There are 152 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Jason Whitlock- Crabtree and Deion

If the Niners hold on to Charles Haley and Deion Sanders the Cowboys lose a few Superbowl trophies.


Btw: Losing Sanders and Ricky Watters after the Superbowl sucked.
Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
Originally posted by Schulzy:
Originally posted by Imfasterrthanurr:
Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
Quote:
In my book, Master P did a better job representing Ricky Williams than Master D did advising Michael Crabtree, Dez Bryant, Pacman Jones, Tank Johnson and Deangelo Hall.





(Looks at Bold names)

That's quite a group huh?



i hope crabtree breaks that trend of disasters...... oh my goodness deion what are you telling these guys???

Wow, I had no idea Deion was mounting such a trail of disaster. I'm worried that he has a player on our team. Crabs needs to break all ties with him ASAP.

[ Edited by LAFortyNinerfan on Oct 9, 2009 at 13:35:05 ]
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Multibomber:
Simply put: If it wasn't for Deion Sanders, the 49ers would have only 4 Super Bowl victories and the Jets would have Michael Crabtree after he was done sitting out this entire year. We should be kissing his ass!!... With an assist to MC Hammer, thanks as well Hammer!

Very simply put. And with no justification at all for the SB fiction.

That team was perfectly good enough with or without Sanders to go the whole way.

Which team was going to stop us and how?

My general argument is the strength and depth of the whole tram. Steve, Jerry, Watters, Floyd, JT, Brent, and the entire D.

My specific argument? The DBs. Hanks, Timmy Mac, Hall, Cook, Davis and Drakeford. Oh yes, and Sanders.

Good player? Oh yes. Nice to have? Certainly. The difference between winning the SB and not? Give me a break.

Agree, for the most part. However, his impact in the 94 championship was pretty significant. As you may recall, the Cowboys had planned to get Harper the ball early and often, assuming that Deion would be covering Irvin. Ray Rhodes, in a stroke of defensive brilliance, instead put Deion on Harper. This totally confused the Cowboys and led to three turnovers in the first quarter. In this case, Deion's mere presence on the field changed the course of the game. Having Deion in the secondary that season certainly influenced the defensive strategy and allowed Rhodes to do some things he may not have been able to otherwise. Would we have gone all the way without him? Who knows? We were super talented - but it is a game of inches.
Originally posted by Rojo49:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Multibomber:
Simply put: If it wasn't for Deion Sanders, the 49ers would have only 4 Super Bowl victories and the Jets would have Michael Crabtree after he was done sitting out this entire year. We should be kissing his ass!!... With an assist to MC Hammer, thanks as well Hammer!

Very simply put. And with no justification at all for the SB fiction.

That team was perfectly good enough with or without Sanders to go the whole way.

Which team was going to stop us and how?

My general argument is the strength and depth of the whole tram. Steve, Jerry, Watters, Floyd, JT, Brent, and the entire D.

My specific argument? The DBs. Hanks, Timmy Mac, Hall, Cook, Davis and Drakeford. Oh yes, and Sanders.

Good player? Oh yes. Nice to have? Certainly. The difference between winning the SB and not? Give me a break.

Agree, for the most part. However, his impact in the 94 championship was pretty significant. As you may recall, the Cowboys had planned to get Harper the ball early and often, assuming that Deion would be covering Irvin. Ray Rhodes, in a stroke of defensive brilliance, instead put Deion on Harper. This totally confused the Cowboys and led to three turnovers in the first quarter. In this case, Deion's mere presence on the field changed the course of the game. Having Deion in the secondary that season certainly influenced the defensive strategy and allowed Rhodes to do some things he may not have been able to otherwise. Would we have gone all the way without him? Who knows? We were super talented - but it is a game of inches.

It's a given that Deion was a great corner. No one is questioning is impact as a player, rather it's is impact as a player turned mentor where he appears to have become a problem.
No offense meant if you wrote that RL, but I think that you need to add a link somewhere in there if it was indeed an article written by someone else.

If not great job. I still like Deion but he's not a very good mentor. Or the people that he's been mentoring haven't been hearing anything more than "you're the $4|t".

~Ceadder
Originally posted by Ceadderman:
No offense meant if you wrote that RL, but I think that you need to add a link somewhere in there if it was indeed an article written by someone else.

If not great job. I still like Deion but he's not a very good mentor. Or the people that he's been mentoring haven't been hearing anything more than "you're the $4|t".

~Ceadder

What's to like? His previous skills as a player do not make up for the fact the he is a total clown, and like Whitlock said, a religious con man.
Originally posted by nflguy49:
If the Niners hold on to Charles Haley and Deion Sanders the Cowboys lose a few Superbowl trophies.


Btw: Losing Sanders and Ricky Watters after the Superbowl sucked.

Yeah. I think that Watters was an idiot for leaving though.

Bare with me here.

The man was the FEATURED Back with a team that just won the Super Bowl. But his problem was that he wanted more touches. He wasn't going to see much more than he was already getting but had he stayed the 9er Offense doesn't skip a beat.

Losing Deion hurt but I think that we could have done fine without him. It really didn't change much of the Defensive scheme to be honest. Because remember that Deion didn't get to us til later in the season. The Defense was struggling for an identity before he came in. After he left they knew their identity so I don't believe Deion was as much of a factor as some would suggest.

Now Haley is another matter entirely. THAT hurt.

~Ceadder
Originally posted by Rojo49:
Originally posted by Ceadderman:
No offense meant if you wrote that RL, but I think that you need to add a link somewhere in there if it was indeed an article written by someone else.

If not great job. I still like Deion but he's not a very good mentor. Or the people that he's been mentoring haven't been hearing anything more than "you're the $4|t".

~Ceadder

What's to like? His previous skills as a player do not make up for the fact the he is a total clown, and like Whitlock said, a religious con man.

And yet I still like the guy. I didn't say that I disagree, just that I still like the guy. He's charismatic. If he wasn't I would probably be the first person not to like him. But the guy can be a clown and get away with it because he's genuinely likeable. I'm sure that you know people in your life that get away with murder(figuratively of course) because they make people laugh. That's Deion to a T.

~Ceadder
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by Rojo49:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Multibomber:
Simply put: If it wasn't for Deion Sanders, the 49ers would have only 4 Super Bowl victories and the Jets would have Michael Crabtree after he was done sitting out this entire year. We should be kissing his ass!!... With an assist to MC Hammer, thanks as well Hammer!

Very simply put. And with no justification at all for the SB fiction.

That team was perfectly good enough with or without Sanders to go the whole way.

Which team was going to stop us and how?

My general argument is the strength and depth of the whole tram. Steve, Jerry, Watters, Floyd, JT, Brent, and the entire D.

My specific argument? The DBs. Hanks, Timmy Mac, Hall, Cook, Davis and Drakeford. Oh yes, and Sanders.

Good player? Oh yes. Nice to have? Certainly. The difference between winning the SB and not? Give me a break.

Agree, for the most part. However, his impact in the 94 championship was pretty significant. As you may recall, the Cowboys had planned to get Harper the ball early and often, assuming that Deion would be covering Irvin. Ray Rhodes, in a stroke of defensive brilliance, instead put Deion on Harper. This totally confused the Cowboys and led to three turnovers in the first quarter. In this case, Deion's mere presence on the field changed the course of the game. Having Deion in the secondary that season certainly influenced the defensive strategy and allowed Rhodes to do some things he may not have been able to otherwise. Would we have gone all the way without him? Who knows? We were super talented - but it is a game of inches.

It's a given that Deion was a great corner. No one is questioning is impact as a player, rather it's is impact as a player turned mentor where he appears to have become a problem.

Maybe its the other way around, maybe he's trying to mentor these guys because they really need it! You think Tim Tebow needs someone to tell him how to be a responsible adult and how to handle his business? Probably not. Someone like Darren McFadden, who has one brother who is a Crip and another brother who is a Blood, AND has a crack-addicted mother, thats a guy who needs mentoring. So if someone tries to mentor a guy like that and fails, is it really the mentor's fault??

So by my count, Deion won us a Super Bowl by shutting down the Cowboys, then tries to help young guys who dont have the skills to deal with fame and money, AND helps us sign Crabtree... and you wanna get all mad at him???
Originally posted by nflguy49:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Multibomber:
Simply put: If it wasn't for Deion Sanders, the 49ers would have only 4 Super Bowl victories and the Jets would have Michael Crabtree after he was done sitting out this entire year. We should be kissing his ass!!... With an assist to MC Hammer, thanks as well Hammer!

Very simply put. And with no justification at all for the SB fiction.

That team was perfectly good enough with or without Sanders to go the whole way.

Which team was going to stop us and how?

My general argument is the strength and depth of the whole tram. Steve, Jerry, Watters, Floyd, JT, Brent, and the entire D.

My specific argument? The DBs. Hanks, Timmy Mac, Hall, Cook, Davis and Drakeford. Oh yes, and Sanders.

Good player? Oh yes. Nice to have? Certainly. The difference between winning the SB and not? Give me a break.


The 49ers had a great team that year no doubt. However, Sanders put an end to Alvin Harper killing us in the playoffs (he had one catch) and also prevented Irvin from having a big day. I think Sanders was the difference. Why do you think the Cowboys broke the bank to get him the next offseason???

As good as that team was before Deion, they couldn't get it done against the Cowboys. Deion was the premier shut-down corner of that era and think he had a lot to do with the Niners finally beating the Boys in that NFC title game. I remember going berserk when Eric Davis took that interception to the house. I think it made a big difference to have Sanders (locked man to man) on the other side of the field.
Originally posted by BHulman:
Originally posted by nflguy49:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Multibomber:
Simply put: If it wasn't for Deion Sanders, the 49ers would have only 4 Super Bowl victories and the Jets would have Michael Crabtree after he was done sitting out this entire year. We should be kissing his ass!!... With an assist to MC Hammer, thanks as well Hammer!

Very simply put. And with no justification at all for the SB fiction.

That team was perfectly good enough with or without Sanders to go the whole way.

Which team was going to stop us and how?

My general argument is the strength and depth of the whole tram. Steve, Jerry, Watters, Floyd, JT, Brent, and the entire D.

My specific argument? The DBs. Hanks, Timmy Mac, Hall, Cook, Davis and Drakeford. Oh yes, and Sanders.

Good player? Oh yes. Nice to have? Certainly. The difference between winning the SB and not? Give me a break.


The 49ers had a great team that year no doubt. However, Sanders put an end to Alvin Harper killing us in the playoffs (he had one catch) and also prevented Irvin from having a big day. I think Sanders was the difference. Why do you think the Cowboys broke the bank to get him the next offseason???

As good as that team was before Deion, they couldn't get it done against the Cowboys. Deion was the premier shut-down corner of that era and think he had a lot to do with the Niners finally beating the Boys in that NFC title game. I remember going berserk when Eric Davis took that interception to the house. I think it made a big difference to have Sanders (locked man to man) on the other side of the field.

I was at that game and it was one Huge pick.
Originally posted by Multibomber:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by Rojo49:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Multibomber:
Simply put: If it wasn't for Deion Sanders, the 49ers would have only 4 Super Bowl victories and the Jets would have Michael Crabtree after he was done sitting out this entire year. We should be kissing his ass!!... With an assist to MC Hammer, thanks as well Hammer!

Very simply put. And with no justification at all for the SB fiction.

That team was perfectly good enough with or without Sanders to go the whole way.

Which team was going to stop us and how?

My general argument is the strength and depth of the whole tram. Steve, Jerry, Watters, Floyd, JT, Brent, and the entire D.

My specific argument? The DBs. Hanks, Timmy Mac, Hall, Cook, Davis and Drakeford. Oh yes, and Sanders.

Good player? Oh yes. Nice to have? Certainly. The difference between winning the SB and not? Give me a break.

Agree, for the most part. However, his impact in the 94 championship was pretty significant. As you may recall, the Cowboys had planned to get Harper the ball early and often, assuming that Deion would be covering Irvin. Ray Rhodes, in a stroke of defensive brilliance, instead put Deion on Harper. This totally confused the Cowboys and led to three turnovers in the first quarter. In this case, Deion's mere presence on the field changed the course of the game. Having Deion in the secondary that season certainly influenced the defensive strategy and allowed Rhodes to do some things he may not have been able to otherwise. Would we have gone all the way without him? Who knows? We were super talented - but it is a game of inches.

It's a given that Deion was a great corner. No one is questioning is impact as a player, rather it's is impact as a player turned mentor where he appears to have become a problem.

Maybe its the other way around, maybe he's trying to mentor these guys because they really need it! You think Tim Tebow needs someone to tell him how to be a responsible adult and how to handle his business? Probably not. Someone like Darren McFadden, who has one brother who is a Crip and another brother who is a Blood, AND has a crack-addicted mother, thats a guy who needs mentoring. So if someone tries to mentor a guy like that and fails, is it really the mentor's fault??

So by my count, Deion won us a Super Bowl by shutting down the Cowboys, then tries to help young guys who dont have the skills to deal with fame and money, AND helps us sign Crabtree... and you wanna get all mad at him???

Come on! You can't be serious. As far as I know Crabs was neither in a gang or had legal issues. It appears Crabs have plenty of people, too many people, willing to mentor him. Those mentors may need to keep their mouths shut, but Deion did him no favors either by mouthing off publicly about teams willing to pay him.

I also don't think you would believe Dez Bryant needed the type of mentorship that led him being deemed ineligible by the NCAA.

But I'm guessing you're not serious when saying. No one can make a serious post and say something like "Deion won us a Super Bowl." He was great that year but that's a grossly shortsighted count. I understand though, playing devil's advocate can be fun.