From: timr@sco.COM (Tim Ruckle)
Subject: Re: Niner's look good (IMHO)
Organization: The Gifted and the Damned
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:07:50 GMT
Summary: and they do
Keywords: 2 fumbles, 1 interception, +1 net difference for Niners


Va negvpyr <ELM.92Sep7010852@joyride.berkeley.edu>
elm@cs.berkeley.edu jevgrf:
} In article <1992Sep6.231518.6602@PacBell.COM>
} jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
} [...]
} =>I realize this is only the FIRST game of the season, but if the
} =>Niner's continue, they will be unstoppable.  The Giants looked truly
} =>out of synch.  It is hard to tell if this is due to their inability
} =>or SF's defense and pressure on Simms.
}
} I saw the game too.  The 49ers are in trouble if they play a team
} which is better than the Giants.  The Giants are a team in decline,
} yet they still managed to pressure the QB and did a passable job on
} defense...

Which QB, and which defense? ;^)

The 49ers will be in _more_ trouble *when* they play teams better than
the Giants.  Thing is, the Niners typically start slow and then shift
into high-gear for the "money" games towards the end of the season.

A good start may very well spell trouble for the other NFC hopefulls...

} =>Bono was able to spread the ball around to Taylor and Rice.  I am
} =>surprised Brent Jones was not used.  I don't remember Jones catching
} =>a ball or even had a ball thrown at him...

Jones had only one thrown to him--incomplete.  Rice had 5 catches for
56 yards.  Taylor went 2 for 60.  Neither had TD's (though there were
those penalties, dammit).  The backfield had 11 catches to the WR's 8...

} From what I saw, the Giants did lack the people to cover the 49er
} players.  The fact that Tom Rathman was so effective means that the
} Giants didn't bother (or weren't able) to cover him.  Turnovers sure
} helped as well -- good teams don't turn the ball over as much as the
} Giants did.

You mean twice?  That's almost exactly average for the NFC last year.
The best teams turned it over 1.6 times per game.  It's usually the
net difference that matters--the Redskins (and Saints) registering +18
last season.  The Niners had +1 against the Giants.  They scored on
an interception, but their fumble set up a scoring drive for New York.
I don't think turnovers really factored into this game so much, other
than the 49ers were lucky (?) to have recovered 4 of their 5 fumbles.

The fact the Rathman was effective shows the problem for a team defending
against the 49er passing attack--there are a lot of receivers, and all of
them are good (or excellent).  You wanna double-cover Rice?  Okay, what
will you do about Taylor?  And watch out for Jones over the middle.  And,
wups, there comes Rathman out of the backfield.  And hey, who's this new
Ricky Watters guy?

The secret to beating the Niners is to disrupt the QB's rhythm, and besides
the one hit that knocked the crap out've Young (who *still* managed a TD
pass, BTW!) I disagree that the Giants managed to pressure the QB, or even
put up a passable defense.  I think at best they'll help keep the NFC East
the toughest division around--at worst they may roll over like the Rams of
old...
 
} The true test for the Niners will come next week when they play the
} Bills.  I'd be surprised if the Giants manage to stay above .500 this
} year, given their 6 games against the Cowboys, Redskins, and Eagles.

Sure, the Bills are much better than the Giants right now, and tomorrow's
game will be an acid test for the 49ers.  But you could say that about any
number of NFC teams.  Don't mean the Niners don't look good.  They do.

-timr

--
To be good, according to the vulgar standard of goodness, is obviously quite
easy.  It merely requires a certain amount of sordid terror, a certain lack of
imaginative thought, and a certain low passion for middle-class respectability.
                                                                 --Oscar Wilde