Bye Week Musings

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT

So we're five games into 1997 and according to every media outlet in the universe, the 49ers are, if not the best team in the league, certainly one of the "elite" teams. While this widespread fallacy invokes a huge range of emotions, the main feeling of the NHS is a sense of deja vu.

Indeed, the only unfamiliar aspect to 1997 is that only recently has the media really pushed the 49ers as a top team. Usually, the media pegs the 49ers as the best team from the get-go. But such is the nature of the bandwagon.

Last year, the 49ers were firmly exposed as pretenders, along the way losing most of the few times they played against decent competition until the curtain was ultimately pulled by Green Bay in the playoffs. This caused some trepidation in the media that was reaffirmed opening day 1997, when the pewter and orange literally stomped all over the burgundy and cheddar. That made the media frightened to publicly back their favorite team (as well as most 49er fans), and visions of doom and gloom abounded.

So here we are in week seven and everything's back to normal. The 49ers are still the same team that everyone clearly saw just weeks ago, yet, magically, the facade has been rebuilt and media is back in their corner. The 49ers are now written and discussed as being in the "upper-echelon" of the NFL. Nobody out there seems bright enough to consider who the 49ers have been playing and note that it's just a facade, which is no surprise, if you've met members of the media.

Another reason why it's no surprise is because we've seen it so many times over, hence the feeling of deja vu. Year after year the media and fans alike fall into this familiar trap. We need only look to last year, when an obviously mediocre 49er team rolled to a 12-4 record courtesy of the NFC West and prompted the same kind of comments, only to have the truth revealed in the end. It may as well be 1996 again, because the similarity is uncanny. Look at the comparison between this season and last season thru five games (all rankings NFC):

Team stats

1996 record: 4-1
1996 record against winning teams: 0-1
1996 teams defeated: Atlanta, New Orleans, St. Louis (twice) -- all NFC West

1997 record: 4-1
1997 record against winning teams: 0-1
1997 teams defeated: Atlanta, New Orleans, St. Louis, Carolina -- all NFC West

Offensive stats

1996 49ers points scored: 135
1996 offense rank by yards: 1
1996 rushing yards rank: 2
1996 media comment: "They can run now."

1997 49ers points scored: 122
1997 offense rank by yards: 9
1997 rushing yards rank: 5
1997 media comment: "This 49ers team clearly looks as if it can run the ball."

Defensive stats

1996 49ers points allowed: 62
1996 defense rank by yards: 2
1996 media comment: "Possibly the best defense in the history of the NFL."

1997 49ers points allowed: 60
1997 defense rank by yards: 1
1997 media comment: "The top defense in the NFL."

As you can see, the 1996 numbers -- the 49ers' #1 offense and #2 defense -- made the 49ers appear as the best team in the NFL. The media, as you can see by the comments, happily accepted this facade. We thought they finally realized their idiocy when the truth was exposed, when the 49ers went 0-5 against the true upper-echelon teams en route to an embarrassing playoff exit.

Yet here we are again and the media is shamelessly repeating their own stupidity. This time, the 49ers' facade isn't even as strong -- the defense is still at the top, but the offense has fallen to #9 -- the 49ers are once again 0-1 against the only winning team they've faced, yet still the media is commenting that the 49ers are an "elite" team. Nobody is realizing the most important stat line above: all wins over NFC West teams.

The greatest example of the mainstream's ignorance is the running game comments. Look at last season when the 49ers ranked #2 in rushing yards per game. Tommy Vardell was a hero, and the media proclaimed the 49ers could run the ball. In the end, they couldn't.

Now switch to this year, with additional comments about the running game such as, "This is the Mariucci style . . . This 49ers team clearly looks as if it can run the ball," and "The rest of the NFL is watching and worrying." Yes, the 49ers aren't even matching last year's rushing performance at this point, but still the media is falling for it. William Floyd has replaced Vardell as the hero (headline: "Floyd Returns to Greatness"). Same old, same old.

As John Madden says, "winning is a great deodorant," and, just like last year, winning against the NFC West is masking the true stench of the 49ers. The amazing thing is that the media is blind to this, year in and year out. Some wonder how we can put up with it, but it's easy to put up with ignorance when you know the truth. The NHS will continue to spread the word with a smile.

Rice Redux (again)

The mainstream media asserts that Jerry Rice is the best receiver ever. Some national commentators and ESPN habitually try to argue that Rice is not only the best receiver, but the best player to ever suit up a football uniform -- better than anyone at any position, any time, anywhere that's played in any era in history.

The NHS, all along, has maintained that Rice, while obviously talented, is not the "best ever", and calling him such is an inexcusable exaggeration that discredits the game and those that gave their careers to it. His gaudy numbers and records are simply the result of being at the right place at the right time since he's been the beneficiary of rules changes and changes in offensive philosophy. (see why Rice is not "the best ever" .)

The injury to Rice has given us virtually conclusive evidence that we are correct. One, just look at the 49ers' record without Rice: 4-1. Two, look at Steve Young's passing rating without Rice: 122.3. These facts topple two frequently cited reasons why Rice is the "best ever".

First, the "best ever" proponents often point to the 49ers' great winning percentage over Jerry's career. Rice, in their opinion, has contributed to the 49ers' remarkable success, thus showing his greatness. Now, the .800 winning percentage without Rice clearly shows that his significance to the teams' win/loss record is zero. Could it be that it doesn't take "the best receiver ever" to catch a 2-yard slant in the 49er system?

Next, Steve Young's 122.3 passer rating must really frustrate Rice fans. After all, if Young is statistically better without Rice, what does that say? 49er fans always try to grab the best of both worlds, claiming Young and Rice are both the best, further, "they make each other better." Hmm, obviously not.

It's time for the truth. One: the 49ers play atrocious competition. Two: anybody can compile great numbers in the "2-yard pass" offense. It doesn't matter who is in there, it can be Jeff Kemp to Ted Popson, Moroski to Uwaezuoke. Clearly, Rice has been overrated all along, and it's time to give him his due.

Team gives props to Rams

In a strange twist, the 49ers claim they respect the Rams and are not taking them lightly.

Yes, this is the same team that year in, year out says "same old Rams" each time after winning -- and now we're supposed to believe they respect them? The Rams probably are believing this stunt and hanging up Norton's statement on the bulletin board so they can be friends.

Whatever.

Media searches for angles

In the face of the obvious, the media is grasping at straws. Take the latest from the San Jose Mercury. On Thursday, there was this series of headlines: Owens, Uwaezuoke "keep sticks moving", Deese "doing job at tackle", "It's fun again for 49ers", and "Veterans, and one key rookie, kept 49ers afloat". Yes, just about every member of the team was mentioned in just this one day of "news" as being great.

The most amusing was a column that said, "So something besides cupcake opponents must be at work here."

There you go -- there must be something more than just the cupcake opposition that's making the 49ers look great, right? Ha. Sorry to break the news, folks, but there isn't anything more -- in fact, there's hasn't been anything more for the past two years. That's the last time the 49ers actually won a meaningful game. The only thing that's given people the false impression that the 49ers are anything more than decent is their schedule.

In her search for something -- anything -- the Mercury columnist came up with two reasons. First, she cited the 49ers' "long standing tradition of others stepping up."

Huh??

Yes, that's right. She was trying to insinuate -- with a straight face mind you -- that the team best known for making up excuses has a tradition of others stepping up. How many times have you heard, "if Steve/Joe/whoever wasn't injured, we would have won," or "if Ricky Watters hadn't left because of the salary cap, we could run the ball," or even "if the ref didn't call that phantom penalty/give the other team a touchdown..." etc...

To back her position she quotes unbiased and noted football guru Harry Edwards. Okay, you haven't heard of him before, we understand, but he gets quoted a lot by the Mercury, so he must be an expert, right? In actuality, Dr. Edwards is the 49ers' team sociologist. Don't ask why the 49ers need a sociologist, just go with it. And don't consider the fact that since he's on the DeBartolo payroll that he might be biased. We're talking about the sociologist, not the media, on the payroll, although sometimes you gotta wonder.

The other reason she claimed for the 49ers' success was coach Steve Mariucci. The gist was that since he was able to muster the courage to right the sinking 49ers' ship and beat the Rams in week 2, he stepped up and is obviously great. Naturally, we assume then that Joe Bugel is great. After all, he took a Raiders team in disarray and was able to overcome the mighty Rams. Maybe she just doesn't think the Raiders paltry 35-17 win over the Rams is comparable to the great, dominating 49ers' lopsided 15-12 win.

Then we should list all the other great coaches out there that were able to overcome the other NFC West juggernauts, but, hey, we only have so much web space. Clearly, the Mercury's hypothesis comes full circle and makes no logical sense. The author tries to assert there's something more than weak opposition, but she's judging Mariucci's performance against that poor competition.

If the 49ers ever play another team with a record better than .500 -- something they haven't done for six weeks now and something they may not do until six more pass -- then maybe we'll see if there are any other reasons for the 49ers' record. Of course, by then, the 49ers will have the benefit of a gaudy win-loss record under their belts and all the perks that go along. In short, thanks to the schedule, their record will never be a true measuring stick. Only we know how they truly measure up.

Return home.

We welcome all comments.

Want to become a member? Go to membership.