🚀 go-pugleaf

Samster The HAMMER <ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu> writes:

>Eric Smith wrote:

>>>Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
>>>sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
>>>Niners just were not that good this year, pal.

>>The Niners' opponents won 130 games this season. The Cowboys' opponents
>>won 128. I guess the Cowboys really sneaked into the playoffs too.
>>I don't believe that "sixth-easiests chedule" [sic] stat. The Niners'
>>schedule was *way* tougher than the Steelers' or Chiefs' schedules,
>>for example. The Chiefs' opponents won 120 games, and the Steelers'
>>opponents just 116.

>Sorry, I meant division-wise based on 1994 records. ;-)

First, I would argue that this season's performance is a much better
indicator of this season's strength of schedule, and effectively negates
the claim that the 49ers "sneaked into" the playoffs on the basis of
a weak schedule.

Secondly, the statement that the 49ers "just were not that good this year"
is ridiculous. You can't say that about any NFL team that wins 11 games,
wins its division and a playoff bye. Especially so given that the 49ers'
five regular season losses were by a *total* of 15 points, and given
that they outscored their opposition by 200 points over the season, a
greater point differential than was recorded by any other team. (Unless
your comment really meant that *by normal 49ers standards* they "just
were not that good this year," in which case there's some truth to that.
But 49ers standards are well above those of most of the teams in the league.)

It's more accurate to say the 49ers were a fairly inconsistent team this
season. At times they "were just not that good," like in their losses to
Carolina and New Orleans (both without Steve Young, though), and at other
times they were very good indeed, like when they won six games in a row
down the stretch to make the playoffs, three of them over eventual other
playoff teams. The Cowboys were "just were not that good" at times either,
although the Cowboys were better when the playoffs came around.

Finally, while you're right that the strength of the 49ers' schedule,
based on the results of 1994, did not look overly tough as the season
started, what could not be predicted was the high level of the expansion
team play this season. But these expansion teams had advantages that
previous expansion teams didn't - an expansion draft from the rosters
of the other teams, and an extra first round pick in the regular '95
draft. Had it been known that Carolina would achieve seven victories,
that certainly would have put the 49ers in the middle of the league
on the basis of strength of schedule coming into the season. As it was
they ended up with seven games against eventual playoff teams, which
was the same as the Cowboys and probably as many as any team.

-----
Eric Smith       |  "Sometimes it seems to me that plastic
erics@netcom.com |   surgery is ... very, very complicated."
CI$: 70262,3610  |   - Doctor Gaynor, in Ed Wood's "Jail Bait"

Samster The HAMMER <ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu> writes:

>kodax@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>>The cowboys sneaked into the superbowl only because the niners were
>>beaten by the packers.

>Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
>sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
>Niners just were not that good this year, pal.

The Niners' opponents won 130 games this season. The Cowboys' opponents
won 128. I guess the Cowboys really sneaked into the playoffs too.
I don't believe that "sixth-easiests chedule" [sic] stat. The Niners'
schedule was *way* tougher than the Steelers' or Chiefs' schedules,
for example. The Chiefs' opponents won 120 games, and the Steelers'
opponents just 116.

-----
Eric Smith       |  "Sometimes it seems to me that plastic
erics@netcom.com |   surgery is ... very, very complicated."
CI$: 70262,3610  |   - Doctor Gaynor, in Ed Wood's "Jail Bait"

Samster The HAMMER (ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
: sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
: Niners just were not that good this year, pal.

It's true that the 49ers were not as good this year, but I wonder on
what basis you claim they had the sixth-easiest schedule.  Their opponents
had a .504 winning fraction, in spite of mostly losing to the 49ers.
By comparison, 15 teams had opponents with worse records than this,
including the Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, and Colts.  13 teams had
opponents with better records.


--
David R. Smith, HP Labs |   "I like to get my hands dirty,
dsmith@hpl.hp.com       |   because it stimulates my mind."
                        |        -- Irwin Sobel

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Eric Smith wrote:

> >Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
> >sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
> >Niners just were not that good this year, pal.
>
> The Niners' opponents won 130 games this season. The Cowboys' opponents
> won 128. I guess the Cowboys really sneaked into the playoffs too.
> I don't believe that "sixth-easiests chedule" [sic] stat. The Niners'
> schedule was *way* tougher than the Steelers' or Chiefs' schedules,
> for example. The Chiefs' opponents won 120 games, and the Steelers'
> opponents just 116.

Sorry, I meant division-wise based on 1994 records. ;-)

Samster The HAMMER <ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 1996 kodax@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > There is no way you can call the cowboys dominating.
>
> They forced three turnovers in the SB and held Pittsburgh to 3.7 yards
> per play, while avreaging 5.1 yards per play themselves. And they did not
> turn the ball over at all. I'd call that dominating.
>
> > The cowboys sneaked into the superbowl only because the niners were
> > beaten by the packers.
>
> Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
> sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
> Niners just were not that good this year, pal.
>
> > Furthermore, in the superbowl they were again fortunate to win on
> > basis of two of the most inexplicable interceptions I have ever seen.
>
> Oh, like Steve Young throwing an INT to lose the Atlanta game? Yeah, INTs
> are inexplicable, aren't they? Geez, a QB never throws a bad pass, huh?
>
> > Face it.  Last year there was talk about the niners being perhaps the
> > most dominant team in nfl history.
>
> Oh really? I'd say the 1989 Niner team was better by far, as were the
> 1985 Bears, 1984 Niners, the 1978 Steelers, the 1976 Steelers, 1972
> Dolphins, the 1966 Packers, the 1960 Eagles, any Browns team of the
> 1950s. Whose talk was this, DeBartolo's?
>
> > This year the cowboys are basically seen as a lucky team.
>
> Again, by whom? 49er fans? Remember, luck is often the result of design,
> and any ballplayer will tell you he'd rather be lucky than good. He can
> control good, he can't control luck.
>
> > Furthermore,  the cowboys were outplayed and embarrassingly outcoached
> > in the superbowl.
>
> Dude, you're killing me. Dallas' defensive game plan forced O'Donnell
> into those mistakes. Also, see above citations for sound refute of this
> slanderous crap.
>
> > hide from the fact that the cowboys were not the best team in football
> > last year and merely the luckiest by throwing out more derogatory
> > remarks about the niners.
>
> Well, I guess the Atlanta Braves weren't the best team in baseball,
> either, according to the 'experts,' so that's two-for-two in the category.
> BOTTOM LINE: The best teams win on the field, not on paper or in a dream.
>
> > Last thing.  There is a backloading clause on the salary cap so cowboy
> > fans can say hello to 7-9 for the next 5 - 7 years.  by the way, the
> > cowboys were found in violation of the salary cap in midseason but
> > ignored the commisioner.  Basically they got to cheat.  Maybe you
> > better put an asterick next to that superbowl for that.
>
> Uh yeah. With Emmitt and Troy and Michael and Deion and Leon and Haley
> all signed for some time, I really doubt the Cowboys are going to go 7-9.
>
> By the way, the Cowboys had the most Pro Bowlers in the league this year.
> Are you sure they were not the 'best' team?


Excuses are always given by sore losers.  I refused to give excuses
when Dallas lost to SF last year.  The 49ers won fair and square.
Yes Dallas did stupid things in that game but,championship teams
overcome all barriers.  That's why SF won last year and why Dallas
are champions this year.

erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:

>Samster The HAMMER <ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu> writes:

>>kodax@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>>>The cowboys sneaked into the superbowl only because the niners were
>>>beaten by the packers.

>>Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
>>sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
>>Niners just were not that good this year, pal.

>The Niners' opponents won 130 games this season. The Cowboys' opponents
>won 128. I guess the Cowboys really sneaked into the playoffs too.
>I don't believe that "sixth-easiests chedule" [sic] stat. The Niners'
>schedule was *way* tougher than the Steelers' or Chiefs' schedules,
>for example. The Chiefs' opponents won 120 games, and the Steelers'
>opponents just 116.

