Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

2017 Offseason thread 2: Shanny and Lynch
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 56, 57, 58, 59  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
757-NINER


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 1929
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:

I've said it for a while, this team isn't as bare of talent as most people think.


Well given that we've already replaced over half the guys from the roster we ended the year with, with many more likely to go before the season starts, and the majority of the 2016 team likely to be gone by the time the 2018 season is over i think the current management comes down more on the side of the talent they inherited being as bad as most people thought it was.



But that roster turn over has been done more for philosophical reasons than for a true talent upgrade. Take QB and WR for example. Hoyer isn't immensely better than Kap, Barkley isn't much better than Gabbert, and we have no idea what we have in Beat Hard. So we have changed the players, but not necessarily in order to upgrade. Garçon is perhaps an upgrade, but the rest is most likely a lateral move. Is Earl Mitchell on the DL an upgrade in talent, or just a roster fit? So I don't see most of Lynch's move as an indictment on the talent level, just on fit. We'll still be rolling with players he inherited, like DeFo, AA, Bowman, Reid, Ward, Robinson, Staley, Hyde, Brown, Kerley and probably Garnett. The great majority of free agent signings were depth guys, and we replaced depth with another style of depth, better fits for Kylo. Before the draft, this team hadn't improved much. After the draft, sure, but that's what a draft is supposed to do to your roster every year (go tell that to Baalke, though). I don't really consider the great turn over of the roster (keep in mind that 37 of these players won't even make the team) as a true indication this team had no talent. It just shows a new management came in and required different players.


Bingo. Good stuff Rudy...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19690
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:

I've said it for a while, this team isn't as bare of talent as most people think.


Well given that we've already replaced over half the guys from the roster we ended the year with, with many more likely to go before the season starts, and the majority of the 2016 team likely to be gone by the time the 2018 season is over i think the current management comes down more on the side of the talent they inherited being as bad as most people thought it was.



But that roster turn over has been done more for philosophical reasons than for a true talent upgrade. Take QB and WR for example. Hoyer isn't immensely better than Kap, Barkley isn't much better than Gabbert, and we have no idea what we have in Beat Hard. So we have changed the players, but not necessarily in order to upgrade. Garçon is perhaps an upgrade, but the rest is most likely a lateral move. Is Earl Mitchell on the DL an upgrade in talent, or just a roster fit? So I don't see most of Lynch's move as an indictment on the talent level, just on fit. We'll still be rolling with players he inherited, like DeFo, AA, Bowman, Reid, Ward, Robinson, Staley, Hyde, Brown, Kerley and probably Garnett. The great majority of free agent signings were depth guys, and we replaced depth with another style of depth, better fits for Kylo. Before the draft, this team hadn't improved much. After the draft, sure, but that's what a draft is supposed to do to your roster every year (go tell that to Baalke, though). I don't really consider the great turn over of the roster (keep in mind that 37 of these players won't even make the team) as a true indication this team had no talent. It just shows a new management came in and required different players.


I couldn't disagree with the bolded more strongly. Teams change personnel to get better. Period. On a rare exception they choose to get rid of a talented player for personal or behavioral issues, e.g. Brock. And the cap is sometimes an issue, although I don't think we cut anyone for cap reasons this year. Aside from that it's to make the team better. We didn't add 50 or so players because of "philosophiocal reasons". We did it because the guys we let go were, by and large, marginal talents. Many of them will hang on for another year or two and then be out of the league. I suspect some will not even make another roster. We made those moves because we expect, or at least hope, their replacements will be better.

