Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Are the San Francisco 49ers overrated?


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

I'l say their pass rush is no joke.  They are deep at RB and George Kittle is one of the best athletes at the TE position and a BIG play machine.  We're going to have to score some points against them, like 30+ because they can score on us in an instant.  Our D is going to have just as tough of a job as our OL.

They are beatable, but who really knows how "good" they really are.  I HOPE that Ron and Co actually come out of a bye ready to go.  Would be a pleasant change!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are a good team, and they are undefeated so you have to give them credit

 

 

 

But they are a little overrated

Their opponents have a combined record of 9-21

Their 3 road games have been Tampa week 1, Rams (same place Tampa put up 50+ points), Cincinnati 

 

Theyve had some big key injuries the last few weeks that will be out.

Both OTs are out, the probowl FB out

Also probowl TE Kittle has missed practice this week with a Groin (Same thing that has held Donte Jackson the last few weeks)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFC as a whole seems to lack a juggernaut. Every team that's in the mix seems mortal. Look at last week: Seattle was down most of the week against the Browns before coming back in the final minutes and have squeaked out wins against mediocre competition all year (including Cincy and a mostly Roethlisberger-less Pitt). Green Bay was just gifted another win at home against Detroit and their offense has seemed pedestrian even with Rodgers. New Orleans seems to be a consensus top 2 team but that offense isn't scaring you with Bridgewater, flanking their TB win with 2 wins scoring a combined 25 points against average defenses. If Brees comes back 100%, that team will be scary though.

At least with San Francisco, they have handily beaten every team on their schedule, including demolishing the Browns and Rams, 2 teams with high expectations and a lot of talent, the past 2 weeks. Their only close win was against Pittsburgh where they were -3 in turnover differential and had 5 turnovers in all, 3 of them in the redzone.

I wouldn't say San Francisco is overrated unless you consider them to be an unstoppable force, which I don't think is a prevailing opinion. They are appropriately viewed as a surprising elite team that can be beaten on any given week, hopefully starting with week 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...