LISTEN: State Of The 49ers With Larry Krueger →

There are 186 users in the forums

49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Shop Find 49ers gear online

49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 33,368
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Giedi:
I'm sure you can also give me the lotto numbers for the next million dollar lotto prize too, eh?

I don't know, maybe you are right, maybe not. But Keller would be the kind of QB I think Kyle would at least take a look at. He plays in a pro-style offense and he can be easily graded because of that. Same with Wilton. If they do well this next year - they just might be in the 2nd to 4rth rounds and I'm thinking Kyle can build a team around guys like these a lot easier than guys that play in the spread or run oriented kinds of offenses.

It's odds man...it's 5.5% success rate since 2004 and that's looking at the top 32 picks vs 192 picks on a yearly basis. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the odds are FAR from good.

If you want to continue to go down the baalke route and not value the QB position fine....good teams invest in it and that's a fact. It's 2017 not 1970 the game is played differently and the rules have made it so that the QB position is that much more important....go look at who gets paid the most. It's not a RB, OT, or any defensive player....it's the QB.
I think you are going about your Franchise QB analysis the wrong way. I think you are looking at 1st round picks and looking at starter level QB's and playoffs. I look at super bowl teams. First of all Super Bowl teams are outliers. They are at the extreme end of the 95% confidence interval level. Looking simply at 1st round QB starters in the NFL doesn't really tell you anything about winning super bowls. You mention the Buffalo Bills, and Jim Kelly, a franchise QB - and you look at his defenses and only in 1990 did he really have a top of the line defense that ranked high in yards and points.

By Inordinately focusing your attention on Franchise Level QB's, you will miss the fact that Super Bowls are won by top of the line defenses. Now, I understand your point about QB's that extraordinarily physically and mentally talented will only be available in the first round, and I agree with that, but again if you look at how super bowl teams are put together - they first of all have a system. Then they get players to play in that system.

As an example of a system, I was lucky enough to listen into a discussion with Bill Curry - center for the Green Bay Packers back in 1966. He was talking about the fact that Vince Lombardi was one of the most forward thinking coaches in the country, not because he knew X's and O's, (and he did know that - if you look at his green bay sweep play) but the fact that he racially integrated black players with white players in the NFL. No coach during that time would do it to the extent that he did during those racially charged times. Vince actively recruited, drafted, and traded for talented mid range black players. Bill says he had the highest proportion of African American players in the NFL during the heyday of the Green Bay Packers. Bill says it was an edge he had for a long time before the other coaches figured it out, and he believed that's why the Green Bay Packers three-peated, and no one else has done so ever since. Who was his QB? A guy named Bart and yeah he was picked in the first round. (kidding - he'd be undrafted today)

If you look at the Pittsburg Steelers, you are looking at a Sid Gillman offense coupled with a defense.

If you look at Tom Landry, it was basically Vince Lombardi's system, coupled with the Flex Defense, which was his own take on defending the *run to daylight* offensive approach by Vince.

Walsh - nuff said.

Point I'm making is that if you want to win super bowls, you start with defense. Not so much the QB. Yes, you do need a Franchise QB. Yes you do need a QB with *balls* as one very knowledgeable poster said very eloquently, but what you really need a QB that doesn't make bone headed mistakes and you build a balanced team around him so he can move the ball against good defenses. But you need a good system and the players to fit the system, and I just don't think Kyle needs that first round QB with a rocket launcher arm and gazelle legs, in my opinion to build a super bowl team around.
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Originally posted by FL9er:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by GoldenGateGlory:
Yet Like a toddler walking a Great Dane, clinging to a lead is something we simply couldn't do last year.

Clinging to a lead? This ain't a HaRoman offense anymore...

Myth

Look at the point differentials from the HaRonan era.

We still don't have nails left from those three years. Anybody that watched our offense during that time knew it always seemed to come down to the wire...a key defensive stop or a FG. There was no such thing as a comfortable lead back then.

That point differential tells me the 49ers defense and special teams were lights out.

Absolutely and that they were not squeaking by teams every week and that they didn't have a defense killing offensive scheme like the 49ers had last year.

People still b***hing we didn't win by "more" points.
Wow

Give me the same three years, hell all four years of those wins the next four years.
And I don't give a flying f**k If we win em all by one point.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
You are aware I made that comment because we didn't go after fa's and Shanny could of been explaining that. Which pending the date could fall in line with the quote you posted too. Just how aggressive we we were going to be win right away. That's not necessarily saying we're playing rooks who aren't ready.

It's way too early to be saying how awesome the draft class is. Darnold I think stands but both Rosen and Allen could see their stocks tumble just like Kizer's did. Allen is in Wyoming so his production bar will be high, Rosen has personality and injury issues. What does Carr and Jimmy G have to do with this? They're 2nd round picks and your whole argument is we have to draft in the 1st because success rate? If Shanny can locate and develop a 2nd to 4th your whole premise is faulty.

You listed 2 teams that never made the playoffs 2 qb's who look to end up in the 10-16 range. Awesome.

You brought up bortles not me for whatever reason (and I talked about how Kyle wouldn't have draft Blake, but would have gone after Carr or jimmy G more than likely...just because they were drafted in the 2nd doesn't mean kyle would have drafted them there either)...blake wasn't looked at as some can't miss QB prospect and imo next yr class could very well have 3 of those. Whether you agree or not is fine, I do think that.

Yeah I listed two teams that werre a mess and then got new FOs and new qbs...they're going in the right direction. I'll take what they got vs teams that are constantly messed around with 5-8 win seasons like the bills and jets.

This whole debate started with what your expecting or would be happy with....I told you what I'd be happy with and I'm fine with making a play at one of the top QB in the draft vs getting some moral victory and 7 wins (which I don't think we'll get anyway). If you don't feel that way that's fine. Agree to disagree, move on.

FYI that article which was from a podcast was based around how kyle is gonna get SF back...

http://www.49erswebzone.com/articles/106801-kyle-shanahan-never-want-compete-year-expense-future/
Originally posted by NYniner85:
You brought up bortles not me for whatever reason (and I talked about how Kyle wouldn't have draft Blake, but would have gone after Carr or jimmy G more than likely...just because they were drafted in the 2nd doesn't mean kyle would have drafted them there either)...blake wasn't looked at as some can't miss QB prospect and imo next yr class could very well have 3 of those. Whether you agree or not is fine, I do think that.

Yeah I listed two teams that werre a mess and then got new FOs and new qbs...they're going in the right direction. I'll take what they got vs teams that are constantly messed around with 5-8 win seasons like the bills and jets.

This whole debate started with what your expecting or would be happy with....I told you what I'd be happy with and I'm fine with making a play at one of the top QB in the draft vs getting some moral victory and 7 wins (which I don't think we'll get anyway). If you don't feel that way that's fine. Agree to disagree, move on.

FYI that article which was from a podcast was based around how kyle is gonna get SF back...

http://www.49erswebzone.com/articles/106801-kyle-shanahan-never-want-compete-year-expense-future/

They may be going in the right direction. As Nolan will tell you 7-9 wins is not quite there because you can just as easily fall back. He would have took them in the 2nd which just doesn't fall in line with your argument that we're better off losing now. No one takes a 2nd rounder top 5. At the very worse you trade up into the 1st which really doesn't matter in this talk.
[ Edited by tjd808185 on Jun 23, 2017 at 10:12 AM ]
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Giedi:
I share your sentiments exactly!

No one is saying don't get Kirk if you can...I've been at the top of the mountain screaming for Kirk BUT if he gets a deal done then what? The next step is the draft and I want the best chance for our staff at getting who we want period.

People undervaluing the QB position in here is f**king crazy...oh kyle will just take another mid rd QB prospect and turn him into Joe Montana lol.

No, I just think you are over-valuing the QB position. I mean where would Staubach would be without Bullet Hays, Bradshaw without Swann & Harris, Montana without Clark and Eric Wright who horsecollered Pearson to prevent the Cowboys from scoring on us after *the catch.* Tom without Edleman. Franchise QB's are surrounded by good people, that's my point. I am not saying Franchise QB's are not important. I'm just saying just get a good QB that can distribute the ball and not make stupid turnovers and move the ball against quality defenses. I'm from the point of view that Defense wins championships, so what has been done in the past that's been successful is get a good QB and surround him with good people, and more likely than not - you get a franchise QB. When I say good QB, I don't mean check down Alex. I mean a courageous QB that can throw a deep ball, the short ball, drill the out, and have great touch (which is important for the WCO). But even if you do get an Alex vs Peyton Manning, if you have a top of the line defense and give a guy like Alex a pair of 900+ yard receivers and a good thousand yard rusher you get the playoffs. Again, once in the playoffs, anything is possible. (and yes - I know Alex was a round 1 pick 1 player - so even round 1 pick 1 you may not get that Peyton kinda dude )

Defense doesn't win championships. A defense and run-game gets you guaranteed playoffs. Now include an efficient QB that has some balls and that is what wins championships.

A FQB can make the playoffs without a run-game and with a mediocre defense. But a mediocre defense and no run-game cannot make the playoffs without a FQB.

I'll take a top defense anyday of the week and twice on SUNDAY! Lol

The facts state differently. Defenses win championships.
Look at the SB winners thru the years. They had Top defenses.


Look at just a couple of "franchise" QB's that got feasted on top defenses just recently.


Look at the cam against Denver. How about Peyton against the seacawks.. oh yea, Peyton was past his prime...
Go look at Peyton getting owned year after year in the playoffs. And the year he went with Indy his defense balled out.
How about the ravens?
Pitts top defenses have always kept them in games.

Our SB's, we had top defenses.

And to mention Brady/BellaCheat, do you realize Brady's teams have had top defenses when they've been winning these SB's?
Early in Brady's careeer there defense carried them, and when they were the highest scoring offense going undefeated a team, the better defense beat them in be SB.
Actually, pats always have top defenses or close to it when they've won SB's..

Why are the seaCawks always in every game still? Defense.

People overlook how much that top defense helps there offense. Shorter field, more opportunities to score, etc.

Give me a top 5 defense (WITH QUALITY COACHING) any day and at least I know we will be in the games.
[ Edited by jeepzilla on Jun 23, 2017 at 10:14 AM ]
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
I'm probably going to hash this up but will give it a try, NY.

Since Mooch was unceremoniously dumped in 2001(or whatever yr it was) i assumed we would get another HC who came from an OC background, the idea being if you don't have your HC as an OC, then any great OC ends up as a HC elsewhere. Well, we didn't . At least if we had a HC during the last 16+ yrs, and he was an OC, then he wasn't a very good one. Chip is a prime example. Harbaw was supposed to be a hot shot at playcalling and a QB whisperer, and to this day, i think that was horse puckey.

Early 2017 we land a HC/OC, and arguably the best one out there. FINALLY. Now the question is does the QB matter that much, or does the HC/OC QB-Whisperer/playcaller matter equally? Kyle laid it out pretty succinctly. He wants a QB who has the fundamentals , pocket awareness, keeps eyes downfield, accurate, good leader, etc....heck, everyone knows the list by now. So my question is do we need the one best QB of a bunch of "can't miss QBs", just like this yr, when there were none... or do we need a guy , perhaps like CJ, who already knows and has the fundamentals, who we pair with the best QB-groomer/whisperer/playcaller....like Kyle...and put the two together and get the QB we need? I don't think we are getting "Tom Brady 2" next yr, because that would be an amazing piece of luck. And any of the 32 teams are just as likely to get the next Brady as we are. Besides, Brady was picked by sheer luck, not skill, or he would have gone as 1st pick in rd 1....and he went some 200+ picks later.

So my question is can we win with a super wunderkind OC/HC and a good fundamentals QB? And i mean win it all, and win repeatedly? Or do we have to have Montana, or Brady or Rodgers to win and then do it again? I ask because right now, NY, you seem to be putting everything on the picking the perfect Qb...when i wonder if the real goal should be best HC/OC /playcaller out there paired with a QB who has excellent fundamentals, but wasn't necessarily the top rated QB by the "experts" who pontificate during the draft?

Simply put, could it be that we have the OC/HC/ playcaller we absolutely had to have, and then matching him up with the best fundamentals QB we can find = road to winning the SB? And that means repeatedly. Maybe we already have him in CJ. Maybe he is in next yrs draft, altho not necessarily a top rated pick....but fundamentals wise, he is top flite.

Also i think most would agree that the one best guy for us at present is Cousins. But getting him is a shakey proposition, and to bet on Cousins being here next yr , and ONLY on that, is a bad bet. Danny Snyder will do anything to prevent that. He may cut off his nose to spite his face. So banking on Cousins is an entirely separate track, and if it happens, fantastic. Meantime, we have rebuilt the D with a realistic shot at having a top 5 front 7, doubled the RB starters, pretty well solidified the OL, changed out retread WRs for much better ones( tho no #1), and obviously exponentially gotten better at HC/OC...with a good shot at DC becoming a way better one than since Fangio left.

What that leaves us with is Hoyer and a shot at his fundamentals and knowledge of Kyle's WCO, and CJ, a developmental project with good fundamentals, next yrs draft and FA. Can we fashion a Qb with Kyle as head man without getting the consensus #1 QB pick in the draft? I hope so. I also think so. Would Joe have been as successufl without Coach Walsh? Would Brady been as successful without Bellichek? I don't know, but paired wiht someone like tomsul, chip, singletary, etc, i bet not. We may not even know their names had it not been for the coach they were paired with...by luck, mind you.

So whether it is Hoyer/Barks/CJ/ next yr qB in draft/ FA(cousins)....i think we have the most important part taken care of ...right now. And that is kyle. Now he just has to find out can Hoyer carry the load...or CJ...or next yr's draft pick...or FA? If we got a Dak Prescott next yr and had tomsul or chip as HC, we would fail.

Therefore the HC/OC is of equal importance IMO, to the QB wiht good fundamentals. You have to have both...and we got the HC/OC part right. Meantime John and Kyle have put a team together that has the talent , but not the experience. That is what this yr is for. Experience. Now kyle just needs to find the guy who can be our long term Qb, or FR QB if you will, but he may not necessarily be one of the consensus top qB picks.

Getting the highest consensus QB pick is not as important as both the above. This team needs to play together for a yr, and we need to find who is /or isn't the Qb we need. But i do not think we need a brady. We need a Bill Walsh like HC/OC who can fashion his Qb and pick a talented one, much like Walsh did. And kyle has an eye for picking QBs and also for grooming them. He has done so at 3 previous stops.

I think we are a lot closer than most think to getting where we need to be. We got the hard part...a great HC/OC. The rest falls in place , whether this yr or next. The icing on the cake is we have a genuine virgin GM who in one yr has proven to be a fantastic pick...and is a good judge of talent. We are close.

Doc, I don't know how close we are yet to getting back to where we need to be. But I want to mention the other part of your post about is it the QB or the great coach that matters... I have always wondered how good Montana would have been if he hadn't been groomed by Walsh. We know what a difference Walsh made in Steve Young's career. Yes a great coach needs a talented player to groom, but that player needs to be developed properly too. So I am not of the opinion that the QB Kyle and Lynch go after absolutely, positively has to be a top 5 draft pick. I just hope who ever it is they target next year is the correct pick long term. I don't care if they decide the guy Kyle wants is in the second round for example. Or if we have to trade up a little to get "The Guy".

This year is so important in building the team foundation, installing the new defense and offense, and preparing for a respectable season in 2018.I don't think we should tank for draft picks, but I am not going to complain if we play the rookies a lot either in preparation for 2018, and win 3-4 games as a result of it while improving how competitive we look on game day. We were historically bad last year, I don't expect miracles this year, but next year I want to see our future QB, and at least a glimpse of where we are going to be in the long run.
I will say if we start 1-7 maybe I'll see your point then. I don't see us being that bad. As of now 7-9 wins is not out of the question. We already have a top rushing attack with Shanny coming into the mix if we can just get to average passing we'll be fine there. Shanny got 7 wins out of Hoyer without a competent run game in Clv which for him is a rare to say the least. Defensively it's a bigger hurdle but we also did a lot to improve the front 7.
Originally posted by Giedi:
I think you are going about your Franchise QB analysis the wrong way. I think you are looking at 1st round picks and looking at starter level QB's and playoffs. I look at super bowl teams. First of all Super Bowl teams are outliers. They are at the extreme end of the 95% confidence interval level. Looking simply at 1st round QB starters in the NFL doesn't really tell you anything about winning super bowls. You mention the Buffalo Bills, and Jim Kelly, a franchise QB - and you look at his defenses and only in 1990 did he really have a top of the line defense that ranked high in yards and points.

By Inordinately focusing your attention on Franchise Level QB's, you will miss the fact that Super Bowls are won by top of the line defenses. Now, I understand your point about QB's that extraordinarily physically and mentally talented will only be available in the first round, and I agree with that, but again if you look at how super bowl teams are put together - they first of all have a system. Then they get players to play in that system.

