OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

A team that goes from 4-12 to 11-3 cannot accurately be described as a "choking" team no matter how they lost their 3 games. You would have to look at the entire 14 games. And, like I said, they won 11 of them, and at least 3 were won in the closing minutes.

---

I believe the Niners are 3-3 in games decided by a touchdown or less.

W: Pittsburgh, @Arizona, @New Orleans
L: Seattle, @Baltimore, Atlanta

I think you can also classify their second Arizona win as essentially a one-score win, as they got a fluke TD by recovering the Cardinals' attempted lateral on the last play. So that's 4-3. That's pretty normal. A football team should expect to go roughly .500 in close games. Meanwhile, they are 7-0 in games won by two scores or more.

The Seahawks, meanwhile, are a whopping 10-1 or 9-1 in one-score games (depending on how you classify an 8-point win over Philly). That's very strange. They are 1-2 in all other games, with their only "easy" win being 27-10 at Arizona. I guess you could say they just have a knack for winning close games, and I'm sure it is an asset to have Russell Wilson in those situations. It's also possible they have just been very lucky this year and are really more like a .500 team.

EDIT: I should also add that Seattle's one close-game loss to New Orleans was really a dominant Saints win in which the Seahawks scored a garbage TD with no time left to make the score look close. So I'm going to say they are 9-0 in close games and 2-3 in other games.

---

In the last 15 years, only 3 World Series Champs have finished 9th or worse in run differential in the regular season. I'm guessing you think they were very lucky.

---

Yeah, I hate to admit it but I think Pete Carrol actually thrives on the adrenalin of close games. I think he is also more psychologically fit to handle that adrenalin. I think Seattle's 9-0 in close games is no fluke. The 49ers have what it takes to win a close game vs. the Seahawks, even in Seattle, but I would not assume that it will happen. IOW I don't think past margin victory can used to reasonably evaluate outcomes when it comes to future Seahawk games vs. playoff caliber opponents.

sycasey said:

---

Joker said:

---

I feel very fortunate as a fan that one of those teams won a World Series. 3 World Series means that I probably will have to give up seeing Cal in the Rose Bowl as penance.

---

I would have said that, but then after those World Series wins the Golden State Warriors (long the biggest joke in Bay Area sports) also managed to win three titles.

If that can happen, anything is possible.

---

Except Cal going to the Rose Bowl. That seems to be an impossibility.

heartofthebear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

A team that goes from 4-12 to 11-3 cannot accurately be described as a "choking" team no matter how they lost their 3 games. You would have to look at the entire 14 games. And, like I said, they won 11 of them, and at least 3 were won in the closing minutes.

---

I believe the Niners are 3-3 in games decided by a touchdown or less.

W: Pittsburgh, @Arizona, @New Orleans
L: Seattle, @Baltimore, Atlanta

I think you can also classify their second Arizona win as essentially a one-score win, as they got a fluke TD by recovering the Cardinals' attempted lateral on the last play. So that's 4-3. That's pretty normal. A football team should expect to go roughly .500 in close games. Meanwhile, they are 7-0 in games won by two scores or more.

The Seahawks, meanwhile, are a whopping 10-1 or 9-1 in one-score games (depending on how you classify an 8-point win over Philly). That's very strange. They are 1-2 in all other games, with their only "easy" win being 27-10 at Arizona. I guess you could say they just have a knack for winning close games, and I'm sure it is an asset to have Russell Wilson in those situations. It's also possible they have just been very lucky this year and are really more like a .500 team.

EDIT: I should also add that Seattle's one close-game loss to New Orleans was really a dominant Saints win in which the Seahawks scored a garbage TD with no time left to make the score look close. So I'm going to say they are 9-0 in close games and 2-3 in other games.

---

In the last 15 years, only 3 World Series Champs have finished 9th or worse in run differential in the regular season. I'm guessing you think they were very lucky.

---

Yeah, I hate to admit it but I think Pete Carrol actually thrives on the adrenalin of close games.

---

You mean like when they called a pass play and blew the Super Bowl?

I think they certainly can win in the playoffs, especially if they get home field. But I don't think Carroll has any special ability to win close games.

heartofthebear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

A team that goes from 4-12 to 11-3 cannot accurately be described as a "choking" team no matter how they lost their 3 games. You would have to look at the entire 14 games. And, like I said, they won 11 of them, and at least 3 were won in the closing minutes.

---

I believe the Niners are 3-3 in games decided by a touchdown or less.

