The Niners played well but it's the Yorks so heartache here we COME!
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 11:16 AM PST
74 comments
So since we last shared a few thoughts (when the Falcons crushed us at home) we've bounced back and.... drum roll please; lost two more bringing the current total to three in a row. The Yorkies of course did nothing at the trade dead line so no help is on the way. But let's look at the bright side the rest of the year looks promising. We finish the season against teams that are a combined 16 and 34. SWEET! Playoffs should be cinch right???
No they won't be, because you heard it here first (and in your hearts you know it's true). Niners will likely lose to the Bears, Packers, Eagles and Cards and possibly the Jags. They'll also slip up and lose to one of the THREE one win teams, I'm guessing the Titans. They should be able to beat the Lions, Rams, and Seahawks. So there you go 7 and 9 or best case 8 and 8. Only one team will get in from the NFC Worst and that will be the Cards.
The culprits? An ownership that won't make the moves needed to win because they care MUCH more about the money. Their goal is a "credible" (Jed York on ESPN) product on the field not a championship one. They may luck into the playoffs this year or next but again they will break our hearts by getting close and failing not because of heart or will - but because the Yorks didn't do what the great owners do - make winning number one.
You don't have to thank me. I just want you to get your head around this now and it will hurt less later on....
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
0 recs |
74 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
Explain please.
I have to wonder how many 9er fans will take you seriously with that screen name. Granted you can call yourself anything you want, but IT is perhaps, maybe, just a tiny bit offensive. If you are willing, I would like to hear the logic behind your name choice, because maybe it does make sense.
by CorneliusJ on Nov 2, 2009 11:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's a terrbile choice of names...
It was a dumb choice. I picked it after the game in frustration. I live in Atlanta, but I was at the game with my son. I love the 49ers, I am just not sold at all with the ownership – including Jed York. Usually I just get name calling and insults. But no one ever actually comments on the post itself….
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 11:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
suggestion
But no one ever actually comments on the post itself….
Try all caps.
The future ain't what it used to be.
by riderless on Nov 2, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mark my words...
The 49ers will not lose to the Cardinals or the Jaguars. Definitely good games against the Bears and Packers and I really think we will lose to the eagles, but we will in no way lose to the jags or the cards. The Jags are horrendous both offensively and defensively and the cards seem to be slumping again.
by renke81 on Nov 2, 2009 12:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hope you are right...
But I have a bad feelng about the balance of the year… We’ll see on Sunday.
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You look and sound like a Troll..
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Nov 2, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Got a mirror Jim?
It’s OK Jimmy. In a battle of wits you are unarmed. Not your fault I sure it’s just genetics…. I suggest a cap of some kind as the glare off you bald head makes it difficult to read…
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
After we played one of the two best teams in the league and the NFL's BEST QB
You want to say that we will lose to the Packers, Bears and Cardinals who got their butts handed to them by the Panthers? You call yourself a fan? You’re being ridiculous in saying that those games can’t be won so no attention to detail is neccessary when responding or reading this post, and your so called frustrated screen name doesn’t help in that aspect either.
"Optimist Prime"
"Child Please" -Ochocinco
by rlott#42 on Nov 2, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This site is not results oriented....
I’ve tried many times to point out that the issue with this team is very simple. We have very little talent at skilled positions. A logical reason that we have a serious lack of talent (at say WR) is that we need to go out and get talent. Right? Should I say it slower?
In order to compete we need to have a leadership team that can actually close a competitive transaction. Thus displaying a will to win. We don’t have that and Jed has shown me very little this season. Just to reiterate: we have some highly skilled players but we lack playmakers at critical positions. So Jed: Have your team get us a QB and get us a big play WR. Don’t wait for Crabtree to develop and hang the hopes of the franchise on Smith and Hill.
Now lets move onto whats really important to this site:
-Using correct grammer is far more interesting than the 49ers actually winning games.
-Surveys on what type of 49er fan you are seem to be popular.
-There are a lot of “Homers” on this site. Looking at our team realistically is frowned upon.
