Originally posted by mississippi_sam:
What upsets me most is that we are so thin at RB and TE. Also, I think Rossum was our best return man, and that we should have kept him and let Jason Hill or Michael Spurlock go instead, especially after signing Crabtree.
I feel like McCloughan has not made the right personnel choices at times, and quite frankly has left many of us scratching our heads.
Look at our team's offensive philosophy:
Hard nosed running between the tackles, ball control, safe passes.
Mostly 2RB, 2WR sets. Some 2TE sets. Very few 3WR sets.
Now look at our personnel.
3RBs (Including MROB who really is exclusively a special teams player)
What's going on here? Kory Sheets was let go (and not that he ever proved anything, but he did show a little promise). Didn't we have 4 TEs back in July? Pascoe and another guy who was playing better than Pascoe? We cut 2 of our 4 TEs in favor of keeping all these WRs?
And on the defensive side of things, we have 7 D-Linemen for our 3-4 defense (not sure if that's the norm). We also have 10DBs, including 5 safeties and 5 corners (not including Walt Harris)(not sure if that's the norm either).
But I am certain of this:
2 RBs (I exclude MROB) and 2TEs is just plain WRONG for this type of offensive philosophy.
I thought a GM is supposed to build a depth chart based on the team's philosophy. Maybe he isn't sold on the philosophy. Heck I don't know what's going on.
Be careful, there are a lot of McCloughan apologists here. You can incur the wrath of the McCloughanites who are convinced he walks on water. Well maybe that's true relative to Terry Donahue, but when you compare McCloughan with other team's progress throughout the league you begin to ask questions. I was going to cite facts, articles and other analysis by MM and others around the NFL but in the end those who know what's up don't need to be convinced. It would be a futile exercise. Just like there are good GMs out there, there are mediocre and even bad ones. IMHO, I think we have a below average GM.
Although I think your analysis here are more coaching decisions, I was one who believed last March the stated target personnel issues would be addressed:
You'll immediately hear how there were no FA available, etc. However, it's just interesting to me - again comparing the 49ers to other teams around the league - seem to address their needs through creative means but we always seem to be on the outside looking in.
The off-season decisions that were made - Brandon Jones (ask any Tennessee fan, he was injury prone prior to signing) , Marvel Smith (coming off of a number of back surgeries), and standing pat and trying to say Jimmy Williams "was big enough (and talented enough) for safety", and thinking Manny Lawson was a bona fide pass-rusher despite never showing that ability during his entire career here.
So why sign players projected to be starters with a history of being injury-prone? That's where the questions begin about talent acquisition. I could talk about the draft, etc.
The 49ers will become a better team when we can have both a GM and a Director of Player Personnel, where the GM has real authority with the coaching and ultimately can vet personnel decisions. Few men can, as Parcells would say "buy the groceries" for the dinner but that's a very rare group in the NFL these days. If league trends mean anything, organizations are moving AWAY from this model, not to it. Few teams give their coaches, especially new head coaches, total control over the organization either in name or in effect.
[ Edited by NinerGM on Oct 24, 2009 at 10:45 PM ]