You can look at every team in the league., even the very worst, and point to a handful of good or promising players they have just as you did for us. Nice list of a handful of good or promising guys. How about Skov, Harris, Wilhoite, Draughn, Davis, Bush, Hayne, White, Martin, TIller, Pears, Purcell, TJE, Lemonier, Hodges, Bellore, Davis, Acker, Cromartie, McCray, Simpson, etc. All of those guys were on our roster last year and all are marginal NFL players at best. And that doesn't include guys like Ellinton, Smelter, Harold, Casrradine, Reaser, Johnson, Bell, Celek, Armstrong, who might not make this year's 53. Our team does not consist of the handful of guys you named.53 guys will be on the roster and by the start of the season I expect well more than half of that 53 to be new. . Across the board we are, or at least were, one of the least talented teams in the league. Baalke ran this team into the ground. Now the new FO is trying to fix that
Virtually every one of those moves will be ones where management believes the new guy is either better now than the guy he replaced, or has more upside potential than the guy he replaced.

Yes, this team WAS as talent poor as most people thought. We were a 2-win team with zero players making the pro bowl. How many teams had a worse record? One! How many teams had fewer pro bowlers? None! That's the very definition of a team with very little talent. Not sure how you can know that and see such massive turnover in a roster, and attribute it to "philosophical differences" rather than the more obvious we reason - our talent level sucked last year.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 17035
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always go back to 2011. Many considered our 2010 roster to be one of the worst in the league. Those who say they thought we had great dormant talent are revisionists. No one said that about us before 2011. People could point out to Gore, Willis, Davis, Smith and Staley, and Crabtree was a promising young guy, but that team was "bare of talent". Yet you add two DBs and a stud pass rusher, and all of a sudden, that team goes to a NFCCG. That same team that didn't have talent suddenly has a probowl-worthy Dashon Goldson (who had sucked until that year), a very effective Ahmad Brooks (who had had one good game in his nfl career until that year), a stud in Navorro (who had been overlooked by most teams in the previous year's draft, slipping to the third), an average LT suddenly joins the "elite" (I put that in quotes, because I always thought elite was an exaggeration for Staley), busts with their previous teams suddenly become great players (Rogers and Whitner)... my point is, winning reveals talent, or at least hypes up certain less talented players (like Goldson). If Kylo is the real deal, and we somehow find ways to win over the next few years, suddenly, a guy like Ward, who isn't blowing anyone away right now, could blossom into a superstar. A lesser known receiver might turn into a solid contributor (think of Taylor Gabriel with the falcons this year). Maybe our OL gels into a pretty solid unit, and all of them suddenly get the accolades we wouldn't currently dream of (just like when our OL was "the best in the league" during a short exaggerated window, in 2012, which coincided with the end of the world, apparently). What I'm saying is : losing team always appear to have less talent than other teams. Of course they won't have many probowlers. Who would vote for them? But make a few key changes to a team, add the right players, and all of a sudden, the very same players who weren't talented the year prior, they become great once the team starts winning. You don't become a winning team by changing 22 starters. Usually, changing 3 or 4 starters is enough to change the make up of your team.

As far as changing depth players... meh, not so much. You don't win or lose with the quality of your depth, in my opinion. The quality of your starters, yes. You need solid starters, so that one or two or three of them are injured, you can plug in a depth player and keep winning. But if your starters aren't good enough to win on their own, it doesn't matter what your depth it, you're not going to win. I seriously doubt Lynch signed Brock Coyle (isn't that one of our guys) with the hope of making the team significantly better. He was simply swapping Bellore for Coyle. Doesn't really make us better. It's just depth for depth, but Coyle happens to be a better fit than Bellore would have been. I'm not criticizing the move. Love it. I'm just not ready to say that letting one player go and signing another one to replace him automatically makes us better. LOTS of lateral moves in there. But some lateral moves pay in more ways than just the talent on the field. Take swapping Kap for Hoyer. On the field, not much of a difference. More passing, less running, just about as efficient, not really long-term starting quality, but good enough to win under the right circumstance. But beyond the performance on the field, is it possible one will be a better leader than the other, be a better teammate than the other, will get along with the coaches better than the other, will spend more time in the film room than the other, etc. So yeah, I stand by my statement that, outside of the draft, Lynch hasn't really upgraded the talent of this team. But I'll add this: I do think he improved the team overall. Not the talent, but the foundation.
_________________


RudyZ's Power Rankings Power Ranking

1) RudyZ's Power Rankings Power Ranking
2) y2's pie Power Rankings (3.1416 rules!)
3) N4L's Poster Power Rankings


Last edited by rudyZ on Sun May 14, 2017 3:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
757-NINER


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 1929
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:

I've said it for a while, this team isn't as bare of talent as most people think.