-Fooch loves the word “Passion”
-Jed York has proven to most of the members of this site that he is results oriented. The 49ers are 3-4 and didn’t make a single trade before the dead-line. Good work!
-Members of this site are great at finding ways to ignore the fact that every OTHER team in the NFL seems to have the executive credibility needed to close FA deals and/or play the trade dead-line. Shaun Hill had a whole thread dedicated to how good he is. That was amazing.
-I missed the memo but apperently Josh Morgan is the greatest thing sense sliced bread. Who needs a Brandon Marshall right? Who needs a Houshmanzadeh? That would have just made us worse.
And yes, I will find a new site, so no need to tell me what a non-fan I am…or …keep a log on how many negitive posts I make. My biggest hope is that you can have me eat my own words when the 49ers have a magical turn-around this season.
by Forttyner4life on Nov 2, 2009 12:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How about "we" decide.
Actually, this site doesn’t do anything but talk, because that’s all we can do. It might be fun to have the FO ask us to vote on decisions before they make them, but for some strange reason, I don’t think they will do that.
by CorneliusJ on Nov 2, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is it just me or...
is this guy’s WAY off base. Since when was Jed York our GM? Also, does Mr. York possess Jedi like mind powers to make other GM’s, (or in this guys strange world, other Owner’s) agree to deals we may have had interest in making…
I guess I’m just confussed how our current 3 game slide could be the owners fault…
by trevorwp on Nov 2, 2009 12:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
this
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Nov 2, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is a perfect comment Trevor...
Thank you for clumbsely walking right into the center of my post. We are on a 3 game skid BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH TALENT ON OUR TEAM.
In order to get talent, it must be obtained. Are you following genius? Who do you think goes out and gets talent in the NFL? Its called Executive Leadership or “Front Office.” AKA JED and the gang. Not Jed alone, but Jed and the gang.
by Forttyner4life on Nov 2, 2009 12:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You're right
the blame does fall on the front office, but this is the second time that this person has posted something bashing the Yorks as apparently the only reason the 49ers are losing. If it’s that easy, and you’re so smart why aren’t you running the front office. In fact, why can’t any of the people on this page run the front office, since it’s so easy… You think they don’t know they need more talent…
It takes more than one side to make a two team deal, and the media doesn’t share every move these guys are trying to make. Genius
by trevorwp on Nov 2, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Genius
How about everybody settles down on the “genius” talk, on all sides of this. Flippant comments like that don’t add to the discussion.
by Fooch on Nov 2, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This post should just be deleted
It’s not leading to any meaningful discussions.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Nov 2, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course you could choose to not read it but....
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's useless
What’s to be gained by trying to argue with a troll?
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Nov 3, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats why we almost beat one of the best teams in the AFC right smart guy anaylze before you talk please
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"Almost" the last bastion of losers everywhere!
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey better than getting blown out. I see improvement and that eventually leads to success
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see 6 or 7 more losses. The good news is we get to find out starting Sunday...
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah if we get can play with the colts we can pretty much play with everybody left on our schedule.
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
Let’s see how we all feel on Monday.
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who do you think goes out and gets talent in the NFL?
The General Manager. We’re not the Raiders.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Nov 2, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hi Genius
I know that the team plays the game and that many people are involved in decisions – not just the Yorks. But that is true in every business. The point is in Pro Footbal or any business Senior Management IS the difference. Is Berskhire Hathaway who they are with out Warren Buffet? Ownershop sets the direction of the team and trust me must sign off on big aquistions (just like all public companies).
The TOTALITY of choices the 49ers ownwership have made along with their public statements make me beleive that they won’t or can’t make the deals or spend the money to put the 49ers on par with the leauges elite.
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 12:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What are you smoking? Jed York is trying a lot harder than his parents ever did
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One of the dumbest things you can do is abandon your long-term plan
The exception is when you have an opportunity to make a trade that instantly turns you into a contender.
Those agitating for trades, I’m curious what deal you would make. It’s not enough to say “do something!” – that’s the logic that has, say, the Warriors signing Maggette and Jackson to those contracts.
Have a plan. Stick with it until it’s clear that it’s not working. We’re on year 1 of our current plan, and it’s way too early to say that it’s not working. There was no trade which turned us into super bowl contenders, so why give up part of our future and deviate from our plan?
Sometimes the owners are genuinely responsible (cough Cohan Davis) but often blaming the owners is just scapegoating.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 2, 2009 1:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
True most of the time
How many “plans” for rebuliding do the Yorks get??? [I know as many as they want – they own the team]. The guys who built the Titanic stuck with the plan. The Bengals have been sticking to the plan for years and Matt Millen’s stayed the course for Detroit.
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 1:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
your "Titanic" analogy is apropos
Titanic was a perfectly built ship. The engineers did their job, the shipbuilders did their job—heck the orchestra did its job even while the ship was sinking. What threw it off was the ship’s captain who had his own idea about how awesome the ship could be and took what the ship was (a cruise liner) and made it what it wasn’t (an ice breaker)—thus dooming the good efforts of everyone else involved.
If York played ship’s captain and appointed himself GM (a la Dan Snyder) at this point I’d be calling for his head just as most of the fans in Washington are.
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
by grantmp on Nov 2, 2009 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting but flawed....
So the owners of the Titanic, who’s folly was to commission and promote publicly that they had built an UNSINKABLE ship aren’t to blame for the mistakes of the crew or captain (or coach)? The Yorks are to blame for under manning the team and the lifebaots you seee will be 49er fans sailing away after this team sadly sinks again…
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We're a better team with pretty much the exact same players
So in that aspect of analysis you are wrong. Our schedule is extremely difficult, let’s say we had the Cowboys Scedule, we’d probably have a better record. We’re 0-2 against a good AFC division and still have a chance to finish 2-2. I guess we all have to wait and see next week, but keep in mind you also have to wait and see for years to come.
"Optimist Prime"
"Child Please" -Ochocinco
by rlott#42 on Nov 2, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or
the Redskins schedule, that took 7 weeks to play a team with a winning record
by sanfranfanmdk on Nov 2, 2009 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah seriosuly the Yorks suck we should get that Dan Snyder guy
cuz you know the Redskins get big name FA’s all the time and they’ve won like 4 Super Bowls the past decade right?
"Pat is still just scratching the surface." - Coach Singletary on LB Patrick Willis
by 49erLou on Nov 2, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In case you didn't notice, the Yorks changed plan LAST SEASON
… when they fired Nolan and promoted Signletary.
Furthermore, it’s a mistake to talk about “The Yorks” as being one monolithic ownership group. Jed has been running the team for less than a year.
And, again, I simply have to ask: do you have any SPECIFIC moves you think the team should make, or are you just agitating for change? It can be appropriate to say “come up with a new plan, this one isn’t working” at times … and good owners are always re-evaluating their plans, and tweaking them.
But it was their failure to make a big play at the trade deadline that seems to have drawn your ite in this particular case, which seems bizzare because a) deadline trades are very rare in the NFL, in case you hadn’t noticed – this ain’t baseball or even the NBA – and b) you seem to be agitating for change just for the sake of change, without advocating any specific course of action.
You think they’re making a mistake, fine … say what you would do, specifically.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 2, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ron, how many years of losing does it take before you see a trend? Seven, ten, twenty???
Ron, for the most part you are 100% correct. I don’t think I am a smarter than the Yorks or the 49ers GM. I am saying that over the last seven years the Yorks – from how they obtained the franchise – to how they run it, have taken a the team of the 90’s and made it the joke of the 00’s. At what point as fans are we introspective about what the proplem is. I like our coach and a lot of our players. It’s interesting that so many on this site castigate the players but give the Yorks and their legacy of losing a free pass.
by FalconOwn49ers on Nov 2, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You have to judge an owner by process, not by results
And the Yorks record has been mediocre, not terrible. Firing Mooch when they didn’t have a replacement was dumb. Hiring Erickson was dumb, although the kind of mistake a lot of owners make. They gave Erickson too much rope. Hiring Nolan was reasonable – although they gave him too much power. They probably held on for him a season too long, too …
That’s not a great record, but every move save Erickson (which many people praised at the time, but I think any smart fan knew he was doomed to failure) was defensible. You can’t use hindsight to make your judgements. It’s a question of what, at the time, should they have done that they didn’t do?
