There are 167 users in the forums
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
If the 9ers had Aaron Rodgers hed make up for many of our ills too. Packers have drafted very few defensive playmakers. But because they have the best qb in the game it masks the defiencies of that roster.
Originally posted by RonMexico:Originally posted by 9ers4eva:If the 9ers had Aaron Rodgers hed make up for many of our ills too. Packers have drafted very few defensive playmakers. But because they have the best qb in the game it masks the defiencies of that roster.
we would have ruined Rodgers
Originally posted by mojave45:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
This is obviously the most terrifying thing about the situation, but I feel like it's time for some new blood and a philosophy change because it's led us to where we are now unfortunately. I'd rather try and poach guys who are being groomed in highly successful situations than keep going with the status quo.
Good post. But I think this is where the anti-Baalke crowd resides and is the source of their biggest frustration lies today. Baalke player acquisitions is not the reason we're here today. The "Off season from Hell" is the reason we're here today. In one single off season, we went from one of the most playoff experienced battle-tested team with the 26th oldest roster in the NFL to the 6th youngest. Typically you see gradual turnover over several year and a GM would be exposed. But in this case, the ENTIRE roster was turned over in one single off season; so much in fact, there were only two veteran starters remaining on the field: Joe Staley & Navarro Bowman (ACL return). That is INSANE. Not even a crystal ball would have worked in this scenario for the greatest GM of all time.
And this is where you're wrong. Baalke's job is to acquire talent for this team and he's had issue doing so since 2012. He hasn't drafted a difference-maker since Aldon Smith and he's gambled too much on ACL picks in earlier rounds where he should be getting solid contributors and role players at the very least.
There's plenty of teams that go through injuries like we did, but unlike us they have the talent to step in when someone goes down. Want to talk bad luck with injuries? Look at the Packers:
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/6/12/5804284/packers-injury-luck-among-worst-in-nfl-in-recent-years
They don't seem to have a hard time making it to the playoffs. I'm growing extremely tired of the excuses for Baalke, nothing is ever his fault.
Unfortunately those expectations are unrealistic from my POV. You turn the Seattle Seahawks roster over in one off season to the point where only one veteran is starting on both sides of the line and we'd all be
The ONLY way we could have been competitive last year and not hit rock bottom with that young of a roster (volume of turnover) would be if we had a Franchise QB to carry us, and even then, you're talking 8 wins most likely.
That said, this young roster (5 games worth of NFL experience on offense/8 on the defense) IS Baalke's roster now. 100%. So by the end of this year, we should have a good understanding on the quality of those picks. After this season and the conclusion of 2017, there should be no doubt as to where Baalke's strengths/weaknesses lie with this new generation of players.
PS: I've demonstrated what this roster could have looked like today had this off season from hell not occurred. It's remarkable. Every fan in here would take that lineup in a heartbeat and be talking playoffs. You call them "excuses" when in fact, they are just harsh realities that are conveniently ignored to meet an agenda in this no-excuse world you and others live in.
Yup. After this season, there are no gray areas about who was in charge of what draft picks, who had input, etc. This team is all Baalke. Good or bad, when we review and evaluate at the end of this year, we will know who we are as a team, and where we stand on talent.
Originally posted by Joecool:
New blood would be the worst thing in this case. Chip is a different type of coach and it seems enough people around the league do not believe in his system as successful if all of it is incorporated. Parts, yes, but not all. We would need a GM that works well with Chip. Gamble and Kelly, when they were together, had success. Don't know why we wouldn't just go with Gamble if Baalke's talent/roster doesn't pan out.
Yeah, you know very well the reservations I voiced prior to hiring Chip. The fact that I quit moaning about him when he came on board is purely because I don't see the point of crying now, and hope he does well. So as you say, the coaching and scheme, being successful is a big assumption, but no excuses for talent that is here or isn't.Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by mojave45:Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by itlynstalyn:Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by itlynstalyn:This is obviously the most terrifying thing about the situation, but I feel like it's time for some new blood and a philosophy change because it's led us to where we are now unfortunately. I'd rather try and poach guys who are being groomed in highly successful situations than keep going with the status quo.
Good post. But I think this is where the anti-Baalke crowd resides and is the source of their biggest frustration lies today. Baalke player acquisitions is not the reason we're here today. The "Off season from Hell" is the reason we're here today. In one single off season, we went from one of the most playoff experienced battle-tested team with the 26th oldest roster in the NFL to the 6th youngest. Typically you see gradual turnover over several year and a GM would be exposed. But in this case, the ENTIRE roster was turned over in one single off season; so much in fact, there were only two veteran starters remaining on the field: Joe Staley & Navarro Bowman (ACL return). That is INSANE. Not even a crystal ball would have worked in this scenario for the greatest GM of all time.
And this is where you're wrong. Baalke's job is to acquire talent for this team and he's had issue doing so since 2012. He hasn't drafted a difference-maker since Aldon Smith and he's gambled too much on ACL picks in earlier rounds where he should be getting solid contributors and role players at the very least.
There's plenty of teams that go through injuries like we did, but unlike us they have the talent to step in when someone goes down. Want to talk bad luck with injuries? Look at the Packers:
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/6/12/5804284/packers-injury-luck-among-worst-in-nfl-in-recent-years
They don't seem to have a hard time making it to the playoffs. I'm growing extremely tired of the excuses for Baalke, nothing is ever his fault.
Unfortunately those expectations are unrealistic from my POV. You turn the Seattle Seahawks roster over in one off season to the point where only one veteran is starting on both sides of the line and we'd all be
The ONLY way we could have been competitive last year and not hit rock bottom with that young of a roster (volume of turnover) would be if we had a Franchise QB to carry us, and even then, you're talking 8 wins most likely.
That said, this young roster (5 games worth of NFL experience on offense/8 on the defense) IS Baalke's roster now. 100%. So by the end of this year, we should have a good understanding on the quality of those picks. After this season and the conclusion of 2017, there should be no doubt as to where Baalke's strengths/weaknesses lie with this new generation of players.
PS: I've demonstrated what this roster could have looked like today had this off season from hell not occurred. It's remarkable. Every fan in here would take that lineup in a heartbeat and be talking playoffs. You call them "excuses" when in fact, they are just harsh realities that are conveniently ignored to meet an agenda in this no-excuse world you and others live in.
Yup. After this season, there are no gray areas about who was in charge of what draft picks, who had input, etc. This team is all Baalke. Good or bad, when we review and evaluate at the end of this year, we will know who we are as a team, and where we stand on talent.
For sure. Just like with a poor OL...if you don't have a quality OL, you'll never be able to evaluate the skill positions. That's no different for a GM. Until these kids have more than 5 & 8 games worth of NFL snaps under quality coaching staff and schemes, we'll never be able to evaluate ANY of the players properly/justly. Assuming we have that now (quality OL, coaching and scheme), and it's a big assumption, by the end of this year and into the next, these players will be in position to be properly evaluated right along with the man who picked them.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Unfortunately those expectations are unrealistic from my POV. You turn the Seattle Seahawks roster over in one off season to the point where only one veteran is starting on both sides of the line and we'd all be
The ONLY way we could have been competitive last year and not hit rock bottom with that young of a roster/turnover would be if we had a Franchise QB to carry us, and even then, you're talking 8 wins most likely.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Joecool:
New blood would be the worst thing in this case. Chip is a different type of coach and it seems enough people around the league do not believe in his system as successful if all of it is incorporated. Parts, yes, but not all. We would need a GM that works well with Chip. Gamble and Kelly, when they were together, had success. Don't know why we wouldn't just go with Gamble if Baalke's talent/roster doesn't pan out.
Because another poster just showed they didn't have success together...a couple/few pages back.
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Unfortunately those expectations are unrealistic from my POV. You turn the Seattle Seahawks roster over in one off season to the point where only one veteran is starting on both sides of the line and we'd all be
The ONLY way we could have been competitive last year and not hit rock bottom with that young of a roster/turnover would be if we had a Franchise QB to carry us, and even then, you're talking 8 wins most likely.
Not even remotely true. If Baalke hadn't gambled so much on players he thought would contribute some day down the line, he'd actually might have some starters or players coming into their own with the last three drafts. Him completely screwing the pooch in 2012 and not even getting ONE good player out of that draft set us this franchise back years.
I'm tired of the losing and Baalke has a lot to do with it. Expectations are unrealistic? Would you rather not be like teams like the Patriots and Packers who have GM's that can run a franchise that competes year in and year out? s**t, the Patriots almost made the playoffs with Matt Cassel as QB in 2008. I want someone in charge that doesn't feel losing is acceptable and that rebuilding is just a cyclical part of football. Tell that to the better franchises in the NFL.
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Joecool:
New blood would be the worst thing in this case. Chip is a different type of coach and it seems enough people around the league do not believe in his system as successful if all of it is incorporated. Parts, yes, but not all. We would need a GM that works well with Chip. Gamble and Kelly, when they were together, had success. Don't know why we wouldn't just go with Gamble if Baalke's talent/roster doesn't pan out.
Because another poster just showed they didn't have success together...a couple/few pages back.
I'm mostly talking about the fact that they work well together. Who knows how things went in terms of personnel with all the backstabbing that happened in PHI.
Originally posted by Joecool:New blood would be the worst thing in this case. Chip is a different type of coach and it seems enough people around the league do not believe in his system as successful if all of it is incorporated. Parts, yes, but not all. We would need a GM that works well with Chip. Gamble and Kelly, when they were together, had success. Don't know why we wouldn't just go with Gamble if Baalke's talent/roster doesn't pan out.
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Unfortunately those expectations are unrealistic from my POV. You turn the Seattle Seahawks roster over in one off season to the point where only one veteran is starting on both sides of the line and we'd all be
The ONLY way we could have been competitive last year and not hit rock bottom with that young of a roster/turnover would be if we had a Franchise QB to carry us, and even then, you're talking 8 wins most likely.
Not even remotely true. If Baalke hadn't gambled so much on players he thought would contribute some day down the line, he'd actually might have some starters or players coming into their own with the last three drafts. Him completely screwing the pooch in 2012 and not even getting ONE good player out of that draft set us this franchise back years.
I'm tired of the losing and Baalke has a lot to do with it. Expectations are unrealistic? Would you rather not be like teams like the Patriots and Packers who have GM's that can run a franchise that competes year in and year out? s**t, the Patriots almost made the playoffs with Matt Cassel as QB in 2008. I want someone in charge that doesn't feel losing is acceptable and that rebuilding is just a cyclical part of football. Tell that to the better franchises in the NFL.
We can't allow ourselves to become like complacent Browns/Lions fans. We just can't.
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Unfortunately those expectations are unrealistic from my POV. You turn the Seattle Seahawks roster over in one off season to the point where only one veteran is starting on both sides of the line and we'd all be
The ONLY way we could have been competitive last year and not hit rock bottom with that young of a roster/turnover would be if we had a Franchise QB to carry us, and even then, you're talking 8 wins most likely.
Not even remotely true. If Baalke hadn't gambled so much on players he thought would contribute some day down the line, he'd actually might have some starters or players coming into their own with the last three drafts. Him completely screwing the pooch in 2012 and not even getting ONE good player out of that draft set this franchise back years.
I'm tired of the losing and Baalke has a lot to do with it. Expectations are unrealistic? Would you rather not be like teams like the Patriots and Packers who have GM's that can run a franchise that competes year in and year out? s**t, the Patriots almost made the playoffs with Matt Cassel as QB in 2008. I want someone in charge that doesn't feel losing is acceptable and that rebuilding is just a cyclical part of football. Tell that to the better franchises in the NFL.
Originally posted by NCommand:
I appreciate the discussion and certainly respect your take, but it seems you are missing a lot of context here...as to how we really got here. If you could outline how a rebuild could have been avoided, I'd love to read it and discuss. But if you are banking on a poor 2012 draft or even 2013 to pull us out of it, most teams are lucky if you get 3 starters per draft...so are 6 players really going to make a difference unless one of them was a Franchise QB? The natural ebb-flow of the NFL is a natural bell-curve unless you are built young from the bottom up (Seattle). What we went through was no normal and unavoidable IMHO. It you can outline how it could have been avoided, even with 20-20 hindsight, I'd gladly read and consider it.