What NFL team has a worse QB situation going into this season?
Hello all,
As usual Fooch and I were teeing off again on each other today which has become a sick pleasure in my life. Love me or hate me you know my stance on our current off-season: ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC FOR THE SEVENTH STRAIGHT OFF SEASON. (Big caps just for Fooch.) I'll spare any further rant or raves, but Fooch posed the following question to me today as he was once again...defending our QB situation.
Heres the comment:
"As far as the QB situation, in using CAPS, you make it sound like it’s absolutely god-awful. So, you’re saying you’d rather have the Broncos situation with Kyle Orton starting? How about Minnesota? At this point you’re looking at Sage Rosenfels, Tavaris Jackson and John David Booty. Considering Favre finished last season with a giant fork sticking out of his back, I’m not sure I’d go with that either. I’m guessing you assume the Jets and Lions are better at QB even though they have a pair of rookies who have not proven anything at the NFL level. Maybe you’d prefer TB with the proverbial poo poo platter of Brian Griese, Byron Leftwich Josh Freeman, Luke McCown and Josh Johnson?" -The Great Fooch
My answer was simple: I would take any one of the starters he named in that statement over Hill and Smith. That would be: Rosenfels, Orton, Leftwhich (for sure), Matthew Stafford, or Sanchez.
So I ask you all the same question out of morbid curiousity: Please provide me a team or teams in the NFL that you feel have a worse QB siutaion than the 49ers? Or we can even pose in a different light just for the fun of it. If you were building a team and these we're the only pool of QB's left tell me why you'd take Shaun Hill or Alex Smith first.
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.
2 recs |
227 comments
Comments
The Chiefs...
Two shotgun QBs.
You’d take Rosenfels over Smith/Hill?
Really?
I guess you love losing in style or something.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jun 29, 2009 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
7 straight offseasons?
I’ll get to the QBs in a bit…but for now: every single offseason the last 7 years has been pathetic? Signing Justin Smith, Allen Rossum, Isaac Bruce and Takeo Spikes last offseason were awful moves? We can get into the other offseasons later, but for now please explain last offseason’s “pathetic-ness.” Maybe they didn’t sign some guys you might have wanted, but can you really call last season’s haul pathetic?
by Fooch on Jun 29, 2009 7:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
QBs
As for the QBs, could you tell me how exactly Kyle Orton and Sage Rosenfels are better options than what we’ve got?
by Fooch on Jun 29, 2009 7:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d probably take Orton over Hill but not Rosenfels. Smith over both. I’m a Smith fan and I think he comes back from the dead like a Phoenix rising from the ashes.
by hudd07 on Jun 29, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Say what you want about Hill
but he wins games for the Niners. I like Smith, so i don’t know who to root for, but all of the QB’s that’s named have flaws.
Rosenfels is good for the 1st-3rd quarters and is awful in the fourth. Orton is probably the best of all the QBs.
But answering the question, the Bucs have the worst situation because they can form a boy-band with all the leftover QBs they have.
T.O. Estes III
by T.O.E. on Jul 4, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quarterbacks don't win games any more than than receivers, guards, or any other position do.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 4, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you thought Moss had nothing to do with Cassels success!!
I wouldn’t take JeMarcus Russel for damn sure over either of our QB’s. Then we also have the continously fading marc bulger. Throw in a little Delhomme and Trent Edwards form the Bills and how about Jason Campbell. I’d take Hill over all these suckas, period. And Flacco was a fluke. We by far do not have the worst QB situation in this league. And our offseason was above average and very close to GOOD.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 29, 2009 7:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like Thigpen
a lot!
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jun 30, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you really a 49er for life??
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 29, 2009 7:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because being realistic about the talent level of our players is obviously a sign of traitorous tendencies.
Anyone who doesn’t think we’re going to go 10-6 and run away with the division, despite all signs to the contrary, is clearly not a true fan.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jun 29, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Born and raised fool...
Before you were a twinkle in your mama’s eyes.
by Forttyner4life on Jun 30, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shying away from direct comparisons, I'd say the worst QB situations in the league are...
Raiders, Rams, Bucs, Jets, Vikings, 49ers.
Tampa and NY are clearly going into a season where they shouldn’t expect much immediate success from the QB position, but will likely advance to a league-average level within a year or two.
The Rams are a franchise in disarray with a decaying past-prime QB that has no supporting cast and no one waiting in the wings.
The Raiders have cause for concern because their supposed QBotF has shown very little progress in two years, and while their skill position players look good on paper, the unit as a whole seems to be very non-supportive of a sub-par signal caller.
The Vikings have shown no faith in their returning starter, and have already made public attempts to replace the guy they brought in with a dinosaur coming off of a meh season and an injury to his old-and-busted throwing arm.
The 49ers are in a position where they’re left to choose between a mediocre stop-gap with less than a year of starting experience and an already-acclaimed bust.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jun 29, 2009 8:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree, JaMarcus Russell improved somewhat the last few games.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 29, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Improved somewhat?
It’s hard not to improve when you’re the worst QB in the league. His work ethic still sucks. He’ll never be any good.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jun 30, 2009 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
J.R. still sucks (until he proves us all wrong)
He was carried by his running game the last few games of the season.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jun 30, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SO the Bills, Redskins, Broncos, Lions, and Browns are better off??
LOL
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trent Edwards, Kyle Orton, and Jason Campbell are all serviceable starters.
Stafford is a fantastic QB prospect, Culpepper isn’t absolutely terrible. Brady Quinn was a top QB prospect and Derek Anderson showed he could at least pad his stats if given some above average talent.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
was pretty much my sentiment.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jun 30, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 49ers definitely have one of the worst QB situations, if not the worst.
Teams that are just as bad, if not worse:
Vikings – That offense is stacked and all they need is a mildly competent QB to hold things down, and they proceed to trade for Sage Rosenfels. Sage Rosenfels. Really, Brad Childress? Tarvaris Jackson was a 6th round talent reached on in the 2nd, he’s just about established he’s terrible.
Tampa – Their outlook for next season at QB is pretty bleak, but I’d give them the edge over the 49ers; Byron Leftwich looked fairly good in spot-duty last season, McCown isn’t terrible. But most importantly, they have a QB of the future which leapfrogs them far ahead of the 49ers, especially in the long0term.
Honorable mention goes to the Rams, I guess. Bulger has been terrible recently but he might bounce back next season if the running game explodes and the defense doesn’t blow leads all the time and he doesn’t have to go all Air Martz like he did before.
…So, yeah. Maybe the 49ers don’t have the absolute worst QB situation but it’s pretty down there, likely bottom 3.
PS: To those indignant about the Raiders: They signed Jeff Garcia who is probably still a competent starter if Russell doesn’t work out.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 29, 2009 9:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Jeff Garcia would actually be pretty good in that offense.
Unfortunately for the Raiders, the only way Garcia will start is if Russell is injured. To bench the kid in favor of Garcia (even though I think it would lead a more productive offense and more wins) would be like giving up on JaMarcus completely in the eyes of the sportswriters. Russell getting benched straight-up would create a media feeding frenzy that the Raiders, in their already fragile position, likely wouldn’t be able to survive.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jun 29, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hill is better than Garcia!!
Does anyone remember how many games he needed to win down the stretch to make the playoffs?? I do, and he couldn’t get it done.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wins aren't a QB stat.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is quite laughable
Bottom 3…..Flacco is better?? right along with the other rookie QB’s and then you have Leftwich who had TWO good games for the SUPERBOWL Champs. Maybe Roethlisberger should lose his job since he was at the top of the league in TO’s!! Matt Schaub is proven?, How?? He’s injury prone and Rosenfels can’t control his emotions, as shown in the Colts game debacle. Hill is the 3rd best QB in our division and with Hassleback losing his Coach he may be second this year!!
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flacco may not be better than Hill now (although it's likely he's already very close), but he was only a rookie.
He has an entire career to improve and grow. Roethlisberger is great when you factor in his shoddy offensive line and average targets. Matt Schaub directed an elite offense and has the numbers to prove it. Sage Rosenfels sucks, but like I said, the Vikings QB situation is just about as bad as the 49ers.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pats
I mean Brady’s knee is not looking too good to me, and now they don’t have Cassel to fall back on anymore. Makes me appreciate Shaun Hill and Alex Smith more and more.
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
by 49erLou on Jun 29, 2009 10:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Last season proved that Brady is replaceable.
And by all accounts, he’s ahead of schedule on his knee rehabilitation.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't prove Brady is replaceable
It just proves that Moss makes QB’s better and he was robbed for his MVP!!
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
O...kay?
We’re not disagreeing here. If you put, say, Hill or Smith on the Patriots, they would probably look halfway decent too.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really guys?
I’ll admit, I prefer Alex’s physical skills over Hills, but hasn’t Hill proved that he is a winner? I’m not even going to rehash the same old stats, but he is a winner. He makes things happen, even with a horrible play caller like Martz calling seven step drops every other play. Having said that I have a lot of faith in Hill, has everybody forgotten how good Smith looked those first few games of the season before the fat !)(^&(*^#$% piledrived him and separated his shoulder? He has the arm and the legs to be a great quarterback in this league. He has the physical and mental toughness to come back from the circus that was supposed to be his support during his injury. I’m not being overly optimistic (I don’t think), just realistic in assessing that he has the physical tools, and merely needs to grasp the mental side of the game. If not, I’m confident Hill can bring us some wins. I definitely prefer him over any rookie, or bust like Tavaris Jackson.
by Kaizre on Jun 29, 2009 10:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
but hasn’t Hill proved that he is a winner?
He had a winning record in half a season that he earned by eeking out some very close victories against the weakest schedule in the league.
I’d say he’s far from having “proven” anything.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jun 30, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weakest Schedule in the league?? Says who?? Look at the Birds schedule than say that again
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The last 8 opponents on the 49ers 2008 schedule combined for the lowest winning percentage in the entire NFL.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alex Smith doesn't have great physical tools.
His arm isn’t much stronger than Hill’s, and there were concerns that his hands were too small. He’s kind of mobile, but that could be because the offensive line was sieve when he was starting and he had to run for his life.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many 49ers games have you watched? Smith has a much stronger arm than Hill. Fill in the blank has a much stronger throw than ol’e noodle arm.
by bignerd on Jun 30, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'A much stronger arm than Hill' doesn't necessarily mean much.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Titans anyone?
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jun 30, 2009 8:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it took this long
for someone to mention the titans……..
by sundaysfinest on Jun 30, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Titans have 2 Pro-Bowl QBs on the roster, they probably have the best QB situation in the league.
I’m just kidding about that last part of course, but the Titans don’t really have a team built on the need for great QB play.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our team isn't built to pass fifty times a game like the Cards.
Our QB not QB’s is fine and never in the bottom 3. Shaun Hill puts us in a better position to win than the Raiders, Lions, Jets, Bucs, Broncos, Rams, SEAHAWKS (that broken down relic you have isn’t phenominal and the HC that made him is gone), The Chiefs have Cassell who played with Moss and Welker in a stellar offense he was very familiar with. He has Bowe and ?, and he will suck, thigpen may be the starter at the end of the year. Yes I will continue, Hill put away Campbell in a come back victory, not to m4ention trent edwards and Schaub (Mr. Unhealthy) haven’t done much themselves.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree here
We’re building a team like the steelers. Our offense is only there to keep us in games, but the cornerstone of our team will be our defense. We aren’t going to score a whole lot, but we will have low scoring games that we will have a legitimate chance of winning in. Until we find/develop a legit QB, our qb will only be there to put us in a competitive place.
by WeHaveCrabsAndVD on Jun 30, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our offense will produce more points than the steelers
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jun 30, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fresh off photoshop

Don’t mind
a. them actually being called autobots
b. the spelling of Optimus
c. Megan fox not being included in the picture
Just go along with it
by supraman on Jun 30, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FIXED
c. Megan fox not being included in the picture

My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 1, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
what were we talking about again?
I flipped to this post and my mind went blank.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 1, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some guy said our defense would put up more points than the Steelers.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 1, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
still looking at this photo
and now I’ve forgotten what football is. Damn!
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 2, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your team isn't built to shutout opponents or bore them to death like the Steelers, either.
Although that’s what the 49ers may be attempting, the personnel isn’t there yet.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, we do play to a bore
Again, you don’t watch a lot of 49er games. Mark Roman lost his job this year because he gave up 12 points at the end of the season that lost the Dolphin game and almost lost us the Buffalo game.
We play games to keep the opponent under 20 points and we did it fairly successfully after JTO was booted from the lineup.
by bignerd on Jun 30, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roman’s screw up wasn’t in the Bills game.
by bignerd on Jun 30, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miami game
That ticked me off
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 1, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comparisons?
If the question asked is contingent on using the current system and Smith and Hill already having a kind of head-start on that along with chemistry, that’s a big reason I would take either over anyone else on the list.
If you’re asking in a Madden sense, where physical tools and such allow a player to be plugged into any system, I may take Orton or Sanchez. I just don’t see how any of the others are any better than Smith/Hill, as their past “successes” are either nullified by age or more recent “suckiness.”
In the end, the 49ers are left with Smith and Hill, and I don’t think it’s as bad as many people are making it out to be. Sure, it’s not ideal, and heck, it may not even be close to average. However, the 49ers offense, hopefully, is set up in a way where elite QB play won’t be needed, much in the way Fearless Frog points out about the Titans.
by sfgfan on Jun 30, 2009 11:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lets break this down
Would definitely rather have over Hill/Smith for 2009:
Drew Brees – New Orleans
Tom Brady – New England
Peyton Manning – Indianapolis
Philip Rivers – San Diego
Aaron Rodgers – Green Bay
Kurt Warner – Arizona
Tony Romo – Dallas
Matt Ryan – Atlanta
Jay Cutler – Chicago
Donovan McNabb – Philadelphia
Carson Palmer – Cincinnati
Ben Roethlisberger – Pittsburgh
Matt Hasselbeck – Seattle
Chad Pennington – Miami
Eli Manning – N.Y. Giants
David Garrard – Jacksonville
Would probably rather have over Hill/Smith for 2009, but its close:
Matt Schaub – Houston
Kyle Orton – Denver
Trent Edwards – Buffalo
Byron Leftwich – Tampa Bay
Jason Campbell – Washington
Kerry Collins – Tennessee
Jake Delhomme – Carolina
Toss up:
Marc Bulger – St. Louis
Joe Flacco – Baltimore
Matt Cassel – Kansas City
Tyler Thigpen – Kansas City
Brett Favre – Minnesota (maybe)
Would rather have Hill/Smith for 2009, but long term might want these guys instead:
Mark Sanchez – N.Y. Jets
Matthew Stafford – Detroit
Brady Quinn – Cleveland (maybe)
Would rather have Hill/Smith for 2009 and beyond:
JaMarcus Russell – Oakland
Tarvaris Jackson – Minnesota
Sage Rosenfels – Minnesota
Derek Anderson – Cleveland
Matt Leinart – Arizona
Vince Young – Tennessee
Mike Vick – Prison Team All Stars
by kiyoshi on Jun 30, 2009 11:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Seems more or less accurate.
Nice touch with Vick.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have Nate Davis over the long term than Brady Quinn
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jun 30, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure if serious.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quinn sucks
So I’m very serious.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 1, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you base this off of what?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 1, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me being all knowing
His gay EAS commercial, and his douchy persona in general. Alex Smith and Quinn are basically the same age. I’d stick with Smith (and Davis over Quinn).
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 2, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Difference being that Quinn was a record-setter at the school that produced Joe Montana,
and played in a pro/semi-pro offense. He also has looked good to great in limited time starting, while Smith has been terrible his entire career. There’s little incentive to try to bring Smith out from the gutter over trying to develop a young QB with actual promise.
Also, Terrell Owens is probably one of the biggest douchebags to ever play in the NFL yet he’s probably going to the Hall of Fame.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 2, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL, you're joking right
What does Joe Montana and Brady Quinn have both gone to Notre Dame have to do with anything? Really, you can’t be serious?
Quinn has looked good to great? By what metric? In his 3 starts he’s only completed 50% of his passes and he’s got 2 TD and 2 INT to his name. What’s so good to great about that?
Again, Smith is essentially the same age as Quinn and has already proven more at the NFL level than Quinn. I don’t see how Quinn has promise while Smith has none.
You obviously don’t know what a douchebag is. TO is not a douchebag. TO is a badass with a poor attitude with a bad understanding of the team concept. Quinn on the other hand is the picture perfect example of a douchebag.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 2, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait... What?
Did you just say “you obviously don’t know what a douchebag is.” ?
Because really, do we want to get into a technical discussion as to what a douchebag is?
I think “poor attitude with a bad understanding of the team concept” qualifies as douchebaggery. I mean, when is the last time you met a douchebag that had a good attitude and a solid fundamental understanding of teamsmanship?
At the end of this comment, I just want to say that I agree, Smith has more experience at this level than Quinn, and that I hold Smith at a higher value than Quinn at this point.
As for the douchebag argument. I want to read more, because its funny.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 2, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
from wikipedia
Douchebag, or simply douche, is considered to be a pejorative term in North America. In other English speaking countries the term is not well known. The slang usage of the term dates back to the 1960s.6 The term implies a variety of negative qualities, specifically arrogance and engaging in obnoxious and/or irritating actions without malicious intent. It is generally used for males only.
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
by 49erLou on Jul 2, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well played
wikipedia is sure fire!
I guess T.O. is exempt from Douchebag status, because most of his actions are with malicious intent.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 2, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Again, Smith is essentially the same age as Quinn and has already proven more at the NFL level than Quinn. I don’t see how Quinn has promise while Smith has none."
Proven what, that he can pull a 19 TD, 31 INT career statline (or whatever similar terrible numbers they are)? That would get most backups fired.
And the douchebag comment, just wow.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 2, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's your point?
Smith and Quinn are the same age and Smith has proven more. I never said Smith has proven a lot, just that he’s proven more. Feel free to argue why Quinn has proven more.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 2, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really understand what you're trying to say.
…You’d rather have Smith because he’s proven he can suck at an NFL level?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 3, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know.
They could both end up sucking….
Alex Smith already sucks, who’s to say that Quinn is any better?
He hasn’t proven anything just yet.
Compare them when Quinn starts a full season.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 3, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said Quinn was proven.
I’m saying he has more potential than Smith to be a good QB.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 5, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't say that.
Until Quinn plays a full NFL season.
So far we have seen that Alex peaks at “mediocre”
We don’t know Quinn’s peak….yet
Lay off the predictions.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 5, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's the potential based on?
How has Alex Smith’s potential expired why Brady Quinn’s has not? They’re the same age.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 6, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quinn sucks?
Has he played a full NFL season (as a starter) yet?
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 1, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have any reason to believe other wise?
You may think I’m jumping the gun but I haven’t seen anything from him that suggests he doesn’t suck and in my book you suck until you prove otherwise.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 2, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're the one that should prove he sucks.
You brought it up.
He hasn’t played a full season….when he does then you can criticize him.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 3, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well . . .
3rd year into his career and even Smith had managed to play a full season as starter. We don’t even know if Quinn is going to win the starting job this year.
by bignerd on Jul 3, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big Difference
Alex came into the situation where he HAD to be the No.1 QB right away.
Quinn is in a team where he is getting a significant amount of competition form D. Anderson.
Face it dude.
You can’t prove he sucks (and the other guy can’t prove he doesn’t)
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 5, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woulldn't want anyone on the probably list
Hassleback should be there too
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why?
Just curious.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never been sold on him as a GREAT starter
Too many ESPN predictions as in this is his year, just to fall short from his own play at times. Not really sure he would have developed into the QB he was without Holmgren. He’s old, close to done, do you want to hear more??
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think the 49ers have the worst qb situation in the league. lol 9ers fans are so delusional because we’ve sucked for so long. we keep trying to be optimistic and accept how wack our qb’s are while fans of good teams laugh their butts off when we say he have a decent qb situation. we don’t. & this long drawn out qb competition sucks. we’re all optimistic because of last year’s strong finish, but seriously, with these wack qb’s we’ll get 8 or 9 wins at the most.
"There is no pressure. Pressure only exists when you're not prepared."
-The Samurai
by redrum21225 on Jun 30, 2009 12:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's tough to win 8 or 9 games with the worst QB situation in the league
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jun 30, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2001 Ravens.
Of course, they suffered for it long-term and they also had the luxury of one of the league’s all-time greatest defenses.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's your point?
Do you have the reading comprehension of a knat? This is like the 3rd or 4th time you’ve pulled this nonsense in a response to one of my comments. I know it can be done, all I said was that it’s tough to do, not impossible. I don’t see how anyone could look at the Niners and expect them to win 8 or 9 games with the worst QB situation in the league. A lot of people think the Niners will win 8 or 9 games and they think the QB situation is a lot better than the worst in the league.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jun 30, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*gnat
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have the literacy of a knat
doh…
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 1, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've read your Negative Nellie
posts and your credibility is nil. You are the same guy who called John Taylor “mediocre”. Your football knowledge is so lacking that your posts are an embarrassment. Stay in school . . . for a LONG TIME.
Kezarvet
by kezarvet on Jul 2, 2009 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
Look at Taylor’s numbers and tell me what’s not mediocre about them. Especially considering who he played with. He’s just not that impressive. I’m struggling to find the point of your comment.
My credibility is nill because I say it’s tough to win 8 or 9 games with the worst QB situation in the league? Maybe you don’t understand what I’m saying. I’m saying the Niners don’t have the worst QB situation in the league and that they’ll win 8 or 9 games.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 2, 2009 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
Did you ever actually watch John Taylor play? You just won’t have the best numbers playing opposite Jerry Rice. Even doubling Rice usually didn’t shut him down, and he WAS getting the ball at crunch time. When Taylor did get the opportunity, he often turned short routes into long gains. Also a tremendous blocker. Certainly a better receiver than maybe 80% of the guys playing back then. His only real sin was not being as quite as good or quite as durable as Jerry Rice.
by asleepinSF on Jul 8, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Doubling Rice
That’s my point. If Taylor was so great he should have thrived playing along side Rice due to all of the attention other teams were focusing on Rice. You think Taylor’s numbers were hampered because he played next to Rice and I think if anything his numbers should have been enhanced playing next to Rice. Typically great players make the players around them better, not worse.
I don’t care who Taylor was playing against, 38 receptions a year just isn’t cutting it for me when there were much better past 49er WR.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 9, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
are you forgetting the other 49ers that were on the team?
Roger Craig, Brent Jones, Jerry Rice, and Tom Rathman were all reliable receiving targets. Add to the mix that the 49ers always had a pretty solid defense when Taylor was on the team, and that the team always had a pretty reliable running game as well.
In order for Taylor to have better numbers, the 49ers would had of been a worse team, with fewer stars for Montana/Young to spread the ball around too. You’re argument about 38 receptions per year is a bad one. How can a guy average more than 38 receptions per year, when basically 3 other guys are doing so (Craig, Jones and Rathman), along with the greatest WR of all time? HOW!?
The 49ers had the number 1 ranked offense six times from 1987-1995 (the years Taylor was on the 49ers). So tell me why John Taylor should’ve averaged more than 38 receptions per season. Better yet, show me why him averaging more than 38 receptions per game would’ve made a difference.
Le’ts also not forget the fact that Taylor was the team’s punt returner for 4 seasons. Method, did you not watch the 49ers from 1987-1995? I’m thinking you didn’t, because seriously, when it comes to John Taylor, you don’t have a f***ing clue.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 9, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
swearing
That really isn’t necessary even with the asterisks.
by Fooch on Jul 9, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry fooch
but come on, man. you gotta feel the emotions on this one.
again, i’ll keep the asterisking at bay in the future, and I apologize.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 9, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is simple
John Taylor was not the 2nd best WR to play for the 49ers. That’s how this whole bit got started. Yes Taylor was a good WR for the Niners but from a production standpoint which is usually how players are measured he’s mediocre. My arguement is not that Taylor wasn’t a good WR, just not the 2nd best WR in 49er history because he’s been outproduced by a handful of other guys. Again, I’ve come to realize that I shouldn’t expect to understand much. Gore w/ 20+ carries FTW!
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 9, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your point was
taylor should’ve thrived beside rice.
If Taylor was so great he should have thrived playing along side Rice due to all of the attention other teams were focusing on Rice
He did thrive from playing with Rice, the whole team did. The team had so many options, it didn’t have to pad Taylor’s stats. There were too many players on the team, to put up huge numbers opposite Rice. Especially considering Jonh Taylor played on 49er teams that had Roger Craig and Ricky Watters as the RB. If you don’t think Taylor thrived playing opposite Rice, you’re purely looking at the stats. I honestly don’t think you watched any football from 1987-1995.
And the Frank Gore comment really is petty. Almost as petty as swearing, but not quite. I don’t expect you to understand anything but the back side of your momma’s hand.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 9, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You brought up the doubleteaming of Rice opposite Taylor.
Logic would suggest that a Taylor’s production would go up as a result of the coverage focus on the other side of the field. The point is that he didn’t thrive: he continued to put up mediocre numbers despite the double coverage on Rice. This stands as a strong indication that Taylor really wasn’t all that “great” at all.
I fail to understand which part of Method’s argument is so hard for you to grasp.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 9, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is this some clique?
You guys come in packs eh?
Logic? You guys all talk about logic like your the only ones that have it.
Logic would suggest that a Taylor’s production would go up as a result of the coverage focus on the other side of the field
Logic would also suggest that you aren’t looking at the entire picture. John Taylor was not the only player on the 49ers not named Jerry Rice. Roger Craig, Ricky Watters, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, all wore 49ers colours with Taylor. The ball can only be spread around to all these pro bowlers so much.
Taylor wasn’t getting “medicore” numbers because he wasn’t thriving. He was getting “medicore” numbers because the entire team was thriving. Everyone of those players mentioned averaged 36 receptions per year or more while Taylor was a 49er. The 49ers were a team that relied on defense, a solid run game, and a great pass game compliments of the worlds two greatest players (Rice and Montana).
I fail to understand which part of anyting I’ve said, you’ve bothered to read.
Most likely none of it.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and I apologize in advance
for coming off crabby. but I am rather crabby.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 10, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know why I bother trying to explain things to you.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 10, 2009 3:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah you're right
because, you know, my side of it will never make sense, will it?
you guys are priceless.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John Taylor was not the only player on the 49ers not named Jerry Rice. Roger Craig, Ricky Watters, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, all wore 49ers colours with Taylor.
So what you’re saying is, just because there was Brent Jones, Craig or Watters, the 49ers QB would rather throw to the checkdown route than throw to an open Taylor? Wouldn’t Taylor, you know, provide a larger possibility of a big play than say throwing to Watters or Craig in the flat or in front of the LBs?
by sfgfan on Jul 10, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Niners RBs
weren’t checkdowns. The texas pattern is one of the 49ers most heralded routes for a RB to run in that offense.
I’m saying that everyone was open because of Rice. How many times did John Taylor cost the 49ers a game because of his “medicore” stats? Far fewer times than he helped win games.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, digress much?
How many times did John Taylor cost the 49ers a game because of his "medicore" stats?
When did someone say anything like this?
I’m saying that everyone was open because of Rice.
Ok, then a good WR should have been open and in a position to catch more than 38 passes a year (that’s like just over 2 receptions a game in case you’re struggling with that math).
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
john taylor's
career reception per game is 2.8, that’s closer to 3 than it is 2.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My simpleton self didn't account for injury missed games
So I tip my hat to you.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
and to be honest, I’m looking forward to more current discussions in the future.
this slow period of activity in the offseason is the worst.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Close to 3 catches a game!!!!11
Epic stuff of legends right there.
Put this guy in the hall of fame.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 10, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just for fun
I looked at Taylors numbers from the “prime” of his career, ages 27 to 31, (1989-1993). The third year is generally when players enter their prime.
Taylor averaged 3.6 receptions per game for 60 yards per game, with 0.5 TDs per game. In other words, he’s providing the offense with pretty good totals, while scoring a TD every other game. That’s not medicore, in my opinion.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty good doesn't make him No. 2 All time.
He was a solid player but that doesn’t make him the second best WR in the history of the 49ers.
Nobody is really knocking on Taylor (we all love him) but you’re trying to make him seem better than he really was.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 10, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm trying to get term
“mediocre” removed from the description of John Taylor’s stats.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, just for fun
lets look at J.J. Stokes numbers during his “prime,” (‘97-’01). Again, starting with his 3rd year, as you stated the start of a WR’s prime, which was ages 25-29, about.
He averaged, 3.98 receptions per game, for 51 yards per game, with 0.42 TDs per game. To me, those numbers amount to about what Taylor did, and Stokes played alongside both Rice and TO (who I might have to argue is the Niners’ 2nd best all time WR, as much as it pains me). And lets face it, Stokes was at best “mediocre.”
by Sebaz49 on Jul 10, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah crap
I don’t like those results one bit.
I will say this however, John has two 1,000 yard seasons, Stokes has zero.
I’m certainly not going to debate JJ stokes’ mediocrity. Despite the similarity in numbers, John Taylor is light years beyond JJ Stokes talent wise. But we don’t measuer a player’s talent based soley on stats, do we?
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ashley Lelie
Put up 1,000 yards once. Actually, Lelie’s time in Denver kind of looks similar to Taylor’s numbers (less the TD). Had Lelie had a QB like Montana or Young you could be looking at a pretty good comparison.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lelie
was definitely a case of missed opportunity, or wasted talent.
that year he had 1000 yards, i think he had like 48 receptions (oops, actually 54). That’s sick.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Au contraire
Taylor’s stats are very much mediocre. They are what they are, a conglameration of mediocre numbers. Whether John Taylor was mediocre as a player is a whole different story that is open to more interpretation than his stats.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give you that
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really my point
But like shelcko said logic would suggest that Taylor should have an easier time getting open and making plays with the defense being focused on Rice and that’s a supporting argument to Taylor not being the 2nd best 49er WR of all time. Taylor had some many things working to in his favor great All-World teammates and I feel like a great WR should have been able to capitalize on those things more.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your point here
but I don’t agree with logic suggesting Taylor should have produced more. he produced every time he was asked to.
the offense wasn’t a Cris Carter and Jake Reed style air it out offense. It was the west coast offense. More recent guys put up big numbers in pass friendly offenses. I’m not saying the 49ers weren’t pass friendly, they were a juggernaut. They didn’t have to air it out to be successful, they dominated opponents in every way imaginable.
I know the debate originally spawned as John Taylor isn’t the greatest 2 WR in 49er history. I’m just saying John Taylor did all he was asked to do for the team. Anytime the team had to rely on Taylor, he responded. I don’t remember him ever letting the team down when they called Taylor’s number.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wrong
When Rice went to the Raiders, Tim Brown’s production dropped. Ordinarily, when they double a guy he isn’t open, but , as I mentioned, Rice could usually get open in spite of that. There’s only one ball, and Rice just always got it more. Thus, it didn’t create the opportunities for others that it seems like it should have. Also, as has been noted, there were other guys on those teams who could catch balls, as well. Sometimes stats just won’t tell you everything. You need to see film.
by asleepinSF on Jul 9, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too funny
When Rice went to the Raiders, Tim Brown’s production dropped.
What’s your point? That a past his prime Rice made a way past his prime Tim Brown worse? Too funny…
I’ve watched game tape. Taylor wasn’t all that.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 9, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
9 minutes of youtube
doesn’t count.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 9, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you're some kind of authority on what football I have and haven't watched?
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nope
I just being a prick with that comment.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
I love when you try to call someone out for being wrong, when you yourself are wrong. Check the stats, the first year Rice was there, Brown had the 2nd highest reception total of his career. Granted the following year he had 10 recs. less, but that’s not a huge drop off. The 3rd year, both saw a drop off, but that I think was due to it being the Raiders they were playing for.
by Sebaz49 on Jul 10, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently you are delusional if our QB situation is the WORST in the league.
Rivers got 8 wins with TONS of talent around him. Mr. 4000 did too (jay Cutler) 3 games left and you can’t get one win?? Maybe QB’s can’t win the games by themselves!! So it should be obvious that we don’t have the worst QB situation in the league. Lions were winless last year, HELLO. and If Sam Bradford wanted to be there he would. Stafford is the 09 Alex Smith, Number one overall by default.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree redrum...
