Pandion Haliaetus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,873
- Reaction score
- 838
To understand my argument, one has to first understand the state of the league, relatively in the last 5 years.
2008,
7-9: 2 teams
8-8: 5 teams
9-7: 6 teams
10+ wins: 10 teams
12-4: 4 teams
13+ wins: 1 team
16 teams were competitive, 5 elite
7 teams were mediocre
9 teams had 10 or more losses
2009,
7-9: 3 teams
8-8: 5 teams
9-7: 5 teams
10+ wins: 10 teams
12-4: 1 team
13+ wins: 3 teams
15 teams were competitive, 4 elite
8 teams were mediocre
9 teams had 10 or more losses
2010,
7-9: 3 team
8-8: 2 teams
9-7: 1 team
10+ wins: 13 teams
12-4: 1 team
13+ wins: 2 teams
14 teams were competitive, 3 elite
5 teams were mediocre
13 teams had 10 or more losses
2011,
7-9: 2 teams
8-8: 8 teams
9-7: 3 teams
10+ wins: 9 teams
12-4: 2 teams
13-3: 4 teams
12 teams were competitive, 6 elite
10 teams were mediocre
10 teams had 10 or more losses
2012,
7-9: 6 teams
8-8: 2 teams
9-7: 1 team
10+ wins: 13 teams
12-4: 2 teams
13+ wins: 2 teams
14 teams were competitive, 4 elite
8 teams were mediocre
10 teams had 10 or more losses
Elite Teams = 12+ wins
Competitive Teams = 9+ wins
Mediocre Teams = 7 to 8 wins
Bad Teams = 10 or more losses
What to Process from This Data? :
In the last 5 years of NFL Football,
I determine that 2010 was the least collective competitive season. While it tied for the 3rd highest season for Competitive Teams (14) it had the single highest total of least Competitive Teams (13). It also had the least amount of Mediocre Teams (5) and the least amount of Elite Teams overall (3). Very, very lack-luster.
So knowing that 2010 wasn’t a very good year overall in terms of parity and competition, what effect did the Lockout have on the 2011 season?
2011 had the least amount of Competitive Teams overall with 12 teams, and the only time in the last 5 years where the NFL failed to field ten 10+ win teams (it had 9). 2011 also had most Mediocre Teams with 10 teams overall which could have meant league wide parity or in reality most teams just weren’t up to quality or in sync which one would logically and generally expect after a lock-out.
The anomaly of course was that half of the Competitive Teams in 2011 were Elite. 6 teams had more than 12 wins in 2011. In the 4 other seasons that I showed the percentage of Elite Teams out of Competitive Teams was less than 32%.
2008 EoC: about 31%
2009 EoC: about 27%
2010 EoC: about 21%
2011 EoC: 50%!!!!!!!!!
2012 EoC: about 29%
2011 was the factor of two extremes, it produced the lowest amount of competitive teams with the highest total of elite teams to tell a story. One most definitely affected by the Lock-out and theoretically by the least competitive NFL Season in the last 5 years in 2010. 4 of the 6 had over 13 wins, and that’s pretty crazy and pretty rare to have 4 teams go over 13 wins, while 2 other teams had 12 victories as well.
The Elite 6 were Green Bay (15), New Orleans, New England, San Fran (13), Pittsburgh, Baltimore (12)
However, the 2011 post-season showed that Overall Record didn’t mean jack squat. And we saw two teams echo the 2010 Seahawks, a 7-9 team that had no business in the playoffs, shockingly, and thrillingly beat an 11-5 former Superbowl Champions, New Orleans Saints.
First, we saw an 8-8 Tim Tebow led Broncos thwart a 12-4 Steelers team; and then witnessed the eventual 2011 Super Bowl champions NY Giants, the lone 9-7 team, beat a 10-6 Falcons team, 15-1 Packers team @ Lambeau, a 13-3 49ers team @ Candlestick, and a 13-3 Patriots team in the Super Bowl.
It’s a funny thing when someone shoves a big, hefty record in your face, mockingly claiming superiority. Yet recent teams like 2008 Cards (9-7 winners of a bad division) go on to play in a Superbowl, like the 2010 Seahawks, like the 2011 Broncos, like the New York Giants… In the play-offs, records just don’t matter much nor where you come from.
(I’m starting to stray, so, let us get back track)
Where Am I Going With You Ask?
Well for starters all of the Elite 6 teams were Super Bowl participants (with SF and BAL coming after 2012 season). Also, besides SF, all of them have won the Super Bowl in the past decade from 2002 to 2012. Furthermore, Besides SF, all of the elite teams made the post-season the year prior in what I determined as the least competitive season in the last 5 years, 2010.
But that’s not my point, most of the Elite 6 teams have historically strong football foundations in this decade besides SF and NO. But the Saints were at least competitive since 2006 and won a Super Bowl in 2009… Bounty system or not. The ingredients of strong foundation includes great coaching, highly regarded front offices, as well as teams who historically did well in the draft or signed highly productive money free agents since 2005. All of these teams, more or less have had a strong core of players that played together for multiple seasons.
Since I’m a Seahawks fan, we play in the NFC West division, and we just love to hear how San Fran went 13-3 in 2011, how good they are now, how dominant, how much better they will be… they almost sound like a Keisha song… blah blah blah… but I’m about to burst the 49ers bubble, I’m about to refute the 49ers claim to absolute supremacy. They have an above quality team and one of the better ones overall in the league but it’s not the godsend-gridiron-holier-than-thou-angel force they parade it around to be, slapping it in our faces in every non-homer internet media outlet with a comment box any time someone mentions the Seahawks. I mean it so ridiculous, they even talk sh!t on Instagram. I’m also betting 49ers just Vox it up on how much the Seahawks suck.
I mean I get it, I do, 49er fans you’ve been so irrelevant for such a long time, it must be hard when you were at point where you were probably praying to your Bill Walsh Jesus and wishing on your lucky sharpie for the good ol’ days of Jeff Garcia and Terrell Owens. It sucks to suck, Seahawks fans have known this since our dark time in the 90’s. Its okay, West Coas Bros. You need not to mention your multiple championships, we know, you have 5 Golden Rings. Seahawks have zero. However, pride is a sin, and the more you San Fran fans look back, the harder it is to move forward. But I think that kind of backwards thinking, have definitely made the lot of you very delusional indeed. And honestly from what I’ve read and what I’ve seen from your fan base, In general, you guys are almost as bad with success as Cowboy fans are. And nobody wants that. Nobody wants another jerkoff, fan base rooted in a glorified past and seeded with delusions of grandeur because you had a couple of great seasons.
Knock! Knock! Who is there? Uhm, Reality Check…Let’s look at recent 49er history:
Last 5 years:
(2007: 5-11); 2008: 7-9; 2009: 8-8; 2010: 6-10; 2011: 13-3; 2012: 11-4-1
2 post season appearances in last 5 years: 2011, 2012
Prior to 2008, from 2003-2007: 0 post-season appearances.
Super Bowl Appearances in Decade: 1 (2012)
In comparison to the Seahawks:
Last 5 years:
(2007: 10-6); 2008: 4-12; 2009: 5-11; 2010: 7-9; 2011: 7-9; 2012: 11-5
2 post season appearances in last 5 years: 2010, 2012
Prior to 2008, from 2003-2007: 5 appearances
Superbowl Appearances in Decade: 1 (2005)
2007 matters only because it established draft position for 2008.
49ers couldn’t even win the division once when the Seahawks fell off their NFC West high-horse from 2008-2010. Seriously, in 2010 with much of your same core talent in place, you guys still went an abysmal 6-10, letting a pair of unappealing 7-9 teams win the division.
It wasn’t until the lockout year of 2011, when the league was dumbed way down following a greatly disappointing competitive season with another overall very uncompetitive season, before the 49ers could make a statement.
Which leads to the question… Why were the 49ers, so good in 2011?
Sure the coaching change from Singletary to Harbaugh helped. Hell, even the 2010 Seahawks team helped a little, being in the NFC West, 49ers players for sure saw the Seahawks team get gutted and fished around with over 250 transactions or so. 49ers players sure as hell weren’t going to be lethargic and apathetic, all of them were playing for their jobs and their future in the league… especially under a genius coach with a god complex meshed with the effervescent spirit of a little kid. (Seriously, Harbaugh would you like some cheese, with that whine, oh how San Francisco fits you so well in fact)
Part of it was also playing in one of the least competitive divisions at the time, sure Cardinals were 8-8 and the Seahawks were 7-9 but both had to catch up respectively going 7-1 and 5-3 in the final 8 games. So mid-season Cards were 1-7 and Hawks were 2-6. Rams finished with the 2nd worst record in the NFL.
Unfortunately, Harbaugh did not change much keeping much of the core that started or played in 2010, in the same capacity in 2011. Which turned out to be a very smart move on Harbaugh’s part. 49ers easily were tiered around the top amongst teams comprised with original, drafted and developed talent. High-end talent at that after years and years of being mediocre or sucking. Core talent with tons of experience with each other and matured chemistry that was strategically advantageous after a lock-out that was sand-whiched between two very bad seasons on competitive levels.
The 49ers would go on to reap the rewards of a stellar 2010 draft hitting on Anthony Davis, Mike Iputi, and Navorro Bowman. As well as, hitting a pass-rush jack pot on Aldon Smith in 2011. And signing some key free agents that transformed an already solid, experienced core into a force to be reckon with under Jimbo Harpy. Call it a plan, call it what you want, however, it was still lucky, by all means. Can you say Royal Flush?
San Francisco returned all players that started for their 2010 Offense (Notably of which many of the same players that also started for them in 2009), except for C David Baas who went on to win the Super Bowl with the NY Giants. Adam Snyder who started in years past replaced Chilo Richal at RG. Free Agent Jonathan Goodwin replaced Baas at center.
2011 Drafted Core Talent on Offense – Name (Year Drafted- Round):
Smith (2005-1), Gore (2005-3), Crabtree (2009-1), Morgan (2008-6), Staley (2007-1), Davis (2010-1), Iputati (2010-1), Snyder (2005-3), Miller (2011-7), Walker (2006-6), Kaepernick (2011-2).
Free Agent Addition: J.Goodwin (2011), B. Edwards (2011), D. Akers, (2011), Ted Ginn (2009), M. Norris (2006, excluding 1 season with Detriot in 2008, but came back to SFO in 2009)
Other OFF players: K. Williams (2010-6), K-Hunter (2011-4), A. Boone (2010- udfa), C. Rachal (2005-2),
Key Offensive Injuries: Josh Morgan (played only 5 games, 5 starts), presumably Moran Norris (played in 5, started 2), RG Adam Snyder missed 3 games.
Defensively, San Fran only returned 6 of the 11 players that started in 2010. However, 9 of the 11 players that started in 2011, were already on the roster. Tarrell Brown replaced Shawntae Spencer at CB. Harbaugh then promoted Brooks, Bowman, and McDonald to the starting line-up. SF added the other 2 starters Rogers and Whitner through free agency.
2011 Drafted Core on Defense:
Sopopoga (2004-4), McDonald (2007-4), P. Willis (2005-1), N. Bowman (2010-3),A. Smith (2011-1), P. Haralson (2006-5), T. Brown (2007-5), D. Goldson (2007-4), S. Spencer (2004-2) + A. Lee (2004-6)
Free Agents: J. Smith (2008), A. Brooks (2008), D. Whitner (2011), C. Rogers (2011), M. Williams (2011), T. Gooden (2011)
Other DEF players: Chris Culliver (2011-3), Jean-Francios (2009-7), L. Grant (2008-7)
Key Defensive Injuries: From what I can find that was severe, they lost Patrick Willis for whopping 3 games.
HEALTH & FITNESS:
To gauge the health of an entire team through a whole season one shouldn’t focus on the individual impact but to broaden it towards a collective impact, even though injuries to key players is important, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Where I decided to quantify the health of a team is through the number of active roster players through an entire season.
According to data from pro-football-reference.com the 49ers had 55 players to make their 53-man roster over the course of the 2011 season. Meaning more or less at most only 2 of their players were placed on I.R. which I think is correct and if I am would be Morgan and Norris.
In comparison, the Seahawks had 69 players active on their roster at one point or another, I’m not going to say all 16 players in difference were placed on I.R. but I do know the Seahawks suffered through a barrage of injuries in which 12 players were out for at least 4 or more games. San Fran had 2, just 2 players that missed more than 4 games in 2011. Seahawks had 12! And that’s not even mentioning John Carlson who was placed on I.R. prior to the season, so, I could say 13?
(I’ll let that stew a little bit)
In 2010, the Seahawks made well over 2 hundred blah blah transactions, plus had 5 key injuries from what I could determine: Mebane, Bryant, Cole, Unger, Okung, plus (Ben Hamilton but I’m not sure if he was placed on I.R. or just cut, also he wasn’t necessarily key and possibly Mike Rob)… in which they had 68 players active on the roster. It puts a cheap smile on my face knowing that the Seahawks won their division even though the bottom half of their roster more or less was a glorified open competition throughout the 2010 season.
Back to 2011, the injury factor was devastating on many levels and excuse or no excuse it would hard to argue that the multitude of injuries did not affect the competiveness of the team. Anyone with a logical brain would know that it did:
Tarvaris Jackson played with a torn pectoral muscle for much the season
Marshawn Lynch was bothered with a bad back in which he not only missed a game, but it was an injury that has been monitored ever since.
Seahawks lost starting WRs Sidney Rice and Mike Williams, Deon Butler, and rookie Kris Durham
Seahawks projected starting O-line played in a collective 57 starts out of 80. If I remember correctly, they never played in one full game together (Compared that to San Fran’s O-line whose starters played 77 out of 80 collective starts.)
Seahawks also traded starter A. Curry (2009-1) mid-season, starting a rookie K.J. Wright (2011-4) in his place.
While much of the core D-Line and Lbers stayed healthy, Seahawks lost their No. 1, 3, and 5 on the CB depth chart: Marcus Trufant, Walter Thurmond, and Roy Lewis.
Injuries or lack thereof play a contributing factor to the overall success of the 49ers in 2011. Not only did they have the luxury of starting out faster than most teams because core players were in place and much of the team experience and chemistry had already been established in prior seasons… there were no in-season hiccups, the 49ers were also lucky enough to stay healthy allowing them to become even better as a team during an uncompetitive and retarded (as in slow) league.
Injuries and the pile-on-of, were critical hindrances for the Seahawks, they were a team in the process of establishing core players, and a team in a state of transition with over 40 players removed from what was left remaining from the 2009 team. Which meant only 13 original Seahawks remained Pre-Carroll. A number that would dwindle to 7 in 2012. Heading into 2013, only 4 players remain pre-Carroll: Unger, Mebane, Bryant, and Jon Ryan. For a team lacking chemistry and experience, for a team in transition to suffer through a shortened off-season and the barrage of key injuries for the team to survive and rally back going 5-3 in the 2nd half to finish 7-9 really showed some moxie and backbone. Seahawks easily could have sucked for Luck after starting 2-6, but ain’t nobody got time for that, at least not the young Seahawks team who believed they were better than that.
Which leads to the final part of my argument:
AGE, EXPERIENCE, and ROOKIE IMPACT.
In 2010, 49ers averaged 26.7 years of age and 3.9 years in the league.
In 2011, 49ers averaged 26.0 years of age and 3.0 years in the league
In 2012, 49ers averaged 26.7 years of age and 3.9 years in the league.
From what I could determine of the 49ers:
In 2010, 4 rookies made 39 starts: Davis (16), Iputi (16), Bowman (1), Mays (6)
In 2011, 2 rookies made 9 starts: Hunter (1), FB Miller (9)
In 2012, 0 rookies made 0 starts
In 2010, Seahawks avg. 27.0 years of age and 3.9 years in the league.
In 2011, Seahawks avg. 25.4 years of age and 2.4 years in the league.
In 2012, Seahawks avg. 25.5 years of age and 2.6 years in the league.
In 2010, 4 rookies made 28 starts: Thomas (16), Okung (10), Thurmond (1), Ness (1)
In 2011, 5 rookies made 45 starts: Wright (12), Sherman (10), Carpenter (9), Moffitt (9), Jeanpierre (5)
I did not count Browner who is listed as a rookie and made 16 starts.
In 2012, 5 rookies made 38 starts: Wilson (16), Wagner (15), Sweezy (3), Lane (3), Kearse (1)
SF, from ’10 to ’12, 6 rookies made 48 starts.
SEA, from ’10 to ’12, 14 rookies made 121 starts.
Numbers are based from Pro-Football-Reference.com.
Both teams in 2010 were on par in age and experience. 49ers had the edge in rookie impact but if Okung wasn’t injured Seahawks likely would’ve had 34 starts to 49er’s 39. Also, seeing how Mays didn’t even play for SFO in 2011, one could recognized his 6 starts had no value and one could adjust their total to 33 starts. For the Seahawks, take away Ness’ start because he doesn’t factor in future seasons but account for Okung’s injury would put the Seahawks also at 33 starts.
In 2011, the 49ers experienced an average drop-off in age of about 7 months, and a drop of in experience of about 11 months. While Aldon Smith was making considerable impact, he did not start a game.
The Seahawks felt it even more so, with a drop of average age of about a year and 5 months and a drop of average experience of exactly a year and 6 months. A relatively big difference in football years. Seahawks only started Carpenter and Moffitt but injuries and a trade opened the door for Wright, Sherman, and Jeanpierre.
In 2012, 49ers progressed back to their 2010 averages, while the Seahawks kept it very close to their 2011 average almost exact, evidence that they were actually becoming a younger team overall. Seahawks only had 58 players active players during this season. However, their 2011 core that rolled over would all be a year older, yet the Seahawks experienced an average minimal increase in age and experience which meant the team was overall younger in 2012 than it was in 2011.
ENDING STATEMENT:
Whether the 49er fans fail to see it or not, both teams are pretty evenly match with the only difference being that the Seahawks are collectively younger in which I estimated to about a year behind the 49ers in terms of experience/ team chemistry factors. In 2010, both teams were similar w/ 49ers finishing 6-10, and the Seahawks finishing 7-9.
In 2011, the 49ers finally went on rampage after a decade of sucking going 13-3. While a very young Seahawks team battled through an army of brash injuries and further constant change to finish a respectable 7-9, after starting 2-6.
One could argue, that if the lockout didn’t exist, more teams would have time to prepare, especially the teams in which the core talent hadn’t been in place with years of experience. Prime example being the 49ers.
So I’ll argue (theoretically of course) without the lockout one could subtract about 1-2 wins from the 49ers, a team with a strong core with years of experience.
Without the lockout you could add 1-2 wins from the Seahawks, a reasonably competitive team, but one where a whole off-season would have made a difference because the constant change through transition, lack of chemistry, as well as lack of experience affected overall success factors.
Then the health outlook played a major factor in both stories. It would be hard to say, because its one extreme to another, that if the Seahawks were as healthy as the 49ers they would have won 2 more games although it’s a conceivable idea. Or to say if the 49ers had been as unhealthy and unlucky as the Seahawks they would have won 2 less games although that as well is conceivable. So my argument will be in the middle: if the Seahawks were half as healthy as the 49ers and the 49ers were half as unhealthy as the Seahawks you could understandably add a win to the Seahawks, and subtract a win from the 49ers.
So theoretically but always within logic, with better health and without the lockout obviously staggering necessary chemistry and competitive growth and injuries hindering any sustainable success, Seahawks could have been about a 9 win, 10 win team in 2011.
In the same light, the 49ers likely could have been a 10 win, 11 win team at best had more teams been more competitive as well as if the 49ers had to endure half as much of the injuries that the Seahawks dealt with in 2011. But again in the end, 13 wins got nobody nothing in the 2011 as a 9-7 team won it all defeating half of the elite teams in the process.
People could say I’m making excuses (ahem 49er fans) but I’m honestly just making very logical points. Even if they are just theoretical.
In 2012, SFO ended the season in what I would quantify a disappointing 11-4-1 (as much as their fans talk alpha superiority and being the best team in the NFL) before winning representing the NFC in the Super Bowl. A game in which they were being thoroughly decimated in until a well-timed black-out snuffed Baltimore’s momentum and allowed the 49ers to make it interesting. I’ll admit that day I was rooting for the NFC team.
However, a younger team in every aspect, in age, in experience, in rookie starts/impact compared to SF ended the season at a very promising 11-5. And the one contributing factor as to why the Seahawks were the slightly better team in 2012 even though the 49ers went on to the Super Bowl. Is simply competitiveness. Competitive attitude. Competitive nature. Competitive will. Simply, the 2012 Seahawks weren’t blown out of any game
Seahawk’s loss deficits were always a score within reach by 7 points, 6 points, 4 points, 4 points, 3 points, and 2 points (Playoffs @ ATL). 6 losses, 28 total points. An adjusted 34 points away from perfection. 34 points. That’s pretty effin amazing, for a young and inexperienced team, with many rookies contributing in key aspects.
49ers from what I can remember were blown out by the Giants and as we all know the Seahawks, 42-13.
So who cares if the 49ers won 13 games in probably the easiest season ever for a team to win 13 games. Congratulations, you still loss to a 9-7 team which is the equivalent of Seahawks beating New Orleans in 2010. Who even cares if the 49ers made it to Super Bowl in a season where the Seahawks and 49ers were practically evenly matched even though the 49ers had plenty of age and experience on the Seahawks. In retrospect, 49ers probably lucked out that the Falcons came back to win in the last 30 seconds vs the Seahawks. I don’t think the 49ers wanted another helping of Seahawks smash-mouth football as well as the Seahawks likely weakened the Falcons’ constitution in the worst of ways as they watched their team fall behind after having a 20-0 half-time lead.
So by factoring age, experience, and overall competitiveness of the 2012 season, Seahawks were the better team of the two, and once the Seahawks progress more towards the 4.0 value in terms of avg. league experience, Seahawks should transform into a consistently elite team on a year to year basis. As the Seahawks 2012 team was basically the 49ers 2011 team, in which they were finally able to field a team with a strong core and start developing the chemistry that should continue grow and resonate for years to come upon future Seahawks team.
ESPN has the futures power rankings so wrong, seriously again 6 rookies, 48 starts for San Fran since 2010. 5 rookies, 42 starts not counting Taylor Mays. 0 starts in 2012. Please. 11-4-1.
Seahawks again started 5 rookies in 2012 with 2 others making significant to contributive impact (Irvin, Scruggs). Seahawks finished 11-5.
Once again San Fran Fans gloat all you want about your big, bad meteoric rise from the ashes into being relevant, keeping looking back, too, because if you dare to look ahead, reality should give you a face full of blue and green talon with some distasteful shades of grey. And plenty of the greatest photo ops of the tantrum throwing toddler with a brain in an adult body, Jim Harbaugh.
