Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: 49ers take it to the 'Hawks « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

keeponbucn

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11481
Offline
« #15 : December 15, 2006, 11:07:40 AM »

I'm tired, growing tired of this bullshlt on here. Go cry somewhere else, isn't this year bad enough without complaining about EVERYTHING? Give me a f**cking break

i believe a message board is a place to have discussion. I'm discussing that the niners young players are playing much better than last year. Our young players are not... that is not crying, that is fact. As for complaining about EVERYTHING, this team leaves a LOT to complain about, does it not?


it is about discussion. I won't agree that Gore isn't playing better, he's a beast. Is Smith playing better? I guess when you lay turds for a full year ANYTHING postive would be looked at as better.

I'm a glass half full person and while this place is for discussion, for me, it's difficult to read each and every thread about how bad our players are, coach is, team is, etc. I have eyes, I can see how bad the team is playing right now. I don't need it shoved in my face all week long thread after thread. It's feeding the beast, all you do shove the snowball down the hill and it get bigger and bigger.

You can't look at a team that has to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL and compare them to a team with the toughest, that's right, the toughest schedule in the NFL and compare 2nd year players. Sure they're playing better but who are you really comparing them to? Caddy? Smith?

but we're all entitled to our opinion.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21600
Offline
« #16 : December 15, 2006, 11:13:51 AM »

You can't look at a team that has to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL and compare them to a team with the toughest, that's right, the toughest schedule in the NFL and compare 2nd year players. Sure they're playing better but who are you really comparing them to? Caddy? Smith?

What you are looking at is that those players are playing better. If our young players were playing better then we'd not be 3-13.  I mean even in the rubble of 3-13 you want to be searching for signs of life under the collapse. SF isn't a good team but they have something to build on. Their run game is outstanding. They have seen a ton of growth from their young QB, not total regression. They're cobbled together a line and it is playing, at least at some level of competence.  Their defense is an awful mess but they've got some good news working up there.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

CeriousBuc

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
« #17 : December 15, 2006, 11:17:13 AM »

You can't look at a team that has to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL and compare them to a team with the toughest, that's right, the toughest schedule in the NFL and compare 2nd year players. Sure they're playing better but who are you really comparing them to? Caddy? Smith?

What you are looking at is that those players are playing better. If our young players were playing better then we'd not be 3-13. I mean even in the rubble of 3-13 you want to be searching for signs of life under the collapse. SF isn't a good team but they have something to build on. Their run game is outstanding. They have seen a ton of growth from their young QB, not total regression. They're cobbled together a line and it is playing, at least at some level of competence. Their defense is an awful mess but they've got some good news working up there.

They were in the same position last year that we're in now:

A rookie QB
A young OL
A defense in transition
etc.
etc.

The results were quite similar for the 49ers last year as they were quite horrible, what a difference a year makes.

keeponbucn

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11481
Offline
« #18 : December 15, 2006, 11:21:14 AM »

You can't look at a team that has to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL and compare them to a team with the toughest, that's right, the toughest schedule in the NFL and compare 2nd year players. Sure they're playing better but who are you really comparing them to? Caddy? Smith?

What you are looking at is that those players are playing better. If our young players were playing better then we'd not be 3-13. I mean even in the rubble of 3-13 you want to be searching for signs of life under the collapse. SF isn't a good team but they have something to build on. Their run game is outstanding. They have seen a ton of growth from their young QB, not total regression. They're cobbled together a line and it is playing, at least at some level of competence. Their defense is an awful mess but they've got some good news working up there.


I understand but it all goes back to the QB, IMO. why wasn't Gore a beast last year? It's because Smith was a rookie and was throwing up all over himself so opposing defense would force the ball into his hands. Gore is playing well due to the fact that there's at least the threat of a pass. It's not a coincidence that Caddy had a great year last year because SoB and SoP were adequate with passing the pill. This year Caddy's the main focue because teams know Grads won't beat them.


keeponbucn

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11481
Offline
« #19 : December 15, 2006, 11:22:41 AM »

You can't look at a team that has to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL and compare them to a team with the toughest, that's right, the toughest schedule in the NFL and compare 2nd year players. Sure they're playing better but who are you really comparing them to? Caddy? Smith?

What you are looking at is that those players are playing better. If our young players were playing better then we'd not be 3-13. I mean even in the rubble of 3-13 you want to be searching for signs of life under the collapse. SF isn't a good team but they have something to build on. Their run game is outstanding. They have seen a ton of growth from their young QB, not total regression. They're cobbled together a line and it is playing, at least at some level of competence. Their defense is an awful mess but they've got some good news working up there.

They were in the same position last year that we're in now:

A rookie QB
A young OL
A defense in transition
etc.
etc.

The results were quite similar for the 49ers last year as they were quite horrible, what a difference a year makes.

exaclty my point in a nutshell. It's not difficult to understand.



Guest
« #20 : December 15, 2006, 11:23:20 AM »

You can't look at a team that has to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL and compare them to a team with the toughest, that's right, the toughest schedule in the NFL and compare 2nd year players. Sure they're playing better but who are you really comparing them to? Caddy? Smith?

What you are looking at is that those players are playing better. If our young players were playing better then we'd not be 3-13.  I mean even in the rubble of 3-13 you want to be searching for signs of life under the collapse. SF isn't a good team but they have something to build on. Their run game is outstanding. They have seen a ton of growth from their young QB, not total regression. They're cobbled together a line and it is playing, at least at some level of competence.  Their defense is an awful mess but they've got some good news working up there.

Thanx Dal... thats the point i was trying to make. Our record doesn't concern me right now.... its that fact that offensively, we aren't competing that i take issue with.

Cerious, take Gradz out of the equation... we had our young nucleus of  Simms, Caddy, Clayton and Smith and they have all seemed to regress.

keeponbucn

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11481
Offline
« #21 : December 15, 2006, 11:25:15 AM »

You can't look at a team that has to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL and compare them to a team with the toughest, that's right, the toughest schedule in the NFL and compare 2nd year players. Sure they're playing better but who are you really comparing them to? Caddy? Smith?

What you are looking at is that those players are playing better. If our young players were playing better then we'd not be 3-13.  I mean even in the rubble of 3-13 you want to be searching for signs of life under the collapse. SF isn't a good team but they have something to build on. Their run game is outstanding. They have seen a ton of growth from their young QB, not total regression. They're cobbled together a line and it is playing, at least at some level of competence.  Their defense is an awful mess but they've got some good news working up there.

Thanx Dal... thats the point i was trying to make. Our record doesn't concern me right now.... its that fact that offensively, we aren't competing that i take issue with.

Cerious, take Gradz out of the equation... we had our young nucleus of  Simms, Caddy, Clayton and Smith and they have all seemed to regress.


H-D-E, the QB position has handi-capped them. Come on man, it takes at least a decent QB to not hinder those other offensive positions.

Shag

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1295
Offline
« #22 : December 15, 2006, 11:27:10 AM »


I understand but it all goes back to the QB, IMO. why wasn't Gore a beast last year?


Gore only started one game last year, so he wasn't a beast because he didn't get the carries. He still had 600 yards, 4.8 ypc, and 3 TD's.

CeriousBuc

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
« #23 : December 15, 2006, 11:28:39 AM »

You can't look at a team that has to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL and compare them to a team with the toughest, that's right, the toughest schedule in the NFL and compare 2nd year players. Sure they're playing better but who are you really comparing them to? Caddy? Smith?

What you are looking at is that those players are playing better. If our young players were playing better then we'd not be 3-13.  I mean even in the rubble of 3-13 you want to be searching for signs of life under the collapse. SF isn't a good team but they have something to build on. Their run game is outstanding. They have seen a ton of growth from their young QB, not total regression. They're cobbled together a line and it is playing, at least at some level of competence.  Their defense is an awful mess but they've got some good news working up there.

Thanx Dal... thats the point i was trying to make. Our record doesn't concern me right now.... its that fact that offensively, we aren't competing that i take issue with.

Cerious, take Gradz out of the equation... we had our young nucleus of  Simms, Caddy, Clayton and Smith and they have all seemed to regress.

regress?

Let's see, three of the four players have taken a step back, two of which would directly benefit from good QB play. Clayton and Smith have suffered from bad QB play, period, and that was a result of having a rookie QB. Williams, indirectly is being stymied by poor QB play/passing attack. You can't just take Gradz out of the equation because his performance effects that of his teammates.

And we have no proof that Simms regressed, he actually looked pretty good versus the Panthers. Other than a rough start who knows what his play would been like throughout the course of this season.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21600
Offline
« #24 : December 15, 2006, 11:38:02 AM »


I understand but it all goes back to the QB, IMO. why wasn't Gore a beast last year?


Two words,

Norv Turner.

Look, Norv isn't a good HC, hell he's not even an average HC but the man knows how to run the $%^# ball. It is why Gore is on my FFL teams. I want Norv Turner RB. same reason I wanted Roy Williams, I want Mike Martz WR #1, heck I've got Mike Furrey because I want Mike Martz WR #2. Those guys, whatever you think of them as HC, get a lot out of any unit they work with at that level.


All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.



Guest
« #25 : December 15, 2006, 11:55:08 AM »

Look, Norv isn't a good HC, hell he's not even an average HC but the man knows how to run the $%^# ball. It is why Gore is on my FFL teams. I want Norv Turner RB. same reason I wanted Roy Williams, I want Mike Martz WR #1, heck I've got Mike Furrey because I want Mike Martz WR #2. Those guys, whatever you think of them as HC, get a lot out of any unit they work with at that level.



I have Gore on my team as well... Turner has always gotten good productivity from his rbs..... Emmitt, Stephen Davis, and Lamont Jordan.


why wasn't Gore a beast last year?


He was backing up Kevan Barlow.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21600
Offline
« #26 : December 15, 2006, 12:01:35 PM »

Let's see, three of the four players have taken a step back, two of which would directly benefit from good QB play. Clayton and Smith have suffered from bad QB play, period, and that was a result of having a rookie QB. Williams, indirectly is being stymied by poor QB play/passing attack. You can't just take Gradz out of the equation because his performance effects that of his teammates.

And we have no proof that Simms regressed, he actually looked pretty good versus the Panthers. Other than a rough start who knows what his play would been like throughout the course of this season.

Simms was terrible, he looked lost. That is the proof, you can also toss any statistical category out there you want as well. He looked "pretty good" vs the Panther? 54% and 1:1 TD:INT and 139 yards. Basically he looked like Grads.

Caddy isn't a function of the poor play of the QB. Teams stacked us last year too. Same thing, you can argue the line has regressed but now you are pinning regression on another unit so peter and paul as they say.

Clayton's poor play isn't a function of the bad QB. The Bad QB might be more a function of his awful play. He was terrible last year and he's been awful this year. He's not getting separation, he's sluggish in cuts, get nothing RAC like he did as a rookie.

Smith might be your only case for lowered production due to other factors but the OL and that he's a lil'Tackle has more to do with than QB right now. Still, defend the status quo and all you can say is he looks the same and lack of development, as opposed to regression, doesn't sound any better.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

CeriousBuc

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
« #27 : December 15, 2006, 12:26:54 PM »

Let's see, three of the four players have taken a step back, two of which would directly benefit from good QB play. Clayton and Smith have suffered from bad QB play, period, and that was a result of having a rookie QB. Williams, indirectly is being stymied by poor QB play/passing attack. You can't just take Gradz out of the equation because his performance effects that of his teammates.

And we have no proof that Simms regressed, he actually looked pretty good versus the Panthers. Other than a rough start who knows what his play would been like throughout the course of this season.

Simms was terrible, he looked lost. That is the proof, you can also toss any statistical category out there you want as well. He looked "pretty good" vs the Panther? 54% and 1:1 TD:INT and 139 yards. Basically he looked like Grads.

Caddy isn't a function of the poor play of the QB. Teams stacked us last year too. Same thing, you can argue the line has regressed but now you are pinning regression on another unit so peter and paul as they say.

Clayton's poor play isn't a function of the bad QB. The Bad QB might be more a function of his awful play. He was terrible last year and he's been awful this year. He's not getting separation, he's sluggish in cuts, get nothing RAC like he did as a rookie.

Smith might be your only case for lowered production due to other factors but the OL and that he's a lil'Tackle has more to do with than QB right now. Still, defend the status quo and all you can say is he looks the same and lack of development, as opposed to regression, doesn't sound any better.

Simms gets the benefit of the doubt based on an incomplete season. I believe that he would've gotten things settled and at least provided some stability from the QB position to this point in the season. I don't believe you can say he regressed based off of the 3 games he did play in.

IMO Clayton would have benefited from a better QB. Grad has been everything, but accurate consistently wasn't among the descriptions you could call him. Not to mention Grad seems to throw to his check down way to often, it's like if Galloway wasn't open, check down to the running back or mini TE Hilliard.

Early last season, no one stacked the line because Caddy was an unknown. After he returned from his injury he saw more 8 and 9 man fronts and was slowed considerably. That is until Simms got it together and forced teams to reepect the pass. This year, teams have no reason whatsoever to respect the pass, they can run 8 and 9 man front every down given our QB play. Sure you can throw the OL under the bus, but this was a thread about our 'nucleous' regressing, not our hog molies.

Smith gets thrown into the mix, but isn't he just a OT light? If we can ever get out of max protections maybe we wouldn't be discussing a perceived 'lack of development'.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37371
Offline
« #28 : December 15, 2006, 12:30:43 PM »

Quote
Clayton would have benefited from a better QB.

Clayton's best two games came under Gradkowski starting at QB.

Last year teams did stack the line but for some reason people want to overlook it.

It isn't Smith's fault they have Becht ahead of him on the depth chart for some stupid reason.  Especially when they try to feature Becht in the passing game.



Guest
« #29 : December 15, 2006, 12:53:09 PM »

Quote
Clayton would have benefited from a better QB.
Especially when they try to feature Becht in the passing game.

 [banghead] [banghead] [banghead]
  Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: 49ers take it to the 'Hawks « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools