49ers OTAs: End of Week Link Dump

by Fooch on Jun 7, 2008 3:00 AM PDT in News

Now that the Arnaz Battle situation has been seemingly cleared up, things have quieted down a little bit at 49ers organized team activities. I didn't really have anything in mind to discuss for now so I thought I'd throw out a general link dump for the weekend. Feel free to dump any interesting links you may find in here.

One of the more interesting stories is the 49ers decision to skip out on the normal kickoff luncheon at the Chamber of Commerce. Last year's luncheon turned into a bit of a fiasco as Senator Dianne Feinstein and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom turned it into a pitch to keep the 49ers in San Francisco. In place of the luncheon, the 49ers are hosting 49ers Family Day at Candlestick Park Saturday (today for most of your reading this) from 10am to 2pm. It's a free event and plenty of players and cheerleaders will be on hand as well as games for the kids.

Another interesting tidbit comes from the Chronicle. Kevin Lynch apparently spoke with Ashley Lelie, who made some interesting comments about Arnaz Battle's absence:

Fifth, I talked to wide receiver Ashley Lelie, who held out of training camp with Denver after he was demoted to a third receiver when the Broncos signed Javon Walker. I asked him if he had talked to Battle and he said yes. I asked if it was similar to what happened to him in Denver and he said yes. Then he said that when it came to business matters, it was up to the player to do what he thinks is best.

I didn't think Battle would be a guy to feel disrespected, but I suppose anything is possible. Hopefully it's a situation that can be quickly rectified next week. I would imagine Mike Martz will be able to explain to Battle how important he will be in the offense this season.

Matt Barrows made some interesting comments about the passage of Proposition G and the holdups still in place for the 49ers remaining in San Francisco. The Santa Clara stadium issue is supposed to go to the ballot in November, so hopefully that will clear things up.

In the midst of all this stadium talk, stories are popping up about how the 49ers (and other teams) could end up in LA. Once again, just get something done soon.

A Vacaville paper did a feature on J.T. O'Sullivan earlier this week. Brash, cocky and arrogance are three words that come up in articles about O'Sullivan. You want a guy to step up and take the reigns, but I'm curious how that would work with a 3rd string quarterback.

John Clayton had an interesting article up a couple weeks ago that I just came across today. Apparently the NFL has considered adding a 17th game to the regular season schedule. The NFL is now hoping to possibly use that as a bargaining chip in their dealings with the players. Clayton goes into the pros and cons of adding the 17th game.

Earlier this week, former 49ers linebacker Keena Turner was named Vice President of Football Affairs. He'll be in charge of all programs related to player well-being and success, which includes counseling, faith-based and player-development programs.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Teamwork

Regarding Arnaz Battle’s recent absence from the OTAs, if he was feeling disrespected by possibly being demoted the 3rd or 4th receiver, he should recognize several things:

1. This is a team effort, when 11 players are on the field, all eleven have to give their 100% and be in the right places on every play. This game is not about Arnaz. It wasn’t about disrespect, but adding to the team more weapons drawing double-teaming to free up targets in moving downfield. We want the offense to stay on the field longer than the defense.

2. As a starter, the 49ers never won, but he contributed to solid play as one of the most reliable WRs on the team. The 49ers had to go out and get two bona fide wide receivers to become more of a threat to opposing teams, the Niners want to win.

3. Since the hiring of Martz, to make his offense work, we have to bring in proven WRs who can scorch the field. I always looked at Battle as a possession receiver who can score at times.

4. Didn’t Battle realize he could have been released or waived instead of the incumbent Darrel Jackson? Being kept by the 49ers instead of Jackson, who has done extremely well in the past with the Seattle Seahawks, speaks volumes of how highly the 49ers think of Battle. I mean, if I was in the NFL, seeing a proven player get released instead of me would give me goosebumps.

