fire the OL coach

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by BobS:
He probably keeps his job because a replacement would cost more money, as long as the Yorks are in charge everyone needs to get used to the idea of not having a very good coaching staff. Wish for better all you want, it won't happen, good coaches don't work for peanuts, and that is all the Yorks are willing to pay.

Ridiculous post of the day (that says a lot).

How is that ridiculous. Have you seen the coaches under staff since the ownership change? Cheap is definitely the common attribute....and they definitely don't like too much dead coach money either.

I would not be surprised at all if no OL Coach change is made

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by BobS:
He probably keeps his job because a replacement would cost more money, as long as the Yorks are in charge everyone needs to get used to the idea of not having a very good coaching staff. Wish for better all you want, it won't happen, good coaches don't work for peanuts, and that is all the Yorks are willing to pay.

Ridiculous post of the day (that says a lot).

How is that ridiculous. Have you seen the coaches under staff since the ownership change? Cheap is definitely the common attribute....and they definitely don't like too much dead coach money either.

I would not be surprised at all if no OL Coach change is made

They got rid of Nolan with an year and a half left on his contract and had to pay him.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by rubicon:
I am hoping that Al Davis fires Tom Cable then we hire him to be the oline coach.

Reunite him with Rathman and put the heat on Raye to get the playcalling figured out.

I know it is far fetched but it keeps Cable in town and I think he brings attitude to the table and the o line is missing the nasty disposition that a good line requires.

That just doesn't make any sense around here because the Oakland O-Line was horrible under Cable. He is obviously a bad OL coach. Say what, they replaced him with another OL coach and their line still sucks? Wha?!?!?!?!

You might want to let it go....You are wrong, good or better coaches DO IN FACT almost always translate to better play. Nothing automatically makes the players better like hiring a new position coach HOWEVER a better position coach could only serve to make that part of the team better NOT worse.

Our OL did not function as a cohesive unit. That's the coach's responsibility. Fire him.

just have them live in Compton during the off season to toughen them up.. Oh yeah one of them already did and it didn't help

How about Tom Cable, he was supposed to be a great O Line coach and is getting fired!

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by BobS:
He probably keeps his job because a replacement would cost more money, as long as the Yorks are in charge everyone needs to get used to the idea of not having a very good coaching staff. Wish for better all you want, it won't happen, good coaches don't work for peanuts, and that is all the Yorks are willing to pay.

Ridiculous post of the day (that says a lot).

How is that ridiculous. Have you seen the coaches under staff since the ownership change? Cheap is definitely the common attribute....and they definitely don't like too much dead coach money either.

I would not be surprised at all if no OL Coach change is made

They got rid of Nolan with an year and a half left on his contract and had to pay him.

I didn't mean there would not be any examples of the opposite, just that the overall trend of the Yorks seems to be, 1st time coaches(cheaper) and keeping them for the bulk of their contracts.

Cmon, Jimmy Raye and Foerster. Its pretty hard to getter cheaper than that. And they have been pulling this all decade long or have you not been paying attention

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Because, no matter how much almost everyone here seems to think otherwise, firing a position coach does not make the team better.

Following your logic around, why employ one, then? If getting rid of a less than competent dude and replacing him with a more competent dude won't make the team better, we should sack the lot of them! Wasters!

Following your logic the players dont matter. It's all about the positions coaches. A good position coach can take a garbage player and make him great but a bad one will make someone that should be playing at a high level play like garbage? Please. You people have no idea how good an NFL OL coach is at his job... And neither do I.

You need to google the word "logic" because you really don't understand. Nowhere in my post can any reasonable person make the leap of logic you accuse me of. If anything it is rather more the corollary of your argument.

I suspect that your posts here represent something of a deliberate wind up, as they are illogical and, for the most part, clearly wrong.

Our line is a mess, when you see our line on the field it looks as if they know absolutely NO fundamentals at that position in terms of where and how you're supposed to shift your body, hands, and arms to contain/slow a rushing defender in the pocket.

Chris Foerester has no tactical knowledge of how a next-level o-lineman is supposed to perform in the NFL, and that's why we're sucking (it's all about skills and technique more than talent).

[ Edited by SnakePlissken on Jan 6, 2010 at 19:42:22 ]

Most zoners are in denial about the Yorks cheapness and the negative effect it has on fielding a winner. Ask yourself this, if any of the front office staff, and coaching staff were canned, would any of the big spending franchises get in a bidding war to get them? Answer a big fat NO! The Yorks have climbed off the bottom of the cheap pile, but not by much.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
someone posted up foeresters entire NFL history with his Olines' stats and the guy has been horrible on every team he's been on. can the sorry b*****d. if you guys are saying the coach wouldnt make a difference you didnt see how awesome our lines were when Bobb McKittrick was in charge and the huge drop off after he left. the o-line coach needs to go sooner rather than later

makes you kind of wonder why the fuq he was hired in the first place.

He was brought in to assist George Warhop, who was doing poorly with the current OL group and ultimately fired to be replaced by Foerster. Foerster was brought mid-season. Now what kind of coach is still sitting around on the couch at mid-season?

ANSWER: Not very many good ones...as we now know.

I have watched the OL quite a bit, particularly in the last half of this past season, and I am not an expert, but even to my relatively untrained eye, I have spotted several recurring technique issues that just should not be there after a full TC, four pre-season games and a dozen league games.

I don't know who will be available in the next couple of weeks but I will be disappointed if Foerster isn't replaced. Part of the problem is play design, I admit, but that shouldn't affect the technique on basic stuff.

Firing Foerster might help...then again, it might not. Part of the problem is guys like Baas, Rachal & Snyder are basically maulers...they're not light on their feet and not very mobile. Now that the passing attack is a bigger part of the offense, you need guys who're more versatile...who can run & pass block, but are mobile enough to lead sweeps, screens, etc. That's a part of the offense Raye doesn't feel he can incorporate because of the current OL's limitations. So, while hiring a new OL coach might help, so will getting OL who can support a wide range of offensive plays. It's why I've said it'd be a good move to use our two 1st rounders to draft a RT and OG. The OT's in mind include Bulaga, Trent Williams and Anthony Davis. The OG would be Iupati.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Sorry for the double post - but it's relevant here:

Maicco just stated in his live chat:


DaveWilcox:

Do you think OL coach Foerster gets canned?
Thursday January 7, 2010 12:08 DaveWilcox
12:09

MattB_49:

I'm hearing he will not ... but not with a lot of certainty. If he's still around tomorrow he's safe ...

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/49ers/archives/2010/01/chat-replay-49e.html#mi_rss=49ers

(Thanks DaveWilcox - who is a Zoner)

------------------------

Okay if Foerster isn't canned, that's it for me and coach Sing. It would be THE MOST dubious, questionable move to date given Foerster's history. There are just going to be too many better guys available to help us out. "If he's here tomorrow he's safe? " That's

One thing we are not completely sure of is how much does the OL coach have to do with the performance of the OL and how much does the system and philosophy of the OC have to do with the OL performance?

In this case, I don't think either are qualified.

NOTE: Going into our 3rd RT and our backup LT, our OL performed better than they did in past years in terms of the passing game. As for the running game, I just don't think our personnel at G is quick enough or the system is too basic.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Sorry for the double post - but it's relevant here:

Maicco just stated in his live chat:


DaveWilcox:

Do you think OL coach Foerster gets canned?
Thursday January 7, 2010 12:08 DaveWilcox
12:09

MattB_49:

I'm hearing he will not ... but not with a lot of certainty. If he's still around tomorrow he's safe ...

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/49ers/archives/2010/01/chat-replay-49e.html#mi_rss=49ers

(Thanks DaveWilcox - who is a Zoner)

------------------------

Okay if Foerster isn't canned, that's it for me and coach Sing. It would be THE MOST dubious, questionable move to date given Foerster's history. There are just going to be too many better guys available to help us out. "If he's here tomorrow he's safe? " That's

One thing we are not completely sure of is how much does the OL coach have to do with the performance of the OL and how much does the system and philosophy of the OC have to do with the OL performance?

In this case, I don't think either are qualified.

NOTE: Going into our 3rd RT and our backup LT, our OL performed better than they did in past years in terms of the passing game. As for the running game, I just don't think our personnel at G is quick enough or the system is too basic.

Joe .. Seriously dude? You're going to defend Foerster? Given his history? I mean I'm not just talking about his time in SF. I guess I'm confused why people continue to expect different results despite using the same bad components for their problems...

I thought you had understood about Foerster. The line was bad BEFORE injuries kicked in. It's not like we were an offensive juggernaut when Staley was hurt and Marvel Smith retires....

That's true but they did perform better than last year considering the situation. I also don't think it is to their benefit of running predictable plays as they did early in the season and somewhat later in the season.

I honestly don't think either are qualified.

It seems to be the Sing has been pretty critical of the Oline and their play. I would be suprised if the OL coach was kept on. The Oline needs a lot of help and development has been really slow.

the only thing I can see saving him is the whole, continuity argument, but at some point, enough is enough