Well given that we've already replaced over half the guys from the roster we ended the year with, with many more likely to go before the season starts, and the majority of the 2016 team likely to be gone by the time the 2018 season is over i think the current management comes down more on the side of the talent they inherited being as bad as most people thought it was.



But that roster turn over has been done more for philosophical reasons than for a true talent upgrade. Take QB and WR for example. Hoyer isn't immensely better than Kap, Barkley isn't much better than Gabbert, and we have no idea what we have in Beat Hard. So we have changed the players, but not necessarily in order to upgrade. Garçon is perhaps an upgrade, but the rest is most likely a lateral move. Is Earl Mitchell on the DL an upgrade in talent, or just a roster fit? So I don't see most of Lynch's move as an indictment on the talent level, just on fit. We'll still be rolling with players he inherited, like DeFo, AA, Bowman, Reid, Ward, Robinson, Staley, Hyde, Brown, Kerley and probably Garnett. The great majority of free agent signings were depth guys, and we replaced depth with another style of depth, better fits for Kylo. Before the draft, this team hadn't improved much. After the draft, sure, but that's what a draft is supposed to do to your roster every year (go tell that to Baalke, though). I don't really consider the great turn over of the roster (keep in mind that 37 of these players won't even make the team) as a true indication this team had no talent. It just shows a new management came in and required different players.


I couldn't disagree with the bolded more strongly. Teams change personnel to get better. Period. On a rare exception they choose to get rid of a talented player for personal or behavioral issues, e.g. Brock. And the cap is sometimes an issue, although I don't think we cut anyone for cap reasons this year. Aside from that it's to make the team better. We didn't add 50 or so players because of "philosophiocal reasons". We did it because the guys we let go were, by and large, marginal talents. Many of them will hang on for another year or two and then be out of the league. I suspect some will not even make another roster. We made those moves because we expect, or at least hope, their replacements will be better.

You can look at every team in the league., even the very worst, and point to a handful of good or promising players they have just as you did for us. Nice list of a handful of good or promising guys. How about Skov, Harris, Wilhoite, Draughn, Davis, Bush, Hayne, White, Martin, TIller, Pears, Purcell, TJE, Lemonier, Hodges, Bellore, Davis, Acker, Cromartie, McCray, Simpson, etc. All of those guys were on our roster last year and all are marginal NFL players at best. And that doesn't include guys like Ellinton, Smelter, Harold, Casrradine, Reaser, Johnson, Bell, Celek, Armstrong, who might not make this year's 53. Our team does not consist of the handful of guys you named.53 guys will be on the roster and by the start of the season I expect well more than half of that 53 to be new. . Across the board we are, or at least were, one of the least talented teams in the league. Baalke ran this team into the ground. Now the new FO is trying to fix that
Virtually every one of those moves will be ones where management believes the new guy is either better now than the guy he replaced, or has more upside potential than the guy he replaced.

Yes, this team WAS as talent poor as most people thought. We were a 2-win team with zero players making the pro bowl. How many teams had a worse record? One! How many teams had fewer pro bowlers? None! That's the very definition of a team with very little talent. Not sure how you can know that and see such massive turnover in a roster, and attribute it to "philosophical differences" rather than the more obvious we reason - our talent level sucked last year.


I disagree. I said this a lot last year.....anybody other than Chip and Jim O'Neil wins more than 2 games with the same talent. Some time its talent, sometimes its coaching. Maybe some will say it was a mixture of both. But I said from the moment Kelly was hired, it was only going to get worst. Then you add his and Baalke strained coexistence together it was just a hot mess.

Other than the QB position, who did we lose from last year's squad that was a starter of significance? Torey Smith, Antonie Bethea, Michael Wilhoite, and Andrew Tiller. That's four players...that's a light off-season for most teams. There are teams that were better than we were, who have experienced more turnover than we have. You can't count Brock because he isn't here for what happend off the field, not because he lacks talent.

Context is key here. The Dejuan Harris's and Shane Skov's of the world are and were bottom roster players. Guys like Marcus Ball and Vinnie Sunseri I don't see as turnover when they they didn't even begin the season on this team. They were added when the injury bug hit us. Guys like Patton were swapped with guys who better fit the system or were familiar with Shanny's scheme. You can't tell me that for certain DeAndre Carter or Aldrick Robinson are definte talent upgrades over Patton. Goodwin isn't a upgrade over Smith. Maybe from speed aspect yes, but Smith has clearly shown more and done more at the pro level. It was a clear system fit. Goodwin fills the Taylor Gabriel role over Smith who most have said has lost some of his burst since his Raven days.

But its not just a cut and dry case of swapping lesser talent for better talent. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Most of the times teams are looking for better fits and/or philosophy meshes more so than outright talent. If that were the case, Kap would still be at the very least ONE of the QBs on our roster. His anthem protest aside, does his skillset fit a Shanny offense? I would say no. But even as back-up, he's miles better than Barkley. So its not ALWAYS about finding the best talent, more so the best fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19690
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

757-NINER wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:

I've said it for a while, this team isn't as bare of talent as most people think.


Well given that we've already replaced over half the guys from the roster we ended the year with, with many more likely to go before the season starts, and the majority of the 2016 team likely to be gone by the time the 2018 season is over i think the current management comes down more on the side of the talent they inherited being as bad as most people thought it was.



But that roster turn over has been done more for philosophical reasons than for a true talent upgrade. Take QB and WR for example. Hoyer isn't immensely better than Kap, Barkley isn't much better than Gabbert, and we have no idea what we have in Beat Hard. So we have changed the players, but not necessarily in order to upgrade. Garçon is perhaps an upgrade, but the rest is most likely a lateral move. Is Earl Mitchell on the DL an upgrade in talent, or just a roster fit? So I don't see most of Lynch's move as an indictment on the talent level, just on fit. We'll still be rolling with players he inherited, like DeFo, AA, Bowman, Reid, Ward, Robinson, Staley, Hyde, Brown, Kerley and probably Garnett. The great majority of free agent signings were depth guys, and we replaced depth with another style of depth, better fits for Kylo. Before the draft, this team hadn't improved much. After the draft, sure, but that's what a draft is supposed to do to your roster every year (go tell that to Baalke, though). I don't really consider the great turn over of the roster (keep in mind that 37 of these players won't even make the team) as a true indication this team had no talent. It just shows a new management came in and required different players.


I couldn't disagree with the bolded more strongly. Teams change personnel to get better. Period. On a rare exception they choose to get rid of a talented player for personal or behavioral issues, e.g. Brock. And the cap is sometimes an issue, although I don't think we cut anyone for cap reasons this year. Aside from that it's to make the team better. We didn't add 50 or so players because of "philosophiocal reasons". We did it because the guys we let go were, by and large, marginal talents. Many of them will hang on for another year or two and then be out of the league. I suspect some will not even make another roster. We made those moves because we expect, or at least hope, their replacements will be better.