W: Pittsburgh, @Arizona, @New Orleans
L: Seattle, @Baltimore, Atlanta

I think you can also classify their second Arizona win as essentially a one-score win, as they got a fluke TD by recovering the Cardinals' attempted lateral on the last play. So that's 4-3. That's pretty normal. A football team should expect to go roughly .500 in close games. Meanwhile, they are 7-0 in games won by two scores or more.

The Seahawks, meanwhile, are a whopping 10-1 or 9-1 in one-score games (depending on how you classify an 8-point win over Philly). That's very strange. They are 1-2 in all other games, with their only "easy" win being 27-10 at Arizona. I guess you could say they just have a knack for winning close games, and I'm sure it is an asset to have Russell Wilson in those situations. It's also possible they have just been very lucky this year and are really more like a .500 team.

EDIT: I should also add that Seattle's one close-game loss to New Orleans was really a dominant Saints win in which the Seahawks scored a garbage TD with no time left to make the score look close. So I'm going to say they are 9-0 in close games and 2-3 in other games.

---

In the last 15 years, only 3 World Series Champs have finished 9th or worse in run differential in the regular season. I'm guessing you think they were very lucky.

---

Yeah, I hate to admit it but I think Pete Carrol actually thrives on the adrenalin of close games. I think he is also more psychologically fit to handle that adrenalin. I think Seattle's 9-0 in close games is no fluke. The 49ers have what it takes to win a close game vs. the Seahawks, even in Seattle, but I would not assume that it will happen. IOW I don't think past margin victory can used to reasonably evaluate outcomes when it comes to future Seahawk games vs. playoff caliber opponents.

---

Eh Carroll's coaching did not make the niners kicker miss a fairly makeable game winning FG

I'm sure there is some correlation to Carroll's coaching ability and the Seahawks winning close games. But there is also a ton of luck and randomness involved to be 10-1 in one score games.

ducky23 said:

---

Eh Carroll's coaching did not make the niners kicker miss a fairly makeable game winning FG

I'm sure there is some correlation to Carroll's coaching ability and the Seahawks winning close games. But there is also a ton of luck and randomness involved to be 10-1 in one score games.

---

Seattle's success in winning close games has much more to do with Russell Wilson's playing ability than with Pete Carroll's coaching ability.

Joker said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

In the last 15 years, only 3 World Series Champs have finished 9th or worse in run differential in the regular season. I'm guessing you think they were very lucky.

---

Honestly? Yeah, a little bit. But baseball's playoffs have always contained a lot more randomness.

And I'm sure one or more of the Giants teams are on that list.

---

Which just makes me appreciate their championships that much more. None of those were the best team in their league and especially not 2014. But baseball and hockey are much more quirky in a short series than basketball or even football in a single game.

I feel very fortunate as a fan that one of those teams won a World Series. 3 World Series means that I probably will have to give up seeing Cal in the Rose Bowl as penance.

---

I suggest to you that there are plenty of other good reasons to give up seeing Cal in the Rose bowl before you have to give penance. In other words, just because our beloved Bear band doesn't ever march down the streets of pasadena some New Year's day morning does not mean you are off the hook (LOL).

Golden One said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Eh Carroll's coaching did not make the niners kicker miss a fairly makeable game winning FG

I'm sure there is some correlation to Carroll's coaching ability and the Seahawks winning close games. But there is also a ton of luck and randomness involved to be 10-1 in one score games.

---

Seattle's success in winning close games has much more to do with Russell Wilson's playing ability than with Pete Carroll's coaching ability.

---

Yes, that I would more readily buy. Even so, the Super Bowl loss was also with Wilson.

ducky23 said:

---

I'm sure there is some correlation to Carroll's coaching ability and the Seahawks winning close games.But there is also a ton of luck and randomness involved to be 10-1 in one score games.

---

I think it has more to do with Russell Wilson than Pete Carroll

Joker said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

I'm sure there is some correlation to Carroll's coaching ability and the Seahawks winning close games.But there is also a ton of luck and randomness involved to be 10-1 in one score games.

---

I think it has more to do with Russell Wilson than Pete Carroll

---

I put all on PC. He had a short yardage situation (2 yds?) with ML who was one of the best in the NFL on short yardage plays.
It was insane not to use ML on what should have been a sure TD.
Some have said that PC was looking to take advantage of the element of surprise in not using ML.
But as others have pointed out, it doesn't matter whether the other team knows what play you will call if the other team can't stop the play that is called.
ML had just gained 4 yds (?) the play before when everyone in the stadium knew he was going to carry the ball.
Further, PC had 2 downs remaining to score and plenty of time. If PC had used ML and if ML had failed to get a TD, PC would have still had one more down remaining.
PC outsmarted himself. He would call the one play that no one in the stadium would expect.
Well it turned out that at least one person in the stadium did expect it. And that play could be stopped.

Wow-lots if responses to my little thread

Nice to see the deprived Santa Clara fans are awake after years of futility. I look forward to attending my 3rd Super Bowl this decade while Jimmy G dines with his pornstar GF.

Go Hawks!

Cheating Uncle Petey really gets his tickle on, but QB Wilson is the Man.

GRRAAH said:

---

Can't win close games.

---

LOL

Golden One said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Eh Carroll's coaching did not make the niners kicker miss a fairly makeable game winning FG

I'm sure there is some correlation to Carroll's coaching ability and the Seahawks winning close games. But there is also a ton of luck and randomness involved to be 10-1 in one score games.

---

Seattle's success in winning close games has much more to do with Russell Wilson's playing ability than with Pete Carroll's coaching ability.

---

Both points are absolutely right on; unbelievably good luck over the years (onside kick vs. the Packers comes to mind, and a lot more) and they are nothing, nothing without Wilson. Seahawks losing is more satisfying to me than Niners winning, I admit my condition.

GRRAAH said:

---

Wow-lots if responses to my little thread

Nice to see the deprived Santa Clara fans are awake after years of futility. I look forward to attending my 3rd Super Bowl this decade while Jimmy G dines with his pornstar GF.

Go Hawks!

---

Wow, a Seajerks fan who is also a bargain basement Stephen A. Jerk team, jerk coach, and an especially jerky fanbase. It's like $C North! BTW, expecting anymore PED suspensions in the coming weeks?

C6Bear said:

---

GRRAAH said:

---

Wow-lots if responses to my little thread

Nice to see the deprived Santa Clara fans are awake after years of futility. I look forward to attending my 3rd Super Bowl this decade while Jimmy G dines with his pornstar GF.

Go Hawks!

---

Wow, a Seajerks fan who is also a bargain basement Stephen A. Jerk team, jerk coach, and an especially jerky fanbase. It's like $C North! BTW, expecting anymore PED suspensions in the coming weeks?

---

C'mon, give the guy some credit, he's predicted 10 out of the last 1 super bowl wins for the hawks. Sounds more like a Husky fan than SC.

Joker said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

In the last 15 years, only 3 World Series Champs have finished 9th or worse in run differential in the regular season. I'm guessing you think they were very lucky.

---

Honestly? Yeah, a little bit. But baseball's playoffs have always contained a lot more randomness.

And I'm sure one or more of the Giants teams are on that list.

---

Which just makes me appreciate their championships that much more. None of those were the best team in their league and especially not 2014. But baseball and hockey are much more quirky in a short series than basketball or even football in a single game.

I feel very fortunate as a fan that one of those teams won a World Series. 3 World Series means that I probably will have to give up seeing Cal in the Rose Bowl as penance.

---

Actually because the Giants are in a pitchers park, it makes sense that they would have a larger run differential. Lower score games at home where they win more and higher score games in the road where the losses would come. Other teams would have limited interaction with low scoring parks.

Football is played in the same field wherever you go.

C6Bear said:

---

Wow, a Seajerks fan who is also a bargain basement Stephen A. Jerk team, jerk coach, and an especially jerky fanbase. It's like $C North! BTW, expecting anymore PED suspensions in the coming weeks?

---

Yeah, I notice he didn't post anything about the Niners' "choke" against the Rams last evening.

Oski87 said:

---

Joker said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

In the last 15 years, only 3 World Series Champs have finished 9th or worse in run differential in the regular season. I'm guessing you think they were very lucky.

---

Honestly? Yeah, a little bit. But baseball's playoffs have always contained a lot more randomness.

And I'm sure one or more of the Giants teams are on that list.

---

Which just makes me appreciate their championships that much more. None of those were the best team in their league and especially not 2014. But baseball and hockey are much more quirky in a short series than basketball or even football in a single game.

I feel very fortunate as a fan that one of those teams won a World Series. 3 World Series means that I probably will have to give up seeing Cal in the Rose Bowl as penance.

---

Actually because the Giants are in a pitchers park, it makes sense that they would have a larger run differential. Lower score games at home where they win more and higher score games in the road where the losses would come. Other teams would have limited interaction with low scoring parks.

Football is played in the same field wherever you go.

---

Maybe, but the Bonds teams at their peak managed to come in high in run differential (in 2000 they led the NL).

I do think Bochy gave them a leg up in the postseason with superior bullpen usage. A great bullpen can help you overperform in close games. Still, in 2012 and 2014 they did get a bit lucky with the other top teams often getting eliminated before playing the Giants. 2010 was a pretty legit run, going through the Phillies. That team was also 2nd in the NL in run differential.

Golden One said:

---

C6Bear said:

---

Wow, a Seajerks fan who is also a bargain basement Stephen A. Jerk team, jerk coach, and an especially jerky fanbase. It's like $C North! BTW, expecting anymore PED suspensions in the coming weeks?

---

Yeah, I notice he didn't post anything about the Niners' "choke" against the Rams last evening.

---

It's as I said: conspicuously silent when he can't talk smack.

It's too bad the Rams are already eliminated, they would have beaten the 9ers on neutral field and are a lot more deserving than most of the wildcard teams that will make the playoffs, I guess that's part of being in the toughest division in the League. Goff and co were finding their stride and could have done some serious damage this winter.

Cal88 said:

---

It's too bad the Rams are already eliminated, they would have beaten the 9ers on neutral field and are a lot more deserving than most of the wildcard teams that will make the playoffs, I guess that's part of being in the toughest division in the League. Goff and co were finding their stride and could have done some serious damage this winter.

---

Most of? They will be more deserving than the final AFC wild card maybe, and possibly more than whoever wins the NFC East. But the other wild cards will be Niners/Seahawks (whoever loses next week), Vikings, and Bills. All of those teams played better than the Rams this year.

So, was that just another Seajerk choke job against AZ, or is it maybe just not so easy the play a decent and motivated team this late in the season who has nothing to lose? Well, should make for an interesting game next week. Unfortunately, while Seattle and SF are beating each other up, NO could just back right into the top spot with a gimme game against Carolina.

I know this game meant nothing for the Niners' playoff seed, but still, LOL Seahawks.

so does this make next week's game moot?

C6Bear said:

---

So, was that just another Seajerk choke job against AZ, or is it maybe just not so easy the play a decent and motivated team this late in the season who has nothing to lose? Well, should make for an interesting game next week. Unfortunately, while Seattle and SF are beating each other up, NO could just back right into the top spot with a gimme game against Carolina.

---

If SF wins they get the 1 seed. Tiebreakers thanks to beating the Saints and Packers. The rest is complicated. Packers can get it if they win out and SF loses. NO can get it if GB takes a loss and SF loses. Seattle still has an outside shot at the 1 seed if those other teams both lose.

GBear4Life said:

---

so does this make next week's game moot?

---

No, it still decides the division. Seattle would win the tiebreaker with a 2nd win over SF.

This thread did not age well

sycasey said:

---

I know this game meant nothing for the Niners' playoff seed, but still, LOL Seahawks.

---

This game meant everything for the playoff seeding and again: LOL Seahawks.

So I guess the Niners choked less tonight than the team from Seattle.

Beardog26 said:

---

So I guess the Niners choked less tonight than the team from Seattle.

---

Let's forever put to bed the idea that Carroll is especially good in close games. He's not.

Most likely scenario (IMO) is that Niners play the Seahawks again in two weeks at Levi's...

JollyBear said:

---

Most likely scenario (IMO) is that Niners play the Seahawks again in two weeks at Levi's...

---

I do have a hard time seeing Philly having enough offensive weapons to take advantage of Seattle's defensive weaknesses, but when the Seahawks have to go on the road you don't know what will happen.

sycasey said:

---

JollyBear said:

---

Most likely scenario (IMO) is that Niners play the Seahawks again in two weeks at Levi's...

---

I do have a hard time seeing Philly having enough offensive weapons to take advantage of Seattle's defensive weaknesses, but when the Seahawks have to go on the road you don't know what will happen.

---

Too early to write off philly with the amount of injuries sea has

Either way, I see the Niners benefiting a lot from getting the bye. They haven't had a break since Week 4 and the defense especially could really use the time to get healthy.

sycasey said:

---

JollyBear said:

---

Most likely scenario (IMO) is that Niners play the Seahawks again in two weeks at Levi's...

---

I do have a hard time seeing Philly having enough offensive weapons to take advantage of Seattle's defensive weaknesses, but when the Seahawks have to go on the road you don't know what will happen.

---

While that win last night was exhilarating for a few moments, I, too, quickly returned to the expected reality of the Niners likely having to face the Seahawks again in two weeks, albeit at home. But no matter - the last glowing ember of Seahawks has to be crushed out for me to relax and until then their reliance on Wilson and crazy luck continues to smolder and threaten. I have to go through this every year.