5. Or is it the moolah? Hah. I think not.

"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."

by 16to80endzone on Jun 7, 2008 1:02 PM PDT 0 recs

Battle

Battle is kind of a fan-favorite around these parts. The guy, no matter how many people have counted him out, has always some how managed to rise to the top again. It’s completely understandable that he’s upset. I think Battle is a solid #2, as long as there’s a #1 across the way. The way I see it, he should have been penciled in as the starter, and let either Bruce or Johnson (whichever wasn’t penciled in at #1) take that away from him, rather than force him into the hole AGAIN. This is not to mention that Battle seems to fit the kind of guy Martz likes, while a guy like Johnson doesn’t.

In my honest opinion, Battle deserved that much. For whatever reason, he was placed behind guy’s like Brandon Lloyd, only to rise above it. He was placed behind Jackson and Lelie when they first arrived, and he rose above that. It’s just messed up to write off a guy who’s proven his worth (at least as a #2) a THIRD time.

I think that your #2 point is just plain wrong. Saying the team never won with him as a starter is just poor form.

by sfgfan on Jun 9, 2008 10:34 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah, Battle’s given this team a lot of fairly underrated and productive play over the last few years. He’s proven a lot and gotten very little credit for it.

I’d be annoyed, too.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 9, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up 0 recs

Battle is no. #3

Battle did a great job on a team with conceivably the worst wide receiving corps in the NFL (possibly), was that all there was to it? Yes and No. Battle is a deserving player, but Issac Bruce has proven himself amassing 14,000 yards lifetime in the NFL, and Bryant Johnson is a no. 2 receiver who was hopelessly the 3rd receiver down the charts due to the stronghold of Fitzerald and Boldin, NFL’s best wide receiver tandem, and he has moved up to the no. 2 position rightfully under Bruce.

If Battle ended up as the no. 4 receiver, that’s when I will cry foul.

One can be a great player, but how can that player be truly defined if he has never won a Super Bowl ring? If Steve Young never took the team to the Super Bowl, then what of the legacy of Young as a top-rated quarterback?

Jerry Rice pranced into the end zone as many times we eat eggs for breakfast, but if he never helped thrust the 49ers into the Super Bowls, then what of Rice’s legacy as a wide receiver?

The same for Isaac Bruce?

Not going to disneyland after a no-show in the Super Bowls show a poor form. Super Bowl rings say it all.

But if Bryant Johnson falters this year as a no. 2 receiver, then Battle will climb his way into the no. 2 position, and if Bruce doesn’t pan out, Battle will end up into the no. 1 spot.

Make you happy?

"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."

by 16to80endzone on Jun 9, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

That makes little sense

Pardon the bluntness, but it’s kind of hypocritical to use Battle’s “shortcomings” against him, and just ignore Johnson’s. Johnson, say what you may, has been a #3 WR all these years. He was a FIRST ROUND PICK and got overshadowed by a second rounder (who is a lot less physically gifted as him) taken in the same year as him. He then lost out to a first rounder taken a year after him, even WITH the year head start. Now Boldin and Fitz are two of the best WRs in the NFL, but striving in the system they are, you would think Johnson could have done the same.

Instead, he’s proven, so far, that he’s no more than a #3 WR. He’s proven no more than he’s a #2 than Battle has the last few years. Which is why it’s kind of absurd to just hand him the keys to the #2 spot, when Battle’s held it down so competently (ESPECIALLY considering the mostly useless quarterback play that’s getting him the ball).

As for Bruce, he’s no longer Isaac Bruce. He’s, more than likely, shell of his former self. Just because he’s a veteran that’s done it before, it does not mean he is a guarantee to do it now. Even if he proves me wrong and does really well to assume that he AND Johnson deserved to be written in above Battle.

Battle sort of got jobbed, and there’s really no other way around it.

by sfgfan on Jun 9, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

I fucking hate the logic behind, “well, he hasn’t won a superbowl…” It makes no fucking sense. Each player is just 1 person on the team, how can you judge them based on the teams failures and successes? Sure, they contribute to it, but even the best players deserve a small fraction of the credit when it comes to a team winning.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jun 9, 2008 1:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

Real World

In the real world, a hall of fame type of player will earn less recognition if all the years he has played, has never won a World Series or a Super Bowl. It does dampen all the achievements a player might have accomplished if he never was in a unit or team that went all the way coming out as world champions.

Barry Bonds never won a World Series. Besides his 762 homeruns and a possible asterisk besides his HR record, there are zero world championships to show for it. It’s a travesty to Bonds, because his dream was to win the World Series, which would be icing to the cake after all he has done in baseball.

Some players get passed over for All Star games or the Pro Bowl, because the team they play on are not playing at championship level. Fans tend to vote when the team plays well. Some cases the best player are voted regardless of how badly his team stinks, but generally we want to look at the big picture- has he won championships, is he the Super Bowl MVP, is he a pro bowler consecutively, things like that.

He may be just one player but people don’t always look at individual accomplishments. They look at how the team has done and what that player has done for the team to get to that level. For instance, Joe Montana was just one man, but there were many wide receivers, running backs, tight ends, and fullbacks. Joe didn’t win by himself, but these players positioned themselves to be on the same page with the greatest quarterback of all history and made the plays. In “The Catch” what if Dwight Clark just stood on the ground with hands raised, would he have caught that famous “The Catch” throw from Montana? No, it would have sailed over his head.

Anyway, it’s the logic the players on losing teams hate, regardless of how good they are.

"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."

by 16to80endzone on Jun 10, 2008 2:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

Again, two different situations

Maybe you can look at a player’s “championships” for POST performance “incentives,” but it makes little sense to look at their “championship prowess” when their careers are still in motion. It’s kind of… premature.

During a player’s career, though, I would hope the 49ers look past “lack of championships” when they’re evaluating players. Guys like Shawn Merriman, LaDainian Tomlinson and such may never win a Super Bowl, but I’d be damned happy if they were players on the 49ers.

Look at it this way, Steve Young won way less Super Bowls than Montana did, but it doesn’t mean that he was THAT inferior to Montana (of course, in my opinion, I think Young was better). Similarly, Dan Marino never won one, but that doesn’t make a guy like John Elway better than him.

It’s just plain stupid to measure a player by the number of championships THEY won, as if they they singlehandedly did it.

by sfgfan on Jun 10, 2008 8:38 AM PDT up 0 recs

Bryant Johnson

I’m going to put a post about this sometime soon, but I’m definitely of the opinion that Bryant Johnson has proven he’s a #2 receiver yet. If he works out fantastic, but I’d prefer a more open competition between Johnson and Battle, rather than handing Johnson the job (if that’s in fact what they’ve done).

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jun 9, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

Argument

It’s going to be a good argument with the coming post you will be writing about Bryant Johnson. We have a talented wide receiver corps, with several proven and the other several who have potential but are not proven yet.

I feel Isaac Bruce should be the no. 1 receiver due to the 14,000 yards he has amassed in his career, he’s the senior WR and a team leader whom younger players can look up to. He is always talking to the younger players.

Johnson is loaded with talent and potential despite having been lower in the depth chart during the 2007 season under no. 1 and no. 2’s Fitz and Boldin, but he has a new team now. It’s his chance now.

Battle, while playing better than decently, does deserve open competition, but with the Martz offense being installed, Bruce has the edge over Battle in understanding the scheme completely and he is ready to take the lead, and Johnson having the edge as the “supposed” no.1 or no. 2 receiver (with the Cardinals). Johnson was stuck under Fitz and Bolden.

It’s Johnson’s job at no. 2 to lose, because Battle is not too far behind in the ranks. That is not to mention if Lelie shows consistency as the 4th wideout and if Jason Hill has a breakout year.

"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."

by 16to80endzone on Jun 10, 2008 3:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

Bruce

I disagree Bruce should be handed the #1 just because of everything he’s done. The team that would know what he’s done the best, the Rams, chose not to bring him back. So why would ANYONE hand him the #1 job? That’s like saying Jerry Rice should have been handed the #1 job in Seattle and Denver. It’s just a huge fallacy to think a player who’s probably beyond his useful years will practically guarantee a contribution greater than that of someone who’s been on the team the past half a decade.

by sfgfan on Jun 10, 2008 8:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

Johnson

I think it’s kind of wrong to say Johnson was “stuck” behind Fitz and Boldin. As I pointed out previously, he was drafted the SAME YEAR as Boldin, meaning they BOTH had the same opportunity to shine. Johnson, if I’m not mistaken, hardly cracked the #2 WR spot that year. Then the next year, Fitz comes to town and Johnson, even with his one year head start, LOSES OUT AGAIN. It’s not like the Cards didn’t want to give him his fair shake. He was a first rounder and no team wants to admit that their first rounder sucked in comparison to one of their second rounders. I think the Cardinals gave him plenty of chances and he just never seized the opportunities.

by sfgfan on Jun 10, 2008 8:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

Also, you really could say that ANY #3 receiver is stuck behind the 2 receivers in front of him. It’s a pretty hollow statement. Last year Lelie would have been the #1 if it wasn’t for all those other pesky receivers on our roster. It’s just not really an argument.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 10, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

Kickoff Luncheon Skipout

It’s the understanding that in spite of the 49er community spirit, an agenda cannot be manipulated in front of ownership, that’s unevitable that the ownership will move the team into the South Bay. If we really want the 49ers to stay in San Francisco, we have to use less tacky maneuvering, to bring both sides closer, than alienating the other.

Myself, I’d like to see the 49ers stay in San Francisco, as I have been a lifelong Niner fan. But at all costs, I want to see the 49ers stay in the bay area, whether that be in the North Bay or South Bay. L.A. Niners? We are rivals with everything Los Angeles, especially the Dodger Blue, and I wouldn’t want L.A. to have our team, certainly!

Considering that Senator Dianne Feinstein is a politician, didn’t she see the gravity of showing up the Yorks by leading chants to stay in San Francisco, with the SF 49er ownership sitting just a few feet away?

If we keep the 49ers within the boundaries, we are doing ourselves a favor instead of letting them walk out of the greater San Francisco bay area.

Or, “I am outta town” will become the new slogan for the 49ers. What would we do with all the 49er jerseys we bought and had signed?

Let’s resort to diplomacy. Diplomacy works.

"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."

by 16to80endzone on Jun 7, 2008 6:02 PM PDT 0 recs

Really?

I think by branching out to the South Bay, the 49ers would be doing themselves a greater favor than staying in SF. They’re going to a city that is trying to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to get the 49ers there, instead of a city trying to hand them a polluted stink hole that isn’t even ready to be built on.

Aside from that, it’s not like the 49ers’ fans are ALL in San Francisco. Common knowledge would dictate that there are more fans in the South Bay than on the peninsula, just because of the sheer difference in real estate. I just don’t see what’s so wrong with the 49ers moving close to their home offices. It’s not like they’re trying to move to Mendocino or Fresno. If Santa Clara allows them to realize their stadium (and financial goals) sooner and easier, I’m all for it.

by sfgfan on Jun 9, 2008 10:39 AM PDT up 0 recs

Reading in Context

sfgfan. I would like to clarify some things. I added two of my quotes in this reply post and underneath will be my responses:

16to80’s quote:

“But at all costs, I want to see the 49ers stay in the bay area, whether that be in the North Bay or South Bay.’

16to80’s response:

I did make it clear that I want the 49ers to stay in the bay area, even if it can be in the South Bay.

If we keep the 49ers within the boundaries, we are doing ourselves a favor instead of letting them walk out of the greater San Francisco bay area. My preference is San Francisco, naturally, for the nostalgia of it, and the SF foggy weather.

16to80’s 2nd quote:

“If we keep the 49ers within the boundaries, we are doing ourselves a favor instead of letting them walk out of the greater San Francisco bay area.”

16to80’s response:

That quote was talking about doing ourselves a favor if we support a move to Santa Clara, because we don’t want the 49ers to walk out of the greater San Francisco bay area. The greater SF Bay area means the entire bay area covering the north bay and the south bay.

Did I clarify to your satisfaction, sfgfan?

"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."

by 16to80endzone on Jun 9, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up 0 recs