Reading the SI NFL Preview...

I figure this is KINDA late, given that it's SI's NFL preview rag, but it is their most recent issue. So bare with me here...

Alright, first of all I hardly if EVER agree with Peter King. So imagine my surprise as I'm scanning through the 2nd page of our preview when I see this...

"Candidates are well known... 8th year vet (Hill) who played in 9 games, Smith (no 1 dp 4 years ago) who has battled injuries and inconsistencies (amongst other things not mentioned, thanks King ), staged a competition in Camp that Hill won mostly because Singletary perceived him to be less likely to turn the ball over. Even so Hill's hold on the position is precarious-Smith is the more talented of the two..." ~(George Dohrmann, S.I., September 7th, 2009)

Is everyone with me so far? Now this is and was not intended to get some free for all going in the least. I'm just pointing out that the "competition" was not won in hands down fashion, as many people have openly stated.

Now for the things that I did NOT agree with, first off season record. He has us at 6-11. This while stating that our strength of schedule is 28th. Ummm if our strength of schedule is ranked 28th and we face SEVEN playoff teams from last year (which stymies me as to how our SoS is ranked 28th) then how do a) we have a worse record (based on a 28th ranked SoS) or b) Even HAVE that rank to begin with.

Now to be fair, I've stated all along after we won those games with Hill at the helm, that we ambushed teams. Actually we didn't actually ambush them in the literal sense of the term (given that all teams study film) but realistically we did. So I can see how we could be looking at 6-11. However given Sing's unflinching attitude or pulling a guy if he's not getting things done, I don't see how 6-11 is such a simple prediction. Cause I seriously do NOT see him sticking with anyone that is hurting our chances at getting to .500 or better. No matter who they are. Whether it's Shaun or Duke or, random little guy on the team. If we are losing 2 or 3 games in a row, Sing is GOING to send in the hook. This is not something that is debatable with him. He's got 3 instances that show that he WILL make the move if he feels it is to the betterment of the team.

So there it is I've put up two things that I found myself pondering about after reading King's article. One that I agreed with and the other that I'm at a loss as to how he could use numbers that clearly cancel out, and then make the prediction he did. And as you can see I'm not making this about two guys but about the ARTICLE itself.

So I hope that everyone can keep the interaction pleasant and not get into a flame war over anything stated. I posted it cause I care.

*Edit* I should point out that this thing went to bed before Marvel Smith turned in his retirement papers. Which I think was more due to him being Snyder's backup than just about his personal health.

~Ceadder

This topic should be merged in with the GAY MAN LOVE thread.

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:
This topic should be merged in with the GAY MAN LOVE thread.

Why? Do you cruise the lonely hearts section in the paper or something?

Seriously though, what's with the personal attack? Show me where I even INSTIGATED such an action in this thread.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:
This topic should be merged in with the GAY MAN LOVE thread.

Why? Do you cruise the lonely hearts section in the paper or something?

Seriously though, what's with the personal attack? Show me where I even INSTIGATED such an action in this thread.


~Ceadder

This...

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

"Candidates are well known... 8th year vet (Hill) who played in 9 games, Smith (no 1 dp 4 years ago) who has battled injuries and inconsistencies (amongst other things not mentioned, thanks King ), staged a competition in Camp that Hill won mostly because Singletary perceived him to be less likely to turn the ball over. Even so Hill's hold on the position is precarious-Smith is the more talented of the two..." ~(Peter King S.I. September 7th, 2009)

Is everyone with me so far? Now this is and was not intended to get some free for all going in the least. I'm just pointing out that the "competition" was not won in hands down fashion, as many people have openly stated.

...And your constant usage of emoticons.

~Snake

The thread just makes no sense.

No one ever said Hill won the job hands down.

And many people see us going 6-10.

Whats the long thread for?

Hill is not a very good QB.

Smith is a horrible QB.

Sing went with the less crappy of the two.

I haven't seen anyone all puffed up talking about how Hill whooped
a$$ in the QB comp.

What's your point?

Yeah, he contradicts himself by saying our SOS is ranked low, yet we'll only finish 6-11. I see us as a middle-of-the-road team going either 7-9 or 9-7 and having many close games. We're not as bad as 2-14 or 4-12 as earlier this decade, but we're still a ways away at being a legit playoff team.

I'll have to say that Peter King, like most national writers, is spread too thin to have any real clue as to what is happening in 49er-land.

In other words, mostly he's useless. His thoughts and opinions matter very little to me.

6-11 is impossible. theres only 16 games in a season unless we win the west with 6 wins and lose first round of playoffs, lol

Originally posted by mcbaes72:
Yeah, he contradicts himself by saying our SOS is ranked low, yet we'll only finish 6-11. I see us as a middle-of-the-road team going either 7-9 or 9-7 and having many close games. We're not as bad as 2-14 or 4-12 as earlier this decade, but we're still a ways away at being a legit playoff team.

I'm editing the post becuase it was not King that wrote the article. Nevermind that his name is all over the rest of the Preview (along with some other writers thrown in for good measure). In fact it was George Dohrmann that penned it.

My apologies to George if he's reading this, not my intent to give someone else credit for another's work.

Anyway... I see the same things but apparently some people are too anal retentive about things so they gotta make personal attacks. My bad, I guess I gotta go turn in my 49ers fan card now.

~Ceadder

imo smith outplayed hill in preseason, but he had to completely out shine him. which i think is bs. but if the 2 walked on this year and were in the qb comp smith would have won..... but thats not what happened hence hill the starter.

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:
This topic should be merged in with the GAY MAN LOVE thread.

Really isn't it time for the Smith lovers to move on the Nates Jock!

Originally posted by fan49:
imo smith outplayed hill in preseason, but he had to completely out shine him. which i think is bs. but if the 2 walked on this year and were in the qb comp smith would have won..... but thats not what happened hence hill the starter.

Good to know I can no discount your opinion from here on out! LOL

Originally posted by Adman:
The thread just makes no sense.

Quote:
No one ever said Hill won the job hands down.

Do I really have to wade through the mountains of posts on this? I don't think so, but I will if you insist.

Quote:
And many people see us going 6-10.

Not if they are quoting the Strength of Schedule they aren't. The reason is because being that we have the 28th toughest ranked schedule. So this said it SHOULD lead one to believe that we should be in the middle of the pack not 6-11. Which is not a middle of the pack record unless the middle tier is below .500.

Quote:
What's the long thread for?

You post how you want to post and I'll post how I want to. Okay?

~Ceadder

Originally posted by GolittaCamper:

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:
This topic should be merged in with the GAY MAN LOVE thread.

Really isn't it time for the Smith lovers to move on the Nates Jock!

Why? There isn't room enough for anyone else since you're slobbering all over it.

Geez, apparently you have to have an IQ below 50 to be respected in this forum.

Otherwise you're labeled with homophobic slander and mocked for pointing out things. Even when there is NO agenda involved.

I apologize if I was raised to have an intelligent debate without name calling. Who knew those weren't the requirements for interaction on the Zone. I guess the mods should readjust the ToS to reflect that.

And I'll make this a twofer. Snake you can petition the mods to remove the emos' from the Zone since you don't like them being used so liberally.

~Ceadder