ESPN's Clayton thinks SF will be 3rd in NFC West

Originally posted by BrodieFan:

Originally posted by 49wyztoscore:
I think its going to be a fun season to watch. If we have a few things fall our way then we can get lucky enough to make the playoffs. I just know that Sing came in and did an admirable job. We have a veteran OC and Manusky now get to run the defense he knows and likes. Personnel isn't the ONLY aspect to improve on a team. Coaching is just as important. I think this is the best staff we have had in along time.

That's called "hopeful optimism" and it's a great thing. It's not for the faint of heart, though. More worrisome and fearful fans are afraid they might get their tender feelings hurt if they hope for too much. So they resort to a concept they call "realism." Their concept of "realism" evidently protects them from disappointment. Good for them!

Exactly! Thats why WE PLAY THE GAME. LOL. You never know what happens. Who in thier real mind thought the Cards would make the superbowl. I just know we aren't going to suck and that we CAN make the playoffs.

Originally posted by BrodieFan:

Originally posted by Shorteous:
Truthfully I would be shocked if anyteam in the West won the superbowl let alone getting there.

What the hell are you even talking about? A member of our division not only made the last Superbowl, but came a play away from winning it. And, they're not even the team Clayton thinks is the best in the division. He thinks Seattle is better.... and you'd be shocked, shocked if any in our division even gets there. Dude, you're pretty easily shocked.

Ya the Cards making it there last year was a great story, would have turned it into the classic cinderella story had they won the super bowl. That being said, the west has been one of the weaker division for some time and I would surprised to see a repeat of last year. Seriously 3 of the 4 teams in the division were in the top 10 of the draft!!! We all know that it all comes down to "on any given Sunday" and every team has a chance to win each week no matter who the competition. But if you believe that the 9-7 Cards who scored 1 more point then they allowed and who went into the final stretch of the season getting destroyed by teams outside of the division are going to repeat the feat they did last season then so be it.

Week 12 vs Giants L 37-29 score was 34-19 with 6 mins left i the game
Week 13 vs Eagles L 48-20
Week 15 vs Vikings L 35-14
Week 16 vs Patriots L 47-7

From their week 7 bye on they did not win one game against a team outside of the division. They defiantly bring the any given sunday montra to the table with there playoff execution.

For the rest of the division, sure we are much improved, it's a bit outlandish to believe that any team that picked in the top 10 has a legit or solid chance at going to the superbowl. If you want to place that bet, then go all in buddy.

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
What a buncha bulls**t,the shehawks are as bad as than they were last year,we have improved(fired Nolan and Martz the moron).

So basically you are saying because we got rid of Nolan and Martz....we MUST be a better team?

So how did that work out when we rid ourselves of Hostler? Erickson? Mooch?

Just because Nolan is gone doesn't mean we got any better. You can hope Sing is a superior HC to Nolan, but it is baseless. And again, how is it any different than Erickson to Nolan.....horrible head coach replaced by an unknown. It is not an answer, really it is just another question. 90% of this board was rolling with Nolan....just like 90% of this board will be cursing Sing if he has 3 s**tty years. Then what...will you be making posts how we MUST be better now because we are finally rid of Sing?

So true because we all know that the head coach has little impact on how the team plays. Did you really just make that point... foolish.

We all know that the head coaching change had nothing to do with the resurrection of teams like Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, Baltimore, and many others over the last few years.

Granted Sing is an unknown commodity and the 9ers could very well have another loosing season. Going from a known loosing commodity to an unknown promising commodity is defiantly an upgrade.

Definitely an upgrade? And I am foolish...lol. Well ok then, ALL new coaches are replacing a losing HC is definitely an upgrade.

How much you wanna bet? $5 per example? You list all the new HC's(HC's will less than 16 games) who outperform their predecessors....I will list all the ones who did not. If I am such a fool you should take this bet right.

You choose to believe Sing will prove to be an upgrade at HC, he could be the same...and it is withing the realm of possibility that he turns out to be worst. You choose to believe Sing is promising......guess who else was promising...how about EVERY SINGLE HC who has ever been hired in the NFL. Are are you proposing owners hire HC's because of their lack of promise?

Definite upgrade....ok if you say so.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by elguapo:
Let' s see how we improved....

1. Hill as a full time starter not just half the season...right there that's a few games (even if it's smith, the fact that o'sullivan is not here we will turn it over less)

2. More running the ball with gore and co not to mention we have a FB now who can block. less blindside hits may help too by running the ball more and controlling the clock more. Remember how our time of possession was really good towards the end of the year.

3. Marvel Smith - even if healthy only half the year is better than sims, who cost us many sacks and the mia game at the end. The fact that synder is backup over sims even if marvel gets injured is a good thing too. Better O line play for the run and pass will help our offense.

4. Vernon not just blocking - Martz never had a great TE with talent who is open most of the time, he just used wr's. Well Davis will get the ball more than 30 times this year and that will help the offense.

5. On D, well our D was great especially the end of last year, best D in the division. best secondary, best lb's now that petersen is gone, and our dl is pretty dam good with smith.

Crabtree morgan and bruce will help out the offense as well.

I don't see how the niners won't finish ahead of the seahawks and at least the same record as the cards. People seem to forget we only lost by 10 points the first game after 5 turnovers and by 1 yard and a few horrible calls the second game to the cards.

1. Since Garcia, QB1 has been played by a 3rd tier QB, Hill is just a continuation of that. This is not an improvement. Rattay, Dorsey, Smith, Dilfer, JTO, Shaun Hill and others...NONE wereare an improvement over the other.....its just 1 mediocre QB taking over for another

2. Just saying...hey guys...lets be a running team....doesn't actually make you a running team. Just executing snaps to handoff to a runner, doesn't make you a smashmouth team...sometimes it just makes you a 3 and out team

3. I think our O-line is slightly better than 08'...but I don't think they are much better than a #15 ranked o-line...not sure where I would rank em in the division

4. Don't pretend that Martz reduced Vernon to be a blocker...that has been how he has been used for a few years now by many different coaches. We have to consider that we just might a blocking TE combine freak that we drafted #6. Vernon is on thin ice from being a bust....Martz gone doesn't change that...only Vernon can

5. Maybe we are tuning into different games...but the Niners Defense I see is GOOD...not Great. Maybe they could be great, but the O and their 3 and out Smash mouth rock em sock em new attitude on O.....will put them in very bad positions

and will zoners PLEASE stop using the Arizona game as some kind of indicator. Anybody who knows the NFL should know division play doesn't tell you anything about the teams and how they rank up. Case and point...during the New England dynasty, the Fins were known to upset them almost every year...sometimes in New England as well. Does that mean Miami was close to being a Dynasty team? It is very common for a championship team to go 3-3 in their division...that does not tell you anything about the other teams in their division...it just tells you that division rivals usually play each other close...no matter what end of the spectrum the teams happen to exist in outside of their own series.

MAYBE you need to see the point of my post. I don't think you really tuned into the same football games that the rest of the football world was watching just like you were not tuned into my post. You tried comparing:
1. other qb's to Hill. Mistake because they had other casts, and attributes.
2. i was saying running more is IN FACT a way not to throw int's and get sacked which we did allow so much last year.....logic 101. I was not saying anything regarding 3 and outs.
3. OL well we lost our starter at RT and our Backup and sims destroyed quite a few plays and helped lose some games for us. Our OL improves regardless unless synder and smith gets injured. ....i said nothing about our status compared to the rest of the league. Just that it was better than last year.
4. Vernon blocked more last year than ever and Martz does not use TE's....fact....101 again.
5. Everybody knows our D is very good and often times more than very good.

And you see that divisions do have more experience playing eachother and do know eachother....common sense. My point was we got better in those 5 points were my justifications. US "ZONERS" can use the arizona game as an indicator or the above reasons why we will win the division and it does make alot of sense. Sorry for a little dose of reality

oh s**t you took logic 101....dang....I missed that one. Well let me take this opportunity to learn from a professor then.

So professor...I have a question. Since running the ball decreases the ints and sacks....is there a reason why all 32 teams don't run all the time? How about 90% of the time? How about 80% of the time? How about 70% of the time.

Is it possible that we get sacked less and throw less int's AND still not be improved? For some vague reason I recall losing seasons where the Niners tried to run and did well protecting the ball...but they were worst in the league in TD's, time of possesion and 1st downs.

Can't wait to get your answers but I fear this logic 101 class may be a little over my head

Originally posted by jays9ers:
Sounds about right to me folks.... Were still a 7 or 8 win team... Probably third in the division

lol

I could care less what the experts think. In 2007 the experts pick the niners as a sleeper team.

Originally posted by lamontb:
Once again it comes back to Qb and the Niners have the worst Qb in the division. Clayton's opinion isn't crazy or anything just his opinion. If you look at Seattle and don't' think they had a monster off season and will be much better b/c of the retrun of a healthy Hassleback then you are tripping. Funny how folks say Marvel smith is a major improvement though he's coming off injury. But Hassleback and the Seattle WR's will struggle b/c they are coming off injury. Can't have it both ways. Niners could finish 3rd or they could win the division imo it's wide open.

I look at the Seahawks and don't care if they came back to 2005/6/7 form. They were never really good, just medium. The Cards are medium. So saying the 49ers are going to be medium ( as good as Seattle/Cards ) is not a big deal. There are a whole lot of medium teams in the NFL. Saying they will be good is a different story.

The goal of the 49ers is to be better than the Steelers, the Patriots, the Giants. This will mean they are good. Being better than the Seahawks, Cards, Rams is setting the bar pretty low.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
What a buncha bulls**t,the shehawks are as bad as than they were last year,we have improved(fired Nolan and Martz the moron).

So basically you are saying because we got rid of Nolan and Martz....we MUST be a better team?

So how did that work out when we rid ourselves of Hostler? Erickson? Mooch?

Just because Nolan is gone doesn't mean we got any better. You can hope Sing is a superior HC to Nolan, but it is baseless. And again, how is it any different than Erickson to Nolan.....horrible head coach replaced by an unknown. It is not an answer, really it is just another question. 90% of this board was rolling with Nolan....just like 90% of this board will be cursing Sing if he has 3 s**tty years. Then what...will you be making posts how we MUST be better now because we are finally rid of Sing?

So true because we all know that the head coach has little impact on how the team plays. Did you really just make that point... foolish.

We all know that the head coaching change had nothing to do with the resurrection of teams like Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, Baltimore, and many others over the last few years.

Granted Sing is an unknown commodity and the 9ers could very well have another loosing season. Going from a known loosing commodity to an unknown promising commodity is defiantly an upgrade.

Definitely an upgrade? And I am foolish...lol. Well ok then, ALL new coaches are replacing a losing HC is definitely an upgrade.

How much you wanna bet? $5 per example? You list all the new HC's(HC's will less than 16 games) who outperform their predecessors....I will list all the ones who did not. If I am such a fool you should take this bet right.

You choose to believe Sing will prove to be an upgrade at HC, he could be the same...and it is withing the realm of possibility that he turns out to be worst. You choose to believe Sing is promising......guess who else was promising...how about EVERY SINGLE HC who has ever been hired in the NFL. Are are you proposing owners hire HC's because of their lack of promise?

Definite upgrade....ok if you say so.

There is no "definite" for any of this. But I look at it this way.

Nolan won 2 games out of 7 (28%) before getting the axe. Sing took over the exact same team and won 5 of 9 (55%).

Based on the only real comparison we can make between the two, Sing did better. Whether or not the future proves Sing better or not we don't know. But based on what we do know....Sing is an improvement.

Originally posted by yoda76:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
What a buncha bulls**t,the shehawks are as bad as than they were last year,we have improved(fired Nolan and Martz the moron).

So basically you are saying because we got rid of Nolan and Martz....we MUST be a better team?

So how did that work out when we rid ourselves of Hostler? Erickson? Mooch?

Just because Nolan is gone doesn't mean we got any better. You can hope Sing is a superior HC to Nolan, but it is baseless. And again, how is it any different than Erickson to Nolan.....horrible head coach replaced by an unknown. It is not an answer, really it is just another question. 90% of this board was rolling with Nolan....just like 90% of this board will be cursing Sing if he has 3 s**tty years. Then what...will you be making posts how we MUST be better now because we are finally rid of Sing?

So true because we all know that the head coach has little impact on how the team plays. Did you really just make that point... foolish.

We all know that the head coaching change had nothing to do with the resurrection of teams like Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, Baltimore, and many others over the last few years.

Granted Sing is an unknown commodity and the 9ers could very well have another loosing season. Going from a known loosing commodity to an unknown promising commodity is defiantly an upgrade.

Definitely an upgrade? And I am foolish...lol. Well ok then, ALL new coaches are replacing a losing HC is definitely an upgrade.

How much you wanna bet? $5 per example? You list all the new HC's(HC's will less than 16 games) who outperform their predecessors....I will list all the ones who did not. If I am such a fool you should take this bet right.

You choose to believe Sing will prove to be an upgrade at HC, he could be the same...and it is withing the realm of possibility that he turns out to be worst. You choose to believe Sing is promising......guess who else was promising...how about EVERY SINGLE HC who has ever been hired in the NFL. Are are you proposing owners hire HC's because of their lack of promise?

Definite upgrade....ok if you say so.

There is no "definite" for any of this. But I look at it this way.

Nolan won 2 games out of 7 (28%) before getting the axe. Sing took over the exact same team and won 5 of 9 (55%).

Based on the only real comparison we can make between the two, Sing did better. Whether or not the future proves Sing better or not we don't know. But based on what we do know....Sing is an improvement.

thanks for having some reasoning. That makes sense....but I do have one counter. Nolan did that same exact thing in 2006....or at least very similiar....so basically we can't dismiss that we could have finished 7-9 under Nolan as well.

Also....why is it so easy to put the entire blame on HC for 2005-2008? I think Sing is partly responsible as well. Sure Nolan should get the bulk of the blame.....but the asst HC isn't exactly blameless is he?. In other words....is it even accurate to attempt a Nolan vs. Singletary comparison....isn't it more accurate to say the comparison is Nolanasst HC Singletary vs. Singletary

f**k SEAHAWKS f**k THE CARDINALS THE 49ERS ARE GUNNA RUN THE WEST....PLUS WE EASILY HAVE THE BEST DEFENSE IN THE DIVISION.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by yoda76:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
What a buncha bulls**t,the shehawks are as bad as than they were last year,we have improved(fired Nolan and Martz the moron).

So basically you are saying because we got rid of Nolan and Martz....we MUST be a better team?

So how did that work out when we rid ourselves of Hostler? Erickson? Mooch?

Just because Nolan is gone doesn't mean we got any better. You can hope Sing is a superior HC to Nolan, but it is baseless. And again, how is it any different than Erickson to Nolan.....horrible head coach replaced by an unknown. It is not an answer, really it is just another question. 90% of this board was rolling with Nolan....just like 90% of this board will be cursing Sing if he has 3 s**tty years. Then what...will you be making posts how we MUST be better now because we are finally rid of Sing?

So true because we all know that the head coach has little impact on how the team plays. Did you really just make that point... foolish.

We all know that the head coaching change had nothing to do with the resurrection of teams like Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, Baltimore, and many others over the last few years.

Granted Sing is an unknown commodity and the 9ers could very well have another loosing season. Going from a known loosing commodity to an unknown promising commodity is defiantly an upgrade.

Definitely an upgrade? And I am foolish...lol. Well ok then, ALL new coaches are replacing a losing HC is definitely an upgrade.

How much you wanna bet? $5 per example? You list all the new HC's(HC's will less than 16 games) who outperform their predecessors....I will list all the ones who did not. If I am such a fool you should take this bet right.

You choose to believe Sing will prove to be an upgrade at HC, he could be the same...and it is withing the realm of possibility that he turns out to be worst. You choose to believe Sing is promising......guess who else was promising...how about EVERY SINGLE HC who has ever been hired in the NFL. Are are you proposing owners hire HC's because of their lack of promise?

Definite upgrade....ok if you say so.

There is no "definite" for any of this. But I look at it this way.

Nolan won 2 games out of 7 (28%) before getting the axe. Sing took over the exact same team and won 5 of 9 (55%).

Based on the only real comparison we can make between the two, Sing did better. Whether or not the future proves Sing better or not we don't know. But based on what we do know....Sing is an improvement.

thanks for having some reasoning. That makes sense....but I do have one counter. Nolan did that same exact thing in 2006....or at least very similiar....so basically we can't dismiss that we could have finished 7-9 under Nolan as well.

Also....why is it so easy to put the entire blame on HC for 2005-2008? I think Sing is partly responsible as well. Sure Nolan should get the bulk of the blame.....but the asst HC isn't exactly blameless is he?. In other words....is it even accurate to attempt a Nolan vs. Singletary comparison....isn't it more accurate to say the comparison is Nolanasst HC Singletary vs. Singletary

Even in 2006, Nolans best season of 7-9 was still a winning percentage of only 43%.

But you are right, all the blame does not go on the HC for 05-08. The talent on the teams in his first 3 years was terrible. After the 06 season I thought Nolan was going to turn the team around...but then in 07 IMO he lost the team. The team started to collapse with him at the helm....Sing came in and lit a fire under the players that Nolan had done in 06, but then he himself some how put out in 07/08.

History will prove who is the better coach, but Sing does have the team going in the right direction again so far while at the end Nolan had them going in the wrong direction.

Originally posted by yoda76:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
What a buncha bulls**t,the shehawks are as bad as than they were last year,we have improved(fired Nolan and Martz the moron).

So basically you are saying because we got rid of Nolan and Martz....we MUST be a better team?

So how did that work out when we rid ourselves of Hostler? Erickson? Mooch?

Just because Nolan is gone doesn't mean we got any better. You can hope Sing is a superior HC to Nolan, but it is baseless. And again, how is it any different than Erickson to Nolan.....horrible head coach replaced by an unknown. It is not an answer, really it is just another question. 90% of this board was rolling with Nolan....just like 90% of this board will be cursing Sing if he has 3 s**tty years. Then what...will you be making posts how we MUST be better now because we are finally rid of Sing?

So true because we all know that the head coach has little impact on how the team plays. Did you really just make that point... foolish.

We all know that the head coaching change had nothing to do with the resurrection of teams like Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, Baltimore, and many others over the last few years.

Granted Sing is an unknown commodity and the 9ers could very well have another loosing season. Going from a known loosing commodity to an unknown promising commodity is defiantly an upgrade.

Definitely an upgrade? And I am foolish...lol. Well ok then, ALL new coaches are replacing a losing HC is definitely an upgrade.

How much you wanna bet? $5 per example? You list all the new HC's(HC's will less than 16 games) who outperform their predecessors....I will list all the ones who did not. If I am such a fool you should take this bet right.

You choose to believe Sing will prove to be an upgrade at HC, he could be the same...and it is withing the realm of possibility that he turns out to be worst. You choose to believe Sing is promising......guess who else was promising...how about EVERY SINGLE HC who has ever been hired in the NFL. Are are you proposing owners hire HC's because of their lack of promise?

Definite upgrade....ok if you say so.

There is no "definite" for any of this. But I look at it this way.

Nolan won 2 games out of 7 (28%) before getting the axe. Sing took over the exact same team and won 5 of 9 (55%).

Based on the only real comparison we can make between the two, Sing did better. Whether or not the future proves Sing better or not we don't know. But based on what we do know....Sing is an improvement.

you got to remember though the strenght of schedule was alot harder the first half than the second half. first half we play NY giants in NY , we had the eagles seahawks in seattle and a few others, we didnt even play the rams the first half the season and that like a sure win for any team which we faced twice the second half. second half is kind of odd because you guys are giving sing credit against a weaker second half with facing rams twice detroit lions ny jets at home redskins at home , only tough one was arizona in zona which we almost won but it was a easier second half.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
What a buncha bulls**t,the shehawks are as bad as than they were last year,we have improved(fired Nolan and Martz the moron).

So basically you are saying because we got rid of Nolan and Martz....we MUST be a better team?

So how did that work out when we rid ourselves of Hostler? Erickson? Mooch?

Just because Nolan is gone doesn't mean we got any better. You can hope Sing is a superior HC to Nolan, but it is baseless. And again, how is it any different than Erickson to Nolan.....horrible head coach replaced by an unknown. It is not an answer, really it is just another question. 90% of this board was rolling with Nolan....just like 90% of this board will be cursing Sing if he has 3 s**tty years. Then what...will you be making posts how we MUST be better now because we are finally rid of Sing?

So true because we all know that the head coach has little impact on how the team plays. Did you really just make that point... foolish.

We all know that the head coaching change had nothing to do with the resurrection of teams like Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, Baltimore, and many others over the last few years.

Granted Sing is an unknown commodity and the 9ers could very well have another loosing season. Going from a known loosing commodity to an unknown promising commodity is defiantly an upgrade.

Definitely an upgrade? And I am foolish...lol. Well ok then, ALL new coaches are replacing a losing HC is definitely an upgrade.

How much you wanna bet? $5 per example? You list all the new HC's(HC's will less than 16 games) who outperform their predecessors....I will list all the ones who did not. If I am such a fool you should take this bet right.

You choose to believe Sing will prove to be an upgrade at HC, he could be the same...and it is withing the realm of possibility that he turns out to be worst. You choose to believe Sing is promising......guess who else was promising...how about EVERY SINGLE HC who has ever been hired in the NFL. Are are you proposing owners hire HC's because of their lack of promise?

Definite upgrade....ok if you say so.

Really you went with grammar....... my bad on straying you with the wrong word.... I hope you recover..... also Sing could turn out to be worse..... But back to substance, I was trying to make the point that the key to a teams success is with the head coach. Teams don't go 1-15 one season and make it to the playoffs the next because they bought out free agency and drafted 7 starters. It's because they brought in a different coach that was better at getting their players to execute a successful game plan. Some times teams bring in bad coaches who can't get the job done, but the point is that the head coach will make or break any team. If you don't like Sing that's fine but what have you to assume that this will be a Nolan repeat other then your utter disbelief in the front office?