The Iron-Pyrite-Lining Thread (Negative people come on in!)

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jeepzilla:
Btw, I can't stand McDanials at all. I feel he is over rated. He's got a 15 year (Or however many years now) experienced qb who's gone to multiple SB's and he's got bellaCheat beside him AND he's got a stellar defense every year to lean on.

And full disclosure, I wanted and was happy we got Kyle.. I'm hoping and I believe kyle will have success. I'm hoping they keep the defense shored up while they bring the offense up to speed.

If we get Kirk, great.. and if we get Kirk and use a 1st pick on another qb in 2018 draft, great again..
Then I hope they get pass rushers, o-line, corners, then wide receiver.

I was on the josh bandwagon...I thought either guy would be a postive move end of the day.

I'm just hoping for a direction with QB next yr whether it's Kirk, a rookie, or CJ somehow pulls a Dak lol.

If we somehow get Kirk and have a top 3 pick, I'd love to trade that pick for a butt load of pick similar to the titans. We could build the OL (which has some stud tackles in the draft) and get a WR/pass rusher as well. Lots of flexibility.

Yes I totally agree. I would trade our top pick for more picks, but even if we get Kirk, and we Have CJ right now, I still think we should take a QB, and if he beats out CJ then broom CJ but keep grooming QB's.

Off topic on this, but, I dislike Dallas as much as I dislike Seattle, and I was really thought that with Dak and Elliott, and that O-line and I thought they were shoring up that defense, and Dallas was going to be a top team for years to come, however, I thought I read somewhere, that Dallas had a huge turnover and they are going to run into cap issues paying all these top o-lineman.
Anyone have the scoop on them?
If not, that's cool, just hoping Dak and Elliott have the sophmore slump from hell! lol

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NinerSickness:
That was my point.

Was it.....

Yes.

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

6. Hey, all I'm saying is with his defenses he's had, and the early success, top 6 def his first year, and #1 defense his 3rd year, it's given him the luxury to lean more, and grow more. Just like we would of had with Kap if the wagon wheels wouldn't have broken and flew off the wagon!!

Well, the reality? CK's passing peaked in 2012. His passing got worse each year with Harbaugh after 2012. We had a good defense in 2013. Then everyone thought our defense would suck in 2014 so they tried to pump up the passing game/offense to counterbalance that but the defense held it's own in 2014- it was our passing game that sucked most.

So no, CK wouldn't have developed like Brady with a good defense. He had that and didn't. In fact, our good defense from 2012-2014 kept him from having to develop. All he had to do was run a simple offense, not turn the ball over and take off running when he felt like it.

Originally posted by LeProfessionnel:

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

6. Hey, all I'm saying is with his defenses he's had, and the early success, top 6 def his first year, and #1 defense his 3rd year, it's given him the luxury to lean more, and grow more. Just like we would of had with Kap if the wagon wheels wouldn't have broken and flew off the wagon!!

Well, the reality? CK's passing peaked in 2012. His passing got worse each year with Harbaugh after 2012. We had a good defense in 2013. Then everyone thought our defense would suck in 2014 so they tried to pump up the passing game/offense to counterbalance that but the defense held it's own in 2014- it was our passing game that sucked most.

So no, CK wouldn't have developed like Brady with a good defense. He had that and didn't. In fact, our good defense from 2012-2014 kept him from having to develop. All he had to do was run a simple offense, not turn the ball over and take off running when he felt like it.

Really..
Ok, how about we don't get into our s**t o-line, our s**t receivers, the s**t replenishment of players that did not fit our system that only now some figured out Balkke was providing & our f**ked up dysfunctional front office that was provided to our qb and the rest of the team.

Luck, flacco, Rodgers, Cam after his great year, dalton (lol @ dalton!) Alex smith, I can go on!
These awesome so called FQB's can't seem to get past the 1st round of the playoffs can they when they don't have that talent surrounding them... sound familiar?

6 turnovers Montana AND THE TEAM had in the 82 playoff game against Dallas, but "the catch" that one pass gave us the lead and Wright and our defense stopped Dallas on the final drive to win the game.

So if Kap got the play off and would have ran it in at the end of the SB and we would have won it, then would Kap be given the luxury that flacco has been getting?

Kap was in what, his 10th game for the SB?
Then in kaps 2nd full year went to the NFCC game again.
3rd year, give Kap a Martin or two for o-line and no help at receivers, and we still got to 8-8.
If you can't see there was zero talent around to help Kap out and the front office was in disarray, no stability hey, keep the blinders on.

Absolutely rediculous.

I feel there were a lot of contributing factors with Kap that I identified above. Factors that it looks like even these so called FQB's can't seem to overcome to win a playoff game, and some with great talent around them.. (yea I'm talking about Alex smith and Andy dalton), and you feel he had great talent around him and he sucks and is a piece of s**t and Kap is the only reason we regressed.. lol ok

Hey, whatever.
You and I will always disagree on this so how about we quit beating a dead horse.
Fair enough?

This thread has gone from "niners suck because they went defense instead of reaching for a qb" to "niners suck because FQB can't win without defense " I am very confused

Originally posted by adrianlesnar:
This thread has gone from "niners suck because they went defense instead of reaching for a qb" to "niners suck because FQB can't win without defense " I am very confused

Hang in there - you're not the only one confused.

Originally posted by adrianlesnar:
This thread has gone from "niners suck because they went defense instead of reaching for a qb" to "niners suck because FQB can't win without defense " I am very confused

Well, you need both. You can methodically build a defense with clever drafting & FA signings; that won't get you a FQB, though. For that, you've just got to strike when the iron's hot and / or get lucky.

Originally posted by NinerSickness:
Well, you need both. You can methodically build a defense with clever drafting & FA signings; that won't get you a FQB, though. For that, you've just got to strike when the iron's hot and / or get lucky.

You make too much sense, Sickness, stop it.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
That's fair and I'm cool with posts that aren't all about rainbows and unicorns, I just have no idea what he was really being pessimistic about (see genus post above) or if he was just being negative because that's what this thread is for

OK, let's get back at this over morning coffee (that's one reason I don't post much - 8 hours time difference from peak forum time for most of you, discussions move on while I snore in my bed).

Look, my posts here are a bit of both. Some of it is gallows humour: paying respect to the one negative thread in the offseason (during the season ALL threads are negative - they don't call us Whiners for nothing). There are plenty of chocolate covered rainbow unicorn threads everywhere else. And after all we have sucked for two years in a row, there is more of a chance that we turn into pumpkins rather than Cinderellas.

Some of it is irrational fear, as I have already stated. Some of it is visceral distrust of the usual sunny narratives whenever a new coaching regime rides into town, seasoned with an atavistic fear of touted "genius". Ray Charles was a genius, and even he hated it when he was promoted as one - this is a title you get once you are retired, otherwise you're just setting yourself up to fail.

Some of it is the experience of the old hand in fandom (I'm not pulling rank here, I'm sure there are older fans than me, but I have been obsessing over sports team for a good three decades now, mostly getting disappointed of course): if something can go wrong, it almost always does. Much of this is also confirmed every season by my other two sporting obsessions: do you know how painful it is to be a Phillies fan? Since I started following them in the early 90s they have been competitive for six seasons: 93, 07-11 (I don't count .500 ball). Arsenal (following them since '79) won their last league title in 04. They have never won the European Cup. Every single year is the turning point; the new transfer/FA; the hot shot rookie; the "genius" coach. Every year is the same - or worse. Oh, and I live in Scotland. Do you know how pathetic the Scots national team is? As pathetic as the weather, and that tells you something.

And some of it is actual, honest to god analysis. I haven't seen many people dispute my evaluation of our talent level, all that "potential" and no potatoes (to paraphrase Fats Waller). We had "potential" in 2007, and see where that got us.

And the annoying thing is that I'm by nature an optimist (really, I am!). Which makes me a prime sucker. When the PYMWYMI thread rolls into town I will probably say something silly like 8-8; I predicted 10-6 for the Jim the Plumber year (look it up!), even after everyone in the team including the ball boys had retired/got arrested/found god.

Originally posted by BOI49er:
I too know this is the thread for negative people, but even negative people can proffer "better" paths forward. They're seldom what the rest of us would agree with, but being a Debbie Downer with no solutions is just depressing.

Lets try this. What do you want to do, besides cry in your beer?

I really don't think I have many clever solutions. I hope we do ok, but I fear this will be another 4-12 or thereabouts season, with "potential" though.

To recap:

Had no real horse in the HC stakes, Shanahan was probably the best available. But I distrust saviours and geniuses. For the record, I was doubtful about Harbaugh (I actually wanted Billick! No, look it up!)

Was indifferent on the GM stakes, as long as Baalke took a long, long flight away from Santa Clara. Lynch was out of left field but hasn't done too badly. So far. To his credit he is also not touted as a genius.

Delighted with the Thomas pick, though the draft is always a crapshoot. Happy with Froster, though I'm worried about the shoulder rumours. I never obsess over mid and late rounders, but I don't like coaches fixating over them either (hence my fear of the two teachers pets, who BTW I hope will turn out great)

Really, REALLY cautious about Our Lord and Saviour Kirk Cousins. He's a great story, and he seems like a good egg, but I just can't see how he can be this amazing solution for this otherwise very poor team in terms of talent. I listen to Tony K's show (podcast) for years now and I get rather more of the Washington fans' and reporters' take on him, and they confirm what I've always seen from him on the field: a sort of Alex Smith type of overall talent (and I liked Alex), seasoned with back breaking interceptions at the worst moment. He has cleaned up on these lately - as I said, I like the guy and he is a great story. But he will be paid like a couple of your more sybaritic kings next summer - unless he signs the Washington extension in which case we will see suicides here. Is he worth it? I don't think so. Sure, we have the cap space - NOW. But if we do start building up the rest of the team, they will want money too, and by that time the Cousins contract will be a millstone. I prefer going the boring veteran route (aka the Hoyer route) and keep drafting QBs. Perhaps one will stick.

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Yes I totally agree. I would trade our top pick for more picks, but even if we get Kirk, and we Have CJ right now, I still think we should take a QB, and if he beats out CJ then broom CJ but keep grooming QB's.

Off topic on this, but, I dislike Dallas as much as I dislike Seattle, and I was really thought that with Dak and Elliott, and that O-line and I thought they were shoring up that defense, and Dallas was going to be a top team for years to come, however, I thought I read somewhere, that Dallas had a huge turnover and they are going to run into cap issues paying all these top o-lineman.
Anyone have the scoop on them?
If not, that's cool, just hoping Dak and Elliott have the sophmore slump from hell! lol

I know they got their LT and C signed long-term. They got Martin for this yr and next, then they can tag him. They do have $18 million in dead money with Romo over the next two yrs. Honestly having Dak dirt cheap for the next three yrs will help them a ton with signing other guys.

Oh and Collins is a RFA end of the yr, so we will see what happens there.

Originally posted by paulk205:

OK, let's get back at this over morning coffee (that's one reason I don't post much - 8 hours time difference from peak forum time for most of you, discussions move on while I snore in my bed).

Look, my posts here are a bit of both. Some of it is gallows humour: paying respect to the one negative thread in the offseason (during the season ALL threads are negative - they don't call us Whiners for nothing). There are plenty of chocolate covered rainbow unicorn threads everywhere else. And after all we have sucked for two years in a row, there is more of a chance that we turn into pumpkins rather than Cinderellas.

Some of it is irrational fear, as I have already stated. Some of it is visceral distrust of the usual sunny narratives whenever a new coaching regime rides into town, seasoned with an atavistic fear of touted "genius". Ray Charles was a genius, and even he hated it when he was promoted as one - this is a title you get once you are retired, otherwise you're just setting yourself up to fail.

Some of it is the experience of the old hand in fandom (I'm not pulling rank here, I'm sure there are older fans than me, but I have been obsessing over sports team for a good three decades now, mostly getting disappointed of course): if something can go wrong, it almost always does. Much of this is also confirmed every season by my other two sporting obsessions: do you know how painful it is to be a Phillies fan? Since I started following them in the early 90s they have been competitive for six seasons: 93, 07-11 (I don't count .500 ball). Arsenal (following them since '79) won their last league title in 04. They have never won the European Cup. Every single year is the turning point; the new transfer/FA; the hot shot rookie; the "genius" coach. Every year is the same - or worse. Oh, and I live in Scotland. Do you know how pathetic the Scots national team is? As pathetic as the weather, and that tells you something.

And some of it is actual, honest to god analysis. I haven't seen many people dispute my evaluation of our talent level, all that "potential" and no potatoes (to paraphrase Fats Waller). We had "potential" in 2007, and see where that got us.

And the annoying thing is that I'm by nature an optimist (really, I am!). Which makes me a prime sucker. When the PYMWYMI thread rolls into town I will probably say something silly like 8-8; I predicted 10-6 for the Jim the Plumber year (look it up!), even after everyone in the team including the ball boys had retired/got arrested/found god.

Gotcha, I understand and I see why you have your reservations. I've been watching this team for 30 yrs so I've seen the greatness and the crap as well. I'm a braves and magic fan as well, so not a lot of greatness in a long time or ever there either lol.

With me I didn't have high expectations when lynch was named GM, but I've been pleasantly surprised with the moves he's made including the guys he brought in to help him. Kyle has been around football his whole life and was built to be a HC, you can see it and players and coaches have stated it. For once Jed is willing to give this team time to rebuild with the same staff, who overall have a vision which we had no clue what it was since Harbs left. I also love that they're bringing in the past and embracing it instead of pushing it away.

That's all postive stuff IMO, I know our personnel isn't as talented or known (yet) as a lot of teams in the league, SF is one of the youngest teams in the league...I try to be a realist and I know this team in its first yr is a 4-5 win team and I'm cool with that as long as there's direction and improvements from last yr.

FYI I got a friend and her family heading to Scotland in a month, I want to get over there but the wife wanted to go to Ireland instead this yr.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by SoCold:
They were beat by a more experienced team that made more plays.
Pretty simple.

Brady didn't beat Baltimore that year because he had 1 td and 2 INT and didn't play as good as he could have.

You're trying to take any blame away from the coaches which is ridiculous given the performance that day.

It's not that simple. It's not all the coaches fault but they sure as hell should get blame for some of that performance. When you have a young team and especially a young QB the coaches job is crucial to making sure the game doesn't get too big for them.

They came out unprepared and believing their own hype and then it was too late to recover. Just like the choke by Atlanta wasn't all Kyle Shanahan our choke wasn't all Jim Harbaugh or the other coaches but the blame is definitely all around and with a young team I'd put more blame on the coaches...especially given the terrible start.

Honesty when you have 2 weeks to prep for the game and the other HC is your brother you better come prepared. Not everyone gets a blackout to regroup and change momentum to try to make it a closer game.

No. Just saying that losing is a collective effort just like winning.

It was everyone's fault.

Originally posted by jeepzilla:
Ok, let's PLAY, however I won't insult you.
1. so what your telling me is the pats were unprepared to go against the falcons in the 1st half. Or does it only work with your narrative? ok, got it.

2. kyle didn't choke. if i stated that, it was in error. He pressed hard hoping to put the final nail in the coffin, and didn't let up when he should have "possibly" re-evaluated his game plan, but hindsight is 20/20. He's aggressive.. ok, i'm good with that. live by the sword, die by the sword.

3. Sorry, prove this to me? pull up the sb winners and the defensive rankings. there is a huge correlation to that. They are happy with Flacco. Ok, so, if we'd of won with Kap as QB all would be good then with him as QB? Kap would be a FQB then, right? How about Rodger's getting bounced, or Luck getting bounced with those s**t defenses they have...Yep Flacco had a great year, but he sucks now. or is it the team around him? So your telling me you need to surround your FQB with a "good team"? lol
I thought FQB's are suppose to rise above it all!

4. Brady didn't have good defenses!!!! lol your right, He had great defenses! And as the #1 ranked offense in 2004, they still lost.. hmmmm sounds like the Falcons.
1st Don't state facts when it's easily access now days. 2nd, I didn't bring up our 49ers, but since you did, yes, I agree, you need stout defenses. 3rd.. I still feel defense is the key for victories. Let me show you why.

here's those defenses poor Brady's had to work with:
Pats Defense Rankings
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2011 - 15th LOST
2007 - 4th LOST
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th

Hmmmmmm, looks ok to me, and to my point "early in his career" he could lean on those defenses.

49ers Defense Rankings
1994 - 6th
1989 - 3rd
1988 - 8th
1984 - 1st
1981 - 2nd

Yep! you need a damn good defense with those FQB's!

And if you look in my original post I stated:
Don't get it twisted now, it takes a quality qb to "help" your team win, but It still takes a whole team, especially a defense...

5. I'm 47 BTW so I'm really sorry I offended you with my derogatory comments! OMG, sorry was laughing while typing that s**t!
Belichick "saw something"!! Hey, OK!!
But, it helps, or makes it a little easier to see something when your defense is pretty good, not? top 6 is pretty good.
Hey, don't get me wrong, brady's turned into a great qb. (Montana is still the greatest in my book. Hit QB's now like you did back then, and chances are, Brady would have retired already. My opinion of course.)

Back to the topic though. So your telling me, Brady would have knocked Bledsoe, the Pats FQB at the time, out as a starter if Bledsoe wouldn't have got injured?
I guess we will never no, but I am going out on a limb here and say no, but again, my opinion.

6. Hey, all I'm saying is with his defenses he's had, and the early success, top 6 def his first year, and #1 defense his 3rd year, it's given him the luxury to lean more, and grow more. Just like we would of had with Kap if the wagon wheels wouldn't have broken and flew off the wagon!!

