There are 148 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Do Passive Fans Make a Franchise Unsuccessful ?

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Originally posted by danimal:
lets get specific then.

Who here thinks it was stupid of the 49ers to only draft 1 QB in the first round this decade while we kept losing?

If you agree that was stupid, who do you blame more? The multiple GMs who went another direction year in and year out, the multiple GM's and coaches who took too long to recognize their current QB's would never pan out...or the owner who hired said GM's and coaches?

Personally I put the blame on the owner. Ultimately you have to keep your brand relevant. I think good owners know when to intervene. And I think a good fan base and local media can help push an owner into intervention

Losing teams + lackluster effort to acquire a QB = you deserve to lose

Fair questions, here's my take:

As far as player decisions are concerned, the GM takes the blame. Why? Because his job can be in jeopardy. As much as some people would like to, you can't fire an owner. Personally, I blame Terry Donahue and Mike Nolan for a lot of the problems this team has had this decade, but that's just my opinion.

I don't think media and fans can/do/should have ANY affect on what direction an owner or GM takes with a team, especially when it comes to decisions on players. The overwhelming majority of fans and media don't know nearly enough about football to make or even influence personnel decisions. Hell I'm sure that there are plenty of owners that know little more about the intricacies of football than most fans.

I mainly agree with your point. I just think top picked QB's are the exception. Owners are not involved in player decisions; but there are exceptions.

a smart GM is going to at least run it by the big guy that he is planning on signing T.O.!! I think owners ARE involved in high profile players and top QB prospects.

I envision even the most hands off owner calling the GM into his office. "Look; we missed the playoffs again; I read in the papers that many people think our QB sucks.......I want a new QB drafted ASAP
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Originally posted by danimal:
lets get specific then.

Who here thinks it was stupid of the 49ers to only draft 1 QB in the first round this decade while we kept losing?

If you agree that was stupid, who do you blame more? The multiple GMs who went another direction year in and year out, the multiple GM's and coaches who took too long to recognize their current QB's would never pan out...or the owner who hired said GM's and coaches?

Personally I put the blame on the owner. Ultimately you have to keep your brand relevant. I think good owners know when to intervene. And I think a good fan base and local media can help push an owner into intervention

Losing teams + lackluster effort to acquire a QB = you deserve to lose

Fair questions, here's my take:

As far as player decisions are concerned, the GM takes the blame. Why? Because his job can be in jeopardy. As much as some people would like to, you can't fire an owner. Personally, I blame Terry Donahue and Mike Nolan for a lot of the problems this team has had this decade, but that's just my opinion.

I don't think media and fans can/do/should have ANY affect on what direction an owner or GM takes with a team, especially when it comes to decisions on players. The overwhelming majority of fans and media don't know nearly enough about football to make or even influence personnel decisions. Hell I'm sure that there are plenty of owners that know little more about the intricacies of football than most fans.

I mainly agree with your point. I just think top picked QB's are the exception. Owners are not involved in player decisions; but there are exceptions.

a smart GM is going to at least run it by the big guy that he is planning on signing T.O.!! I think owners ARE involved in high profile players and top QB prospects.

I envision even the most hands off owner calling the GM into his office. "Look; we missed the playoffs again; I read in the papers that many people think our QB sucks.......I want a new QB drafted ASAP

I'm sure plenty of owners at least want to have an opinion, but there's a fine line, or you just end up being another Al Davis, and we know how that's worked out for the Raiders recently. A good owner knows his limitations, and I think the best owners try their best to put good football people in the right positions, and trust them to do their jobs.
Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Originally posted by danimal:
lets get specific then.

Who here thinks it was stupid of the 49ers to only draft 1 QB in the first round this decade while we kept losing?

If you agree that was stupid, who do you blame more? The multiple GMs who went another direction year in and year out, the multiple GM's and coaches who took too long to recognize their current QB's would never pan out...or the owner who hired said GM's and coaches?

Personally I put the blame on the owner. Ultimately you have to keep your brand relevant. I think good owners know when to intervene. And I think a good fan base and local media can help push an owner into intervention

Losing teams + lackluster effort to acquire a QB = you deserve to lose

Fair questions, here's my take:

As far as player decisions are concerned, the GM takes the blame. Why? Because his job can be in jeopardy. As much as some people would like to, you can't fire an owner. Personally, I blame Terry Donahue and Mike Nolan for a lot of the problems this team has had this decade, but that's just my opinion.

I don't think media and fans can/do/should have ANY affect on what direction an owner or GM takes with a team, especially when it comes to decisions on players. The overwhelming majority of fans and media don't know nearly enough about football to make or even influence personnel decisions. Hell I'm sure that there are plenty of owners that know little more about the intricacies of football than most fans.

I mainly agree with your point. I just think top picked QB's are the exception. Owners are not involved in player decisions; but there are exceptions.

a smart GM is going to at least run it by the big guy that he is planning on signing T.O.!! I think owners ARE involved in high profile players and top QB prospects.

I envision even the most hands off owner calling the GM into his office. "Look; we missed the playoffs again; I read in the papers that many people think our QB sucks.......I want a new QB drafted ASAP

I'm sure plenty of owners at least want to have an opinion, but there's a fine line, or you just end up being another Al Davis, and we know how that's worked out for the Raiders recently. A good owner knows his limitations, and I think the best owners try their best to put good football people in the right positions, and trust them to do their jobs.