You can look at every team in the league., even the very worst, and point to a handful of good or promising players they have just as you did for us. Nice list of a handful of good or promising guys. How about Skov, Harris, Wilhoite, Draughn, Davis, Bush, Hayne, White, Martin, TIller, Pears, Purcell, TJE, Lemonier, Hodges, Bellore, Davis, Acker, Cromartie, McCray, Simpson, etc. All of those guys were on our roster last year and all are marginal NFL players at best. And that doesn't include guys like Ellinton, Smelter, Harold, Casrradine, Reaser, Johnson, Bell, Celek, Armstrong, who might not make this year's 53. Our team does not consist of the handful of guys you named.53 guys will be on the roster and by the start of the season I expect well more than half of that 53 to be new. . Across the board we are, or at least were, one of the least talented teams in the league. Baalke ran this team into the ground. Now the new FO is trying to fix that
Virtually every one of those moves will be ones where management believes the new guy is either better now than the guy he replaced, or has more upside potential than the guy he replaced.

Yes, this team WAS as talent poor as most people thought. We were a 2-win team with zero players making the pro bowl. How many teams had a worse record? One! How many teams had fewer pro bowlers? None! That's the very definition of a team with very little talent. Not sure how you can know that and see such massive turnover in a roster, and attribute it to "philosophical differences" rather than the more obvious we reason - our talent level sucked last year.


I disagree. I said this a lot last year.....anybody other than Chip and Jim O'Neil wins more than 2 games with the same talent. Some time its talent, sometimes its coaching. Maybe some will say it was a mixture of both. But I said from the moment Kelly was hired, it was only going to get worst. Then you add his and Baalke strained coexistence together it was just a hot mess.

Other than the QB position, who did we lose from last year's squad that was a starter of significance? Torey Smith, Antonie Bethea, Michael Wilhoite, and Andrew Tiller. That's four players...that's a light off-season for most teams. There are teams that were better than we were, who have experienced more turnover than we have. You can't count Brock because he isn't here for what happend off the field, not because he lacks talent.

Context is key here. The Dejuan Harris's and Shane Skov's of the world are and were bottom roster players. Guys like Marcus Ball and Vinnie Sunseri I don't see as turnover when they they didn't even begin the season on this team. They were added when the injury bug hit us. Guys like Patton were swapped with guys who better fit the system or were familiar with Shanny's scheme. You can't tell me that for certain DeAndre Carter or Aldrick Robinson are definte talent upgrades over Patton. Goodwin isn't a upgrade over Smith. Maybe from speed aspect yes, but Smith has clearly shown more and done more at the pro level. It was a clear system fit. Goodwin fills the Taylor Gabriel role over Smith who most have said has lost some of his burst since his Raven days.

But its not just a cut and dry case of swapping lesser talent for better talent. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Most of the times teams are looking for better fits and/or philosophy meshes more so than outright talent. If that were the case, Kap would still be at the very least ONE of the QBs on our roster. His anthem protest aside, does his skillset fit a Shanny offense? I would say no. But even as back-up, he's miles better than Barkley. So its not ALWAYS about finding the best talent, more so the best fit.


A - not necessarily true

and

B - how many more? I mean be serious here. Even if some coach magically doubled our win total. That makes 4 and would move us all the way up from second worst team in the league to ... tied for third worst! Still terrible. Why? Because our talent sucked. That's why. Sure fit in a scheme matters. But a whole lot of guys that will not be on our team next year will not be on anyone's NFL team either next year or in a year or two. Not because they don't fit anywhere. Because they aren't solid NFL talents.

There are a lot of things to argue about as football fans, but arguing about the overall talent level of this team should not be one of them. It was bad. The GM destroyed the team and was fired for doing it. And now a new FO is picking up the pieces and trying to fix the disaster of a roster they inherited.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J-ALL-DAY


Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 44853
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We would have won more than two games with anyone but Kelly/O'neil? That's debatable but our roster was definitely a top 2 bottom one in the league. It was TERRIBLE, and some could even argue this was the worst roster in the league.