Unless you can answer that question, without hindsight, you can’t blame an owner for a team’s failures.
What I want from an owner is these things:
1) They sign the checks. The Yorks have done this.
2) They let the football people make the decisions. The Yorks have done this.
3) They make reasonable hires. (I don’t blame the owner if a reasonable coach or GM hire goes badly. If you want to get a Bill-Walsh level talent, you have to take a risk on an untested guy). The Yorks have been okay here – Donohue was a reasonable hire, bringing Walsh in was reasonable. Nolan and Scotty McL was reasonable.
4) They fire people when appropriate. Nolan hung around a little too long, but they bit the bullet on Erickson after two seasons (corretly) and they fired Donohue fairly quickly as well.
If an owner does all of those things, and gets a little luck, you end up with a winner – and the Yorks actually grade out reasonable well, although not perfectly. (Compare to Al Davis. He completely fails #2 and #3, which is why the Raiders are doomed to be terrible until he dies). Chris Cohan has failed #2, primarily, but hasn’t been great on #4 either.
You ask me how long it takes to see a trend, and I see a new owner who’s been on the job one year. During that time, I haven’t seen ANY mistakes from the ownership. Of course, it’s only been a year.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 2, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I actually think Jed has been doing a pretty good job thus far. Better than what we’ve had before anyhow.
I wish we could get Eddie DeBartolo back, but that ain’t gonna happen (he’s making noises about purchasing another team but I don’t think the NFL would let him).
by smileyman on Nov 2, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is going to sound heretical but ...
Don’t discount the luck factor working in Eddie D’s favor.
Don’t get me wrong. The man signed the checks. The man got out of the way of the football people and let them do their jobs. He didn’t have to fire anyone, and he made reasonable hires. So clearly he passes all four checkmarks.
But there was still luck involved. He made a reasonable hire (at the time) which ended up being one of the greatest hires in the history of the league, with Bill Walsh.
But nobody knew that at the time.
At the time, Walsh was a successful NFL coordinator who had been out of the league for a year. Totally reasonable hire. The kind of hire that often results in mediocre head coaches, quite frankly … but also sometimes gets you “The Genius.”
Eddie D was smart, and did a lot of things right, but remember that he got lucky, too. Nobody saw how Walsh was going to change the league in advance.
Eddie D was playing poker, looked at his hole cards, and saw pocket aces. Now, he happened to play them just about perfectly … but it sure is a lot easier to play poker well when you’ve got aces then when you’ve got 7-5 suited. The Yorks have made plenty of mistakes … but they’ve never been dealt a hand CLOSE to that good, either.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 2, 2009 5:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can call it luck for one
maybe two of the Super Bowls (I think that you can call it luck for the 81 and maybe the ’84 teams). Not an entire decade of dominance and not for five Super Bowls. That man knew how to treat his players and coaching staff and they loved him for it and played their hearts out for him.
by smileyman on Nov 2, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm calling it luck that he hired Walsh to start with.
And that doesn’t happen, that’s it.
He knew how to treat his coaches and players? Yes, he threw money at them. There are owners who do that today – Jerry Jones, and Dan Snyder, and they’re not having a similar amount of success.
I mean, how different is Eddie D without Bill Walsh from Jerry Jones? A little less ego, maybe, and that matters, but again … it’s real easy to win at poker when you draw pocket aces.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 2, 2009 11:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't all luck though
one of the things that Eddie D did was make San Fran the destination for free agents. He lavished gifts on players and on players’ families, made the team facilities tops in the league, built up this culture in which everybody knew that the owner was behind them. That wasn’t luck—it was Eddie D doing his part to make the Genius’ job easier. And Maiocco and others have noticed that since Jed York has been team president, he’s made a number of Eddie-like moves.