Sincerely, and most importantly, GOOD LUCK, SAN FRAN. (You’ll need it, and please save this post, ingrain it into the preciously good memories you seem to have, "ring" a bell, remember it well, "5" times should be swell)
SEAHAWKS > 49ERS
SEAHAWKS > 49ERS
SEATTLE > SAN FRANCISCO
WILSON > KAEPERNICK
42 > 13
2008,
7-9: 2 teams
8-8: 5 teams
9-7: 6 teams
10+ wins: 10 teams
12-4: 4 teams
13+ wins: 1 team
16 teams were competitive, 5 elite
7 teams were mediocre
9 teams had 10 or more losses
2009,
7-9: 3 teams
8-8: 5 teams
9-7: 5 teams
10+ wins: 10 teams
12-4: 1 team
13+ wins: 3 teams
15 teams were competitive, 4 elite
8 teams were mediocre
9 teams had 10 or more losses
2010,
7-9: 3 team
8-8: 2 teams
9-7: 1 team
10+ wins: 13 teams
12-4: 1 team
13+ wins: 2 teams
14 teams were competitive, 3 elite
5 teams were mediocre
13 teams had 10 or more losses
2011,
7-9: 2 teams
8-8: 8 teams
9-7: 3 teams
10+ wins: 9 teams
12-4: 2 teams
13-3: 4 teams
12 teams were competitive, 6 elite
10 teams were mediocre
10 teams had 10 or more losses
2012,
7-9: 6 teams
8-8: 2 teams
9-7: 1 team
10+ wins: 13 teams
12-4: 2 teams
13+ wins: 2 teams
14 teams were competitive, 4 elite
8 teams were mediocre
10 teams had 10 or more losses
Elite Teams = 12+ wins
Competitive Teams = 9+ wins
Mediocre Teams = 7 to 8 wins
Bad Teams = 10 or more losses
What to Process from This Data? :
In the last 5 years of NFL Football,
I determine that 2010 was the least collective competitive season. While it tied for the 3rd highest season for Competitive Teams (14) it had the single highest total of least Competitive Teams (13). It also had the least amount of Mediocre Teams (5) and the least amount of Elite Teams overall (3). Very, very lack-luster.
So knowing that 2010 wasn’t a very good year overall in terms of parity and competition, what effect did the Lockout have on the 2011 season?
2011 had the least amount of Competitive Teams overall with 12 teams, and the only time in the last 5 years where the NFL failed to field ten 10+ win teams (it had 9). 2011 also had most Mediocre Teams with 10 teams overall which could have meant league wide parity or in reality most teams just weren’t up to quality or in sync which one would logically and generally expect after a lock-out.
The anomaly of course was that half of the Competitive Teams in 2011 were Elite. 6 teams had more than 12 wins in 2011. In the 4 other seasons that I showed the percentage of Elite Teams out of Competitive Teams was less than 32%.
2008 EoC: about 31%
2009 EoC: about 27%
2010 EoC: about 21%
2011 EoC: 50%!!!!!!!!!
2012 EoC: about 29%
2011 was the factor of two extremes, it produced the lowest amount of competitive teams with the highest total of elite teams to tell a story. One most definitely affected by the Lock-out and theoretically by the least competitive NFL Season in the last 5 years in 2010. 4 of the 6 had over 13 wins, and that’s pretty crazy and pretty rare to have 4 teams go over 13 wins, while 2 other teams had 12 victories as well.
The Elite 6 were Green Bay (15), New Orleans, New England, San Fran (13), Pittsburgh, Baltimore (12)
However, the 2011 post-season showed that Overall Record didn’t mean jack squat. And we saw two teams echo the 2010 Seahawks, a 7-9 team that had no business in the playoffs, shockingly, and thrillingly beat an 11-5 former Superbowl Champions, New Orleans Saints.
First, we saw an 8-8 Tim Tebow led Broncos thwart a 12-4 Steelers team; and then witnessed the eventual 2011 Super Bowl champions NY Giants, the lone 9-7 team, beat a 10-6 Falcons team, 15-1 Packers team @ Lambeau, a 13-3 49ers team @ Candlestick, and a 13-3 Patriots team in the Super Bowl.
It’s a funny thing when someone shoves a big, hefty record in your face, mockingly claiming superiority. Yet recent teams like 2008 Cards (9-7 winners of a bad division) go on to play in a Superbowl, like the 2010 Seahawks, like the 2011 Broncos, like the New York Giants… In the play-offs, records just don’t matter much nor where you come from.
(I’m starting to stray, so, let us get back track)
Where Am I Going With You Ask?
Well for starters all of the Elite 6 teams were Super Bowl participants (with SF and BAL coming after 2012 season). Also, besides SF, all of them have won the Super Bowl in the past decade from 2002 to 2012. Furthermore, Besides SF, all of the elite teams made the post-season the year prior in what I determined as the least competitive season in the last 5 years, 2010.
But that’s not my point, most of the Elite 6 teams have historically strong football foundations in this decade besides SF and NO. But the Saints were at least competitive since 2006 and won a Super Bowl in 2009… Bounty system or not. The ingredients of strong foundation includes great coaching, highly regarded front offices, as well as teams who historically did well in the draft or signed highly productive money free agents since 2005. All of these teams, more or less have had a strong core of players that played together for multiple seasons.
Since I’m a Seahawks fan, we play in the NFC West division, and we just love to hear how San Fran went 13-3 in 2011, how good they are now, how dominant, how much better they will be… they almost sound like a Keisha song… blah blah blah… but I’m about to burst the 49ers bubble, I’m about to refute the 49ers claim to absolute supremacy. They have an above quality team and one of the better ones overall in the league but it’s not the godsend-gridiron-holier-than-thou-angel force they parade it around to be, slapping it in our faces in every non-homer internet media outlet with a comment box any time someone mentions the Seahawks. I mean it so ridiculous, they even talk sh!t on Instagram. I’m also betting 49ers just Vox it up on how much the Seahawks suck.
