Another look at some numbers
 

To quote Vini Barbarino “I’m so confused”. I don’t see how in the hell SF ended the season at 13-3. It just doesn’t make sense. They have the lowest rated QB that played 16 games. Hell Rex Grossman threw for more yards and one less TD in 13 games. Rex Grossman!!!! The 49ers say he isn’t making mistakes, only threw 5 picks. I agree, that looks pretty good, unless you really look at the numbers. Yes, Smith isn’t putting the ball up when pressured, but he is taking a beating. Smith has been sacked 44 times and coughed the ball up 7 times as a result. Not sure this makes him a smart QB. At least not for long. By comparison Brees has 14 picks, 1 fumble (on a bad snap by DLP) and 24 sacks but put the ball up 657 times compared to Smith’s 445. So, Smith’s numbers translate to one pick or fumble per 37 passing attempts compared to Brees’ 1 in 44.

So, the Saint’s strategy is going to be stuff the run and make Smith put the ball up. If the Saint’s go up by two TDs and the 49ers have to play catch up it is going to be a really long day for Mr. Smith. Second thought, looking back to preseason and GW’s exotic blitz package, it may be a very short day.

So, it looks more and more like SF’s 13-3 has to be chalked up to being lucky. Lucky that they play in the NFC West, the weakest division in the NFL. Lucky that their non-division games were mostly against weaker teams. Unfortunately, it looks like their luck is going to run out on Saturday.

Dude give up the numbers... this isn't baseball.

Its about the match ups and the final score.

Its turnovers. They get their offense a short field and they never give the opposition a short field. Key to this game is ball security, in my opinion. I mean it always is, but never more true than this game. We have to give them a long field and force them to move the ball with their offense

The numbers are not making sense to you, because you are just looking at the plain numbers, not how the numbers ended to be what they are.

Kind of like saying 3.
3 is 3. but how do you get 3?
1+1+1
2+1
1+2
4-1
and so on...

Man, thanks for enlightening me. Now I finally understand that it isn't about numbers in football only baseball. And the final score matters in football but not baseball. And match ups count in football and not base ball. That's why managers switch lineups to match righty vs lefty pitchers. Did I get all that right?

I hate to inform you but it's all about numbers. THat is why NFL teams employ statisticians. Just because you don't understand them doesn't make them meaningless.

Don't be discouraged, Blue Dog. Some of us find them enlightening and Euphoria has a grumpy streak sometimes.

We should consider EVERYTHING!

I'd consider the position of the sun over that shoddy stadium in the first quarter, if I were us.
Everything!

Alaska

How can anyone believe that the principles of evolution still apply. If they did the population of the world would be getting smarter, not dumber.

I tend not to suffer fools well. Must be getting old.

You know, veiled insults aren't really hip or clever either.
As I stated before, you are looking at a number, but you are not looking at how you got to that number. For example, you posted:

Just like my example of how you get to 3, how do you get to this QB rating? (which, BTW, I think QB ratings are BS: in one of those QB ratings, Tebow had a a highest rating than Brees last weekend). They take this number, and that number, then divide it by this, blah blah blah, but what is it exactly that happened in the game, what were the factors that affected that game, which resulted in that number? That, you don't know, unless you watched the games, understood who was hurt, who wasn't, who was missing in the lineup, etc.

So, the statement I quoted above, what you are doing is associating an arbitrary statistic for one player with team wins and losses, and football doesn't work that way.

If all QBs played with the exact same players, against the exact same players, on the same fields, under the same weather conditions, at the same time of the day, using the same playbooks, getting the same field position, etc, ok, maybe a stat can be used to accurately reflect something of value that can be compared across individuals.

Let me put it to you this way: I am going to take your quote, but change some names and use the 2008 season as an example:

See? That is what Euphoria was trying to tell you, albeit in his own very grumpy way.

this thread... maximum trolling by OP

OP states "facts" and then claims he doesn't understand the conclusion(49ers record 12-4)

Gets told facts without context are worthless, comparative analysis is better(key matchups)

OP responds that he is all knowing and the next stage of human evolution and that its impossible for him to be wrong(like dividing by zero, it can't be done)

Statistics have to be measured with all variables taken into account and then dismissed.:wink:

TR, first my apologies if you thought the veiled insult was meant for you. It wasn't. It was directed at Euphoria's earlier remark about numbers and baseball. Still can't figure that one out.

Regarding your comments, I agree for the most part. That said, Alex Smith's work product is pretty bad. No matter if you look at QB rating, yardage, TD's, picks, etc. Game to game numbers are usually of little value. Results against common opponents are a bit better, but not much. Conversely, season statistics including QB ratings do carry weight. The best teams in the NFL have the best QB's, be it Brees, Roger, Brady, or Manning (2x) who in turn put up the best numbers of the course of the season. Early in the season when the O-line was struggling Brees' numbers were good but not great. Since the O-line has gelled Bress' has been climbing and records have been falling.

A QB and team lives and dies with the O-line. Everyone tends to focus on QB's and star receivers but a good passing game boils down to protection. If an average QB has enough time average receivers will get open. Period. Conversely, poor protection can make a great QB look pretty bad. We need only look back to the Rams game. Brees is great because the Saints have the whole package. Great QB, great O-line, very good but not super star receivers, running backs who can catch and protect and play calling that puts it all together. This combination results in records and rings.

A similar issue holds with defenses. If you can pressure QBs the coverage doesn't have to be as tight and the picks go up. This year, most of SFs sacks came against weaker opponents with young or immobile QBs (aka Pittsburgh). This year I believe that the Saint's biggest weakness has been the inability to consistently pressure the QB. The corners and safeties have been taking a ton of crap for poor coverage but better pressure would help in solving that problem.

So, Saturday will probably be settled by our O-line vs. SF's D-line.

Hey I have an idea - screw the score!!

JUST WIN BABY!!

This synopsis makes perfect sense to me. I don't understand how some don't get it.

Their QB's rating is shat, and yet they finished 13-3. I mean, how do you argue that? Have a look at the QB ratings of the other 13+ teams and it becomes obvious.

Friend request inbound, Blue Dog. You're okay in my book!!

Alaska