You just said it better than i ever could.

-9fA
  • ZRF80
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,551
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by danimal:
I am not too sure. But it does certainly seems the East has better sports franchises. And their fans are more hardcore. Go to more games; watch more games; buy more stuff; are more vocal.

So I have a hard to time believing they are not directly related.

I don't think the Eastern fans strike or anything like that, but it does seem that the owners of those franchises actively try to avoid their fanbase being too unhappy for too long.

The Yorks clearly don't care what we think. If I am not mistaken we only drafted 1 QB in the 1st round this decade. Is that right? What kind of franchise only drafts 1 QB in a decade where you are missing the playoffs annually? Stupid? I know people would like to believe that; but I know they are not stupid; they are satisfied. They are satisfied with the profits they reap and have no wish to change anything

What the hell do the Yorks have to do with drafting QBs?

-9fA

OK you are right. Ownership has nothing to do with the decision to draft a face of the franchise type of QB

Good ownership lets the football people make the football decisions.

lets get specific then.

Who here thinks it was stupid of the 49ers to only draft 1 QB in the first round this decade while we kept losing?

If you agree that was stupid, who do you blame more? The multiple GMs who went another direction year in and year out, the multiple GM's and coaches who took too long to recognize their current QB's would never pan out...or the owner who hired said GM's and coaches?

Personally I put the blame on the owner. Ultimately you have to keep your brand relevant. I think good owners know when to intervene. And I think a good fan base and local media can help push an owner into intervention

Losing teams + lackluster effort to acquire a QB = you deserve to lose


Im glad to see that at least some of you understood my post. While the rest babble on about fans not being involved in drafts or signing FA (thus missing the point completely), you represent the few that understand that fans do have an impact on a franchise's success. Although we may not decide who gets hired, etc., owners do take our suuport into consideration.

The Cowboys, Steelers, and Giants have remained successful (please dont give me BS stats from the 1930, folks...........and none of those teams have had a 7 year playoff drought since the NFL became a national passtime eg 1970s) because their owners are pressured by the media and the fanbase to sport successful franchises. This is not an educated guess or a hunch; this is fact.

When fans like ours sit back and smile over the mediocrity of the team, do you think York ever has a sleepless night over the state of the franchise ?
no
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by danimal:
I am not too sure. But it does certainly seems the East has better sports franchises. And their fans are more hardcore. Go to more games; watch more games; buy more stuff; are more vocal.

So I have a hard to time believing they are not directly related.

I don't think the Eastern fans strike or anything like that, but it does seem that the owners of those franchises actively try to avoid their fanbase being too unhappy for too long.

The Yorks clearly don't care what we think. If I am not mistaken we only drafted 1 QB in the 1st round this decade. Is that right? What kind of franchise only drafts 1 QB in a decade where you are missing the playoffs annually? Stupid? I know people would like to believe that; but I know they are not stupid; they are satisfied. They are satisfied with the profits they reap and have no wish to change anything

What the hell do the Yorks have to do with drafting QBs?

-9fA

OK you are right. Ownership has nothing to do with the decision to draft a face of the franchise type of QB

Good ownership lets the football people make the football decisions.

lets get specific then.

Who here thinks it was stupid of the 49ers to only draft 1 QB in the first round this decade while we kept losing?

If you agree that was stupid, who do you blame more? The multiple GMs who went another direction year in and year out, the multiple GM's and coaches who took too long to recognize their current QB's would never pan out...or the owner who hired said GM's and coaches?

Personally I put the blame on the owner. Ultimately you have to keep your brand relevant. I think good owners know when to intervene. And I think a good fan base and local media can help push an owner into intervention

Losing teams + lackluster effort to acquire a QB = you deserve to lose


Im glad to see that at least some of you understood my post. While the rest babble on about fans not being involved in drafts or signing FA (thus missing the point completely), you represent the few that understand that fans do have an impact on a franchise's success. Although we may not decide who gets hired, etc., owners do take our suuport into consideration.

The Cowboys, Steelers, and Giants have remained successful (please dont give me BS stats from the 1930, folks...........and none of those teams have had a 7 year playoff drought since the NFL became a national passtime eg 1970s) because their owners are pressured by the media and the fanbase to sport successful franchises. This is not an educated guess or a hunch; this is fact.

When fans like ours sit back and smile over the mediocrity of the team, do you think York ever has a sleepless night over the state of the franchise ?


The Giants made the playoffs one time in 20 years before Parcells got there in 1983. The Jets made playoffs just once in 11 years before Parcells got there in 1997 and had another 10+ year drought through the 70's. The Steelers missed the playoffs six out of Noll's last seven years. The Eagles had a 17 year playoff drought before Vermeil got there. Bad runs happen to most franchises.

That being said . . . it's time for this one to end.
Passive owners do.
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Fans have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Good franchises don't make football decisions based on the opinions of armchair GM fans that think they know something about football. The ones that do are a complete joke.

Agreed.

I'm not quite so sure what affect fans have in the success or lack of success of a football team.

You don't like what you're seeing? Don't go to games and don't watch them on TV. I'll watch the 49ers, win or lose.

-9fA

Same here brother! This is my team until I die! (Hopefully that will be a long time from this post!!!!!)