I say this in response to the OP’s claim that the Yorks are useless owners, to give further support to Ronaldinho’s claim that the Yorks aren’t this monolithic ownership group, and to comment on the bit about Eddie D’s luck.
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
by grantmp on Nov 3, 2009 5:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the rules were different then ...
In those days you COULD lavish money on players. Let’s not forget that Eddie built and maintained the dynasty in part by paying more money than anybody else. He didn’t care.
Then the league changed the rules, and now teams are much more hamstrung in their ability to outspend each other.
This is important, because it gets to the issue of free agent signings. Back in Eddie’s day, you could sign a free agent and, if you needed something else the next season, you could sign that too. That’s no longer the case – if you make a splash for a big free agent you hamper your ability to sign players over the next several seasons, so the price for being wrong is much, much higher.
No, it wasn’t all luck. But luck was a part of it.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 3, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The was no process with the Yorks then...
The Yokrs might have inherited a mess, but they in turn created another mess. One of the keys in looking at a porr football organization is HC turnover. The Yorks are on their 3rd since firing the last HC after making the playoffs. They then hired Nolan to do way too much because they didn’t want to hire a GM. Their GM now is a guy Nolan brought in, and he is only in his second year. Singletary is a guy Nolan brought in also. All this isn’t some sort of master process or plan. There isn’t anything reasonable about it.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Nov 4, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that HC turnover is necessarily a sign of bad ownership.
Don’t get me wrong – I did not like firing Mooch for Erickson. That struck me as a move borne out of unreasonable expectations. (Mooch’s teams beat the teams they had more talent than, and lost to the ones they didn’t. He was a perfectly reasonable head coach – maybe you fire somebody like that if you think a proven great coach is available, but that wasn’t the case) That, I thought, was a bad ownership move.
On the other hand, the other two HC firings have been entirely reasonable. Erickson should have been fired when he was fired, and Nolan should have been fired when he was fired, if not sooner. In both of those cases “HC turnover” was a good thing – it meant that the ownership recognized that the wrong man had the job, and sought to fix the situation.
In order to get HC stability, you need to first hire a good head coach. This is not as easy as it sounds, and is where luck comes in. It’s EASY to have stability if you, say, hire Bill Walsh, Bill Bellichek, or Tony Dungy … it’s not so easy if you hire Mike Nolan. But it’s often not easy to know who’s going to be Bill Walsh and who’s going to be Mike Nolan in advance.
The Niners could have “had more stability” or “had more of a plan” – things that you seem to think are important – by not firing Dennis Erickson. Clearly you’re not saying that’s what they should have done?
I mean, we’re not talking about an Al Davis situation (driving off Gruden and Shanahan) or a Jerry Jones situation (driving off Jimmy Johnson). To argue that the problem is a lack of head coaching stability when your last two coaches have been Dennis Erickson and Mike Nolan is absurd.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 4, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
HC's come and go in the League...
But firing an HC that took you to the playoffs, then firing that HC to replace him with Erickson, and then purging all of the talent (Erickson might have gone at least 8-8 or 9-7 if he had a Kicker his first year) his second was more of the fault of TD, Walsh, and York. They helped create Cap Hell II. Even while TD was crapping the bed, York still gave him an extension. There was no way on Cap Hell that Erickson, a mediocre HC, would be able to succeed here. That was a knee jerk reaction form York who got bad advice from those “Football People” like TD, and York stopped listening to Walsh before all of this. York may have had his reasons for firing Mooch (like the rumor of Mooch looking at a NCAA job), but Mooch was placated by Walsh in the draft room, and Mooch just wanted more power and control of his job. TD had the power. How did that work out?
What was John York’s next move? Having one of his “Football People” in Marathe as the catalyst for the HC search. Marathe is a stat geek with an MBA who had the future of the 49ers in his hands. Between Schwartz and Nolan, they chose Nolan because he blew them away in his interview.
Where was a GM in all of this? Nowhere. York didn’t want one. Maybe you can’t blame him after TD, but he had all of his MBA guys around him telling him what he wanted to hear, and they told him Nolan was the right guy to head the Organization, not just as an HC, but to oversee the entire football side of it. Nolan had zero experience in either role. The irony is that 2 of Nolan’s guy’s are in charge of this team now, and Nolan’s handprints are still on it.
So there really was no plan here. It wasn’t about how many HC’s they have gone through as much as the background of why they went through that many. That’s where the absurdity lies.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Nov 4, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One more thought...
I think the 49ers as a whole could use one more person of considerable stature in the League to help them out in the FO. I can’t think of anyone better than Holmgren. Why? Not just for personnel, but to help bring some of Walsh’s organizational principles back. Singletary should be the last HC the 49ers have to hire for the next 10 years. If he fails, it won’t be so much on Sing, but on the Organization that has failed it’s previous 3.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Nov 4, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You need to make up your mind
In your previous post you lambasted “HC turnover” as a problem. Now you say, “It wasn’t about how many HC’s they have gone through …”
And I do not believe Seifert was fired. I think he retired, althoughI could be wrong. I haven’t been able to find a citation.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 4, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok...
Ok, let me clarify this once more:
The HC turnover, combined with all of the FO mistakes that has led them to fire 2 HC’s outside of Mooch (Siefert is nowhere near what I posted above, so try not to confuse this). In other words, they went through 3 HC’s already because they didn’t know what the hell they were doing at 4949 Centennial.
Going through 3 HC’s in a short span is turnover. I already posted some reasons why.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Nov 5, 2009 12:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would argue that a coach like Erickson isn't going to succeed no matter what happens in the front office ...
He only knows how to coach when he has vastly superior talent than his opponents, eg at a football-factory school in college.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 5, 2009 8:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
damn
hella people got they panties in a bunch in this thread, yea we need more talent but we all know that this FA season we will make our splash with 44mil in cap space. 2 1st rnd picks and a decent team not far from being legit, i think its safe to say lets wait til next season before we start talkin too much nonsense, if after next year no moves are made to make us better then we should get on the fire everybody bandwagon but for now i think the owners and management are being careful to set up a good offseason that will probably make or break our franchise for the next 4 to 5 years. KEEP HOPE ALIVE! lol and as always GO NINERS! Y SI NO LES GUSTAN Q COMAN MIERDA Pooh-Toes! LOL
by Nesto415 on Nov 2, 2009 2:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha eso!!!!! Vamos 49ers!!!!! Que viva EL SALVADOR!!!!! LOL
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do we really want to be known as the Yankees of football, just buying up all the talent? Sure we could have gone out and rented a couple guys for the remainder of the year, but I would rather have long term viability then just having 1 more Superbowl for the next 20 years.
Plain and simple, we have good personnel for the most part, just need to drop some of the under performers (Spurlock I am looking at you!), and keep the ones that could have been very talented(Coffee).
I think Shaun Hill is just about done, and honestly I think i would rather have Garcia as a Back up then hill(Just my opinion). Yes he’s older (39 vs 29) but I think Alex Smith could Definitely benefit more from Garcia then Hill).
Just remember we have a ton of cap space and plenty of picks this year coming up..Whether its big splashes in off season free agency or a ton of good drafts (Or trading drafts for good players) Samurai has set us up great for this off season, as well as IMO setting us up with a quality team on the field this year with a lot of YOUNG players, who will have some great years ahead of them.
In the words of Dennis Miller -“…Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”
Judgment day is coming!
by Widowwolf on Nov 2, 2009 3:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I didn't even read a word and know what to do.
by bignerd on Nov 2, 2009 3:10 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Pretty good,..except for the Yankees analogy...
The Yankees are in the WORLD SERIES and compete virtually EVERY year. Horrible take dude. I would kill to have a 49er version of the Yankees. I understand the CAP same issue but there is no excuse to be as bad as we have for as long as we have.
by Forttyner4life on Nov 2, 2009 3:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Baseball =/= football
In baseball there are no “offensive” or “defensive” systems.
In baseball a team can just pick up a good player and he’ll automatically make the team better.
In football a team has to find a specific player that fits the system and the mentality of the team (plus there is also the “chemistry” issue).
Why does T.O. suck in Buffalo? Why is Albert Hanyesworth not playing as well as he did last season?
Stop ignoring the fact that the team has actually improved over the last 4 years.
There is more talent on the team now than there was in 2005.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Nov 3, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2005 is setting the bar low . . . very, very, very low
by bignerd on Nov 3, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True.
But I’d argue that the team has seemed to have gotten better with each passing year. The only exception may be ‘07, but I think that was the year the defense started showing glimpses of what it could become (as I strongly believe that the offenses’ three and outs totally killed that defense).
by sfgfan on Nov 3, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My explanation of 2007
We lost Jennings, Justin Smiley and Larry Allen on the offensive line. That unit carried the team in 2006. Although the team added more talent on defense it lost it’s cornerstone in the offensive line and subsequently fell on it’s face.
by bignerd on Nov 3, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense...
… and sounds completely accurate. There’s also the Alex Smith being hurt factor. I’m not saying he would have been worlds better than Dilfer/Hill were after him, but it’s hard to say either way, considering he did show poise in a couple of his first games that season.
by sfgfan on Nov 4, 2009 9:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Trades are best left in the NBA and MLB. NFL trades are different beasts.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Nov 2, 2009 3:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i envy teams with good owners
the pats, steelers especiallys. they’d never let their brand degenerate to what the 9ers have become and are going to continue to be under the yorks. i hate it.
"There is no pressure. Pressure only exists when you're not prepared."
-The Samurai
by redrum21225 on Nov 2, 2009 4:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Pats were nobodies before this decade
The Steelers were good in the 70s then went on to suck for 30 years before winning another SB.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Nov 3, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
football is cyclical
And you need a mind like Belechik or The Genius to hold things together.
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
by grantmp on Nov 3, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not change your name, there, Falconsown?
What would it hurt? I don’t necessarily agree with your opinions on this post, but I support your right to say them. But, man, that name has got to change.
Alaska is a state, dammit! Can I get a Niner game on TV up here?
by kinglouie33 on Nov 2, 2009 5:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I know it is your choice what name you want but it seems that most of your posts have been met with hostility mainly because of the name.
I want me some Buster
by gbears16 on Nov 2, 2009 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Optimism
First off horrible choice of name. Second your way to negative so your basically writing off this season and EVERY other season because your saying management won’t ever get it right. Sooo my next question. Why are you even a 49er fan? If you really are a 49er fan u gotta get some optimism cuz I know if I think like you would I would diffenitly not be a fan cuz why be a fan if supposedly I know that we will never amount to anything. 49ers fans should be happy. Right now things aren’t looking so hot cuz we are 3-4 but here’s some things to look forward too.
1. We play the titans with Vince young finally a qb that isn’t manning or Ryan or even schaub who is playing good right now.
2. Even if we do go 8-8 7-9 and don’t make the playoffs we are on the upward swing because we have two first rounds picks next year we have one of the best cap situations which means we can bring in some more guys to help this team.
3. We play in the NFC west which there’s not that much competition to worry about anyways Kurt Warner is older then my dad and my dad is 66 lol. Rams are really sheep. And seahawks also have an old qb.
Many reasons to be optimistic. Anyways my point is your one of those fans that is always looking at our schedule and looking at who we will lose too instead of who we will beat. (half full, half empty analogy) why don’t you just go be a bandwagon jumper and like the patriots, no the steelers, no the colts. If your just gonna bash the niners all the time saying were gonna lose this and that and we suck and we will never be good just get out. GO NINERS!
by 49ersAllTheWay on Nov 2, 2009 10:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I have a friend who is the same way.
Go 49ers
by iaalexeeff on Nov 3, 2009 6:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