I mean I get it, I do, 49er fans you’ve been so irrelevant for such a long time, it must be hard when you were at point where you were probably praying to your Bill Walsh Jesus and wishing on your lucky sharpie for the good ol’ days of Jeff Garcia and Terrell Owens. It sucks to suck, Seahawks fans have known this since our dark time in the 90’s. Its okay, West Coas Bros. You need not to mention your multiple championships, we know, you have 5 Golden Rings. Seahawks have zero. However, pride is a sin, and the more you San Fran fans look back, the harder it is to move forward. But I think that kind of backwards thinking, have definitely made the lot of you very delusional indeed. And honestly from what I’ve read and what I’ve seen from your fan base, In general, you guys are almost as bad with success as Cowboy fans are. And nobody wants that. Nobody wants another jerkoff, fan base rooted in a glorified past and seeded with delusions of grandeur because you had a couple of great seasons.
Knock! Knock! Who is there? Uhm, Reality Check…Let’s look at recent 49er history:
Last 5 years:
(2007: 5-11); 2008: 7-9; 2009: 8-8; 2010: 6-10; 2011: 13-3; 2012: 11-4-1
2 post season appearances in last 5 years: 2011, 2012
Prior to 2008, from 2003-2007: 0 post-season appearances.
Super Bowl Appearances in Decade: 1 (2012)
In comparison to the Seahawks:
Last 5 years:
(2007: 10-6); 2008: 4-12; 2009: 5-11; 2010: 7-9; 2011: 7-9; 2012: 11-5
2 post season appearances in last 5 years: 2010, 2012
Prior to 2008, from 2003-2007: 5 appearances
Superbowl Appearances in Decade: 1 (2005)
2007 matters only because it established draft position for 2008.
49ers couldn’t even win the division once when the Seahawks fell off their NFC West high-horse from 2008-2010. Seriously, in 2010 with much of your same core talent in place, you guys still went an abysmal 6-10, letting a pair of unappealing 7-9 teams win the division.
It wasn’t until the lockout year of 2011, when the league was dumbed way down following a greatly disappointing competitive season with another overall very uncompetitive season, before the 49ers could make a statement.
Which leads to the question… Why were the 49ers, so good in 2011?
Sure the coaching change from Singletary to Harbaugh helped. Hell, even the 2010 Seahawks team helped a little, being in the NFC West, 49ers players for sure saw the Seahawks team get gutted and fished around with over 250 transactions or so. 49ers players sure as hell weren’t going to be lethargic and apathetic, all of them were playing for their jobs and their future in the league… especially under a genius coach with a god complex meshed with the effervescent spirit of a little kid. (Seriously, Harbaugh would you like some cheese, with that whine, oh how San Francisco fits you so well in fact)
Part of it was also playing in one of the least competitive divisions at the time, sure Cardinals were 8-8 and the Seahawks were 7-9 but both had to catch up respectively going 7-1 and 5-3 in the final 8 games. So mid-season Cards were 1-7 and Hawks were 2-6. Rams finished with the 2nd worst record in the NFL.
Unfortunately, Harbaugh did not change much keeping much of the core that started or played in 2010, in the same capacity in 2011. Which turned out to be a very smart move on Harbaugh’s part. 49ers easily were tiered around the top amongst teams comprised with original, drafted and developed talent. High-end talent at that after years and years of being mediocre or sucking. Core talent with tons of experience with each other and matured chemistry that was strategically advantageous after a lock-out that was sand-whiched between two very bad seasons on competitive levels.
The 49ers would go on to reap the rewards of a stellar 2010 draft hitting on Anthony Davis, Mike Iputi, and Navorro Bowman. As well as, hitting a pass-rush jack pot on Aldon Smith in 2011. And signing some key free agents that transformed an already solid, experienced core into a force to be reckon with under Jimbo Harpy. Call it a plan, call it what you want, however, it was still lucky, by all means. Can you say Royal Flush?
San Francisco returned all players that started for their 2010 Offense (Notably of which many of the same players that also started for them in 2009), except for C David Baas who went on to win the Super Bowl with the NY Giants. Adam Snyder who started in years past replaced Chilo Richal at RG. Free Agent Jonathan Goodwin replaced Baas at center.
2011 Drafted Core Talent on Offense – Name (Year Drafted- Round):
Smith (2005-1), Gore (2005-3), Crabtree (2009-1), Morgan (2008-6), Staley (2007-1), Davis (2010-1), Iputati (2010-1), Snyder (2005-3), Miller (2011-7), Walker (2006-6), Kaepernick (2011-2).
Free Agent Addition: J.Goodwin (2011), B. Edwards (2011), D. Akers, (2011), Ted Ginn (2009), M. Norris (2006, excluding 1 season with Detriot in 2008, but came back to SFO in 2009)
Other OFF players: K. Williams (2010-6), K-Hunter (2011-4), A. Boone (2010- udfa), C. Rachal (2005-2),
Key Offensive Injuries: Josh Morgan (played only 5 games, 5 starts), presumably Moran Norris (played in 5, started 2), RG Adam Snyder missed 3 games.
Defensively, San Fran only returned 6 of the 11 players that started in 2010. However, 9 of the 11 players that started in 2011, were already on the roster. Tarrell Brown replaced Shawntae Spencer at CB. Harbaugh then promoted Brooks, Bowman, and McDonald to the starting line-up. SF added the other 2 starters Rogers and Whitner through free agency.
2011 Drafted Core on Defense:
Sopopoga (2004-4), McDonald (2007-4), P. Willis (2005-1), N. Bowman (2010-3),A. Smith (2011-1), P. Haralson (2006-5), T. Brown (2007-5), D. Goldson (2007-4), S. Spencer (2004-2) + A. Lee (2004-6)
Free Agents: J. Smith (2008), A. Brooks (2008), D. Whitner (2011), C. Rogers (2011), M. Williams (2011), T. Gooden (2011)
Other DEF players: Chris Culliver (2011-3), Jean-Francios (2009-7), L. Grant (2008-7)
Key Defensive Injuries: From what I can find that was severe, they lost Patrick Willis for whopping 3 games.
