" count my butt off, factoring in snap-counts especially. Hear we go:

Feel free to clarify about your starters, but I'm assuming you're including Kwon Alexander, Tartt, Dee Ford, Preston, Richburg, and Jones?

Okay so let's compare:

Comparing Deebo Samuel's non-serious shoulder injury to Clowney's significant core injury (in addition to getting over the flu) makes no sense, but fine, let's ignore that.

Duane Brown, Britt = Richburg and Jones. I actually think the former losses hurt more than the latter, but I'm biased. So fair.

Diggs = Tartt? Okay. I would argue Diggs significantly transforms our defense in comparison. But fine, trade-off there.

Kwon Alexander is a big loss. Perhaps, equal to Chris Carson in terms of impact? Okay cool.

Dee Ford and Jones? In addition to Goodwin?? Dissly, Luke Willson, and Dickson hurts more, but fine I'll bite. This is where your argument begins to fall off.

Let's start with Goodwin. Since week 6, his snap count fell significantly from 60% to 10%, and never rose to 35% after. That may have had something to do with...I'm guessing the trade of a STUD wide receiver in Emmanuel Sanders? Oh, nevermind let's ignore that context. Goodwin was a "Starter" so his loss was very impactful.

It's also hilarious that you dismissed Kendricks and Al Woods. Al Woods had 7 games where his snap count was over 50%, and 10 games where his snap count was over 40 %. He wasn't just a "rotational piece." He was SIGNIFICANT. In comparison, Dee Ford only had TWO GAMES where his snap count exceeded 40%. Context doesn't matter though, right?

Mychal Kendricks snap count exceeded more than 60% in 11 of his 14 games. That's more of an impact than DJ Jones, who never exceeded 50%. :lol: :lol:

So let's recap. So far, I've highlighted what actually matters. That the Seahawks not only have more injuries overall. They have lost more IMPACT PLAYERS than the Niners. Players that are a MAJOR part of the gameplan in each and every game.

If you like, I can go into others. Even Malik Turner, a 4th string WR, Josh Gordon, and Penny had relatively significant snap counts. Enough that their losses hurt, a lot. I took the time to look over some of the Niners injuries and the relative snaps/impact, and it doesn't compare. But feel free to dissect and follow up with your own research. I love to dig into the details.

You're right, every fan thinks their team is the more injured. But you wanna know why the media is focusing on the injuries the Seahawks and Eagles have faced, in comparison to the Patriots, Titans, and yes, even the Niners?? Because analysts are taking into account the impact of these injuries. The fact of the matter is, the Niners have far more key players healthy in comparison to the Seahawks.

If you want to purposely ignore, or dismiss that fine. But basic math is for 5th graders, context matters too. You have all of your key offensive weapons, and most of your key players on defense. No comparison.

Cheers :irishdrinkers:

 

[Popeyejones]

Awesome 8) , I love it. Let's jump right into it then.

Great. Let's recall though, the claim was that the 49ers were missing more starters than the Seahawks, and you objected to that claim.

First off, to start, since the Regular Season the 49ers, by my count have had 16 players injured. The Seahawks have had 19. Click https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/SEA/seattle-seahawks/injuries/ and https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/SF/san-francisco-49ers/injuries/ if you want to correct me or verify.

Since the Preseason, the 49ers have had 19 injuries, the Seahawks have had 22. I mentioned prior to the Regular season first though because...well..after the preseason players get cut right? Okay, let's move on.

Okay, sure, whatever. It has nothing to do with who was missing more starters in Week 17 but okay.

FWIW I didn't just look at IR because I think it really strains credulity for me to insist that Shawn Poindexter was some backbreaking loss for the 49ers or Adam Choice was some backbreaking loss for the Seahawks. :lol:

As we both know, every team's IR list includes guys who never really mattered to begin with, making straight counts of IR lists really noisy and beside the point.

I for one love to "weasal" count. Why? Because context matters. By analyzing the injuries in and of themselves, we get to factor in logic and reason as well, not just 3rd grade arithmetic :lol: . So I'm going to do what you really, probably don't want me to do. I'm going to "weasal" count my butt off, factoring in snap-counts especially. Hear we go:

So what you're saying is that rather than arguing the point we were arguing you'd instead now rather argue a different point? Okay, but not sure what that has to do with you objecting to my statement that the 9ers were down more starters than the Seahawks. :lol:

Comparing Deebo Samuel's non-serious shoulder injury to Clowney's significant core injury (in addition to getting over the flu) makes no sense, but fine, let's ignore that.

Yes, my point was that in a question of how many starters were missing counting Clowney (who played all game) in a discussion of missing starters didn't make any sense.

As for who was *more* injured however, if we did that we'd want an objective measure, not just weasel counting to get to desired conclusions. Clowney was a limited participant in practice all week, which is why I offered one of the 49ers limited participants in practice all week to make the point that you can't just start throwing guys who played the full game into the discussion based on limited practice participation for one team and not the other because it's convenient in the moment for you to do so.

Duane Brown, Britt = Richburg and Jones. I actually think the former losses hurt more than the latter, but I'm biased. So fair.

Diggs = Tartt? Okay. I would argue Diggs significantly transforms our defense in comparison. But fine, trade-off there.

Kwon Alexander is a big loss. Perhaps, equal to Chris Carson in terms of impact? Okay cool.

In my statement I very consciously did not make any claim about which missing starters were more important or of greater impact.

That wasn't because I'm afraid of doing so, but rather, because it's so subjective what's the point? You're a Seahawks fan and I'm a 49ers fan, and as fans of course we're both prone to overrating our own players. There's no right answer to a subjective question we both want to get our finger on the scale for, so I stuck with the easily measurable thing.

Dee Ford and Jones?

Yep, those were the other two.

In addition to Goodwin??...

Let's start with Goodwin. Since week 6, his snap count fell significantly from 60% to 10%, and never rose to 35% after. That may have had something to do with...I'm guessing the trade of a STUD wide receiver in Emmanuel Sanders? Oh, nevermind let's ignore that context. Goodwin was a "Starter" so his loss was very impactful.

I didn't count Goodwin, even though he was the starter earlier in the season before getting injured and going on IR, which you're documenting through your snap counts. As for Sanders, yes, that's precisely why I didn't count Goodwin! My thinking was that even if Goodwin had been healthy Sanders would have still overtaken him on the depth chart after the trade. So you agree with me that I'm counting fairly I guess. :lol:

Dissly, Luke Willson, and Dickson hurts more, but fine I'll bite.

I counted Dissly.

I didn't count Wilson and Dickson because I was counting starters. If you want to count #2 TEs you have to count Garrett Celek too. I didn't count him for the same reason I didn't count other non-#1 TEs. Why aren't you counting him?

(It's because you only want to do one-sided counting, which defeats the entire point of counting to begin with).

It's also hilarious that you dismissed Kendricks and Al Woods.

I "dismissed" Kendricks and Al Woods in counting how many starters each team had because (1) Kendricks played through the 3rd quarter of a game he supposedly wasn't playing in, and (2) Al Woods is...wait for it...not a starter.

Al Woods had 7 games where his snap count was over 50%, and 10 games where his snap count was over 40 %. He wasn't just a "rotational piece." He was SIGNIFICANT.

Is "SIGNIFICANT" just a fancy way to say not a starter? He's a rotational player. It's why I said if you want to bring in rotational players we have to start counting Ronald Blair, Damontre Moore, and Julian Taylor too, but it would take a lot more work to start throwing a bunch of rotational players and second and third stringers who are now injured into the pot, which neither of us seem willing to do (why I said if you want to go through all the backups for both teams have at it, and I'll correct and retract my statement about backups if it's wrong). Suspiciously it seems like you're solely invested in counting Seahawks rotational pieces and backups though, which I guess is cool for an apples to oranges comparison, but doesn't really help us here. :snack:

In comparison, Dee Ford only had TWO GAMES where his snap count exceeded 40%. Context doesn't matter though, right?

Yes. Dee Ford was injured in the pre-season and as Shanahan said repeatedly from the start of the season onward he had him on a pitch count and basically limited to 3rd downs because of his injury, until he missed two games, came back for two snaps, and then missed the last three games.

Your argument is that Dee Ford has been too injured to count as injured?

Or your argument is that the 49ers gave Dee Ford 18 million per year but just chose to not play him and him being significantly injured all year has just been some big sham? :?

Mychal Kendricks snap count exceeded more than 60% in 11 of his 14 games. That's more of an impact than DJ Jones, who never exceeded 50%. :lol: :lol:

You know which other game Mychal Kendricks had 54% of the snaps in? The game he played. The game you want to count him as not playing in...

So let's recap. So far, I've highlighted what actually matters. That the Seahawks not only have more injuries overall. They have lost more IMPACT PLAYERS than the Niners. Players that are a MAJOR part of the gameplan in each and every game.

So what actually matters is not the statement I made and the statement you objected to, but the shifting of the goalposts to something subjective that you'd now rather we be arguing about instead?

Again, I consciously made a point to not argue impact because it's a frothy sloppy homer mess of an argument between fans of different teams, and I'd honestly rather walk into traffic than get in a long argument about if Al Woods or Ronald Blair matter more. :lol:

Ten posts after that WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ARGUING ABOUT if Shawn Poindexter or Adam Choice matter more, and NOBODY wants that. :lol: :lol:

If you like, I can go into others. Even Malik Turner, a 4th string WR, Josh Gordon, and Penny had relatively significant snap counts. Enough that their losses hurt, a lot. I took the time to look over some of the Niners injuries and the relative snaps/impact, and it doesn't compare. But feel free to dissect and follow up with your own research. I love to dig into the details.

You say it doesn't compare, but you have zero interest in actually doing the work of making the actual comparison. I don't either. It's precisely why I'm not making "it doesn't compare" arguments.

You're right, every fan thinks their team is the more injured. But you wanna know why the media is focusing on the injuries the Seahawks and Eagles have faced, in comparison to the Patriots, Titans, and yes, even the Niners?? Because analysts are taking into account the impact of these injuries. The fact of the matter is, the Niners have far more key players healthy in comparison to the Seahawks.

I honestly have zero interest in getting in fights over subjective claims about what "the media" is saying. Sorry.

In terms of injury all I've been seeing is how injured the Eagles are. I mean, there's been a lot of news about Quandre coming back, and congrats for that (an important piece to the defense), but I've seen much more news about the loss of Juan Thornhill for the Chiefs than Mychal Kendricks for the Seahawks. See you how arguing any which way you want on subjective stuff is fun? The problem is it rarely tends to go anywhere.


As for "the fact of the matter", you certainly have a right to your opinion and I do not object to you holding your opinions, but I do object to you calling your opinions facts. It's why when debating across fandom sticking to facts that don't slip into weasel counting (e.g. me not counting Goodwin when I could have because I thought it more fair not to) is useful, IMO.

If you want to purposely ignore, or dismiss that fine. But basic math is for 5th graders, context matters too. You have all of your key offensive weapons, and most of your key players on defense. No comparison.

Cheers :irishdrinkers:

I agree that context matters.

You seem singularly invested in context mattering for the Seahawks though.

For reasons that are entirely unknown beyond it benefiting your argument you now seem to have decided that offensive weapons is what really matters.

For reasons that are entirely unknown the 9ers two major FA acquisitions who they're spending 33 million in cap space on now don't count as "key players."

There is "no comparison" because you are running amok on subjective, non-equally applied, wishy-washy drek in order to reach your desired conclusion.

Remember though, I said that the 9ers were missing more starters than the Seahawks last week. That's what you objected to.

Again, DT, DE, MLB, SS, C, G vs. LT, C, TE, RB, FS.

The rest of this is just noisy goal post shifting. :lol:

How about this: Last week the Seahawks and 49ers were both missing around 1/4 of their starters due to injury?

We'll squish 22% and 27% into around 25%. :lol: :lol:

What the heck ever. The statement still stands. :lol:

:2thumbs: :irishdrinkers:

 

[seahawksny]

I also am optimistic. Losing to this Eagle team will go down as extrmely disappointing. Up there with last years loss to Dallas. If we do lose, it will be because of gameplan though. Usually is. Run ball like crazy and have success early, then pete goes away from that and gets cute. Like Dallas Game.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Remember this--Coach is a genius at second-half adjustment. If we ever suck hard in the first half, I know we just need to stay close because the explosion will go down in the second half. He's also a great rah-rah guy during halftime. It is him and Wilson that are responsible for our record of close wins and fourth-quarter wins.

GO HAWKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I also am optimistic. Losing to this Eagle team will go down as extrmely disappointing. Up there with last years loss to Dallas. If we do lose, it will be because of gameplan though. Usually is. Run ball like crazy and have success early, then pete goes away from that and gets cute. Like Dallas Game.

Certainly would be disappointing, but not shocking.

If we're all being honest, this Hawk's team rode Russell's MVP performance early and some well timed luck with playing a bunch of backup QB's during the middle of the season to having probably a better record than they deserved with how poor the defense was for 80% of the season.

So while the Eagle's game is a game we should win, with how bad the NFC East was this year, and how bad the Eagle's are banged up? I wouldn't be shocked if we lost a close game in Philly.

I hope the defense can hold it together with Diggs back, but honestly I'd be proud of this Hawk's team winning on Sunday and then giving the Niners a run in the divisional round.