We were/are a roster bare of talent. Are there potential nice young pieces? Yes, but they are unproven players that we think could be very good players.
_________________

El ramster on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
757-NINER


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 1929
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J-ALL-DAY wrote:
We would have won more than two games with anyone but Kelly/O'neil? That's debatable but our roster was definitely a top 2 bottom one in the league. It was TERRIBLE, and some could even argue this was the worst roster in the league.

We were/are a roster bare of talent. Are there potential nice young pieces? Yes, but they are unproven players that we think could be very good players.


Tomsula won more games with practically the same roster and a much worst O-Line....I'm just as sayin. Yes we had a bottom half of the league roster. But that doesn't mean it was devoid of all talent like most want to believe. Now were we winning more than 5 games? Probably not. But I think we would have been much more competitive and not just complete door mats for opposing teams like we were under Chip. And I think certain players could have been shown in a better light had they been utilized correctly, which correlates to the perception that we were a team devoid of all talent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J-ALL-DAY


Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 44853
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We were a two or three win type of team in 2015 as well. But when you say better OL? Pass protection wise it was a bit better, but the run blocking was still terrible. We also lost Bowman early on last year compared to 2016 and had a all time bad run defense. Some of the close games we got in 2015 we didn't get in 2016. Our receiving core was also worse with the departure of Boldin. Even with better coaching this team wasn't winning no more than four or so games at most. So no, I don't think people have underrated our talent at all. It is bad, REALLY bad. But we are now in season two and season three of last two years draft and that's when you see some youngsters making some improvements. If healthy, there is a chance the defense is only below average and not the worse in the league. Offensively with Shanny, the unit could possibly be in the teens or low 20s which would be an improvement.
_________________

El ramster on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fureys49ers


Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 946
Location: Sacramento, CA
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J-ALL-DAY wrote:
We were a two or three win type of team in 2015 as well. But when you say better OL? Pass protection wise it was a bit better, but the run blocking was still terrible. We also lost Bowman early on last year compared to 2016 and had a all time bad run defense. Some of the close games we got in 2015 we didn't get in 2016. Our receiving core was also worse with the departure of Boldin. Even with better coaching this team wasn't winning no more than four or so games at most. So no, I don't think people have underrated our talent at all. It is bad, REALLY bad. But we are now in season two and season three of last two years draft and that's when you see some youngsters making some improvements. If healthy, there is a chance the defense is only below average and not the worse in the league. Offensively with Shanny, the unit could possibly be in the teens or low 20s which would be an improvement.


+ 1. I couldn't agree more and thinks those team rankings you have listed are very realistic. I'd like to see us finish in the high teens on defense and low 20s on offense with the arrow pointing up on both.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19690
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

757-NINER wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
We would have won more than two games with anyone but Kelly/O'neil? That's debatable but our roster was definitely a top 2 bottom one in the league. It was TERRIBLE, and some could even argue this was the worst roster in the league.

We were/are a roster bare of talent. Are there potential nice young pieces? Yes, but they are unproven players that we think could be very good players.


Tomsula won more games with practically the same roster and a much worst O-Line....I'm just as sayin. Yes we had a bottom half of the league roster. But that doesn't mean it was devoid of all talent like most want to believe. Now were we winning more than 5 games? Probably not. But I think we would have been much more competitive and not just complete door mats for opposing teams like we were under Chip. And I think certain players could have been shown in a better light had they been utilized correctly, which correlates to the perception that we were a team devoid of all talent.


I'm not sure if you're hatin' on Kelly so much you can't see straight. We were a two win team. You think we could have won a couple more, which is debatable and would mean a coach was getting the most possible out of our talent. And where would that put us? Still right down near the bottom of the league. Do you even know how bad we really were? We were ranked 31st in total offense and 32 in total defense. That's almost beyond comprehension for a team to be last and second from last in BOTH offense and defense. You're dreaming if you think that with better coaching we would move up any more than a couple of spots or so in those rankings. You and Rudy keep pointing out a handful of guys that were either pretty good or showed some promise. So what? Every team - yes, even the worst teams, still have a few guys their fans can point to and pin some hopes on. But a team is not a handful of guys. It's 53 guys. And our 53 was arguably the worst in the league and I think ought to be un-arguably one of the worst.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 13923
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is such a silly conversation to be having, similar to last year's "we have a lot of depth at wide receiver" silly conversation, because the answers are similarly obvious and not at all in favor of us having "depth at WR" or that this team was in any way "talented" last year.