HEALTH & FITNESS:
To gauge the health of an entire team through a whole season one shouldn’t focus on the individual impact but to broaden it towards a collective impact, even though injuries to key players is important, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Where I decided to quantify the health of a team is through the number of active roster players through an entire season.
According to data from pro-football-reference.com the 49ers had 55 players to make their 53-man roster over the course of the 2011 season. Meaning more or less at most only 2 of their players were placed on I.R. which I think is correct and if I am would be Morgan and Norris.
In comparison, the Seahawks had 69 players active on their roster at one point or another, I’m not going to say all 16 players in difference were placed on I.R. but I do know the Seahawks suffered through a barrage of injuries in which 12 players were out for at least 4 or more games. San Fran had 2, just 2 players that missed more than 4 games in 2011. Seahawks had 12! And that’s not even mentioning John Carlson who was placed on I.R. prior to the season, so, I could say 13?
(I’ll let that stew a little bit)
In 2010, the Seahawks made well over 2 hundred blah blah transactions, plus had 5 key injuries from what I could determine: Mebane, Bryant, Cole, Unger, Okung, plus (Ben Hamilton but I’m not sure if he was placed on I.R. or just cut, also he wasn’t necessarily key and possibly Mike Rob)… in which they had 68 players active on the roster. It puts a cheap smile on my face knowing that the Seahawks won their division even though the bottom half of their roster more or less was a glorified open competition throughout the 2010 season.
Back to 2011, the injury factor was devastating on many levels and excuse or no excuse it would hard to argue that the multitude of injuries did not affect the competiveness of the team. Anyone with a logical brain would know that it did:
Tarvaris Jackson played with a torn pectoral muscle for much the season
Marshawn Lynch was bothered with a bad back in which he not only missed a game, but it was an injury that has been monitored ever since.
Seahawks lost starting WRs Sidney Rice and Mike Williams, Deon Butler, and rookie Kris Durham
Seahawks projected starting O-line played in a collective 57 starts out of 80. If I remember correctly, they never played in one full game together (Compared that to San Fran’s O-line whose starters played 77 out of 80 collective starts.)
Seahawks also traded starter A. Curry (2009-1) mid-season, starting a rookie K.J. Wright (2011-4) in his place.
While much of the core D-Line and Lbers stayed healthy, Seahawks lost their No. 1, 3, and 5 on the CB depth chart: Marcus Trufant, Walter Thurmond, and Roy Lewis.
Injuries or lack thereof play a contributing factor to the overall success of the 49ers in 2011. Not only did they have the luxury of starting out faster than most teams because core players were in place and much of the team experience and chemistry had already been established in prior seasons… there were no in-season hiccups, the 49ers were also lucky enough to stay healthy allowing them to become even better as a team during an uncompetitive and retarded (as in slow) league.
Injuries and the pile-on-of, were critical hindrances for the Seahawks, they were a team in the process of establishing core players, and a team in a state of transition with over 40 players removed from what was left remaining from the 2009 team. Which meant only 13 original Seahawks remained Pre-Carroll. A number that would dwindle to 7 in 2012. Heading into 2013, only 4 players remain pre-Carroll: Unger, Mebane, Bryant, and Jon Ryan. For a team lacking chemistry and experience, for a team in transition to suffer through a shortened off-season and the barrage of key injuries for the team to survive and rally back going 5-3 in the 2nd half to finish 7-9 really showed some moxie and backbone. Seahawks easily could have sucked for Luck after starting 2-6, but ain’t nobody got time for that, at least not the young Seahawks team who believed they were better than that.
Which leads to the final part of my argument:
AGE, EXPERIENCE, and ROOKIE IMPACT.
In 2010, 49ers averaged 26.7 years of age and 3.9 years in the league.
In 2011, 49ers averaged 26.0 years of age and 3.0 years in the league
In 2012, 49ers averaged 26.7 years of age and 3.9 years in the league.
From what I could determine of the 49ers:
In 2010, 4 rookies made 39 starts: Davis (16), Iputi (16), Bowman (1), Mays (6)
In 2011, 2 rookies made 9 starts: Hunter (1), FB Miller (9)
In 2012, 0 rookies made 0 starts
In 2010, Seahawks avg. 27.0 years of age and 3.9 years in the league.
In 2011, Seahawks avg. 25.4 years of age and 2.4 years in the league.
In 2012, Seahawks avg. 25.5 years of age and 2.6 years in the league.
In 2010, 4 rookies made 28 starts: Thomas (16), Okung (10), Thurmond (1), Ness (1)
In 2011, 5 rookies made 45 starts: Wright (12), Sherman (10), Carpenter (9), Moffitt (9), Jeanpierre (5)
I did not count Browner who is listed as a rookie and made 16 starts.
In 2012, 5 rookies made 38 starts: Wilson (16), Wagner (15), Sweezy (3), Lane (3), Kearse (1)
SF, from ’10 to ’12, 6 rookies made 48 starts.
SEA, from ’10 to ’12, 14 rookies made 121 starts.
Numbers are based from Pro-Football-Reference.com.
Both teams in 2010 were on par in age and experience. 49ers had the edge in rookie impact but if Okung wasn’t injured Seahawks likely would’ve had 34 starts to 49er’s 39. Also, seeing how Mays didn’t even play for SFO in 2011, one could recognized his 6 starts had no value and one could adjust their total to 33 starts. For the Seahawks, take away Ness’ start because he doesn’t factor in future seasons but account for Okung’s injury would put the Seahawks also at 33 starts.
In 2011, the 49ers experienced an average drop-off in age of about 7 months, and a drop of in experience of about 11 months. While Aldon Smith was making considerable impact, he did not start a game.
The Seahawks felt it even more so, with a drop of average age of about a year and 5 months and a drop of average experience of exactly a year and 6 months. A relatively big difference in football years. Seahawks only started Carpenter and Moffitt but injuries and a trade opened the door for Wright, Sherman, and Jeanpierre.
