NFL.com says 49ers are one of the most dangerous 2008 non-playoff teams in 2009 | Page 2

Jul 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM

jrg
Veteran
Posts: 166,549

f**k yeah.

Jul 25, 2009 at 4:55 PM

WheresWaldo
Member
Posts: 2,440

Originally posted by AKfanster:
Originally posted by WheresWaldo:
Originally posted by AKfanster:
I can't believe what I'm reading???? Did Jamie Dukes just say something positive about the Niners??!! WOW

What did he say?

Just the fact that he mentioned us as a "dangerous" team is amazing to me. He is usally to busy pointing at Alex Smith screaming BUST to mention anything else about the team.

Dangerous is a powerful word!

Jul 25, 2009 at 4:56 PM

#18

PA9erFaithful
Veteran
Posts: 12,444

Originally posted by bigmike55:
Originally posted by AB83Rules:
Originally posted by bigmike55:
Originally posted by WheresWaldo:
Originally posted by bigmike55:
Hopefully he's better than his pops. His dad was a penny pinching douche.

It's all about penny pinching! lol

I don't mind penny pinching at the grocery store or at the shopping center, but from what I recall, Debartolo didn't mind spending money signing key players that led us to the promise land.

thats the biggest misconception with York, he has spent yr after yr that he has had the cap room, Nate, Jonas, Lewis, Justin Smith, Ron Stone, Newberry, Beasley, Tony Parrish, Hearst, all got big deals.

the only reason we didnt extend guys like TO and JP, was they wanted ludicrious deals.

So, i dont buy the penny pinching bs excuse anymore, its all pure BS IMO.

"Nate, Jonas, Lewis, Justin Smith, Ron Stone, Newberry, Beasley, Tony Parrish, Hearst"

Out of all these big signings, the only ones I think turned out positive for the 49ers are Justin Smith, Newberry, Beasley, and Hearst.

Nate Clements got 80 mill for being a hard hitting, physical corner. Michael Lewis is mediocre. Ron Stone was hurt too often, and Tony Parrish was another Michael Lewis.

That has absolutely nothing to do with John York's penny pinching image. Regardless of whether or not it works out, John York is infact willing to spend money.

Jul 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM

#19

BrodieFan
Member
Posts: 1,348

Originally posted by bigmike55:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
Why on earth would a team with two first rounders next year want to hassle with trying to rehabilitate Michael Vick? Come on.

Because we could use those two first round picks to draft stud defensive players, possibly a stud safety and defense tackle or lineman.

Vick is a playmaker, end of story. Regardless of what you feel about his off field conduct, you have to admit, he will make plays, first downs, and score touchdowns for whatever team that he lands on.

I personally wouldn't mind him. I dont think Singletary would deal with his drama though, I'm sure he would set Vick straight.

I think you're overestimating his effectiveness, especially after sitting for a couple of years. He was never that accurate and the only plays he really made consistently were with his feet. Maybe he'd be a good wildcat formation guy. I think he's over-rated.

Jul 25, 2009 at 5:00 PM

#20

jon_aztecs12
Veteran
Posts: 818

thats very good

Jul 25, 2009 at 5:17 PM

#21

bigmike55
Veteran
Posts: 3,474

Originally posted by BrodieFan:
Originally posted by bigmike55:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
Why on earth would a team with two first rounders next year want to hassle with trying to rehabilitate Michael Vick? Come on.

Because we could use those two first round picks to draft stud defensive players, possibly a stud safety and defense tackle or lineman.

Vick is a playmaker, end of story. Regardless of what you feel about his off field conduct, you have to admit, he will make plays, first downs, and score touchdowns for whatever team that he lands on.

I personally wouldn't mind him. I dont think Singletary would deal with his drama though, I'm sure he would set Vick straight.

I think you're overestimating his effectiveness, especially after sitting for a couple of years. He was never that accurate and the only plays he really made consistently were with his feet. Maybe he'd be a good wildcat formation guy. I think he's over-rated.

I never said I would want Vick as QB. I would much rather him play as a RB/Slasher/Kick Return/Punt Return player.

Jul 25, 2009 at 7:22 PM

#22

tohara3
Veteran
Posts: 28,604

Good to hear i think we are gonna be a very dangerous team

Jul 25, 2009 at 7:39 PM

#23

BHulman
Veteran
Posts: 4,338

Originally posted by bigmike55:
Originally posted by WheresWaldo:
Originally posted by bigmike55:
Hopefully he's better than his pops. His dad was a penny pinching douche.

It's all about penny pinching! lol

I don't mind penny pinching at the grocery store or at the shopping center, but from what I recall, Debartolo didn't mind spending money signing key players that led us to the promise land.

For a lot of the glory years Eddie didn't have to deal with the salary cap. The free-spending ways (under master "capologist Carmen Policy) helped win the Niners win in 95 but it was the free-spending (under the new rules) that actually caused a lot of the problems down the road.

[ Edited by BHulman on Jul 25, 2009 at 19:39:38 ]

Jul 25, 2009 at 7:40 PM

#24

mod
Veteran
Posts: 41,089

Eddie D would sign Vick?

Jul 25, 2009 at 8:42 PM

#25

Yetiman
Veteran
Posts: 432

Originally posted by modninerfan:
Eddie D would sign Vick?

Eddie might have considered it, but Bill probably wouldn't have gone for it.

Jul 25, 2009 at 9:11 PM

#26

Oakland-Niner
Member
Posts: 24,062

Just for the fact Sing is the coach the Niners will get respect from analysts, especially ones that use to play in the league.

Anyone who watches NFL network knows that whenever Coach Sing's name comes up the players/analysts gush over him.

Dukes has crazy respect for Sing.

Jul 25, 2009 at 9:23 PM

#27

SamSkee415Niner
Info N/A

Originally posted by BrodieFan:
Why on earth would a team with two first rounders next year want to hassle with trying to rehabilitate Michael Vick? Come on.

I agree! Signing M.Vick is like signing M.Martz again a mistake for a resolution that wont work! Two first rounders next year could be the key if our qb's progress and get better. I still think A.Smith has a chance to be pretty good still, but he wont start unless S.Hill gets hurt imo.

Jul 25, 2009 at 9:43 PM

#28

global_nomad
Veteran
Posts: 14,827

In the words of one Michael Singletary, "Don't Tell Me, Show Me"

[ Edited by global_nomad on Jul 25, 2009 at 21:47:41 ]

Jul 26, 2009 at 6:11 AM

#29

Grigga2021
Veteran
Posts: 1,089

Originally posted by AKfanster:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
Why on earth would a team with two first rounders next year want to hassle with trying to rehabilitate Michael Vick? Come on.

Ya, I'm about tired of hearing "Vick" and "49ers" in the same senctence. I'd rather take my chances with Huard than Vick

Thats statement is just plain ridiculous

Jul 26, 2009 at 2:17 PM

#30

BillWalsh
Veteran
Posts: 181

Originally posted by bigmike55:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
Why on earth would a team with two first rounders next year want to hassle with trying to rehabilitate Michael Vick? Come on.

Because we could use those two first round picks to draft stud defensive players, possibly a stud safety and defense tackle or lineman.

Vick is a playmaker, end of story. Regardless of what you feel about his off field conduct, you have to admit, he will make plays, first downs, and score touchdowns for whatever team that he lands on.

I personally wouldn't mind him. I dont think Singletary would deal with his drama though, I'm sure he would set Vick straight.

Vick will have trouble scratching 50 percent completion percentage on his throws. He is usually one of the most sacked QB's in football. He hasn't played football for 2 years and lead a dog fighting ring for years before being busted. He's 6 feet tall and has trouble finding his recievers over his linemen's heads and is an injury waiting to happen seeing how he hasn't taken a hit in 2 years. I would rather have Alex Smith starting the entire season then sign Vick.