As an example of a system, I was lucky enough to listen into a discussion with Bill Curry - center for the Green Bay Packers back in 1966. He was talking about the fact that Vince Lombardi was one of the most forward thinking coaches in the country, not because he knew X's and O's, (and he did know that - if you look at his green bay sweep play) but the fact that he racially integrated black players with white players in the NFL. No coach during that time would do it to the extent that he did during those racially charged times. Vince actively recruited, drafted, and traded for talented mid range black players. Bill says he had the highest proportion of African American players in the NFL during the heyday of the Green Bay Packers. Bill says it was an edge he had for a long time before the other coaches figured it out, and he believed that's why the Green Bay Packers three-peated, and no one else has done so ever since. Who was his QB? A guy named Bart and yeah he was picked in the first round. (kidding - he'd be undrafted today)

If you look at the Pittsburg Steelers, you are looking at a Sid Gillman offense coupled with a defense.

If you look at Tom Landry, it was basically Vince Lombardi's system, coupled with the Flex Defense, which was his own take on defending the *run to daylight* offensive approach by Vince.

Walsh - nuff said.

Point I'm making is that if you want to win super bowls, you start with defense. Not so much the QB. Yes, you do need a Franchise QB. Yes you do need a QB with *balls* as one very knowledgeable poster said very eloquently, but what you really need a QB that doesn't make bone headed mistakes and you build a balanced team around him so he can move the ball against good defenses. But you need a good system and the players to fit the system, and I just don't think Kyle needs that first round QB with a rocket launcher arm and gazelle legs, in my opinion to build a super bowl team around.

Did you not even read the article I provided?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/platform/amp/2017-nfl-mock-drafts-profiles-video-clips-highlights-steelers-analysis-breakdowns-news/2017/1/24/14160074/taking-a-qb-outside-the-first-round-in-the-nfl-draft-is-a-crapshoot-steelers-ben-roethlisberger

I don't care who's won a SB, I care about who's constantly in the mix and regularly in the playoffs...any team can get hot in the playoffs and as we've seen it takes on wrong play-call or an injury to change the outlook of one game. Entirely to many variables.

Most quality teams that are constantly in the hunt for the playoffs have a franchise type QB that was drafted in the first (article backs it up).

FWIW since kyles been a OC he's only been to the playoffs with 1st rd pick qbs....I'll also add I know a FQB can be found outside of the 1st, odds aren't great though. People need to chill with thinking kyle can just crap out a FQB as well. If losing 3 more games results in us having the best chance of us getting a possible FQB then I'm completely fine with it.

If you're not that's fine... agree to disagree and move on
Originally posted by jeepzilla:
I'll take a top defense anyday of the week and twice on SUNDAY! Lol

The facts state differently. Defenses win championships.
Look at the SB winners thru the years. They had Top defenses.


Look at just a couple of "franchise" QB's that got feasted on top defenses just recently.


Look at the cam against Denver. How about Peyton against the seacawks.. oh yea, Peyton was past his prime...
Go look at Peyton getting owned year after year in the playoffs. And the year he went with Indy his defense balled out.
How about the ravens?
Pitts top defenses have always kept them in games.

Our SB's, we had top defenses.

And to mention Brady/BellaCheat, do you realize Brady's teams have had top defenses when they've been winning these SB's?
Early in Brady's careeer there defense carried them, and when they were the highest scoring offense going undefeated a team, the better defense beat them in be SB.
Actually, pats always have top defenses or close to it when they've won SB's..

Why are the seaCawks always in every game still? Defense.

People overlook how much that top defense helps there offense. Shorter field, more opportunities to score, etc.

Give me a top 5 defense (WITH QUALITY COACHING) any day and at least I know we will be in the games.

They also had top qbs too...plus it takes more than one season to create a top defense along with keeping it in tact (can't pay everyone).
Originally posted by mojave45:
Doc, I don't know how close we are yet to getting back to where we need to be. But I want to mention the other part of your post about is it the QB or the great coach that matters... I have always wondered how good Montana would have been if he hadn't been groomed by Walsh. We know what a difference Walsh made in Steve Young's career. Yes a great coach needs a talented player to groom, but that player needs to be developed properly too. So I am not of the opinion that the QB Kyle and Lynch go after absolutely, positively has to be a top 5 draft pick. I just hope who ever it is they target next year is the correct pick long term. I don't care if they decide the guy Kyle wants is in the second round for example. Or if we have to trade up a little to get "The Guy".