The whole reason I proposed the article is to actually guage the amount of retards on this site. The Foochs, The SFGFANs, The R-lott retard, 49er lou, they all looooooove this team, love the Yorks which I found asstounding being that SI.com rated the Yorks in the Top-5 Worst Owners in pro sports. They scoff because I express discust with the lack of FA transactions we actually win, and suggest we don’t need talent like Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall beccasue we have Josh Morgan and Shuan Hill already. That we have a set-up we must follow and that landing FA’s are “not balck and white.” Right SFGfan…even thought the rest of the league lands superstars off season after off season. It must be as easy as balck and white for them I guess.
Open your eyes fools…you are the ONLY ones happy with this team. The rest of the professional analyst community feel we’re the thrid best team in our pathetic division. And we are this way becasue the Yorks are chickenshitake and wont spend the money to let us compete. Jeb is a puppet until he proves to me otherwise. Plain and simple.
by Forttyner4life on Jun 30, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think calling people retards is going to help your case very much.
What credibility you might have had will be lost the mudslinging.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jun 30, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or what fooch...
What are you going to do? Are you going to cyberfight me for calling you a retard. This is hillarious.
by Forttyner4life on Jul 1, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're going to stir up the hornet's nest...
At least have the courtesy not to resort to something as juvenile as name-calling.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 1, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one cares what you think...
Thanks for commenting Chickmagnet.
by Forttyner4life on Jul 1, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually.
You seem to be the only one that doesn’t really care.
Which doesn’t bother me because you’re kind of a douche and you seem to have lost all credibility on this website…..
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 1, 2009 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
name-calling
As I told Forttyner4life, let’s avoid the name-calling….just gotta be the bigger man.
by Fooch on Jul 1, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry about that
Kind of got carried away.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 3, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess they do love me Chickmagnet....
187 replies! And counting. I’m good for business. So I see we’re still defending Shaun Hill. Facinating. Can’t wait for the season to start. Then we can see who’s knowledge is greater….
by Forttyner4life on Jul 10, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah right
150 of these comments have nothing to do with your post.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 10, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I know is
I’m totally [not] drafting Shaun Hill as fantasy QB.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're still annoying
All you do is try to piss people off.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 10, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
220 Comments and counting son...
Love me or hate me but I spark glorious conversation. Don’t hate me becasue I’m beautiful Ckickmagnent. We’ll see what happens this season. Trust me, I hope I’m sooooooo wrong. I hope this team goes out and proves me wrong. Now stop responding to my posts and then I’ll know you really dont care.
by Forttyner4life on Jul 10, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly, comment counts are like votes towards a popularity contest.
This thread has been hijacked and/or derailed too many times to count. The fact that your name appears at the top of the page is in no way related to people being supportive of your views.
Also, despite the “220 comments and counting”, I’ve seen actual intelligent conversation make an appearance only two or three times.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 10, 2009 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Too true.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 10, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: I express discust with the lack of FA transactions we actually win, and suggest we don’t need talent like Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall
Like what FA have we lost out on or failed to pursue, in your opinion? Cutler wasn’t worth the randsom the Bears paid and Marshall was never available. So being realistic is retarded.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 1, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh name drop!
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
by 49erLou on Jul 1, 2009 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it really funny because I never once
said I didn’t want Cutler. Please go back to the Cutler post and show me where I said I didn’t want him.
they all looooooove this team, love the Yorks
yes I do love this team. That is why I am a fan. Also, I never said I loved the Yorks. Matter of fact I don’t care for the Yorks much at all.
The rest of the professional analyst community feel we’re the thrid best team in our pathetic division
I don’t give a flying [site decorum] what “professional” analyst feel. I have more important things to worry about in life then what Chris Collinsworth thinks about the 49ers.
That we have a set-up we must follow and that landing FA’s are "not balck and white."
huh? what does Free Agency have to do with cousin Balcki from Perfect Strangers?
They scoff because I express discust with the lack of FA transactions
No, I scoff because you call people retards and idiots just for having a different opinion then you, then proceed to type a comment full of misspelled words and run on sentences. Pot meet kettle.
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
by 49erLou on Jul 1, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Balki!!!
This make me so happy we do the dance of joy!
by Fooch on Jul 2, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
come on now dont be reedeekulous!
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
by 49erLou on Jul 2, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You must be looking
in the mirror. Instead of calling people retards, you may want to take a basic spelling course. Calling names is a tool of those with an empty head.
Kezarvet
by kezarvet on Jul 2, 2009 6:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gee thanks Kezarvet!
My glasses are fogged up, hold on a minute….well lookey there it’s Confucius! Back from China. Thank you for the philosphy lesson on a football blog. Yes! \
Gotta love NN. This site is so cool. I get all kinds of lessons on life.
by Forttyner4life on Jul 10, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
POLO!
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
by 49erLou on Jul 10, 2009 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 10, 2009 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTF?
What are you talking about dude?
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 10, 2009 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
YOU'RE THE MAN NOW, DOG!
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 11, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELLLLL
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
by 49erLou on Jul 11, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTF?
Really…..What are you guys talking about?
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 13, 2009 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Teams with a worse QB situation
I think I am going to have judge this on whether Shaun Hill would do a better job at QB than the teams current QB.
Minnesota – Hill is better than anything they have. They win at least one playoff game last year with Hill.
Buffalo – Hill does a better job managing that veteran team than Edwards
Tampa Bay – just an awful group of QBs
Jacksonville – Hill could have done better than 2008 Garrard
Cleveland – He is better than Anderson
Would not be fair to compare Hill to any of the young QB’s. Hill is probably better now, however a few will get far better than Hill and a few will never develop.
I would also put Shaun Hill on par with: Kerry Collins, Chad Pennington and Kyle Orton. A class of limited QB’s who would put up W’s on a solid team.
by bignerd on Jun 30, 2009 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
with Buffalo and Trent Edwards. I like him, and I think he’s better than what we have.
I also borderline disagree with David Garrard. Hill may do better than 2008 Garrard, but what about 2007 Garrard (18 TDs, 3 INTs)?
by Andrew Davidson on Jun 30, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone needs to breakdown why Trent Edwards is a better than Shaun Hill? I don’t think Edwards is bad but he’s been in a better situation than Hill and has produced less.
by bignerd on Jun 30, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I like Trent Edwards
because he was tossed in as starter in Buffalo as a rookie, and held his own. He didn’t do too terrific in his first two NFL seasons, but he’s got plenty of room to grow. Hill isn’t developing, he already is developed. He’s a borderline starter at this point in his career. Edwards has the potential to be the Bills QB for years to come.
Plus, Edwards went to Stanford, do I need another reason to like the guy? :)
by Andrew Davidson on Jun 30, 2009 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Edwards too
When he went out of the Niners game this past season and Losman came in, I KNEW the Niners were going to win. Edwards’ VOJPL (Value Over JP Losman) is sky-high.
Seriously, I think he’s a competent quarterback, although he has had some decent targets and a decent running game. He’s nothing to write home about, but he’s probably slightly ahead of what the Niners have at QB.
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
by grantmp on Jul 1, 2009 5:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, Edwards went to Stanford, do I need another reason to like the guy? :)
The Cal fans do.
by sfgfan on Jul 1, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The QBs
I like Shaun Hill he’s a gritty, competitive guy. He dives head first without a helmet. At the very least, he’s a great back up. I want to see him with a full season as starter, just to see what he can do. He may not be flashy, but he’s a leader.
I’m warming up to Alex Smith finally. He restructured his deal for back up money in order to give it another shot with the team. Smith didn’t have anywhere to go to start, but you can bet he wouldn’t be unemployed had the Niners cut him. We can blame his shoulder for his woes, his offensive co-oridinators for his woes, or the fact that he’s a spread QB. 2009 is a fresh beginning for Smith, and he deserves it.
Nate Davis is a nice project that could be a steal, at least according to scouts. He’s not being rushed, and likely won’t have to start anytime soon, so hopefully he gets developed. Davis will likely be the starting QB in my madden franchise (91 TP).
We don’t have the best situation at all. I’d have to say Minnesota is the worst. That’s a team chasing down an aged veteran who is likely washed up (looking at 2008’s final 6 games anyway). They have Tarvaris Jackson, John David Booty, and Sage Rosenfels. Personally, I like Rosenfels over Favre, Jackson and Booty, and I think the Vikings are crazy to pursue an ancient Favre.
While Rosenfels isn’t anything spectacular, I think he could be a good enough game manager in an offense that features Adrian Peterson.
Which is why I’m comfortable with Hill or Smith. Our offense features Frank Gore, not the quarterback.
by Andrew Davidson on Jun 30, 2009 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like Shaun Hill he’s a gritty, competitive guy. He dives head first without a helmet. At the very least, he’s a great back up. I want to see him with a full season as starter, just to see what he can do. He may not be flashy, but he’s a leader.
Football’s very own David Eckstein/Darin Erstad.
Awesome.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jun 30, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like Garcia before the aging!!
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 30, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
QB situation
I would say that the Bucs have a worse QB situation. 5 QBs? How would practice even work? First they have Brian Griese. A 34 year old quarterback that has started a pretty good amount of time. Then Byron Leftwich, a 29 year old QB that had some success but has had injury problems. Then Luke McCown. A 27 year old QB with farely little experience. He has had some starting time as well. Then you have Josh Johnson. A second year player. In college he had a year where he threw 43 tds and 1 int. That was at a div II school so don’t be too excited. Than Josh Freeman. They traded up like 2 picks to draft him. Last year Hill was never with the first team offense in the preseason games (or at least I dont think so). How could you even evaluate 5 Qbs at the same time? Hill and Smith might not be the best 1st and 2nd QB but our Qb situation isn’t a jungle.
Go 49ers
by iaalexeeff on Jun 30, 2009 2:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lets play a fun game: how stupid can the 49er community be?
Again…asstoundingly so…the majority of this site is happy with our situation. So riddle me this: Shaun Hill is SOOOO good that he beat out Alex Smith for the starting job.
Oh wait…he couldn’t. Come on guys. I’d rather hear the argument that we don’t want Brandon Marshall. Though comical, at least there were some valid points.
by Forttyner4life on Jun 30, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you must have a great deal of friends
every post I read from you Forttyner4life, generally has “stupid” or “retard” or some sort of slanderous remark against the Niners Nation.
I think its more productive if you don’t call people names. But hey, I’m not looking for new friends, what do I care?
by Andrew Davidson on Jun 30, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
QB Power Rankings
MSN just added this link…
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9735822/Positional-Power-Rankings:-QB-packages?gt1=39002
Pretty interesting to say the least. They have us 2nd to last….WTF???
by mpotter14 on Jul 1, 2009 10:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Shocker!!! We're second to last.
Our QB siuation is a complete joke. Entire point of this point. Thank you all for reading and commenting. Also, I’m very wary sorry I used such offensive words like retard and idiots. My goodness, that very abrasvie of me.
by Forttyner4life on Jul 1, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those power rankings
<insert consumable verb here — e.g., suck, blow, eat, bite>. They called the Browns situation “deep” at QB because they have two solid rookies… Bucket of yuck…
by dartdart on Jul 1, 2009 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why the shock?
i’d say 2nd to last is close to accurate………our qbs SUUCK!!!!!!!!
why are people here so unwilling to acknowledge that?
and don’t give me the ravens winning with sorry trent dilfer qb analogy. they had 1 of the top defenses in the league. we don’t
"There is no pressure. Pressure only exists when you're not prepared."
-The Samurai
by redrum21225 on Jul 2, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An outsider's opinion
I reviewed the power rankings and QB depth charts mpotter listed above. I slightly modifed the original question posted and asked myself this:
From only a performance standpoint (discount $$ issues) if I was the SF’s GM is there any team I would not even consider trading my complete slate of QB’s for?
My answer was no.
There are 5 teams I would have to pause and really ponder (at this point I don’t know where I would go on these 5) Raiders, Broncos, Bucs, Browns and Rams, but there was not a single team I could definitely say I would not consider trading the entire QB slate for. I would have added MINN as well, but Farve is going to play there.
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jul 1, 2009 2:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Denver QBs?
No thanks. I’m happy with Hill/Smith over Orton/Simms.
by Fooch on Jul 1, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that Denver is
one I maybe would keep your guys. I hear Simms is actually looking better that Orton is some of the drills and may end up being the guy in Denver, which doesn’t say much for Orton
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jul 1, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
Orton has already been named the starter.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 1, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In much the same way that Hill has been named SF's starter, as I understand it.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 1, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hill hasn't been named the starter.
I believe Orton was officially announced as the starter not too long ago.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 3, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"He's the starter for now"
or “He’s the starter unless something happens or someone else steps up.”
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 3, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That List is a Joke
Chargers #1 (Rivers isn’t the leagues top QB)
Steelers #2 (That is crap behind Ben)
Panthers #9 (Delhomme has won the job by default the past 5 years)
Bengals #10 (JTO is the backup and Palmer is always getting hurt!)
Bills #12 (Again, Edwards is overrated . . . where are his wins?)
by bignerd on Jul 1, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree bignerd the list has some messed up rankings.
Panthers/Delhome #9 What??? He should be bottom half after that playoff loss alone.
Peyton Manning only #7 (when was the last time he missed a game? Who cares about his backup if he never misses a game?
Dallas/Tony Romo #3 Based upon the backup or what???
GB Aaron Rodgers only 18, the guy was the 6th in QB rating in his first starting season?
Cassell, Flacco, Pennington, Schaub, Ryan, Edwards all above Eli ??
But I do think the SF QB are bottom 5 or 6.
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jul 1, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
The Giants should be No. 1
David Carr is a bust, but he’s still a very good back-up.
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 1, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd take Rivers & Volek over Manning and Carr
Any day of the week. I think most of you are missing the point. The ratings are based on QB depth, not just the starter. Rivers isn’t the best QB in the league but his back-ups is one of the best back-ups.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 2, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would too, but Rivers may be the statistical best qb in the league right now
08 regular season Philip Rivers
QB rating 105.5 (1st)
yds 4009 (5th)
tds 34 (tied 1st)
Ints 11
TD to Ints ratio 3 to 1 (1st)
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jul 2, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you're taking Rivers over P. Manning, Brady or Brees?
I’m not.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 2, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what I said
I said statistically Rivers was awesome in 08 – stats aren’t everything. Winning or losing the game is not part of the QB rating, for instance.
If my goal was to win this year, I take Brady and Manning before Rivers, with Brees being a little closer call, but still Brees before Rivers.
But if I factor in age and the unknown surrounding Brady’s post-injury level of play Rivers stock goes up significantly.
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jul 3, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct.
Rivers is probably the most valuable QB in the league, especially in the long-term. He’s young, already awesome, and still could get better.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 3, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is he really awesome? I’ve never watched Rivers play and thought I’d seen greatness. Whenever I watch him play a say to myself that’s a great play but I bet he comes up in short in the end.
by bignerd on Jul 3, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 3, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That may not be his fault,
especially when you consider San Diego’s piss-poor defense.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 4, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just last year was that defense piss poor
by bignerd on Jul 4, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But just last year was when Rivers starting looking like an MVP contender.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 5, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MVP?
Ok….
That’s taking it too far.
He put up great numbers because he had to constantly play from behind and pass a lot (poor defense)…
He has potential but he’s not exactly MVP (Peyton Manning) caliber yet
by chikmagnet_565 on Jul 5, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rivers stats vs Peyton (MVP)
Rivers had more yards, tds, less ints higher average yards per reception and higher QB rating. The thing peyton beat him at was completion % and attempts. I say that Rivers was a better candidate than Manning
Go 49ers
by iaalexeeff on Jul 5, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this reply
is going to look tiny over on the side like this.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
by these3words on Jul 5, 2009 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that P.Manning had ~75 more pass attempts than Rivers...
should pretty much invalidate the “well Rivers only had better stats because he had to throw all the time” argument, wouldn’t you say?
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 5, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well there's a few things to look at
Rivers was on a team that attempted to establish the run.
Manning was on a team that had a very poor run attack in 2008.
Rivers was always getting into shoot-out because of San Diego’s poor defense.
Manning was passing a lot, because that’s what the Colts do. Manning has averaged 541 pass attempts per season in his 11 year career. In 2008, he threw 555 passes.
Rivers threw 478 passes in 2008, and 460 in both 2007 and 2006. His pass attempts only went up by 18. That’s a little more than extra pass per game.
Rivers threw for career highs in both yards and TDs (4009, 34). His previous best came in 2006 (3388, 22). The 18 extra passes Rivers threw mathematically should not account for 12 more TDs and a little over 600 yards.
The argument that Rivers was successful because he passed more, is not that solid. He only passed slightly more than his previous two seasons, but blew s**t up statistically.
I don’t know what any of this has to do with the debate, I just had to post a long, skinny reply to cram up this page.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 6, 2009 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well done,
I came in to argue stats too but it seems you fellows understand very well how awesome Rivers was. He definitely was an MVP contender, might have won it if the Chargers weren’t so bad.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 6, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone knows what a challenge it is to put up good numbers against the Raiders, Broncos and Chiefs defenses two times a season. As bad as the Chargers defense might be, they were probably best in the division if not behind the Raiders. Still an 8-8 record
by bignerd on Jul 6, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because Rivers only performed well against the Raiders, Broncos, and Chiefs.
And ‘8-8’ is largely irrelevant, because, as I’ve said about a dozen times already, wins are not a QB stat.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 6, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wins aren’t a QB stat? Huh, in what parallel football universe? Is Tom Brady a middle of the road QB in this place? Statistically (minus wins) speaking he’s a one hit wonder.
by bignerd on Jul 7, 2009 2:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wins
Wins are a team stat. A QB can certainly help win games late, but football is such a team-oriented sport that to say Brady is the reason they win is a tough call. He’s certainly one of the reasons. Brady is a good QB in his own right in a great situation.
by Fooch on Jul 7, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...You've got to be kidding.
Gee, I wonder if Brady is considered a great QB because, you know, he threw nearly 5,000 Yds, an NFL record of 50 TD passes, and only 8 INTs the last time he started, and fairly good regular season stats before that.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 7, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because the Patriots have had a garbage coaching staff for the last 9 years.
Zero quality players, and some really shitty defenses. Brady is the only reason for the wins that team has earned over the last decade.
Amirite?
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 7, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Hill Assessment
Shaun Hill is not going to throw as many TD’s as Manning, given, he’s not gonna throw as many picks as Favre and he’s not gonna give the game away like plenty quarterbacks rated higher than our corp. The guy has a 2 to one td to Int ratio. Of course he sat the pine for a few years, we all know this. He hasn’t had a full season, so is it fair to say these lame QB’s just getting by (Delhomme, Edwards, and Russell who’s not even getting by) are better?? If wins aren’t a stat to measure QB’s by, number of starts shouldn’t either. Let’s take into consideration how many of these QB’s have been in the SAME system for multiple seasons and they don’t have a 60 percent completion rate or 2:1 td:int ratio.
I can’t rank our QB situation, when I don’t know the starter. Maybe Singletary wants to push Hill more with the presumption of Smith possibly starting. It’s also possible for Hill or Smith to have better seasons because they are surrounded by more talent!! Jimmy Raye who is the unknown OC, is a former QB from the old school, hence the phrase use that TE, and balance in the RB with the Pass. This guy was the coordinator in Grbac’s best season as a QB, and I always thought he sucked!!
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 1, 2009 6:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
9er QB's
QBs need good players around them, and even then they don’t win it all. I believe we are okay with what we have, I’ll take either one really. And keep in mind that Smith had us that close to the playoffs, but for a FG, #%@#en Nolan. In just a few games we saw what Sing, could do. The players buy into his game plan, I believe we have a OC now that has a game plan. We are going to win games this season, the NFC west is ours. So on with the show and good health to you!
by basil9er on Jul 5, 2009 5:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




