Just to follow uop on this, because I think it's a little bit interesting,
I did a quick calculation on all of the teams' opponents victories.
I originally gave both the Niners and Cowboys one extra opponent victory
(based on thinking Minnesota had won nine games when actually they won
eoght). As we can see, both the 49ers and Cowboys were about in the
middle of the pack considering the league as a whole, and both were in
the upper echelon of playoff teams (indicated by a '*'). I suppose it's
not surprising to find that playoff teams in general have worse schedule
strengths than non-playoff teams, because since they don't have to play
themselves they're probably getting teams with lesser records instead.
One can see some of the effects of the league's parity policies here -
for example the Giants, who finished 9-7 in 1994, ended up with a much
tougher schedule than their division rival Eagles, who had a 7-9 1994
record.

New York Giants 140
Oakland         139
San Diego       139 *
Arizona         138
Minnesota       138
Denver          135
St. Louis       135
New England     133
Cleveland       132
Tampa Bay       131
Chicago         130
Miami           130 *
Washington      130
New Orleans     129
San Francisco   129 *
Dallas          127 *
Detroit         127 *
New York Jets   127
Green Bay       126 *
Atlanta         125 *
Jacksonville    125
Cincinnati      123
Carolina        122
Houston         122
Seattle         122
Kansas City     120 *
Philadelphia    117 *
Buffalo         116 *
Indianapolis    116 *
Pittsburgh      116 *

-----
Eric Smith       |  "Sometimes it seems to me that plastic
erics@netcom.com |   surgery is ... very, very complicated."
CI$: 70262,3610  |   - Doctor Gaynor, in Ed Wood's "Jail Bait"

On 9 Feb 1996, awoods wrote:

> Excuses are always given by sore losers.  I refused to give excuses
> when Dallas lost to SF last year.  The 49ers won fair and square.
> Yes Dallas did stupid things in that game but,championship teams
> overcome all barriers.  That's why SF won last year and why Dallas
> are champions this year.

This is one of the more rational thoughts I have seen here.

Congrats.

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, David R. Smith wrote:

> Samster The HAMMER (ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
> : Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
> : sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
> : Niners just were not that good this year, pal.
>
> It's true that the 49ers were not as good this year, but I wonder on
> what basis you claim they had the sixth-easiest schedule.  Their opponents
> had a .504 winning fraction, in spite of mostly losing to the 49ers.
> By comparison, 15 teams had opponents with worse records than this,
> including the Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, and Colts.  13 teams had
> opponents with better records.

Please see earlier post on this thread.
Based on 1994 records, in division.

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Eric Smith wrote:

> First, I would argue that this season's performance is a much better
> indicator of this season's strength of schedule, and effectively negates
> the claim that the 49ers "sneaked into" the playoffs on the basis of
> a weak schedule.

Well, considering 1995 schedules are set up on the basis of 1994 records,
I'd say you are off base.

;-)

> Secondly, the statement that the 49ers "just were not that good this year"
> is ridiculous. You can't say that about any NFL team that wins 11 games,
> wins its division and a playoff bye. Especially so given that the 49ers'
> five regular season losses were by a *total* of 15 points, and given
> that they outscored their opposition by 200 points over the season, a
> greater point differential than was recorded by any other team. (Unless
> your comment really meant that *by normal 49ers standards* they "just
> were not that good this year," in which case there's some truth to that.
> But 49ers standards are well above those of most of the teams in the league.)

No, Niner expectations are above most of the others. And yes, my point
was that the 1995 team was not as good as many fans/local media would
have believed.

> It's more accurate to say the 49ers were a fairly inconsistent team this
> season. At times they "were just not that good," like in their losses to
> Carolina and New Orleans (both without Steve Young, though), and at other
> times they were very good indeed, like when they won six games in a row
> down the stretch to make the playoffs, three of them over eventual other
> playoff teams. The Cowboys were "just were not that good" at times either,
> although the Cowboys were better when the playoffs came around.

How often does a team romp through everything in a season? Rarely. even
those 1994 Niners got whumped by the Eagles at one point. And those teams
who excel and peak at playoff time are deserving of recognition. Not
those that peak in mid-november.

Every year in the 1990s that Dallas has won a Super Bowl, they've lost to
Washington. Heck, the 1992 Cowboys even lost to the Rams, I think.

> Finally, while you're right that the strength of the 49ers' schedule,
> based on the results of 1994, did not look overly tough as the season
> started, what could not be predicted was the high level of the expansion
> team play this season. But these expansion teams had advantages that
> previous expansion teams didn't - an expansion draft from the rosters
> of the other teams, and an extra first round pick in the regular '95
> draft. Had it been known that Carolina would achieve seven victories,
> that certainly would have put the 49ers in the middle of the league
> on the basis of strength of schedule coming into the season. As it was
> they ended up with seven games against eventual playoff teams, which
> was the same as the Cowboys and probably as many as any team.

Well, I guess my point is that as a Super Bowl champ, you should play a
tougher schedule than the year before. The NFL used to mandate this -
now, who knows?

But I do see your point, and it is valid. But still, were the Rams as
good as their 7-9 record would indicate? No. Were the Saints? No. Were
the Falcons as good as their 9-7 record? Probably not. If you simply look
at the NFC West, it's a cakewalk for a team like SF.

Samster The HAMMER (ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, David R. Smith wrote:

: > Samster The HAMMER (ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: > : Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
: > : sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
: > : Niners just were not that good this year, pal.
: >
: > It's true that the 49ers were not as good this year, but I wonder on
: > what basis you claim they had the sixth-easiest schedule.  Their opponents
: > had a .504 winning fraction, in spite of mostly losing to the 49ers.
: > By comparison, 15 teams had opponents with worse records than this,
: > including the Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, and Colts.  13 teams had
: > opponents with better records.

: Please see earlier post on this thread.
: Based on 1994 records, in division.

OK, I have seen the "earlier" post, which showed up the day after I
responded.  I have also seen Eric Smith's post which effectively refutes
your position.

--
David R. Smith, HP Labs |   "I like to get my hands dirty,
dsmith@hpl.hp.com       |   because it stimulates my mind."
                        |        -- Irwin Sobel

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, David R. Smith wrote:

> OK, I have seen the "earlier" post, which showed up the day after I
> responded.  I have also seen Eric Smith's post which effectively refutes
> your position.

Oh, okay, Mr. Network Administrator. Anyway, I think the fact that 1994
records help determine 1995 schedules is actually valid.

In article <DMoA0B.ADy@hpl.hp.com>, dsmith@hpl.hp.com (David R. Smith) wrote:

> Samster The HAMMER (ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
> : On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, David R. Smith wrote:
>
> : > Samster The HAMMER (ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
> : > : Oh, and the Niners sneaked into the playoff because they played the
> : > : sixth-easiests chedule in the NFL, despite being defending champs. The
> : > : Niners just were not that good this year, pal.
> : >
> : > It's true that the 49ers were not as good this year, but I wonder on
> : > what basis you claim they had the sixth-easiest schedule.  Their opponents
> : > had a .504 winning fraction, in spite of mostly losing to the 49ers.
> : > By comparison, 15 teams had opponents with worse records than this,
> : > including the Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, and Colts.  13 teams had
> : > opponents with better records.
>
> : Please see earlier post on this thread.
> : Based on 1994 records, in division.
>
> OK, I have seen the "earlier" post, which showed up the day after I
> responded.  I have also seen Eric Smith's post which effectively refutes
> your position.

I think we all know these posts never show up in order....geez.

BTW, it does not effectively refute anything. That's how 1995 schedules
were determined, based on 1994 records. Niners division opponents in 1994
were pathetic, as usual.

THE HAMMER (ez043491@peseta.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Oh, okay, Mr. Network Administrator. Anyway, I think the fact that 1994
: records help determine 1995 schedules is actually valid.

I certainly agree with you on that.

Going into the season, it may have looked like the 49ers' opposition was
weak because of the addition of Carolina to the NFC West.  One could hardly
expect the league to have done anything else -- short of rationalizing the
divisional lineups -- because the West was the smallest division in the
conference.  But Carolina turned out to be reasonably strong, and the 49ers
turned out to play a decently strong schedule.  In season retrospectives, I
think it only fair to criticize the 49ers relative to the opposition that
they actually got, rather than relative to what people thought it would be
before the season started.

--
David R. Smith, HP Labs |   "I like to get my hands dirty,
dsmith@hpl.hp.com       |   because it stimulates my mind."
                        |        -- Irwin Sobel