This year is so important in building the team foundation, installing the new defense and offense, and preparing for a respectable season in 2018.I don't think we should tank for draft picks, but I am not going to complain if we play the rookies a lot either in preparation for 2018, and win 3-4 games as a result of it while improving how competitive we look on game day. We were historically bad last year, I don't expect miracles this year, but next year I want to see our future QB, and at least a glimpse of where we are going to be in the long run.

I don't want to tank either and have stated that. I do want to have a plan this time next yr at who's gonna be the franchise guy moving forward....does he have to be the #1 overall pick? No. BUT I want to give lynch and Co. the BEST overall odds at getting whomever they think is best for this team at QB. I will be pissed if we're rolling into 2018 with hoyer as the starter with no real plan (like the jets did this past yr).

Originally posted by tjd808185:
I will say if we start 1-7 maybe I'll see your point then. I don't see us being that bad. As of now 7-9 wins is not out of the question. We already have a top rushing attack with Shanny coming into the mix if we can just get to average passing we'll be fine there. Shanny got 7 wins out of Hoyer without a competent run game in Clv which for him is a rare to say the least. Defensively it's a bigger hurdle but we also did a lot to improve the front 7.

that's fair...I disagree that this is a 7 win team this yr. I honestly see 1 win in the first 8 games and honestly the only possible wins I see are a split with the Rams, the bears, and possibly the Jags. Not sure where you see 7 wins?
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by mojave45:
Doc, I don't know how close we are yet to getting back to where we need to be. But I want to mention the other part of your post about is it the QB or the great coach that matters... I have always wondered how good Montana would have been if he hadn't been groomed by Walsh. We know what a difference Walsh made in Steve Young's career. Yes a great coach needs a talented player to groom, but that player needs to be developed properly too. So I am not of the opinion that the QB Kyle and Lynch go after absolutely, positively has to be a top 5 draft pick. I just hope who ever it is they target next year is the correct pick long term. I don't care if they decide the guy Kyle wants is in the second round for example. Or if we have to trade up a little to get "The Guy".

This year is so important in building the team foundation, installing the new defense and offense, and preparing for a respectable season in 2018.I don't think we should tank for draft picks, but I am not going to complain if we play the rookies a lot either in preparation for 2018, and win 3-4 games as a result of it while improving how competitive we look on game day. We were historically bad last year, I don't expect miracles this year, but next year I want to see our future QB, and at least a glimpse of where we are going to be in the long run.

I don't want to tank either and have stated that. I do want to have a plan this time next yr at who's gonna be the franchise guy moving forward....does he have to be the #1 overall pick? No. BUT I want to give lynch and Co. the BEST overall odds at getting whomever they think is best for this team at QB. I will be pissed if we're rolling into 2018 with hoyer as the starter with no real plan (like the jets did this past yr).

Hi NY. Yeah I was just commenting on Docs thinking, wasn't actually thinking about your earlier discussion. I think we are close to the same line of thinking though. I don't want to see Hoyer as a long term plan. I want to see his successor playing in TC next year. It doesn't matter to me how we get that guy... But we need to have him. And I never thought you wanted to tank just for the sake of doing it.
Originally posted by mojave45:
Hi NY. Yeah I was just commenting on Docs thinking, wasn't actually thinking about your earlier discussion. I think we are close to the same line of thinking though. I don't want to see Hoyer as a long term plan. I want to see his successor playing in TC next year. It doesn't matter to me how we get that guy... But we need to have him. And I never thought you wanted to tank just for the sake of doing it.

Personally, I don't care if we start 1-7. It's how that 1-7 looks that will matter to me this year. Are there adjustments? Are assignments that were missed by players in Week 1 not being missed in Week 8? How's the system coming together, and how are the players adjusting to using that system?

Wins aren't all that important this season.
Originally posted by captveg:
Personally, I don't care if we start 1-7. It's how that 1-7 looks that will matter to me this year. Are there adjustments? Are assignments that were missed by players in Week 1 not being missed in Week 8? How's the system coming together, and how are the players adjusting to using that system?

Wins aren't all that important this season.

Sucks that we are back at this point but I do agree. Last year just watching the games crawl by was bruuutal. That Chicago game, oh my god.

I'm just hoping we are fun to watch and don't go 3 and out in 30 seconds 60% of our drives.

That being said, I want to win more than 1 game in 8... A guy can hope, right?
Share 49ersWebzone