Official Seahawks vs 49er Post Game Thread

[NorthHawk]

What if they blocked the kick or Ryan fumbled the snap? There are a number of things that could have happened.

I agree that with the Defense playing well it looks doubtful, but like looking at teams on paper, things often work out differently than expected.

[mykc14]

What if they blocked the kick or Ryan fumbled the snap? There are a number of things that could have happened.

I agree that with the Defense playing well it looks doubtful, but like looking at teams on paper, things often work out differently than expected.

Of course those things 'could' have happened but other things could have happened also. What if RW throws a pick 6 after the call or something like that. Again, you could use that to argue any bad call or missed call from anytime in the game. There were 13 min. left and the niners couldn't move the ball, period. It was 1 questionable call not 5 or 6 that completely took the wind out of their sails. There was a questionable call that they needed to overcome, they couldn't do it and really weren't even close. Same thing happens to the Hawks all the time, sometimes they overcome it sometimes they don't. Arguing what 'could' have happened in those situations is pointless.

[NorthHawk]

Of course those things 'could' have happened but other th[b]ings could have happened also. What if RW throws a pick 6 after the call or something like that. Again, you could use that to argue any bad call or missed call from anytime in the game.[/b] There were 13 min. left and the niners couldn't move the ball, period. It was 1 questionable call not 5 or 6 that completely took the wind out of their sails. There was a questionable call that they needed to overcome, they couldn't do it and really weren't even close. Same thing happens to the Hawks all the time, sometimes they overcome it sometimes they don't. Arguing what 'could' have happened in those situations is pointless.

Exactly.
Every time a call is made that results in a TD - or maybe even during the game it can change the existing trend of action.
So to say that a penalty that resulted in another chance to score a TD and that they did score means it changed the outcome of the game.
It might not have changed the outcome of a win, but you can't say with total certainty that it didn't. You can only guess, or use the "eye test" to come to a conclusion.

[RiverDog]

What if they blocked the kick or Ryan fumbled the snap? There are a number of things that could have happened.

I agree that with the Defense playing well it looks doubtful, but like looking at teams on paper, things often work out differently than expected.

If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas we would have!

We could make 'what if' assumptions on every call and no call decision made during the course of the entire game, and the possibilities would be endless. But when you are assessing the impact of one particular call such as we are here on the roughing the passer penalty, you have to consider how the game changed, if it did change, from the way it was being played prior to the call if you want to get some sort of reasonable estimate of the impact that penalty had on the outcome of the game. This call quite simply was not game changing, at least not until the game winded down into the last part of the 4th quarter after the Niners STILL couldn't get into FG range even by going for it on 4th down not once, but twice in the same drive. Heck, they did a better job of taking time off the clock than we could have, so you can't convince me that they would have played it any differently had the lead been 6 points.

The only thing they might have done differently in a one score game vs. two scores would have been their decision to go for it on 4th and one at midfield. If they were only down by 6, then punting and using your timeouts to get the ball back would have been a viable option, but I doubt very seriously that they would have punted.

[burrrton]

It might not have changed the outcome of a win, but you can't say with total certainty that it didn't.

Of course not (logic 101), but that's why the "WHAT IF" argument is rejected, not coddled.

If they had mounted a furious comeback and scored a TD, and not been totally shut down in the 2nd half, that controversial 4 point swing matters (to people who think the call was worth arguing about).

They didn't, though, so it doesn't.

[Hawktawk]

Since week 7 the whiners and colon sackorpick have averaged 13.8 points per game. That is the lowest amount in the NFL over that span. Pretty amazing when you consider some of the truly bad teams in the league.

And that ladies and gentlemen is the problem with the 2014 whiners, and good riddance I might add.

[THX-1138]

As River so eloquently described it, the only information we have to work with on whether or not this one particular "blown" call had a negative impact on the game is by examining the 49ers performance prior to and immediately following this play:

They sucked before and after. There was neither a dramatic drop-off or sudden sharp improvement in their play after the adversity they met in the face of the "blown" call.