This wasn't merely just a scheme difference. Harbaugh came in and had a difference in mind for schemes, and the team didn't turn over nearly as many individuals. 17 of the 21 starters were on the team the year before. Why? Because there was a lot of misused talent on that 2010 team. This year we'll see far less starters, not because of scheme, but because the players were just crappy players. And some of the starters that will remain are only going to remain because we couldn't possibly fix everything in one offseason. That 2011 team had only 3 starters that changed, and two of which (Boone and Aldon) were already on the roster and just didn't earn the starting jobs yet, and Boone was on the roster from the previous regime. Next year, when even more turnover exists, I guarantee far more than 5 starters will have changed. Because this team's talent cabinet was just about empty this year.

The players that didn't make it from 2010-2011 - David Baas, Manny Lawson, Aubrayo Franklin, Takeo Spikes, Nate Clements - they were starters on their next team. The guys from this year won't be. Because they weren't very good to begin with.
_________________


Future Hall of Famer Frank Gore's Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 8th All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #7 Eric Dickerson: 194
*Yards needed to pass #6 Jerome Bettis: 597
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19690
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
This is such a silly conversation to be having, similar to last year's "we have a lot of depth at wide receiver" silly conversation, because the answers are similarly obvious and not at all in favor of us having "depth at WR" or that this team was in any way "talented" last year.

This wasn't merely just a scheme difference. Harbaugh came in and had a difference in mind for schemes, and the team didn't turn over nearly as many individuals. 17 of the 21 starters were on the team the year before. Why? Because there was a lot of misused talent on that 2010 team. This year we'll see far less starters, not because of scheme, but because the players were just crappy players. And some of the starters that will remain are only going to remain because we couldn't possibly fix everything in one offseason. That 2011 team had only 3 starters that changed, and two of which (Boone and Aldon) were already on the roster and just didn't earn the starting jobs yet, and Boone was on the roster from the previous regime. Next year, when even more turnover exists, I guarantee far more than 5 starters will have changed. Because this team's talent cabinet was just about empty this year.

The players that didn't make it from 2010-2011 - David Baas, Manny Lawson, Aubrayo Franklin, Takeo Spikes, Nate Clements - they were starters on their next team. The guys from this year won't be. Because they weren't very good to begin with.


This is all true, and it's the same from the top to the bottom of the roster. Guys that started here will be backups elsewhere. Guys that were primary backups here will have to fight to win a roster spot. And guys that were at the bottom of our miserable roster could well find their NFL careers over.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 19051
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/18/undrafted-running-back-matt-breida-turning-heads-in-san-francisco/

Quote:
Breida was the best rookie on the field during the 49ers’ first minicamp, one assistant coach told Kevin Jones of KNBR.


I said in the draft thread how excited and intrigued I was by this guy the minute we signed him. Nice to see him starting off so well
_________________


Stupid NFL coaches and their need to reach for quarterbacks....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PapaShogun


Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 1434
Location: Macau
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reminds me of when Brandon Williams was shining in minicamp at WR years ago.
_________________

- Five Time Super Bowl Champion San Francisco 49ers -
1981*1984*1988*1989*1994*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
757-NINER


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 1929
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We hired Ran Carthon today as director of pro personnel. He previously ran the same department for the Rams a few seasons ago so it doesn't elicit much excitement as far as track record but its a Lynch hire so I assume he sees something there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 56, 57, 58, 59  Next
Page 57 of 59

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group