Smashmouth 49ers...I like it. (Bucking the NFL trend has its advantages)

Originally posted by Lifer:
Part of the reason why Bill Walsh's teams were so effective early on is exactly what you've stated here: They went contrary to the prevailing trend. In the late 70's everybody built their teams to stop the power running attack. Along comes Walsh with his precision short passing game. Everyone called it "dink and dunk" and said it wouldn't work. Well, you know what happened.

The important thing, of course, is that it's not enough simply to go contrary to the trend. You have to be GOOD. Walsh had Montana and Rice and Lott, after all. But, yeah, if you build a good team AND you're playing a style that other teams aren't really prepared to contend with, then you've got a real advantage.

Exactly.

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

I know stats don't tell the whole story...and thats why I said as much in my post.

Let me ask you a question tho...Is Aikman one of the best QBs of all time? How about Terry Bradshaw?

I would submit to you that the answer on both counts is a resounding NO. They WERE very good tho when they needed to be, but neither of them were the engine that made the team go.

I'm not trying to slam Troy Aikman. He's a 3 time SB champion and a HOF QB. He has nothing to prove. Maybe if he played in a different offense he would have posted much better numbers.

Thats not my point tho.

My point is that its not outside the realm of possibility that a QB like Alex Smith could perform as well as Aikman given the other factors (best and biggest O-Line in football...maybe of all time, and the NFLs all time leading rusher behind him).

If the Niners can build a similar line (and thats a tall order...tho using two picks in the top 17 helps) then any 49ers QB finds their job ALOT easier.

Originally posted by bigtony2tone:

Originally posted by niner_empire:

Originally posted by btwagner:

Originally posted by niner_empire:

Originally posted by 9erred:
Nolan tried to make the niners the Baltimore Ravens, sending the franchise to sub 200 yard qb offensive performances week in and week out.

Last year McCloughan tried to draft to make Sing happy. Drafting Coffee, a big SEC runner, Bear Pascoe a blocking TE, etc. He declared we will run, run, run. Well that did not work, so they went to the spread offense and voila it worked.

Now the niners once again are drafting a SEC power running back and another blocking TE. Soundls llike ground hog day to me.

They need a change of pace back, not 3 rb's who can only run up the middle.

word. the truth is. we shouldnt confine our selves to being a power running team or a spread pass happy team. we need BALANCE and the flexibility to adjust our gameplan according to the oppositions strenghts and weaknesses. this isnt the 80's you cant simply IMPOSE your will on someone.cant run up the gut against a 9 man front, we need the flexibility where alex can audible to a pass if they stack the box. this is a thinking mans game.

That is the beauty of the 2 TE set with our TEs....Both of our TEs are in the big WR mold....They are athletic and fast enough to go from a 2 TE on the line formation to motion to a spread formation...This will cause a LB or S to cover which is a matchup our guys win....Also works the other way.....On 1st down if the niners come out in a 4wr set (2 of which are TEs) and the D goes Nickel or Dime they can the audible into a power run formation and create a mismatch that way....

yeah we do have the personnel to create huge mismatches. but judging from last year. i didint see alex audible much. hopefully this year they give him more freedom to use that great mind of his

Well last season Alex (and everyone else) was just beginning to learn the offense. Being year 2, I'd hope Alex and company get the offense down and are given the ability to audible, assuming he shows he can handle it.

In mini-camps all reports were that Alex took control of the O, directing our Line and WR's on where they need to be, and what routes they should be running. I think year 2 in this O he will be given free reigns to call audibles, because he is gonna know the playbook.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by Lifer:
Part of the reason why Bill Walsh's teams were so effective early on is exactly what you've stated here: They went contrary to the prevailing trend. In the late 70's everybody built their teams to stop the power running attack. Along comes Walsh with his precision short passing game. Everyone called it "dink and dunk" and said it wouldn't work. Well, you know what happened.

The important thing, of course, is that it's not enough simply to go contrary to the trend. You have to be GOOD. Walsh had Montana and Rice and Lott, after all. But, yeah, if you build a good team AND you're playing a style that other teams aren't really prepared to contend with, then you've got a real advantage.

The difference being of course that Walsh bucked the trend with a style of play that hadn't been seen before in the NFL, thus making the 49ers ahead of the curve and forcing teams to develop schemes and defenses to match us, which took years. The west coast offense led to the development of the Tampa 2. What we're apparently doing now is going back in time to play an offensive scheme that teams have already figured out how to beat. That's not very inspiring. The rules allow QBs and WRs to basically play untouched, which leads to higher scores. Now we come along and play a "smash mouth" offense designed to eat the clock and wear down defenses. The problem with that scheme is that if our defense doesn't shut the other team down we play from behind and are forced to abandon what our personnel presumably does best. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Who says this team won't ba able to come back?

Even tho they lost the games, they STORMED back both in Houston and Green Bay last year. Nobody said that the Niners were going to abondon an O that will score points in favor of 2 yards and a cloud of dust.

All we are talking about is HOW you get those yards.

I dunno about you, but I haven't seen many teams with DOMINANT O-Lines fail to play well.

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by Lifer:
Part of the reason why Bill Walsh's teams were so effective early on is exactly what you've stated here: They went contrary to the prevailing trend. In the late 70's everybody built their teams to stop the power running attack. Along comes Walsh with his precision short passing game. Everyone called it "dink and dunk" and said it wouldn't work. Well, you know what happened.

The important thing, of course, is that it's not enough simply to go contrary to the trend. You have to be GOOD. Walsh had Montana and Rice and Lott, after all. But, yeah, if you build a good team AND you're playing a style that other teams aren't really prepared to contend with, then you've got a real advantage.

Exactly.

LOL...ya, getting big guys who can't play doesn't help. ;-)

OBVIOUSLY, you need the talent. All I'm referring to is the TYPE of talented player you get.

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

Thats what his point was.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by Lifer:
Part of the reason why Bill Walsh's teams were so effective early on is exactly what you've stated here: They went contrary to the prevailing trend. In the late 70's everybody built their teams to stop the power running attack. Along comes Walsh with his precision short passing game. Everyone called it "dink and dunk" and said it wouldn't work. Well, you know what happened.

The important thing, of course, is that it's not enough simply to go contrary to the trend. You have to be GOOD. Walsh had Montana and Rice and Lott, after all. But, yeah, if you build a good team AND you're playing a style that other teams aren't really prepared to contend with, then you've got a real advantage.

The difference being of course that Walsh bucked the trend with a style of play that hadn't been seen before in the NFL, thus making the 49ers ahead of the curve and forcing teams to develop schemes and defenses to match us, which took years. The west coast offense led to the development of the Tampa 2. What we're apparently doing now is going back in time to play an offensive scheme that teams have already figured out how to beat. That's not very inspiring. The rules allow QBs and WRs to basically play untouched, which leads to higher scores. Now we come along and play a "smash mouth" offense designed to eat the clock and wear down defenses. The problem with that scheme is that if our defense doesn't shut the other team down we play from behind and are forced to abandon what our personnel presumably does best. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Who says this team won't ba able to come back?

Even tho they lost the games, they STORMED back both in Houston and Green Bay last year. Nobody said that the Niners were going to abondon an O that will score points in favor of 2 yards and a cloud of dust.

All we are talking about is HOW you get those yards.

I dunno about you, but I haven't seen many teams with DOMINANT O-Lines fail to play well.

If you asked me to say the top 6 OL's I'd say New Orleans, Tennessee, Miami, Baltimore, Carolina, and the New York Jets. 8-8 is the worse of the bunch.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 27, 2010 at 11:28:11 ]

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

I know stats don't tell the whole story...and thats why I said as much in my post.

Let me ask you a question tho...Is Aikman one of the best QBs of all time? How about Terry Bradshaw?

I would submit to you that the answer on both counts is a resounding NO. They WERE very good tho when they needed to be, but neither of them were the engine that made the team go.

I'm not trying to slam Troy Aikman. He's a 3 time SB champion and a HOF QB. He has nothing to prove. Maybe if he played in a different offense he would have posted much better numbers.

Thats not my point tho.

My point is that its not outside the realm of possibility that a QB like Alex Smith could perform as well as Aikman given the other factors (best and biggest O-Line in football...maybe of all time, and the NFLs all time leading rusher behind him).

If the Niners can build a similar line (and thats a tall order...tho using two picks in the top 17 helps) then any 49ers QB finds their job ALOT easier.

Um...just by the fact he's in the HOF makes him one of best QBs of all time. Of all the QB's that have ever played in the NFL, he's one of the select few in the HOF. If your point was that its "not outside the realm of possibility that Smith could perform as well as Aikman given other factors," you're right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. It is, however, unlikely, just as it is unlikely that "given other factors" Smith will perform up to Young or Montana's level.

And, of course, if the 49ers line is better, it will make the QB's job easier but, again, that does not mean that Smith will easily play at Aikman's level, which like it or not led him to the HOF.

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

I know stats don't tell the whole story...and thats why I said as much in my post.

Let me ask you a question tho...Is Aikman one of the best QBs of all time? How about Terry Bradshaw?

I would submit to you that the answer on both counts is a resounding NO. They WERE very good tho when they needed to be, but neither of them were the engine that made the team go.

I'm not trying to slam Troy Aikman. He's a 3 time SB champion and a HOF QB. He has nothing to prove. Maybe if he played in a different offense he would have posted much better numbers.

Thats not my point tho.

My point is that its not outside the realm of possibility that a QB like Alex Smith could perform as well as Aikman given the other factors (best and biggest O-Line in football...maybe of all time, and the NFLs all time leading rusher behind him).

If the Niners can build a similar line (and thats a tall order...tho using two picks in the top 17 helps) then any 49ers QB finds their job ALOT easier.

Um...just by the fact he's in the HOF makes him one of best QBs of all time. Of all the QB's that have ever played in the NFL, he's one of the select few in the HOF. If your point was that its "not outside the realm of possibility that Smith could perform as well as Aikman given other factors," you're right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. It is, however, unlikely, just as it is unlikely that "given other factors" Smith will perform up to Young or Montana's level.

And, of course, if the 49ers line is better, it will make the QB's job easier but, again, that does not mean that Smith will easily play at Aikman's level, which like it or not led him to the HOF.

I disagree with your first statement altogether.

The HOF is largely a popularity contest. Aikman is in the Hall for 3 reason.

1) 1992 Super Bowl
2) 1993 Super Bowl
3) 1995 Super Bowl

I submit to you that if he doesn't have that line in front of him or #22 running the ball, he is NOT a HOF QB.

Does that mean that ANY QB could do it? No. Not at all. Aikman was a very good QB, I just don't think of him as one of the best of all time. Its not like he's Trent Dilfer and they got there in spite of him.

Also, like I said before, maybe if you put him in a different O he becomes a much more prolific QB. WHo knows, I can only judge on what he DID do.

My point in all of this tho is simply that the SBs the Cowboys won were not won and lost on Aikmans shoulders. He was a part of course, but he didn't need to play like a "Franchise QB" to win. He only needed to be solid ebnough to make the important throws and to burn the D when they stacked against the run.

THAT is all Alex Smith or whomever plays QB for the 49ers need to do to succeed if they can build a similar O-Line and keep Frank Gore healthy. Thats my entire point...we don't need Peyton Manning. We just need someone to keep the D honest.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

Well said for sure, I think the offense will be able to keep other D's honest, you can't not cover a Crabtree or Morgan. And throw Davis, and Gore into the mix...forget about it. Not to mention the pure intensity that Singeltary is putting into his players! I'll take our chances with what were doing, and watch or D crush people all day long!

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

I know stats don't tell the whole story...and thats why I said as much in my post.

Let me ask you a question tho...Is Aikman one of the best QBs of all time? How about Terry Bradshaw?

I would submit to you that the answer on both counts is a resounding NO. They WERE very good tho when they needed to be, but neither of them were the engine that made the team go.

I'm not trying to slam Troy Aikman. He's a 3 time SB champion and a HOF QB. He has nothing to prove. Maybe if he played in a different offense he would have posted much better numbers.

Thats not my point tho.

My point is that its not outside the realm of possibility that a QB like Alex Smith could perform as well as Aikman given the other factors (best and biggest O-Line in football...maybe of all time, and the NFLs all time leading rusher behind him).

If the Niners can build a similar line (and thats a tall order...tho using two picks in the top 17 helps) then any 49ers QB finds their job ALOT easier.

Um...just by the fact he's in the HOF makes him one of best QBs of all time. Of all the QB's that have ever played in the NFL, he's one of the select few in the HOF. If your point was that its "not outside the realm of possibility that Smith could perform as well as Aikman given other factors," you're right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. It is, however, unlikely, just as it is unlikely that "given other factors" Smith will perform up to Young or Montana's level.

And, of course, if the 49ers line is better, it will make the QB's job easier but, again, that does not mean that Smith will easily play at Aikman's level, which like it or not led him to the HOF.

I disagree with your first statement altogether.

The HOF is largely a popularity contest. Aikman is in the Hall for 3 reason.

1) 1992 Super Bowl
2) 1993 Super Bowl
3) 1995 Super Bowl

I submit to you that if he doesn't have that line in front of him or #22 running the ball, he is NOT a HOF QB.

Does that mean that ANY QB could do it? No. Not at all. Aikman was a very good QB, I just don't think of him as one of the best of all time. Its not like he's Trent Dilfer and they got there in spite of him.

Also, like I said before, maybe if you put him in a different O he becomes a much more prolific QB. WHo knows, I can only judge on what he DID do.

My point in all of this tho is simply that the SBs the Cowboys won were not won and lost on Aikmans shoulders. He was a part of course, but he didn't need to play like a "Franchise QB" to win. He only needed to be solid ebnough to make the important throws and to burn the D when they stacked against the run.

THAT is all Alex Smith or whomever plays QB for the 49ers need to do to succeed if they can build a similar O-Line and keep Frank Gore healthy. Thats my entire point...we don't need Peyton Manning. We just need someone to keep the D honest.

I can't believe I'm having to defend Troy Aikman.

I don't see how you can say he's not one of the greatest of all time when he's in the HOF and 1 of only 23 QB's enshrined in the modern era, which is roughly the SB era. That in and of itself makes him one of the greatest by definition. Now if you want to say, he's in the bottom half of those 23 HOF QBs, that's another argument.

You keep saying he was only a HOF QB because of Emmitt Smith and the OL. Couldn't you say the same thing about Emmitt Smith? He was good but was only great because of the OL and having a HOF QB and WR to form the "Triplets" with?

Notwithstanding those arguments, we can agree to disagree on Aikman. If the real point was that the 49ers don't need a franchise QB, it does not hold up. Look at the 4 QBs in the Championship Games last year: Manning, Brees, Favre and then Sanchez as a rookie with the best defense in the league. Look at the teams having sustained success: Pats (Brady); Eagles (McNabb); Steelers (Big Ben); the Chargers are winning 2/3 of their games since Rivers took over; etc. Even to a lesser extent, the Seahawks dominated the NFC West for a few years and got toa SB because Hasselbeck was the best QB in the division and was playing at a high level. The Cardinals have been the best in the division and got to a SB because Warner was playing like he did with the Rams.

Like I said in the beginning, the 49ers can win without a franchise QB but its hard to sustain. They can even win a SB but the teams without franchise QBs but it usually takes everything breaking right in a given year. I'm not saying the 49ers can't win this year with Smith. I think they can but unless he can prove to be a franchise type QB, history shows it is unlikely the 49ers will have they type of sustained success that 49er fans are used to and looking for.

The last time I heard the argument that the 49ers didn't need a franchise QB, it was when Garcia left and Rattay took over. All the 49ers needed was a great defense and a good OL. How did that turn out?

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by Lifer:
Part of the reason why Bill Walsh's teams were so effective early on is exactly what you've stated here: They went contrary to the prevailing trend. In the late 70's everybody built their teams to stop the power running attack. Along comes Walsh with his precision short passing game. Everyone called it "dink and dunk" and said it wouldn't work. Well, you know what happened.

The important thing, of course, is that it's not enough simply to go contrary to the trend. You have to be GOOD. Walsh had Montana and Rice and Lott, after all. But, yeah, if you build a good team AND you're playing a style that other teams aren't really prepared to contend with, then you've got a real advantage.

The difference being of course that Walsh bucked the trend with a style of play that hadn't been seen before in the NFL, thus making the 49ers ahead of the curve and forcing teams to develop schemes and defenses to match us, which took years. The west coast offense led to the development of the Tampa 2. What we're apparently doing now is going back in time to play an offensive scheme that teams have already figured out how to beat. That's not very inspiring. The rules allow QBs and WRs to basically play untouched, which leads to higher scores. Now we come along and play a "smash mouth" offense designed to eat the clock and wear down defenses. The problem with that scheme is that if our defense doesn't shut the other team down we play from behind and are forced to abandon what our personnel presumably does best. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Who says this team won't ba able to come back?

Even tho they lost the games, they STORMED back both in Houston and Green Bay last year. Nobody said that the Niners were going to abondon an O that will score points in favor of 2 yards and a cloud of dust.

All we are talking about is HOW you get those yards.

I dunno about you, but I haven't seen many teams with DOMINANT O-Lines fail to play well.

If you asked me to say the top 6 OL's I'd say New Orleans, Tennessee, Miami, Baltimore, Carolina, and the New York Jets. 8-8 is the worse of the bunch.

The problem is that if you start out a game with a game plan of "smash mouth" and then have to change that game plan at the half to more of a spread offense then you'll find yourself constantly in the position the 49ers found themselves in last year: Down by 2-3 scores at the half. At best, we fall just short like in Houston and GB. At worst we get crushed like in Atlanta. Look at the dominant OLs cited above - NO used pass to set up the run. GB used pass to set up the run. Baltimore, NY and Miami used run to set up the pass ... and all three acquired a front line WR in the offseason. Why? Because running to set up the pass doesn't work any more. It leaves too many 3rd and longs, which leads to 3 and outs, and falling behind. NY had the best defense and a great running game and got throttled by a team that, according to your assessment, did not have a top OL, and had no running game and an average defense - Indy. What did Indy have? A great QB and great WRs. I'm not saying run first won't lead to some wins, but to think that we can sustain success season after season on a 30 year old game plan is unrealistic. You want to consistently win in today's NFL, season after season, you need a franchise QB and a great set of WRs. A dominant OL, a workhorse back, and a great defense, while all good things to have, are simply not the key ingredients to sustained success.

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

I know stats don't tell the whole story...and thats why I said as much in my post.

Let me ask you a question tho...Is Aikman one of the best QBs of all time? How about Terry Bradshaw?

I would submit to you that the answer on both counts is a resounding NO. They WERE very good tho when they needed to be, but neither of them were the engine that made the team go.

I'm not trying to slam Troy Aikman. He's a 3 time SB champion and a HOF QB. He has nothing to prove. Maybe if he played in a different offense he would have posted much better numbers.

Thats not my point tho.

My point is that its not outside the realm of possibility that a QB like Alex Smith could perform as well as Aikman given the other factors (best and biggest O-Line in football...maybe of all time, and the NFLs all time leading rusher behind him).

If the Niners can build a similar line (and thats a tall order...tho using two picks in the top 17 helps) then any 49ers QB finds their job ALOT easier.

Um...just by the fact he's in the HOF makes him one of best QBs of all time. Of all the QB's that have ever played in the NFL, he's one of the select few in the HOF. If your point was that its "not outside the realm of possibility that Smith could perform as well as Aikman given other factors," you're right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. It is, however, unlikely, just as it is unlikely that "given other factors" Smith will perform up to Young or Montana's level.

And, of course, if the 49ers line is better, it will make the QB's job easier but, again, that does not mean that Smith will easily play at Aikman's level, which like it or not led him to the HOF.

I disagree with your first statement altogether.

The HOF is largely a popularity contest. Aikman is in the Hall for 3 reason.

1) 1992 Super Bowl
2) 1993 Super Bowl
3) 1995 Super Bowl

I submit to you that if he doesn't have that line in front of him or #22 running the ball, he is NOT a HOF QB.

Does that mean that ANY QB could do it? No. Not at all. Aikman was a very good QB, I just don't think of him as one of the best of all time. Its not like he's Trent Dilfer and they got there in spite of him.

Also, like I said before, maybe if you put him in a different O he becomes a much more prolific QB. WHo knows, I can only judge on what he DID do.

My point in all of this tho is simply that the SBs the Cowboys won were not won and lost on Aikmans shoulders. He was a part of course, but he didn't need to play like a "Franchise QB" to win. He only needed to be solid ebnough to make the important throws and to burn the D when they stacked against the run.

THAT is all Alex Smith or whomever plays QB for the 49ers need to do to succeed if they can build a similar O-Line and keep Frank Gore healthy. Thats my entire point...we don't need Peyton Manning. We just need someone to keep the D honest.

I can't believe I'm having to defend Troy Aikman.

I don't see how you can say he's not one of the greatest of all time when he's in the HOF and 1 of only 23 QB's enshrined in the modern era, which is roughly the SB era. That in and of itself makes him one of the greatest by definition. Now if you want to say, he's in the bottom half of those 23 HOF QBs, that's another argument.

You keep saying he was only a HOF QB because of Emmitt Smith and the OL. Couldn't you say the same thing about Emmitt Smith? He was good but was only great because of the OL and having a HOF QB and WR to form the "Triplets" with?

Notwithstanding those arguments, we can agree to disagree on Aikman. If the real point was that the 49ers don't need a franchise QB, it does not hold up. Look at the 4 QBs in the Championship Games last year: Manning, Brees, Favre and then Sanchez as a rookie with the best defense in the league. Look at the teams having sustained success: Pats (Brady); Eagles (McNabb); Steelers (Big Ben); the Chargers are winning 2/3 of their games since Rivers took over; etc. Even to a lesser extent, the Seahawks dominated the NFC West for a few years and got toa SB because Hasselbeck was the best QB in the division and was playing at a high level. The Cardinals have been the best in the division and got to a SB because Warner was playing like he did with the Rams.

Like I said in the beginning, the 49ers can win without a franchise QB but its hard to sustain. They can even win a SB but the teams without franchise QBs but it usually takes everything breaking right in a given year. I'm not saying the 49ers can't win this year with Smith. I think they can but unless he can prove to be a franchise type QB, history shows it is unlikely the 49ers will have they type of sustained success that 49er fans are used to and looking for.

The last time I heard the argument that the 49ers didn't need a franchise QB, it was when Garcia left and Rattay took over. All the 49ers needed was a great defense and a good OL. How did that turn out?

Well said. I can't believe there are still people who actually watch what the NFL has become over the past decade and believe that a team can achieve sustained success without a franchise QB and a solid receiving corp.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by Lifer:
Part of the reason why Bill Walsh's teams were so effective early on is exactly what you've stated here: They went contrary to the prevailing trend. In the late 70's everybody built their teams to stop the power running attack. Along comes Walsh with his precision short passing game. Everyone called it "dink and dunk" and said it wouldn't work. Well, you know what happened.

The important thing, of course, is that it's not enough simply to go contrary to the trend. You have to be GOOD. Walsh had Montana and Rice and Lott, after all. But, yeah, if you build a good team AND you're playing a style that other teams aren't really prepared to contend with, then you've got a real advantage.

The difference being of course that Walsh bucked the trend with a style of play that hadn't been seen before in the NFL, thus making the 49ers ahead of the curve and forcing teams to develop schemes and defenses to match us, which took years. The west coast offense led to the development of the Tampa 2. What we're apparently doing now is going back in time to play an offensive scheme that teams have already figured out how to beat. That's not very inspiring. The rules allow QBs and WRs to basically play untouched, which leads to higher scores. Now we come along and play a "smash mouth" offense designed to eat the clock and wear down defenses. The problem with that scheme is that if our defense doesn't shut the other team down we play from behind and are forced to abandon what our personnel presumably does best. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

This really depends on how you envision the 49ers offense. If you think it's gonna be "three yards and a cloud of dust," or "run-run-pass-punt" then, yeah, it's not very inspiring. But a power running game combined with a deep passing attack is really what I think they're trying to do. The Cowboys of the 90's are a good example of how well that works when you have the quality players to execute it.

But, to the original poster's point: football goes in cycles. It's not a linear progression from simpler to more sophisticated. It's really a pretty simple game and different approaches come and go. Who would've thought the wildcat would ever come back... and be so effective? The point is everyone builds their team to play a certain style. If you play a different style, and play it well, you can take advantage of the type of player your opponent has chosen to emphasize. If all the DB's are small and fast, then big strong WR's have an advantage. If all the teams switch to bigger DB's to counter the big WR's, then the small and fast WR's suddenly have an advantage again. Cycles.

The point though, is that we're really only talking about an advantage here. Style of play is never decisive. It can only give you an edge. Walsh didn't win championships with superior intellect; he had better players. He gave those players an edge by playing a style that was contrary to the prevailing trend but it all comes down to blocking and tackling and there's no substitute for having the best 11 players on the field.

I think it's gonna be real interesting to see if Singletary can prevail with his style of play. I have no idea if it's going to work or not, but if it does, you can bet that everyone else in our division will need to get bigger in a hurry.

To continue on the idea that the league is cyclical, look at the NFL defenses. In the past 5 years, how many defenses switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4? I think the latest count has over half of all defenses use a base 3-4.

The trend to 3-4 coincides with offenses going to pass attacks. First, the 3-4 has 4 linebackers on the field during base defense which helps with pass coverage. Second, the 3-4 allows the defense to use a variety of blitz packages to confuse pass blockers.

The one downside of the 3-4 defense is the ability to stop the run. The 3-4 uses only three large DL to hold the line against 5 large OLmen. The key to make a 3-4 work is a large dominant NT, which a very few and far between. With so many teams going with a 3-4, NT's are at a premium. Not every team has one. Advantage offense.

Singletary is indeed building a team that goes against the current trend. I think it's perfect timing for such a move.