Seriously, though, what if's can apply to every single second, and are therefore totally dismissed in an argument of probability potential. If a conclusion needs to be drawn you can only rely confidently on the visible effect the penalty actually had. Speculation isn't fact.

After the SB with the Steelers I never got into all the "The refs jobbed us!" stuff. Yeah, the refs blew some calls but oh well. How about we score enough points for that to not be an issue? Champions overcome adversity. Losers succumb to it.

[Hawktawk]

I was right there with ya till you swerved into XL

Don't even compare one borderline call or even one bad call with the hijacking of a Lombardi that was pulled off by the repulsive reptilian Leavy as Tagliabue sat partying in Dan Rooney's luxury suite.

Hawks have a license to be pist about that forever and forever mistrust the officials.Theres never been a game that dishonestly officiated, especially a SB.That same world class A hole Leavy likely cost us the KC game this year as well.


After the SB with the Steelers I never got into all the "The refs jobbed us!" stuff. Yeah, the refs blew some calls but oh well. How about we score enough points for that to not be an issue? Champions overcome adversity. Losers succumb to it.[/quote]

I

[burrrton]

I was right there with ya till you swerved into XL

No sht. Don't start on XL and "TEH CALLS DIDN'T COST ANYONE!" nonsense, at least not with me. I went over that game with a fine-toothed comb and have screenshots, timestamps, and so on illustrating that the game was clearly and inarguably officiated differently for the two teams.

And for the record, Roethlisburger's controversial TD was not one of the things I had a problem with.

[edit]

And to save someone a post, yes, I was overly bugged by the outcome of XL, yes, I should have gotten over it, and no, I haven't gotten completely over it and never will.

It's my burden to bear, but I have XLVIII to soften the pain considerably.

[NorthHawk]

We could make 'what if' assumptions on every call and no call decision made during the course of the entire game, and the possibilities would be endless. But when you are assessing the impact of one particular call such as we are here on the roughing the passer penalty, you have to consider how the game changed, if it did change, from the way it was being played prior to the call if you want to get some sort of reasonable estimate of the impact that penalty had on the outcome of the game. This call quite simply was not game changing, at least not until the game winded down into the last part of the 4th quarter after the Niners STILL couldn't get into FG range even by going for it on 4th down not once, but twice in the same drive. Heck, they did a better job of taking time off the clock than we could have, so you can't convince me that they would have played it any differently had the lead been 6 points.

Agree with this statement and penalties change games all year long and to every team at some point. They certainly affect point spreads and they definitely affect the morale of teams when they benefit or are penalized. Some games change on penalties - we all know that and have had it happen to us in the negative.

To say a penalty at a particular time didn't change the outcome can't be proved unless you can go back in time and test it.
Clearly that's not an option, so teams that are on the bad side of calls have a right to complain that it might have cost them the game.

Someone mentioned that Super Blow.
There were calls and non calls that materially affected that game, so to say calls don't make a difference is wrong. Unless you are a Steelers fan who thinks they didn't change the game.

So what we end up with is an unsubstantiated opinion.

[HumanCockroach]

North they aren't remotely similar, and comparing the two is folly. Seattle WAS moving the ball successfully, WAS driving for a winning score, we aren't talking about a single call, or even a couple, we are talking about calls from the first through the fourth, consistently, that either took points off the board, or added points to the Steelers.

The Niners hadn't shown an ability for three quarters of the game to be able to move said ball, OR scor a single point minus the one drive ( and that was ONLY after successfully converting a 4th down into a TD). You can argue until you're blue in the face, but comparing one call that went against a team that hasn't been able to successfully accomplish squat the entire game ( ie they were WORSE offensively BEFORE the call) and a team that continually was moving the ball up and down the field only to have the plays called back on blown calls, aren't in anyway, remotely similar.

And this from a guy that has consistently stated a SB championship team overcomes those calls, scores enough points and focusses enough to win anyway.

[burrrton]

Clearly that's not an option, so teams that are on the bad side of calls have a right to complain that it might have cost them the game.

Again, the fact that we can't know what might have happened in a different reality is what makes speculating about it *nonsense*, not valid.

[THX-1138]

Hey, if you guys want to remain bent out of shape about a football game that happened nearly a decade ago, knock yourself out. Nothing under Gahd's blue sky and on Gahd's green earth will change the outcome. But the flip side of the coin is always that there were any number of things the Hawks COULD HAVE done to make those blown calls a moot point.

You got your perspective and I got mine. I won't begrudge you yours if you don't begrudge me mine. And if you disagreeing with an opinion I have over a decade old game somehow diminishes the point I'm making about last weeks game then I guess I'm wasting my energy.

[burrrton]

Hey, if you guys want to remain bent out of shape about a football game that happened nearly a decade ago, knock yourself out.

And if you want to try revisionist history now that that football game is a decade ago, bring it on.

I said then it'd always have a special place in my craw, and that's remained true.

But the flip side of the coin is always that there were any number of things the Hawks COULD HAVE done to make those blown calls a moot point.

And if the Seahawks had scored more points in the "Vinny Testaverde helmet TD" game, that wouldn't have mattered, either, right?

[NorthHawk]

North they aren't remotely similar, and comparing the two is folly. Seattle WAS moving the ball successfully, WAS driving for a winning score, we aren't talking about a single call, or even a couple, we are talking about calls from the first through the fourth, consistently, that either took points off the board, or added points to the Steelers.

The Niners hadn't shown an ability for three quarters of the game to be able to move said ball, OR scor a single point minus the one drive ( and that was ONLY after successfully converting a 4th down into a TD). You can argue until you're blue in the face, but comparing one call that went against a team that hasn't been able to successfully accomplish squat the entire game ( ie they were WORSE offensively BEFORE the call) and a team that continually was moving the ball up and down the field only to have the plays called back on blown calls, aren't in anyway, remotely similar.

And this from a guy that has consistently stated a SB championship team overcomes those calls, scores enough points and focusses enough to win anyway.

I'm sure you are not saying that teams never come back from a deficit or never get a turnover or break that changes the whole game.
We have seen teams being dominated for 3 quarters and get a good break turn it on and end up winning, we know that can happen.
Since we know it CAN happen then we can say with certainty that it MIGHT have happened therefore this call changed the result of the game because they never got the opportunity to make a big play. However, we don't know how much this changed the game. A blocked FG run back for a TD is a 10 point turnaround and 14 points relative to the TD we scored.
That how much can only be an opinion and fans of the 49ers think they might have had a chance had that penalty not be called.

[burrrton]

North, tell me what you don't get and I'll go into more detail:

All we have to go on is what we saw on the field, which is the Niners' O doing absolutely *nothing* before or after any adverse calls.

As such, any assumptions of other abilities against our D that day are moot- you can claim monkeys might have flown out of their asses with the same confidence.

If you can literally make *ANY* argument you want with the same rationale, it's not a meaningful argument. It's pointless.

So stop saying "We don't *know* for *sure* they wouldn't have put up 50 on us if that call hadn't gone against them!" like that call was some lynchpin in their offensive proficiency.

I'm sure you are not saying that teams never come back from a deficit or never get a turnover or break that changes the whole game.

*Nobody* is saying that, for gawd's sake- there is just no rational argument *that call* is what kept it from happening, though.

Understand?

[THX-1138]

And if you want to try revisionist history now that that football game is a decade ago, bring it on.

I said then it'd always have a special place in my craw, and that's remained true.

Seriously? You're going to get offended about this? This is your line in the sand? Whatever. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch and dwell on the unchangeable. It rings a bell that sounds a bit 49erish in tone. But you go ahead and internally fan the flames of past discontent and righteous indignation. I'll be over here completely forgetting about a game a decade ago and busy myself with the present. But I am curious:

What does harboring these feelings of ill content get you? Help me understand how you don't feel that just moving on is a better solution than giving power and mental hold of a situation that happened to the Seahawks a decade ago? It's like hoping to change the weather by sheer force of will. The wind is the wind, what can be done? The same applies to the past.

I mean, it's making you not see clearly. Where, in anything I wrote, did I defend in any way, shape, or form, the bad officiating in that game? How on earth do you see anything I wrote as "revisionist history"? That just doesn't even make any sense.

[burrrton]

I'll be over here completely forgetting about a game a decade ago and busy myself with the present.

Good- go win somewhere else. Because this argument is one I'll take up in a millisecond with anyone stupid enough to decide to argue it with me.

What does harboring these feelings of ill content get you?

As I said a long time ago, and have repeated over and over: nothing good, but nothing doing me long-term harm.

I don't relish it. I just decided it's something I took personally. and that doesn't harm me otherwise, so I'm not going to let it go.

Again, I view it as my burden (thankfully I have nothing more serious in my life, which means life is pretty good).

It's like hoping to change the weather by sheer force of will.

Huh? I'm not lobbying for a change in the score- I'm merely going to go toe to toe with anyone who wants to ever pretend it was Just Another Poorly Officiated Game™.

How on earth do you see anything I wrote as "revisionist history"?

You tell me if I over-read your comments, but it looked to me like you're putting XL on the same plane as any other game in which it wasn't a perfect 50-50 of calls for each team.

XL was a different breed of duck- don't include it in discussions about games with a questionable call here or there.

[HumanCockroach]

This is what I mean North, you are assuming Seattle plays identical, scores the same amount of points and loses based on a single play, the Niners offense improved after the play ( believe it or not, which illustrates how poor they had been playing) lets play this game though, SF blocks the FG, returns it for a TD..... Dials their offense down ( which is hard to do with poorly they played) and duplicates their third quarter magesty for the rest of the game, garnering no first downs and another paltry 6 yards, Seattle possesses the ball four additional times, refocusses knowing what is on the line, and scores a TD each and every drive, the defense and special teams provides a score as well, because of the non call Seattle wins 45-14....

See ANYTHING. Can be inserted, and is JUST as likely as your personal scenario. Which is WHY blaming an entire outcome on one call, early enough in the game, simply is a pointless exercise. There is no way for you to convince anyone of the outcome after the penalty that the Niners "would" have won, with any more certainty, than the outcome I just gave, because it is all make believe, and has zero validity to what actually happened. My made up outcome has as MUCH a chance of happenning as yours with millions of other outcomes possible as well. We have what we saw from the Niners offense, and Seattles D to go off of, and make an educated guess. Since SF actually IMPROVED drastically after the call, and still couldn't score a point, in this instance the educated guess goes to the Hawks still win.

[mykc14]

It rings a bell that sounds a bit 49erish in tone.

I feel the same way about Burrton on this one. I haven't let it go and I don't see it happening anytime soon and have no problem taking up the argument when somebody wants to. I also will do the same thing with Tate's Hail Mary catch to beat the Packers, but that is another story. The comparision to this call is laughable. Look at what the Hawks were doing offensively, in the SB, when those calls occurred. We had more total yards (almost 400, not counting the yards taken away by bogus penalties), won the TO battle, Had a far higher passer rating. The only area that they beat us was in penalties (we had 7 or 8 to their 2 or 3), which completely changed the outcome of that game. The Hawks were moving the ball up and down the field but their drives were continually thwarted by the officials flags. Every 'questionable' call not only moved the Hawks back but it wiped out a big gain and/or set the Steelers up to score a TD. The Hawks were the better team that day. Now compare that to the niners call and you can clearly see how different the two scenarios are. The niners did not move the ball against us in the second half. They were not going to come back from a 6 point 10 point or even a 1 point deficit, they were clearly the inferior team that day.

[Zorn76]

Congrats, savvyman, on this thread hitting 100 posts:)