2005 roster - let's all feel better
by foosball4949 on Sep 6, 2009 10:09 AM PDT
40 comments
I think it might be good to take a step back and appreciate how far we've come since 2005, Mike Nolan's first year and the overall level of talent on our roster now.
DT - Anthony Adams - Recorded 21 tackles in 9 games with the bears last season.
S - Mike Adams - Recorded 44 tackles and 2 picks last season with the browns.
WR/PR - Otis Amey - Lasted 11 games in the league.
S - Marques Anderson - Recorded 1 tackle in his last year in the league.
LG - David Baas - Then a rookie, now slated to start.
TE - Billy Bajema - Left this offseason for browner pastures as a ram.
RB - Kevan Barlow - played one more year with the Jets after being traded.
TE - Steve Bush - Recorded 3 receptions in his last year in the league.
S - Dwaine Carpenter - played in 2 games as a niner, 1 as a Ram that year, retired the next year.
DE - Andre Carter - Good player...for the Redskins
OT - Anthony Clement - Played in 14 games, started 16 each the next two season for the Jets before hanging up the spikes
K - Jose Cortez - Cut after missing his first field goal attempt, last year in the league.
QB - Ken Dorsey - Started 3 games for the Browns last year, remains un-signed
DE - Marques Douglas - Has recorded 2 tackles this preseason as a Jet.
S - Ben Emanuel - Only season he played in a game.
OT - Patrick Estes - Played in 8 career games, 7 that season; out of the league.
DT - Ronald Fields - Followed Nolan to Denver after several supremely underwhelming seasons.
RB - Frank Gore - Rookie year; was and remains the one of the best players on the roster.
DT - Travis Hall - Played in 16 games in his last year in the league.
OT - Kwame Harris - Remains unsigned this season.
C - Eric Heitmann - Was and is the best OL on roster.
FB - Chris Hetherington - Played in 3 games as a niner in 2006 before retiring.
RB - Maurice Hicks - Only recorded stat last year was a fumble, remains unsigned.
FB - Terry Jackson - Last year in league; to be fair, was a special teams ace.
LS - Brian Jennings - Was and is one of the best longsnappers in the league.
OT - Jonas Jennings - Finally released this offseason...remains unsigned...
CB - Derrick Johnson - Started 5 games as a rookie. Would play in 5 games total during the remainder of his career, for two teams the following season.
TE - Terry Jones - Last year in league.
P - Andy Lee - Was and is one of the best punters in the league.
S - Keith Lewis - Personal favorite, released this offseason...by both the niners and the cards.
WR - Brandon Lloyd - Niner career quickly went sour, reunited with Nolan as a Bronco. Still has one of the best catches of all time...
WR - Rasheed Marshall - Converted college QB; career stat line in only season: 1 rush for -1 yards, 1 rec for -7 yards, 4 fumbles.
WR - Marcus Maxwell - On Bucs roster, 1 career reception.
LB - Jim Maxwell - On Bengals roster, 38 career tackles.
WR - Jason McAddley - 7 receptions in last year in the league.
CB - Willie Middlebrooks - played in 5 games in final year in the league.
LB - Brandon Moore - Still bouncing around the league; hasn't played in a game since playing in all 16 as a niner in 2007.
WR - Johnnie Morton - Good player...last year in the league...
K - Joe Nedney - First year with team, replacing Cortez, finally ended the revolving door at K.
C - Jeremy Newberry - Terrible knee issues ended once promising career.
S - Tony Parrish - Good player on his last legs, would only play 10 more career games.
OLB - Julian Peterson - Good player the Niners purged soon after.
QB - Cody Pickett - Endearing for his toughness but didn't see another snap after 2005. Never threw an NFL touchdown.
CB - Ahmed Plummer - Injuries cut short a once promising career, would play only 3 games before retiring.
OLB - Saleem Rasheed - Last year on the field in the NFL; retired a year later.
QB - Tim Rattay - Traded 4 games into the season to make way for Alex Smith. Only played in 8 more games.
CB - Kris Richard - The only game he played in in 2005 was his last game in the NFL.
CB - Mike Rumph - Started 3 games in 2005, traded to the Redskins and was out of the league a year later.
G - Justin Smiley- Good guard, signed with Dolphins last offseason.
QB - Alex Smith - We all our opinions on him...
LB - Corey Smith - Moved on to the Lions, passed away tragically in a boating accident this year.
LB - Derek Smith - Good player nearing the end of his career.
TE - Trent Smith - Made the roster again a year later but never saw game action in final year in the NFL.
OT - Adam Snyder - Won starting RT job during camp, possibly by default.
NT/DE - Isaac Sopoaga - Slated to start at LE this season.
CB - Shawtae Spencer - Former starter, attempting to comeback from torn ACL, will start season as 4th CB.
CB - Jeremy Thornburg - Played in two games for the Niners, 4 for the Packers and none for the Eagles in only year in the NFL.
CB - Bruce Thornton - Started 11 games in his second and last year in the NFL.
CB - B.J. Tucker - Would play in 10 games during 2005-2006 in his last two years in the NFL.
LB - Jeff Ulbrich - Still with team as valued (by some) backup and special teamer.
LB - Renauld Williams - Played in 5 games during 2005-2006 in last two years in the league.
LB - Jamie Winborne - Just cut by Falcons.
G - Tony Wragge - Still with team as valuable backup.
DT/DE - Bryant Young - Great player to end the list, we all miss him.
12 players remain 49ers, 10 players remain in the league on other teams' roster. However I may feel about this year's 53, I feel thankful.
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 |
40 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Edit:
Brandon Lloyd still has 3 of the best catches of all time.
Mike Rumph laying lumber, a chance of BrLloyd making an amazing catch, hoping the team didn’t get blown out. Those were the days
by supraman on Sep 6, 2009 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is why I take offense to people jumping on this year’s 49ers as a bad team. Look back at this roster for a illustration of a truly bad team. I still wish the team had Justin Smiley although he could be a pain in the ass.
by bignerd on Sep 6, 2009 12:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That was one of the worst teams of all time
Being better than them doesn’t make this team good.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Worst of all time?
Believe it or not teams are measured by wins and losses before statistical production. The 2005 49ers were 4-12, not even in the conversation of worst of all time.
by bignerd on Sep 6, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, record wise they may not have been
But W-L aren’t the only thing we have to judge them on. The Niners went 7-9 last year but clearly were not near the ability their record would indicate, they were again one of the lesser teams in the league.
Here’s a list of the worst teams since 1995 in DVOA. The Niners 2005 team is #1. They were worse on a per play basis than even last years 0-16 Lions. So yes, that team was hideously awful and legitimately one of the worst teams of all-time. The roster now is better, but it’s almost impossible to be worse.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or it shows the flaws in DVOA
DVOA might be the best football statistical model but it’s far from being definitive in it’s estimations and results.
I’d argue the 49ers had character and the ability to get the job done when the opportunity presented itself, unlike the 2008 Lions. An aspect even the creators of DVOA admit they don’t account for, “not every 3rd and 9 is the same”.
Also, enough of this intellectually false easy schedule / record would indicate argument. If you are going to take wins off the 49ers column you have take away the other 15 wins other teams racked up playing the Lions, the 13 other wins teams accrued against the Rams and the 11 other wins teams gained from the Seahawks. After you reassess the schedule and grade on the curve every team will be exactly where they are graded now. Why Parcell’s sounds like a genius when he says you are what you record says you are.
by bignerd on Sep 6, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't take wins off the 49ers
I just don’t judge a team solely based on wins because they don’t tell the whole story. You say it was “character” but I don’t think character haas anything to do with the argument.
On a per play basis the 2005 Niners were the worst team in the last 15 years. If that’s not a damning statistic I don’t know what is.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the more damning statistics are
Wins/Losses and point differential. Offense and defense production is pretty “meh” in the grand scheme of things. The NFL has had SB winning teams that were not so great at offensive and defensive production per play.
by bignerd on Sep 6, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who were these Superbowl teams?
If your talking about a team like the Cardinals, yes they didn’t have a very good DVOA, but their record wasn’t good either. Teams generally don’t do well without playing well.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 2008 Steelers didn’t have a good offensive DVOA. The 2000 Ravens had a horrible offensive DVOA. The 2001 Patriots were average across the board in DVOA. I didn’t even bother to look back at the 2007 Giants (slightly above average running, below average passing), Colts 2006 ( horrible defensive ranking), 2002 Bucs (were worse defensively compared to prior years and still awful at offense) to form a more complete argument.
The only area where DVOA seems to hit its mark is the 80’s and ends with the Broncos in the 90’s.
by bignerd on Sep 6, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you not understand the point of DVOA?
The Steelers didn’t have a good offensive DVOA and… their offense wasn’t very good! That’s the point. The did however have the #1 defensive DVOA and were the second ranked team overall and they won the Superbowl. That’s DVOA doing it’s job, and it’s certainly a point for DVOA.
The 2000 Ravens were ranked 23rd on offense, 2nd in defense, and 3rd on special teams. Which of those is wrong? Those rakings were good enough to make them the 3rd best team overall and they won the Superbowl. Again, DVOA was right on the money that the Ravens were a very good team.
The 2001 Patriots were ranked 12th in total DVOA, and they weren’t that great in the regular season. They were a HUGE surprise when they won the Superbowl. Again, DVOA is right that the Pats were not one of the best teams in the league during the season.
The 2007 Giants are the same thing. They weren’t that good in the regular season, and DVOA shows that. They won the Superbowl because they played like a completely different team in the playoffs. So if we’re going by W-L records, the Pats were much better than the Giants. If we’re going by DVOA, the Pats were much better than the Giants. How is DVOA any more misleading than W-L? It was a surprise upset by a team that wasn’t very good in the regular season.
The Colts did have a horrible run defense!! If DVOA showed anything but that I don’t see how you could trust it’s accuracy!
DVOA is only being used here to measure regular season performance and it does it wonderfully. DVOA got all of these teams right, so thank you for giving me some more points for my argument.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
DVOA isn’t useless it just isn’t going to tell the story the season. I just wish you would weigh it with the results and see it’s always a bit behind, to forward or just a bit off. Use DVOA when determining which 7-9 is most likely to make the leap the playoffs next season but juggle it’s analysis with everything else.
I think DVOA has something but the bottom line is wins, losses and re-memorable accomplishments.
by bignerd on Sep 7, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like that
Using it to compare teams of a same record.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 7, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you think
The Jets, Dolphins, and Cardinals were as good as the Eagles last year?
The Niners were better than the Packers and nearly as good as the Chargers, Saints, and Redskins?
A team’s record is just too prone to luck for various reasons. Judging a team on a per-play basis instead of just giving them a 1 or a 0 on the win column is so, so much more revealing. Here’s a theoretical example:
Team A;
Beats the Lions 17-16
Loses to Saints 35-24
Beats the Browns 28-21
Loses to Eagles 38-10
Team B:
Beats the Giants 27-14
Loses to Panthers 24-21
Beats the Rams 45-14
Loses to Eagles 14-10
Both teams went 2-2, so using won-loss record they would be equal. But clearly Team B is much better than Team A, they played two top teams (the Giants and Eagles) close, beat another top team (the Panthers), and destroyed the creampuff (Rams).
Team A barely beat two poor teams (Lions and Saints), got beaten handily by a decent team (Saints), and then got destroyed by a top team (Eagles).
Now, why would you want to use simple W-L records instead of comparing the teams they play against and how they played in those games? Beyond that, a 16 game sample is way too small, but measuring 1000 plays makes the sample palatable. In baseball comparing records is okay because there are so many games that luck and scheduling tend to even out a lot more, but in football the season is so short that these factors can vary drastically.
Really, how people could not trust DVOA is beyond me. Using DVOA from the previous season to predict a team’s record the next season is much more accurate than using a team’s record from the previous season (this is a fact, not just something I’m guessing at). There’s just no comparison, DVOA is much more accurate at showing which team played better.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 7, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woo, slow down U totally missed what I said
I said I like it comparing teams with the same record. Bignerd made a good point that it doesn’t tell the whole story, as no one statistical model can, not even W/L. He also wrote “Use DVOA when determining which 7-9 is most likely to make the leap the playoffs next season.” That supports using DVOA by allowing it to show that teams with the same record are not actually equal. I’d think you would support that.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 7, 2009 1:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
But DVOA shows much more than that. Why limit it to teams with the same record? For instance, DVOA shows that the Packers are probably going to be quite a bit better than the Niners even though they had two fewer wins in 2009. It also shows that teams like the Jets and Dolphins are liklely to get significantly worse this year. How do you learn these things by looking at W-L record?
My point is that DVOA is a much better statistic than W-L record for deciding which of two teams is better. W-L record gives a ballpark estimate of a team’s quality and is prone to all sorts of biases while DVOA gives a much more exact figure and tries to account for those biases. Given the choice of the two, I’d definitely choose DVOA. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best indicator we have.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 7, 2009 1:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But DVOA is much more revealing than that
Which teams is it behind, forward, or a bit off? Seriously, I want you to name a team where W-L record was more accurate than DVOA.
I’m sorry, but if you don’t see that there’s a gigantic difference in quality between a team like the Chargers and a team liek the Niners then it’s hard to take your opinion seriously. If you just use W-L records they were only one win apart from each other, but there’s a huge gap in their DVOA (Chargers were 7th, Niners were 25th).
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 7, 2009 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, god...
Not this garbage again.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Sep 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
w-l gets you in the playoffs or out
DVOA is for stat freaks. When a team ties to end the season do they look at DVOA or who won more division games or scored more points, whatever it is it isn’t dvoa!!
AKA.............Optimist Prime
"Me, I want what's coming to me" And what's that? "The world Chico, and everything in it"
Banned in 13 comments!!!!
by rlott#42 on Sep 6, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
But by looking at DVOA you get a much better picture of who did well than by just looking at W-L records. For instance, who had the best offense last year? How about run defense? Special teams? How about who was the worst in each of those categories? You’d have no clue if you just looked at W-L records but DVOA tells you these things. Would you rather not know them?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that’s the strength of the undercurrent, not the direction of the river.
by bignerd on Sep 6, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
W-L records are much more liable to luck or scheduling than DVOA is. DVOA gives a better indication of how good a team truly is. How can you compare two teams like the Niners and Cowboys when the Cowboys schedule was incredibly harder? Even though the Cowboys only had two more wins than the NIners they were a much better team.
Heck, even a team like the Packers (who only had 5 wins) was better than the Niners. They were just victims to a tougher schedule and some bad luck losses. And if you don’t want to believe that just wait until this season is over, the Packers are the team that is due for a big rebound and teams like the Dolphins, Jets, and Falcons are going to sink in the standings. And of course, none of this insight is from W-L record.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree about the Packers on all points
And that Dallas had more talent than SF last year (duh) but I don’t buy the argument that their schedule was “incredibly” harder. The played each others division so the schedules had similarity. The Niners played the AFC East which 1-4 was better than the AFC North which was top heavy and had a better 1-2.
That there records ended up with a 2 game difference perhaps says more about one team playing harder and one coasting from believing its own hype, which ultimately makes them not very good (or just good enough to be barely above avg at 9-7).
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 7, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I'm saying is wins and losses
Is all that matters until you’re playing fantasy football. Knowing these numbers last year does what as a 49er fan? Nothing at all, we still didn’t make the playoffs. How many coaches look at dvoa and say guys our dvoa needs to improve, especially after a losing streak or winning streak it’s the last thing that comes up, thus not important.
AKA.............Optimist Prime
"Me, I want what's coming to me" And what's that? "The world Chico, and everything in it"
Banned in 13 comments!!!!
by rlott#42 on Sep 7, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It just shows where we need improvement and who was good last year
Do you have to look at it? No. But I think it’s a pretty good tool that can help us better understand what’s going on.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 7, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe that (Worst Of All Time) is hyperbole, but...
this post gives a guy pause. If Maiocco’s gut says this is a 6-10 team, I wonder what we’ll think of this roster 4 years down the road.
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
by grantmp on Sep 6, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not hyperbole
As I posted above, the 2005 Niners were legitimately one of the worst teams of all time. This roster is still pretty poor if you ask almost any non-Niners fan.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually this team has improved except for
Offensive and Defensive lines. Pretty much the same players from last year and It shows. However I will say that other Positions have improved such DBs, WRs, LBs and RBs.
I confused, If we’re going to run 60% (?) of the time, why didn’t we keep an extra RB (4) and another Lineman (8). Looking back at theses position, we would normally keep more.
Although I now we’re a 3/4 defense, isn’t 9 LBs,one to many ?
by LASVEGASNINER on Sep 6, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'd only use 3 RB's on gamedays anyways
Sheets is on the practice squad so we can always activate him if need be. I think we might add another O-lineman through free agency somewhere.
I agree that the team is improved, the question is how much though. I’d say there’s still glaring needs at QB, all over the offensive line (RT and depth needed), at NT, LOLB, and at CB. Safety could be a need as well depending on how the young guys develop. That’s more holes than most teams have.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 6, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
I don’t see the need at CB at all. NT only for depth (if RJF does not develop it) but the starter is fine. I also think “all over the O-line” is a bit much. Heitmann is one of the better Centers in the league and Staley is fine at LT. I agree about depth at RT and certainly our young Guards have to prove themselves but at least they have a potential upside instead of having avg old guys.
Due to our consecutive losing seasons I wonder if some of us Niners fans not only devalue a bit of what we have and over value what others have.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 7, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maiocco is like all os us
A guy with an opinion based off what he thinks wins games.
AKA.............Optimist Prime
"Me, I want what's coming to me" And what's that? "The world Chico, and everything in it"
Banned in 13 comments!!!!
by rlott#42 on Sep 6, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does Maiocco care what wins games
I love his reporting but I get the impression sometimes he doesn’t give a damn about football outside his paycheck for writing about it.
by bignerd on Sep 6, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
6 and ten my arse
AKA.............Optimist Prime
"Me, I want what's coming to me" And what's that? "The world Chico, and everything in it"
Banned in 13 comments!!!!
by rlott#42 on Sep 7, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Write that down somewhere.
Re-visit it in January.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Sep 7, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn't seem to care about football.
I like reading Barrows because he actually incorporates his opinions into his articles.
He’s more fun.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Sep 7, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Maxwells (Jim and Marcus)
were each just cut yesterday
by foosball4949 on Sep 6, 2009 3:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
2004 team was 2-14........
and the hardest season I’ve ever watched. I don’t have that roster in front of me, but it HAS to have worse #’s of any niner team ever.
by remembertheCATCH on Sep 6, 2009 10:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
100% Agree
The 2004 49ers were much worse than the 2005 49ers. More individual talent, more production between lines, much worse and disappointing of a team. If it wasn’t for the 2004 Cardinals the organization might have been forever embarrassed.
by bignerd on Sep 6, 2009 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Yep, they actually did have more talent in ’04 yet lost a number of close games by being unable to close the deal in the 4th quarter. Rattay turnovers where the usual culprit. By the late part of the season the players had quit on the coaches and appeared to stop caring.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Sep 7, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree 2004 was bad
but I went with 2005 because it owuld be reasonable to expect a couple more players to be on the roster from only 4 years ago, as well as the fact that that year started both the mike nolan and alex smith eras
by foosball4949 on Sep 7, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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.
