There are 104 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

#1 Offseason/Draft need....

I'm so tired about hearing how Peyton Manning would struggle behind our line. No he wouldn't. First off Manning actually has a feel for the pressure unlike Smith who steps into it every time. Second Peyton Manning actually recognizes and dissects blitzes. When you do that defenses become alot more predictable, and the line starts calming down.

Tom Brady has been sacked 14 times this year and 21 times in 2007. When he got injured Cassell got sacked 47 times. You think the line forget how to play that year. Good QB's make their line look alot better than actually is. Manning's line is nothing special. Indy's 31st in rushing this year, and with the exception of Saturday and possibly Pollack it's a make shift line.

I'm not saying our line doesn't need to be addressed because it does, but people need to stop with the crappy QB behind a good line equals success.
[ Edited by tjd808185 on Nov 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM ]
Originally posted by tjd808185:
I'm so tired about hearing how Peyton Manning would struggle behind our line. No he wouldn't. First off Manning actually has a feel for the pressure unlike Smith who steps into it every time. Second Peyton Manning actually recognizes and dissects blitzes. When you do that defenses become alot more predictable, and the line starts calming down.

Tom Brady has been sacked 14 times this year and 21 times in 2007. When he got injured Cassell got sacked 47 times. You think the line forget how to play that year. Good QB's make their line look alot better than actually is. Manning's line is nothing special. Indy's 31st in rushing this year, and with the exception of Saturday and possibly Pollack it's a make shift line.

I'm not saying our line doesn't need to be addressed because it does, but people need to stop with the crappy QB behind a good line equals success.

No. That is not what you argued. You argued that top qb's could flourish behind a poor line. The point that many people here are arguing, that a good line will allow a developing qb to continue developing, and will make any qb look much, much better, is untouched by your arguments about Manning and Brady.

Try again
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
I'm so tired about hearing how Peyton Manning would struggle behind our line. No he wouldn't. First off Manning actually has a feel for the pressure unlike Smith who steps into it every time. Second Peyton Manning actually recognizes and dissects blitzes. When you do that defenses become alot more predictable, and the line starts calming down.

Tom Brady has been sacked 14 times this year and 21 times in 2007. When he got injured Cassell got sacked 47 times. You think the line forget how to play that year. Good QB's make their line look alot better than actually is. Manning's line is nothing special. Indy's 31st in rushing this year, and with the exception of Saturday and possibly Pollack it's a make shift line.

I'm not saying our line doesn't need to be addressed because it does, but people need to stop with the crappy QB behind a good line equals success.

No. That is not what you argued. You argued that top qb's could flourish behind a poor line. The point that many people here are arguing, that a good line will allow a developing qb to continue developing, and will make any qb look much, much better, is untouched by your arguments about Manning and Brady.

Try again

That's not what I tried to argue, but yes a great QB can flourish with a sub par line. See Aaron Rodgers

My argument is quarterback is a bigger problem to us than offensive line, and I'm not buying that a good line is going to make our crappy QB play any better. Carolina and Miami have 2 of the best lines in football. Neither team can pass worth a d*mn and they're both average football teams. It's no coinencedence that all 8 division leaders have Pro Bowl QBs, and pretty much every contending team with the exception of Jax and Den are set at the QB position.
[ Edited by tjd808185 on Nov 23, 2009 at 9:25 AM ]
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
I'm so tired about hearing how Peyton Manning would struggle behind our line. No he wouldn't. First off Manning actually has a feel for the pressure unlike Smith who steps into it every time. Second Peyton Manning actually recognizes and dissects blitzes. When you do that defenses become alot more predictable, and the line starts calming down.

Tom Brady has been sacked 14 times this year and 21 times in 2007. When he got injured Cassell got sacked 47 times. You think the line forget how to play that year. Good QB's make their line look alot better than actually is. Manning's line is nothing special. Indy's 31st in rushing this year, and with the exception of Saturday and possibly Pollack it's a make shift line.

I'm not saying our line doesn't need to be addressed because it does, but people need to stop with the crappy QB behind a good line equals success.

No. That is not what you argued. You argued that top qb's could flourish behind a poor line. The point that many people here are arguing, that a good line will allow a developing qb to continue developing, and will make any qb look much, much better, is untouched by your arguments about Manning and Brady.

Try again
Developing QB? WTF? How many years can he develop for? When you look at Alex Smith you really say to yourself "Man that QB is going to be really good and defenses will really fear him in the future.."??? Come on! Can you think of many QBs who have been unsuccessful for so long and then finally developed into good QBs? I mean I'm sure there are some. But very few and far between. This is a David Carr, Joey Harrington, Rex Grossman, Kyle Boller like situation. You waste seasons letting a failed QB "develop" you loose your job in the NFL and your team sucks for years.
I understand saying that building a solid OL gives any Qb a better chance at success, but we can't afford to pass on a top QB prospect based simply on the fact we can't give him a perfect OL at the moment.

We need help at RT & OG - two positions that do not require top 15 selections to find good starters. We could easily draft a QB early this year and still get top prospects at both of those OL spots in the same draft.

Would that help the rookie QB as much as fielding a line of solid, proven vets? Of course not. But acting like we have to create a perfect environment for the next high QB draft pick is simply part of the Alex Smith hangover imo.

Several factors contributed to Alex's struggles early on. We addressed enough of those issues that we can take another chance on a high QB without fear of repeating past mistakes. The new kid will have a better group of weapons (WR's, TE, RB) and, yes, even a better OL.

If we have the chance to take a high QB this year, than we need to do it. We can't sit around waiting for the situation to be perfect, because that's never gonna happen.
Originally posted by chico49erfan:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Eric Berry
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL

+1

+2
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
I'm so tired about hearing how Peyton Manning would struggle behind our line. No he wouldn't. First off Manning actually has a feel for the pressure unlike Smith who steps into it every time. Second Peyton Manning actually recognizes and dissects blitzes. When you do that defenses become alot more predictable, and the line starts calming down.

Tom Brady has been sacked 14 times this year and 21 times in 2007. When he got injured Cassell got sacked 47 times. You think the line forget how to play that year. Good QB's make their line look alot better than actually is. Manning's line is nothing special. Indy's 31st in rushing this year, and with the exception of Saturday and possibly Pollack it's a make shift line.

I'm not saying our line doesn't need to be addressed because it does, but people need to stop with the crappy QB behind a good line equals success.

No. That is not what you argued. You argued that top qb's could flourish behind a poor line. The point that many people here are arguing, that a good line will allow a developing qb to continue developing, and will make any qb look much, much better, is untouched by your arguments about Manning and Brady.

Try again
Developing QB? WTF? How many years can he develop for? When you look at Alex Smith you really say to yourself "Man that QB is going to be really good and defenses will really fear him in the future.."??? Come on! Can you think of many QBs who have been unsuccessful for so long and then finally developed into good QBs? I mean I'm sure there are some. But very few and far between. This is a David Carr, Joey Harrington, Rex Grossman, Kyle Boller like situation. You waste seasons letting a failed QB "develop" you loose your job in the NFL and your team sucks for years.

There are 20 billion threads in this joint where people like you post exactly the same posts time after time. We were talking about something else, for once.

But seeing as you take issue semantically, check the dictionary. Yes, Alex Smith is developing. You may not like the speed of development or believe he will develop far enough, but only someone with a visceral personal hatred can deny that he is developing.
I'm starting to wonder if our need is just better coaching.
Originally posted by YuNGaCE:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Eric Berry
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
  • GEEK
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 17,124
Originally posted by tjd808185:
I'm so tired about hearing how Peyton Manning would struggle behind our line. No he wouldn't. First off Manning actually has a feel for the pressure unlike Smith who steps into it every time. Second Peyton Manning actually recognizes and dissects blitzes. When you do that defenses become alot more predictable, and the line starts calming down.

Tom Brady has been sacked 14 times this year and 21 times in 2007. When he got injured Cassell got sacked 47 times. You think the line forget how to play that year. Good QB's make their line look alot better than actually is. Manning's line is nothing special. Indy's 31st in rushing this year, and with the exception of Saturday and possibly Pollack it's a make shift line.

I'm not saying our line doesn't need to be addressed because it does, but people need to stop with the crappy QB behind a good line equals success.

I don't disagree with anything you have said.

At the same time though, I think we are in a position to address the offensive line immediately in the off-season by acquiring Mankins (if able) and drafting Williams in the first round.

But as far as QB prospects go, I am not sure if we are able to land a blue chip prospect.

I think for 2010, our focus should be OL, and allow Smith the opportunity to play under a legit OL for this reason: feasibility.
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
Originally posted by 49erman5692:
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
QB!

srry its RT then S

Ummm...we don't have a good QB though. Hill is an amazing backup who can come in and win games when you need him too, but clearly not a starter---a relief pitcher, and a damn good one--but that's it. Smith is trash. He's always been prone to turnovers, and yesterday's game is no different. Clearly, he is not, and has never been, the answer. I don't want to get into this was his fault this wasn't his fault, but can you really say he's good enough? Truth is, this is a QB league. I want Brady, I want Manning, I want Rivers, Ryan etc. This is the 40f***ing9ers for f***'s sake! This is the greatest QB franchise in history and out roster is now comprised for a backup, a turnover machine and an idiot who thinks that someone went to the pro-bowl 10 times after having played only 6 seasons. We need OL help, we need a Safety, we NEEEED a pass rusher. I agree with all that. But without a QB in this game you don't have anything. The Colts without Bob Sanders are a superbolw contender with a much smaller chance of winning. The Colts without Manning would be a borderline playoff contender.

We don't know if alex is a good qb or not. First off he's got to be able to have a pocket. like watch a Denver game and it's a freaking perfect circle around Kyle. We can't even get half a circle created. Plus that fact we have a top 5 back who can't find a hole because the fat guys in front of him can't do there jobs. There no qb i trust. i'd say bradford but with his shoulder i don't no he rarely gets touched behind ou's like and still get's injured twice. I'd rather take the olinemen and wait and see.
  • Blitz
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,858
Originally posted by ads_2006:
49ers need OL and Secondary the most

Agreed. OL is a no brainer. Pass rusher would be nice, but I truly think the rush is serviceable as it is and the secondary is getting close to not being serviceable at all. It needs some top tier talent back there. Aside from Nate, the team hasn't invested in top tier talent back there in quite awhile. We need better coverage.
[ Edited by Blitz on Nov 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM ]
Originally posted by Blitz:
Originally posted by ads_2006:
49ers need OL and Secondary the most

Agreed. OL is a no brainer. Pass rusher would be nice, but I truly think the rush is serviceable as it is and the secondary is getting close to not being serviceable at all. It needs some top tier talent back there. Aside from Nate, the team hasn't invested in top tier talent back there in quite awhile. We need better coverage.
The problem with these statements is continuity or in the 9ers case lack of. Manning and these other so called great qbs have been running the same offense for years the same wrs and yes there are new players but they are running the same rolls. Ever see manning throw a ball completely to the opposite side of the wr and complete it? Cause they have worked together for years. I have doubts that they would be the same superstar running a different off. with different personel. Not saying they wouldnt be good but a superstar not.
OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OLOL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL OL