In 2012, 49ers progressed back to their 2010 averages, while the Seahawks kept it very close to their 2011 average almost exact, evidence that they were actually becoming a younger team overall. Seahawks only had 58 players active players during this season. However, their 2011 core that rolled over would all be a year older, yet the Seahawks experienced an average minimal increase in age and experience which meant the team was overall younger in 2012 than it was in 2011.
ENDING STATEMENT:
Whether the 49er fans fail to see it or not, both teams are pretty evenly match with the only difference being that the Seahawks are collectively younger in which I estimated to about a year behind the 49ers in terms of experience/ team chemistry factors. In 2010, both teams were similar w/ 49ers finishing 6-10, and the Seahawks finishing 7-9.
In 2011, the 49ers finally went on rampage after a decade of sucking going 13-3. While a very young Seahawks team battled through an army of brash injuries and further constant change to finish a respectable 7-9, after starting 2-6.
One could argue, that if the lockout didn’t exist, more teams would have time to prepare, especially the teams in which the core talent hadn’t been in place with years of experience. Prime example being the 49ers.
So I’ll argue (theoretically of course) without the lockout one could subtract about 1-2 wins from the 49ers, a team with a strong core with years of experience.
Without the lockout you could add 1-2 wins from the Seahawks, a reasonably competitive team, but one where a whole off-season would have made a difference because the constant change through transition, lack of chemistry, as well as lack of experience affected overall success factors.
Then the health outlook played a major factor in both stories. It would be hard to say, because its one extreme to another, that if the Seahawks were as healthy as the 49ers they would have won 2 more games although it’s a conceivable idea. Or to say if the 49ers had been as unhealthy and unlucky as the Seahawks they would have won 2 less games although that as well is conceivable. So my argument will be in the middle: if the Seahawks were half as healthy as the 49ers and the 49ers were half as unhealthy as the Seahawks you could understandably add a win to the Seahawks, and subtract a win from the 49ers.
So theoretically but always within logic, with better health and without the lockout obviously staggering necessary chemistry and competitive growth and injuries hindering any sustainable success, Seahawks could have been about a 9 win, 10 win team in 2011.
In the same light, the 49ers likely could have been a 10 win, 11 win team at best had more teams been more competitive as well as if the 49ers had to endure half as much of the injuries that the Seahawks dealt with in 2011. But again in the end, 13 wins got nobody nothing in the 2011 as a 9-7 team won it all defeating half of the elite teams in the process.
People could say I’m making excuses (ahem 49er fans) but I’m honestly just making very logical points. Even if they are just theoretical.
In 2012, SFO ended the season in what I would quantify a disappointing 11-4-1 (as much as their fans talk alpha superiority and being the best team in the NFL) before winning representing the NFC in the Super Bowl. A game in which they were being thoroughly decimated in until a well-timed black-out snuffed Baltimore’s momentum and allowed the 49ers to make it interesting. I’ll admit that day I was rooting for the NFC team.
However, a younger team in every aspect, in age, in experience, in rookie starts/impact compared to SF ended the season at a very promising 11-5. And the one contributing factor as to why the Seahawks were the slightly better team in 2012 even though the 49ers went on to the Super Bowl. Is simply competitiveness. Competitive attitude. Competitive nature. Competitive will. Simply, the 2012 Seahawks weren’t blown out of any game
Seahawk’s loss deficits were always a score within reach by 7 points, 6 points, 4 points, 4 points, 3 points, and 2 points (Playoffs @ ATL). 6 losses, 28 total points. An adjusted 34 points away from perfection. 34 points. That’s pretty effin amazing, for a young and inexperienced team, with many rookies contributing in key aspects.
49ers from what I can remember were blown out by the Giants and as we all know the Seahawks, 42-13.
So who cares if the 49ers won 13 games in probably the easiest season ever for a team to win 13 games. Congratulations, you still loss to a 9-7 team which is the equivalent of Seahawks beating New Orleans in 2010. Who even cares if the 49ers made it to Super Bowl in a season where the Seahawks and 49ers were practically evenly matched even though the 49ers had plenty of age and experience on the Seahawks. In retrospect, 49ers probably lucked out that the Falcons came back to win in the last 30 seconds vs the Seahawks. I don’t think the 49ers wanted another helping of Seahawks smash-mouth football as well as the Seahawks likely weakened the Falcons’ constitution in the worst of ways as they watched their team fall behind after having a 20-0 half-time lead.
So by factoring age, experience, and overall competitiveness of the 2012 season, Seahawks were the better team of the two, and once the Seahawks progress more towards the 4.0 value in terms of avg. league experience, Seahawks should transform into a consistently elite team on a year to year basis. As the Seahawks 2012 team was basically the 49ers 2011 team, in which they were finally able to field a team with a strong core and start developing the chemistry that should continue grow and resonate for years to come upon future Seahawks team.
ESPN has the futures power rankings so wrong, seriously again 6 rookies, 48 starts for San Fran since 2010. 5 rookies, 42 starts not counting Taylor Mays. 0 starts in 2012. Please. 11-4-1.
Seahawks again started 5 rookies in 2012 with 2 others making significant to contributive impact (Irvin, Scruggs). Seahawks finished 11-5.
Once again San Fran Fans gloat all you want about your big, bad meteoric rise from the ashes into being relevant, keeping looking back, too, because if you dare to look ahead, reality should give you a face full of blue and green talon with some distasteful shades of grey. And plenty of the greatest photo ops of the tantrum throwing toddler with a brain in an adult body, Jim Harbaugh.
Sincerely, and most importantly, GOOD LUCK, SAN FRAN. (You’ll need it, and please save this post, ingrain it into the preciously good memories you seem to have, "ring" a bell, remember it well, "5" times should be swell)
SEAHAWKS > 49ERS
SEAHAWKS > 49ERS
SEATTLE > SAN FRANCISCO
WILSON > KAEPERNICK
42 > 13
