The 49ers were 1st in the league on defense against the run and gave up only one rushing TD all season.
They gave up three (two in the final game vs. the Rams), but who’s counting?
FWIW, in the 49ers first SB season 30 years ago, there was much discussion by Bay Area sportswriters about the sloppy conditions in Candlestick. The consensus then was that it helped the 49ers passing game, because the offensive linemen could settle in to pass block, while the defensive linemen had to slip and slide to get past them. I think this is the same logic that dictates that north-south running is favored under these conditions—the idea is that the OL minimize their lateral movement. But now I see other writers claiming that it hurts the Giants passing game, because the receivers can’t make their cuts as easily. But couldn’t you argue it’s harder for the defenders to stay with them? We shall see.
In any case, I think a big key for the 49ers is Michael Crabtree. Their receiving corps has been decimated by injuries (and Braylon Edwards cut), the main men are down to Davis and Crabtree, with Gore the escape valve. After his performance against the Saints, Davis will receive plenty of attention from the Giant secondary, putting a lot of pressure, I would say, on Crabtree. He caught a TD pass against NO, but otherwise had a quiet day, four catches for just 25 yds. (and maybe three dropped passes; for a guy with less than blazing speed, that is really unforgiveable). If he doesn’t do better than that Sunday, the Giants will almost certainly win. Against NO, Davis had a whopping 60% of the 49ers passing offense. That is too unbalanced, you can win one game like that, but certainly not consistently.
For the Giants, I think their fortunes are closely tied to Eli. NO came into the game last week I think no. 6 in rushing in the NFL, and only gained I believe fifteen yards on the ground. Fifteen yards! That must be some kind of record, the ratio of passing yards to rushing yards (something like 30:1) definitely has to be a record. Yet they still barely lost, despite all those turnovers. The run to set up the pass philosophy seems obsolete these days.
The two teams have a rich playoff history. In the Montana decade, they met in the postseason five times, and four times the winner went on to win the SB. I believe the only previous time they met in a championship game, though, was in the 1990-91 season, at Candlestick, where a critical fumble by the 49ers allowed the Giants to get the ball back and drive for the winning FG. That was a low-scoring defensive battle much like what many are predicting for Sunday, though I think there will be more scoring this time.
Here’s an interesting piece of trivia I hadn’t been aware of. This will be the 8th championship game at Candlestick. That is an NFL record, for either conference. Pittsburgh’s 3 Rivers has hosted seven, but the Steelers don’t play there any more. And probably the 49ers will move to a new stadium in a few years.
Alpe, your first two suggestions, about seeding on the basis of conference record, and home field advantage, sound fine. And the last suggestion, reducing the playoff teams to four, I obviously agree with. Your other two suggestions seem problematical. In the first place, if I understand you correctly, they are only an advantage if the team with the better record (team A) wins the coin toss. In that case, it gets to receive the kickoff at the start of both halves. OK, that may be a significant advantage, but it might not be, and whether it is depends on chance factors: a) winning the coin toss; and b) there is an odd number of drives in each half (IOW, the team that gets the ball first also has it last). If you’re going to reward team A, why would you make that reward contingent on chance factors? Isn’t the whole point of revising the system to reduce the role of chance? Why not eliminate the coin toss entirely in that situation, and let team A receive both halves?
The more fundamental problem I have, though, is that if an advantage really is an advantage, it has to translate into points or potential points. Consider home field. Most people believe that is worth at least 2-3 pts, and this is actually reflected in spreads, which are affected by where the game is played. People actually believe HFA is worth points to the extent they will put their money on it.
Or consider your rule change, when team A gets the ball first both halves. That could mean a swing of two possessions (team A gets the ball one more time than team B, instead of the reverse). With stats on what % of their drives teams score, that advantage can actually be quantified, we can say how many points it’s worth on average.
Given that, what is wrong with giving a team an actual three or whatever point advantage? What’s the difference?
I can imagine two responses to this. One would be along the lines of, the three points is a real handicap that an underdog team has to overcome, while advantages in home field or rules on kicking and receiving are only potential. They don’t have to cost the underdog points. If it is determined enough it can overcome crowd noise or having a disadvantage in possessions.
In the first place, I don’t buy that logic. It implies that teams don’t try as hard as they can to win, that there is always a little extra in the tank that isn’t used unless conditions are really adverse; only then do they play their best. I don’t think that is the case. Teams do have good days and bad days, and they may find it easier to motivate themselves more for one situation than another, but I really don’t think they say, well, we’re going on the road this week, so we will play a little harder than we do when at home, because of that little extra disadvantage we have. Or, we have to play defense at the start of both halves, so we will suck it up and play a little bit harder than we otherwise would. Come on.
But even if you disagree, and believe it is the case that a team can take it up a notch when confronted with a challenge, why can’t they likewise tap into the extra to overcome a point advantage? If being on the road, or being confronted with some of your rule changes, can be overcome by an extra effort, why can’t a point advantage be as well? It gets back to my point: if an advantage really is an advantage, it’s going to help one team and hurt the other.
A second response might be that being explicit takes some of the suspense out. Three points or whatever is three points, whereas with different teams and different situations, home field or your rules may lead to unpredictable results. They could be worth more than three points, or they could be worth nothing. But that argument is just another one in support of chance factors, which supposedly we are trying to eliminate. If we are trying to reduce the possibility that 15-1 GB will be eliminated because of chance factors, why not give them a definite point advantage, rather than some rule that may or may not help them?
There may be good arguments against a point handicap, but I don’t think they’re rational. They’re psychological. Factors like homefield advantage—and maybe your proposed changes—I think are better tolerated because the fans can have their cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, they can believe they are giving the team with a better record a reward that it deserves. On the other, they can pretend that it isn’t “really” an advantage, that though we call it an advantage, the two teams really do play the game on a level field. My proposal takes the blinders off, and forces the fans to stop pretending and look at reality. If you’re going to give a team an advantage, be explicit about what its value is.
But it goes without saying that this is all just my jawing away. There is no way a change like this will ever occur, I have no illusions about that.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram