please ban

Footwedge;1250216 wrote:inspite of that, they were picked to be a pile of shit anyway. Do you want me to google what the Niners over/under was last year? In the shittiest of shitty divisions, it was probably 6.5 wins at best.

Why was that?

It's because most people...including Vegas....said that they...on paper...blew ass and were going to blow ass. If you can't understand that, then that's your problem.

I give credit to Harbaugh and his staff for performing a lot better than the fuggin gurus had predicted for them, I guess you were one of few that had it all figured out that San Fransisco was going all the way to the title game. Right sleuth?

Why do I bother wasting my time with you people?

The fact that San Francisco had low expectations last year does not make

Footwedge;1249756 wrote:The only thing that changed with Frisco of significance was their coaching staff.

less of a moronic thing to say. You clearly had no idea what you were talking about.

You could have just shut up about it. Instead you said

Footwedge;1249911 wrote:So they added 2 players. BFD.

which was another moronic comment because they added way more than that, the 2 I mentioned just happened to be pro bowl level players. And then you spun my response, which had nothing to do with preseason expectations whatsoever, into me somehow implying that they were expected to win more than 4 or 5 games. Which, by the way, they were.

Bodog had them at 7.5 for the over/under last year. With the over being -130, meaning more people were betting on the over. MGM had the over/under at 8, with over at -120. So they weren't expected to be as good as they were, but people weren't picking them to go 0-16 or 1-15.

Be optimistic if you want, but the 49ers last year and Browns this year aren't comparable situations at all. San Fran wasn't relying on a bunch of rookies to improve a complete garbage roster.