7. Hey, Thanks for the compliment! I got one right out of 7! That's a 14.28571% Better then our 2-16 record last year at 12.5%

Does anyone remember the 49ers had what, like 6 turnovers to the cowboys during the catch game in 82?
What kept us in the game? Our Defense!
Hey, we have different opinions! Contrary to some of these guys on the board, that is okay to have a different opinion and express it!

1. Pats were most definitely not prepared for what Atlanta was doing in the first half, mostly on what Atlanta was doing on defense. I think they came in buying their own hype and quickly realized they need to take Atlanta seriously and adjust.

2. Cool we're in agreement there.

3. Flacco doesn't suck though. He may not be on the level of Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers but he's a legit QB who doesn't make you a liability at the position. If the Ravens ever decide to get him some good weapons again you'd see a big improvement in his stats to go with it. Kap looked like a great QBotF...he just didn't put in the work necessary to improve once the other teams caught up with the spread.

4. I'm assuming you meant 2007 and not 2004...considering they won the SB in 2004. And no he did not have GREAT defenses. They had a great defense a few times but mostly they were stout defenses who were bend but don't break. Ironically the best overall defense stats wise was that 2007 team and yet watching that team nearly every week I could tell all my Pats fan friends(I live in New England) that the defense would kill them in the end. They were totally living off the pressure the offense was putting on teams and getting a ton of lucky breaks. Figures that season ended with one of the luckiest plays happening against that defense.

Your defensive breakdown is great...but misleading. Why are you posting just the points allowed category? I agree at the end of the day it's the points that matter but yards allowed is technically the way defenses are ranked by the media so lets add those just to get an idea how "great" those defenses were. Maybe it's our definition of great but to me teams like Seattle, our own defenses when we were winning, Tampa Bay, Ravens when they won their rings are GREAT. Those teams all had neck and neck rankings between points and yards allowed.

Pats
2016 - 1st/8th
2014 - 8th/13th
2011 - 15th/31st LOST
2007 - 4th/4th LOST
2004 - 2nd/9th
2003 - 1st/7th
2001 - 6th/24th

49ers

1994 - 6th/8th
1989 - 3rd/4th
1988 - 8th/3rd
1984 - 1st/10th
1981 - 2nd/2nd

Fact is 2011 for the Pats shows that a stud QB can get you wins in today's NFL even with a defense that's very underwhelming. They were 2nd to last in yards allowed. That's pretty awful. Yes 15th in points allowed is middle of the pack but those numbers are helped by the fact that the Pats offense controls the clock for most of the game. They win that game if Wes Welker is able to catch that pass to keep the offense on the field. It was also a game where Gronk was playing hurt so sometimes there are other circumstances in play.

Living around here I watch every Pats game when the niners aren't on since my wife and father in law are Pats fans and I can tell you watching these defenses they never seemed like the defenses I mentioned before. With those teams you loved to watch them go on the field because they brought pain to the other teams offense. Pats had close to those a couple of years in 2003 and 2004 but outside of those years they were good but not great.

At the end of all that once again, I agree you're not winning with just a QB. But as I said before it's easier to find 1 guy(even if that position is really hard to find greatness in) than it is to find 8+ studs to field a great defense.

5. Congrats on being 47 lol. I wasn't offended by the nickname just think calling the Pats cheaters is dumb and immature. I'm 35 and highly immature so it happens. But no I don't think having a good defense has anything to do with holding onto a 4th QB who was a lowly 6th round draft pick. A player really has to impress the coaches to keep him around. Like I said, when was the last time a 4th string QB was kept on a roster without being an early draft pick?

And you're right we don't know if Brady would replace Bledsoe but Brady did stick around as a 4th string QB as a rookie then jumped into 2nd string the following season. I'd say he had impressed the coaches. Maybe he wouldn't replace Bledsoe that year but things were looking up.

6. A good defense certainly allows the QB to not push things and take it easier but I just think when people try to downplay Brady's accomplishments due to his defenses it..well downplays his accomplishments. He works his ass off to get better in all phases of QB play and his ability to stay in the pocket, scan the field, read the defenses, etc have nothing to do with the defense.

7. Agreed. Defense needs to be solid or your chances of winning are very slim. That's why the Denver Broncos in 2013 and their top scoring offense got destroyed by Seattle's top tier D and why Denver with the corpse of Manning won it all in 2015.

Originally posted by SoCold:

No. Just saying that losing is a collective effort just like winning.

It was everyone's fault.

Truth...long long long list of fails. Near identical to Atlanta...it took a perfect storm of failures to lose that game.

I only disagree on the semantics and degree to which play calling affected the game.