What was a bigger problem last year?

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

That about sums it up.....

Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

Danny Amendola Career stats

Games: 30
Catches: 128
Yards: 1,015 (33 YPG)
Long: 36
TD: 4

Crabtree Career stats:

Games: 27
Catches 103
Yards: 1,366 (50 YPG)
Long: 60
TD 8

I would rather take Crabs and Bradford over Amendola and A.Smith.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

That about sums it up.....

Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

Danny Amendola Career stats

Games: 30
Catches: 128
Yards: 1,015 (33 YPG)
Long: 36
TD: 4

Crabtree Career stats:

Games: 27
Catches 103
Yards: 1,366 (50 YPG)
Long: 60
TD 8

I would rather take Crabs and Bradford over Amendola and A.Smith.

There was clearly an agenda behind his statement.

I think Crabtree can end up being the better receiver... that he has better skills. I wouldn't fault someone for saying that so far, neither has separated himself much from the other.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:


Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

?

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:


Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

?

See, if you put down anyone on the team except "he who shall not be named", then you disrespect the team. It is, however, somehow okay to constantly put down our starting QB without the same result. (or even worse, putting down our new HC's opinion)

Got it?

[ Edited by oldman9er on Jun 29, 2011 at 07:34:59 ]

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:


Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

?

See, if you put down anyone on the team except "he who shall not be named", then you disrespect the team. It is, however, somehow okay to constantly put down our starting QB without the same result. (or even worse, putting down our new HC's opinion)

Got it?

Ah! So this rule makes it not a double standard!

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

That about sums it up.....

Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

Danny Amendola Career stats

Games: 30
Catches: 128
Yards: 1,015 (33 YPG)
Long: 36
TD: 4

Crabtree Career stats:

Games: 27
Catches 103
Yards: 1,366 (50 YPG)
Long: 60
TD 8

I would rather take Crabs and Bradford over Amendola and A.Smith.

Again, using stats alone NEVER tells the entire story.

In the same way that looking at Alex Smith under Jimmy Raye does not show what he was able to accomplish under Mike Johnson, looking at Amendola before Shurmur modified the offense to fit Bradford does not tell all the story there.

Looking only at Amendola's yardage numbers hides the fact he has great hands, run excellent routes and reads defenses very well. All of those are things Crabtree has not yet demonstrated with the 49ers. Further, Shurmur admittedly designed the offense to put the LEAST POSSIBLE PRESSURE on Bradford to build his confidence and help in his development. Shurmur repeatedly noted how Amendola's abilities contributed to Bradford's success by quickly and accurately adjusting routes to be open for Bradford.

My "agenda" is simple. Look at ALL of the factors that were a problem last year and compare them to the way other teams and coaching staffs were able to solve them. In this case, the way the Rams solved them was with a VERY good OC, a WR that had outstanding fundamentals, a strong running game, ALL of which helped a young QB with great promise to have a much better first year than most experts expected. Anyone who does not recognize the vast difference between the Rams and the 49ers in this respect is not very observant.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

That about sums it up.....

Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

Danny Amendola Career stats

Games: 30
Catches: 128
Yards: 1,015 (33 YPG)
Long: 36
TD: 4

Crabtree Career stats:

Games: 27
Catches 103
Yards: 1,366 (50 YPG)
Long: 60
TD 8

I would rather take Crabs and Bradford over Amendola and A.Smith.

Again, using stats alone NEVER tells the entire story.

In the same way that looking at Alex Smith under Jimmy Raye does not show what he was able to accomplish under Mike Johnson, looking at Amendola before Shurmur modified the offense to fit Bradford does not tell all the story there.

Looking only at Amendola's yardage numbers hides the fact he has great hands, run excellent routes and reads defenses very well. All of those are things Crabtree has not yet demonstrated with the 49ers. Further, Shurmur admittedly designed the offense to put the LEAST POSSIBLE PRESSURE on Bradford to build his confidence and help in his development. Shurmur repeatedly noted how Amendola's abilities contributed to Bradford's success by quickly and accurately adjusting routes to be open for Bradford.

My "agenda" is simple. Look at ALL of the factors that were a problem last year and compare them to the way other teams and coaching staffs were able to solve them. In this case, the way the Rams solved them was with a VERY good OC, a WR that had outstanding fundamentals, a strong running game, ALL of which helped a young QB with great promise to have a much better first year than most experts expected. Anyone who does not recognize the vast difference between the Rams and the 49ers in this respect is not very observant.

It just doesn't fit the agenda, so it must be irrelevant...you know how it is with those people.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

That about sums it up.....

Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

Danny Amendola Career stats

Games: 30
Catches: 128
Yards: 1,015 (33 YPG)
Long: 36
TD: 4

Crabtree Career stats:

Games: 27
Catches 103
Yards: 1,366 (50 YPG)
Long: 60
TD 8

I would rather take Crabs and Bradford over Amendola and A.Smith.

Again, using stats alone NEVER tells the entire story.

In the same way that looking at Alex Smith under Jimmy Raye does not show what he was able to accomplish under Mike Johnson, looking at Amendola before Shurmur modified the offense to fit Bradford does not tell all the story there.

Looking only at Amendola's yardage numbers hides the fact he has great hands, run excellent routes and reads defenses very well. All of those are things Crabtree has not yet demonstrated with the 49ers. Further, Shurmur admittedly designed the offense to put the LEAST POSSIBLE PRESSURE on Bradford to build his confidence and help in his development. Shurmur repeatedly noted how Amendola's abilities contributed to Bradford's success by quickly and accurately adjusting routes to be open for Bradford.

My "agenda" is simple. Look at ALL of the factors that were a problem last year and compare them to the way other teams and coaching staffs were able to solve them. In this case, the way the Rams solved them was with a VERY good OC, a WR that had outstanding fundamentals, a strong running game, ALL of which helped a young QB with great promise to have a much better first year than most experts expected. Anyone who does not recognize the vast difference between the Rams and the 49ers in this respect is not very observant.

It just doesn't fit the agenda, so it must be irrelevant...you know how it is with those people.

This whole statement is laughable. As if the offensive rookie of the year didn't help the team look good. It must of been because of their excellent coaches and players. You are missing my points and making up crap to suit your agenda. Nobody in this league would ever state what you just did, except for rams fans and Smith fans trying to make a point.

He dominated the NFC west towards the stretch. With or without Mike Johnson, that doesn't impress me.

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 29, 2011 at 11:18:32 ]

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was [b]59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half. [/b]

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

That about sums it up.....

Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

Danny Amendola Career stats

Games: 30
Catches: 128
Yards: 1,015 (33 YPG)
Long: 36
TD: 4

Crabtree Career stats:

Games: 27
Catches 103
Yards: 1,366 (50 YPG)
Long: 60
TD 8

I would rather take Crabs and Bradford over Amendola and A.Smith.

Again, using stats alone NEVER tells the entire story.

In the same way that looking at Alex Smith under Jimmy Raye does not show what he was able to accomplish under Mike Johnson, looking at Amendola before Shurmur modified the offense to fit Bradford does not tell all the story there.

Looking only at Amendola's yardage numbers hides the fact he has great hands, run excellent routes and reads defenses very well. All of those are things Crabtree has not yet demonstrated with the 49ers. Further, Shurmur admittedly designed the offense to put the LEAST POSSIBLE PRESSURE on Bradford to build his confidence and help in his development. Shurmur repeatedly noted how Amendola's abilities contributed to Bradford's success by quickly and accurately adjusting routes to be open for Bradford.

My "agenda" is simple. Look at ALL of the factors that were a problem last year and compare them to the way other teams and coaching staffs were able to solve them. In this case, the way the Rams solved them was with a VERY good OC, a WR that had outstanding fundamentals, a strong running game, ALL of which helped a young QB with great promise to have a much better first year than most experts expected. Anyone who does not recognize the vast difference between the Rams and the 49ers in this respect is not very observant.

You are right. Using stats alone isn't enough. You have to adjust your stats in order to skew them to better prove your point like you did right here:

"In the first 8 games his (Bradford) QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his (Bradford) rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half. "

Lets go ahead and adjust Smith statistics last year by taking out his games against "abysmal" secondaries and see what happens to his "consistency."

49ers and Rams played the exact same teams btw. And Bradford, as a rookie, outplayed the 6 year vet in smith on a similar s**tty team.

The Smith fans continue to ignore this.

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 29, 2011 at 11:19:36 ]

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:


Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

?

See, if you put down anyone on the team except "he who shall not be named", then you disrespect the team. It is, however, somehow okay to constantly put down our starting QB without the same result. (or even worse, putting down our new HC's opinion)

Got it?

I put down plenty of 49ers such as Kwame Harris, Dashon Goldson, Mark Roman as well because they sucked.

A.Smith doesn't get a pass from his poor play just like these other players didn't. I gave the guy enough chances.

But to say that Amendula is better then our whole WR, just to defend A.Smith, who hasn't shown us a shred of good QB play, is not cool in my book. But thats IMO.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
A.Smith, who hasn't shown us a shred of good QB play

.... and this really says all that can be said about your opinion... in my opinion. It's clear that you can not see clearly on him. Just saying such a thing makes it abundantly clear, and I suspect even to you.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
A.Smith, who hasn't shown us a shred of good QB play

.... and this really says all that can be said about your opinion... in my opinion. It's clear that you can not see clearly on him. Just saying such a thing makes it abundantly clear, and I suspect even to you.

I see clearly enough. You are riddled with excuses and can't provide ONE game where Smith actually had a great game and won that game against a good team. As a QB, in 6 years, if he was good, he should have had more outstanding performances despite bad team play. There have been plenty of other NFL games where the team plays like dogs**t and the QB bails them out with stellar play. Our QB adds to the mess.

Even when he plays bad opponents, he looks weak. I've watched enough games to see it pretty clearly.

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 29, 2011 at 11:28:10 ]

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
I've watched enough games to see it pretty clearly.

Oh, and Harbaugh hasn't? We should ignore what we see, as well as what a former pro QB and QB developer sees... because you know better?

You're expecting a lot of changed minds based off of your anonymous knowledge here.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

That about sums it up.....

Going so far as saying Danny Amendola is better then Crabs, Morgan, and Ginn is disrespectful to our 49er team.

Danny Amendola Career stats

Games: 30
Catches: 128
Yards: 1,015 (33 YPG)
Long: 36
TD: 4

Crabtree Career stats:

Games: 27
Catches 103
Yards: 1,366 (50 YPG)
Long: 60
TD 8

I would rather take Crabs and Bradford over Amendola and A.Smith.

Again, using stats alone NEVER tells the entire story.

In the same way that looking at Alex Smith under Jimmy Raye does not show what he was able to accomplish under Mike Johnson, looking at Amendola before Shurmur modified the offense to fit Bradford does not tell all the story there.

Looking only at Amendola's yardage numbers hides the fact he has great hands, run excellent routes and reads defenses very well. All of those are things Crabtree has not yet demonstrated with the 49ers. Further, Shurmur admittedly designed the offense to put the LEAST POSSIBLE PRESSURE on Bradford to build his confidence and help in his development. Shurmur repeatedly noted how Amendola's abilities contributed to Bradford's success by quickly and accurately adjusting routes to be open for Bradford.

My "agenda" is simple. Look at ALL of the factors that were a problem last year and compare them to the way other teams and coaching staffs were able to solve them. In this case, the way the Rams solved them was with a VERY good OC, a WR that had outstanding fundamentals, a strong running game, ALL of which helped a young QB with great promise to have a much better first year than most experts expected. Anyone who does not recognize the vast difference between the Rams and the 49ers in this respect is not very observant.

It just doesn't fit the agenda, so it must be irrelevant...you know how it is with those people.

This whole statement is laughable. As if the offensive rookie of the year didn't help the team look good. It must of been because of their excellent coaches and players. You are missing my points and making up crap to suit your agenda. Nobody in this league would ever state what you just did, except for rams fans and Smith fans trying to make a point.

He dominated the NFC west towards the stretch. With or without Mike Johnson, that doesn't impress me.

If you are referring to the bolded part of what I previously wrote, that portion was taken from numerous professional observers of the Rams, from pro football writers and from statements made by Pat Shurmur himself.

Do not ever accuse me of lying on this site. Your lack of comprehension is not grounds to call me a liar. I was comparing the way the two coaching staffs approached the offense and how one made adjustments to take advantage of the individual players talents and the other tried to force their system on players when it did not fit at all. If you cannot read well enough to understand such a simple comparison then don't expect me to respond further to your insults. I won't.