Saying what Sando Says

by Andrew Davidson on Jul 23, 2009 11:26 AM PDT Comment 22 comments

Thanks to Fooch for posting that ESPN training camp chat. I always enjoy reading what Mike Sando has to say regarding the NFC West, and he definitely provided us with plenty of quotes to talk about regarding the San Francisco 49ers.

When asked about the 49ers chance at making the playoffs, Sando responded:

Do the 49ers have the quarterback to win playoff games regardless of venue? I am not yet convinced they do. That is the primary reason I think they might have a hard time doing better than 8-8, based on what we know at this time.

It's hard to disagree with Sando; the 49ers need a QB, or they need a QB to step up. The 2009 season should provide an answer to this question: Can Shaun Hill or Alex Smith be the guy to step up and take the 49ers to the playoffs? If the result is "no", I'm pretty sure the 49ers will be seeking the employment of different signal caller.

Alex Smith is a guy that may have to step up and be the quarterback of the team. Smith has suffered two injury plagued seasons, and we haven't seen much from Smith since 2006. Because of these injuries, have we been able to monitor Alex Smith's progress at the NFL level accurately? Sando says:

Probably not. But if you are injured much of the time, that answers the question. At a certain point, you have to stay on the field. He has not been able to do that. This is a big season for him that way.

Quite frankly, I agree with Sando here. Alex Smith has not been able to stay healthy the past two seasons, and this season is huge for him. According to reports and observations from OTAs thus far, Smith's shoulder is in excellent shaping heading into 2009. Of course, Shaun Hill is healthy too, and like Sando asked, is either guy good enough to win a playoff game regardless of venue? I hope we get to find out in 2009 the answer to that question.

Kentwan Balmer is another player on the team that needs to prove he can step up at the NFL level. Balmer didn't suffer injuries in 2008, but he certainly got shoved around like he was hurt. The most impressive stat for Balmer in 2008? 5 kick returns for 47 yards (yes, he's a defensive lineman).

Sando addressed a question about Balmer's impact in 2009 and had this say:

I don't think a 3-4 defensive end is likely to have a huge impact on the defense.

The question was concerning Balmer's, so I'm not sure Sando means any 3-4 end isn't likely to have a big impact. If that's the case I disagree, I think if the team can get another 3-4 end to step up with Smith, the result will have significant impact on our defense. I understand 3-4 ends don't generate sacks, but they generate pressure, and play pivotal roles in the run game. 3-4 ends don't have a huge impact on the stat sheet, but they are unsung grinders.

Can the 49ers be strong enough on defense, and competent enough on offense to compete?

Here's Sando's take on the NFC West team odds to win the division:

I would put Arizona out front, with Seattle and San Francisco in the next tier, followed by the Rams. The Seahawks are a little tougher to figure, though. I think they would be more likely than the 49ers to win 10-11 games, based on what could happen if they their key players were healthy and producing all season. The 49ers might have less upside or downside, if that makes any sense.

What do you think? Agree or Disagree? Do the 49ers have less upside and downside than Seattle?

Poll

49ers vs. Seattle

49ers have more upside

37 votes

Seahawks have more upside

11 votes

Equal upside for both teams

10 votes

58 votes | Poll has closed

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 | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Upside

If by “upside” he means that the team most likely to win big this year, then I agree that the Seahawks have more of that ability.

I really like the 49ers this season and I definitely think they’re moving in the right direction, but it’s hard to say they’re very likely to win a lot of games. Being around .500 seems like a very safe bet, which is what I think Sando is saying (not much upside or downside).

The Seahawks, on the otherhand, were decimated by injuries last year and I think if they have a little bit of luck on their side this year, they’ll definitely push Arizona at the top. However, considering the injury history of some key cogs and the age of some of those key cogs, they can also linger around .500 with the 49ers, too. Needless to say, I definitely agree with Sando’s three tier west.

by sfgfan on Jul 23, 2009 11:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sando's opinions.

I thought he was pretty dead on. I would place more emphasis on the offensive line. Davis, a healthy M. Smith, and an improved Rachal would make for a potent right side. Factor in the return of lead blocking Norris a one two punch of Gore and Coffee and the threat of play action with our new speedy set of wide outs and it all looks good, IF it holds together. This offense should serve our personnel very well.

About Smith and injuries. The bone fragment was a freak injury. Smith is much bulkier than the “young adult” frame he carried the last time he played a snap. If his shoulder is healthy as it seems it is, then Smith shouldn’t be more prone to injuries than any other QB.

by goatfather on Jul 23, 2009 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Seahawks have more upside (for the next season) simply due to regression.

There’s no way they go anywhere near 4-12 provided the starters are present and playing.

As for long term, no idea. The Seahawks core players are all aging and either team isn’t exactly loaded with exciting young talent.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 23, 2009 3:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

exciting, young talent

I guess it depends on your definition of exciting. Just a quick rundown of the 49ers, I’m excited about Willis, Haralson, Tarell Brown, Goldson, Staley, Rachal, Gore as always, Morgan, Crabtree. Maybe not loaded and maybe others don’t find them exciting, but I do. Maybe they don’t pan out, maybe the get hurt. For now I’m excited about them.

by Fooch on Jul 23, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I'm excited about Tatupu, Hill, Curry, Tapp, Mebane, Trufant, Carlson, Unger, Wilson and Butler.

And there are others I’m probably forgetting. But few players on either team has established themselves as young cornerstones.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 23, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this.

This next year could be interesting for both teams involved. The 49ers need to prove they’re going to continue to move in the right direction while the Seahawks have to prove that they don’t have to do a full rebuild when the current cornerstones get phased out.

by sfgfan on Jul 23, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said...

I’m optimistic we make a seamless transition, given the strong management and ownership support, in addition to the fact that we could easily have a top 5 pick next year from Denver in addition to our own 1st rounder, with which to hasten the rebuilding/reloading process…

Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!

by whiskey chainsaw on Jul 25, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m optimistic we make a seamless transition, given the strong management and ownership support

My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.

by shlecko on Jul 26, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not much of a counterargument

by shams on Jul 26, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't acquire that many injuries to many different positions...

With out there being some underlying problems to those players. Many of those injuries might take more than a year to recover from physically and or mentally.

by Mullester on Jul 23, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I assume you mean not everyone will be recovered 100% or play how they did before injury.

And I somewhat agree, which is why I think the Seahawks will be around 8-8 in 2009.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 23, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

8-8

insert joke about 8-8 actually having a shot at winning the NFC West here.

but seriously, in a division known for marshmellow, I wouldn’t rule out 8-8 taking down the division in 2009. for the sake of defending the honour of the West, I hope 9-7 takes it down.

I don’t think its going to take 10 wins to over take Arizona.

by Andrew Davidson on Jul 23, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would be absolutely disgusted if the division winner had an 8-8 record.

Even if they won the Super Bowl, I would still hate the NFC West because that team has absolutely no business in the playoffs.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 23, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do not agree with this..

The Forty Niners will be 11-5 . And you can take that to the bank…

And oh BTW " I dont’t have to show you any stinking badges.."

by WC-Ninerhead on Jul 23, 2009 7:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So I took your advice

And I took it to the bank, and they were all like, “WTF is this?”

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jul 25, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t mean to make this a two-owl thread, but sometimes these things happen.

My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.

by shlecko on Jul 26, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I lol'd at both

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 26, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t mean to make this a two-owl thread, but sometimes these things happen.

I laughed quite a bit at this line.

by Andrew Davidson on Jul 26, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's that time of the year

To take all analysis and predictions and toss them in the toilet. Most predicted Seattle would win the NFC West last year without even taking a look at the schedule to see the Seahawks played six 10AM east coast games. Considering the Seahawks had barely been competitive in early east coast games over the last 5 years it demonstrated how pathetically lazy and ill thought most guys predictions are.

As far as the QB holding the 49ers back . . . yes, safe answer but the same could have been said about the Titans last year. The NFL has had plenty of one hit wonder QB’s and you have to consider it for the 49ers this year.

by bignerd on Jul 23, 2009 8:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"Most predicted Seattle would win the NFC West last year without even taking a look at the schedule to see the Seahawks played six 10AM east coast games."

I’m sure if the Seahawks were reasonably healthy they would have won several more games, or at least look far more competitive in losses.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 23, 2009 8:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Smith and being "injury prone"

Smith has had one injury, which he failed to recover from completely before being put back out on the field.

I think it’s a big mistake to leap from that to calling him frequently injured. Injuries happen in the NFL. A certain number of freak injuries are unavoidable. I mean, Tom Brady has had only one major injury in his career, as well. Is it fair to call him frequently injured?

Of course, I’m not saying Smith is as capable of Brady. But my point is that a single, basically random event shouldn’t affect your evaluation of a player, whether than happens in year 3 of a player’s career (Smith) or year 9 (Brady).

Assuming he’s fully healthy, there is absolutely no reason to assume that Smith is going to have a harder time staying on the field than any other quarterback.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 26, 2009 10:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i’m not sure Sando is calling Smith injury prone, so much as he’s saying we don’t know who Alex Smith is because he’s been injured the past two seasons. If Smith isn’t healthy in 2009, its safe to call him prone to injury. What Sando is meaning, is that this season is huge for Smith in terms of being healthy (if he can stay healthy, we’ll find a lot more about him on the NFL level).

No one has gotten a sure fire read on how good or bad Alex Smith is as an NFL QB. All we know is that in 2006, he was showing signs of development, but 2007’s shoulder injury haulted everything, and we still only know what the 2006 Alex Smith can do. It’s important the team finds out what the 2009 Smith can do, and that can only happens sans injury.

by Andrew Davidson on Jul 26, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs