Is David Akers the best kicker we ever had?

Originally posted by 16to87:
A.S. was feeling low misspoke, caught some heat, J.H. took a bullet for him, lied to make him feel better. ( short version ) my take on it, ...don't like it? too bad

How misspoken. Harbaugh, Baalke, Condon screw A.S. Don't care.

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Amazes me that anyone would prefer a Camry over a S63 AMG.

Wait until you see the repair bills. Luxury German cars are a joy to drive, but as an owner of one of such cars, at times I wonder if my car was worth the price and the repair bills I paid for. The engine is great, the ride is great, but why do I have to replace parts too often? (And they of course cost an arm and a leg, it seems.)

This is so 27 seconds ago.... This team will rise!

Originally posted by tjd808185:
I agree with you about 1 thing. We were interested in Peyton Manning, but he would have to give us concessions as well. We weren't Denver or Tennessee and weren't going to jump thru hoops for him.

It's reported that Manning liked that we kept everything under the table. The circus wasn't needed and we didn't need to fly him out to our hq. If we had no interest in Manning we wouldn't have accepted his request and flew our doctors out to look at him would we? New Orleans is having a difficult time signing Brees but last I checked they weren't flirting with Manning. You are aware that us talking to Rodgers or Brady would be tampering, correct? Horrible analogy. We deny having interest in guys all of the time, and when your qb bolts off to Miami then yeah a denial would probally be beneficial.

Alex Smith left Frisco shortly after the Manning rumors surfassed and came back after Manning picked Denver. Prove otherwise.

Here's how I see it. We offered Alex a mininum starting qb contract. (3 years 24 mil) That's Matt Flynn money right there. While he was busy seeing if he can't get a better offer we were busy seeing if we could get a better qb. In the end both sides probally knew they were right for each other the whole time.

Ahh...there it is, the use of the word Frisco for San Francisco eliminates you as a true 9er fan. So it does't matter what you think regarding player issues. Sorry, it's an old rule and you broke it.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Ahh...there it is, the use of the word Frisco for San Francisco eliminates you as a true 9er fan. So it does't matter what you think regarding player issues. Sorry, it's an old rule and you broke it.

Not from Frisco so no way to know that. But it's good to know that you can't argue against my point so you'll just throw up some non sensical garbage.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Ahh...there it is, the use of the word Frisco for San Francisco eliminates you as a true 9er fan. So it does't matter what you think regarding player issues. Sorry, it's an old rule and you broke it.

Not from Frisco so no way to know that. But it's good to know that you can't argue against my point so you'll just throw up some non sensical garbage.

No point in another replay to the same unbased conjecture. So now you know that many San Franciscans are offended by the use of "Frisco" but you continue to use it. Thank you for updating your non-fan status!

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
No point in another replay to the same unbased conjecture. So now you know that many San Franciscans are offended by the use of "Frisco" but you continue to use it. Thank you for updating your non-fan status!

Fan of the organization, not a fan of you. Not going any furthur into this either so since you have nothing to say regarding the topic leave it at that.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Ahh...there it is, the use of the word Frisco for San Francisco eliminates you as a true 9er fan. So it does't matter what you think regarding player issues. Sorry, it's an old rule and you broke it.

Not true, as a native born and raised blue collar San franciscan of over 60 years the term " Frisco " was commonly used with no offence taken. Only the social elite and out of state pervs who have overrun " the City " insist upon it.

I wanted Peyton, but after seeing his deal with Denver, I am happy we didn't tie up $18M a year for one player. Hurts the cap big time.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:
Like I said, Alex signed a contract that allows him to be cut without significant damage to the cap. Lets assume Peyton was willing to sign a low-risk/high-reward incentive-based deal since he's coming back from a very serious injury, missed a year, and has a chance to play for a SB contender. That creates a situation where we could have both players on the roster (for training camp/pre-season at least). You're probably thinking there's no chance Peyton would ever consider signing that type of deal...well, that's why you check him out and see if its an option. Was the situation of having both QBs on the team unlikely? Absolutely it was very unlikely, but you can't rule it out 100% unless you evaluate the situation and see for yourself (which is what Harbaugh & Baalke did).

As for Alex checking out Miami, he was just looking out for himself like any free agent would do. He originally assumed that he was gonna re-sign with the Niners and return to the team as the unchallenged starting QB. Now with Manning possibly coming in, he would obviously have to compete as the underdog to keep his job. Why settle for that situation without checking out other possibilities first? As I said earlier, Smith's offer was still on the table throughout the Manning evaluation. Whatever Smith was doing doesn't change the fact that the Niners intended to bring him back. Remember, he had the option of taking the offer at any point during the process (even before Manning made his decision).

BTW, my intelligence isn't below a 3rd grader.

I apologize for the insult.

I wasn't trying to single you out I'm just stating how obvious is it that Peyton Manning and Alex Smith would have never agreed to play with each other. Harbaugh and Balke aren't dumb they know how the league works and that it's 1 or the other. They know that flirting with Peyton is enough for Alex to start looking elsewhere.

I do understand that it would have to be 1 or the other. I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. If you re-read my previous post in this thread, you'll notice I point out 2 important things:
1. Smith signed a deal that allows him to be cut without a cap huge penalty & Manning would need to sign a low-risk/high-reward deal. This means neither QBs' contracts would have a significantly negative effect on the cap should they happen to be released.
2. We would have both QBs at least for training camp/preseason. This means we would have both QBs before the regular season, not necessarily during the season.

Now it should be more obvious what I'm trying to get across. Having both QBs on the roster creates a competition for the starting role. Since both guys have low-risk deals, the loser of the competition can be cut without doing too much cap damage. Obviously we wouldn't be carrying both QBs long-term and 1 would have to go.

The possibility of having both Manning & Smith may have been an unlikely scenario, but it was still an option that needed to be evaluated before completely ruling it out. It most likely wasn't gonna happen but it was definitely worth a look. It wouldn't hurt to at least try.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
There never was a scenario were we could have both.

How about this...

Why Manning would sign (with Smith already on the roster):
1. In an open competition for the starting job, he will be the favorite to win.
2. He will be playing for a SB contender.
3. Despite the contract being low risk, he will maximize the deal by earning the incentives with great play.

Why Smith would sign (with Manning already on the roster):
1. Its his job to lose and he is confident he can keep it. Plus, Peyton may not be the same QB he used to be. A potentially worse version of Peyton might not provide the challenge people expect.
2. SF is the team he truly wants to play for.
3. Despite the contract being low risk, he can play his way into the long term deal he is seeking.

If things worked out this way, we would have had both QBs competing. Was this a possible scenario? Harbaugh wouldn't know unless he evaluated the situation and the players involved (which he did).

But the main point I wanted to get across in my original post was that Harbaugh didn't lie. The events that took place and the actions that occurred back up everything Harbaugh told the media.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Good comments all around, and nice job candlestick. But here's one I wrote about 5 days ago and nobody has commented on. If Harbaugh and Baalke DID NOT look into the possibility of Peyton coming here, they would both have been derilect in their duties. Their job is to put the best team on the field and to win SBs. Well, last yr they came scary close. So when peyton called Coach H and requested a visit, it was to exchange information. For Peyton, how much $$ and how much control. For B& H, virtually the same in reverse: how many $$ and how much control....AND, how healthy.

After initial talks it was apparent the dance cards didn't match up, and Peyton moved on, and essentially B&H did the same...except they didn't broadcast it. Shortly after Peyton's announcement, alex signed the contract that had been on the table the entire time.

One other thing. When you have COY in a first yr in the NFL coach, and you also have the GM of the yr on the same team, I firmly believe after Peyton realized he wouldn't have control, and the $$ would have financially ruined the D and stretched the O,( both of which are primed for a series of SB runs),
I believe Peyton asked B& H who they thot he was the best fit for. I don't think peyton came all the way over here just to hear Coach tell him no on control and Baalke tell him no on $$, I truly believe Peyton respected what both men have done, and wanted an opinion from a respected third party as to where he should end up. And my bet is they told him, " go to where the air is thin"

So those that thot badly of our two guys, I think you are mistaken. They HAD TO investigate Peyton, and needed to know if he would take $8Mil per for 3 yrs, and would Peyton have complete control? When the answer was no and no, that basically ended it. The medical exam had been done by that time.

Those finding fault with Harbaugh and Baalke just doing their jobs, are not giving them the credit they deserved. Had Peyton not called, I don't believe they would have called him. Once he showed interest, the die was cast, and what happened was Coach and GM looking into what was best for the team. I don't think they had any choice. In the end, they did what was best for our team, and I fully agree with the entire series of events. As for Coach and the media, why would he want to tell them what was going on. They don't deserve to know his and baalke's tactics...and neither do we. If you don't believe it, look at our two last drafts. Those guys did the right thing and went their own way. Webzone and fans don't run this team...but we all know who does.

I disagree about Peyton asking Baalke & Harbaugh their opinion on his best fit. I believe only 1 person knows what's best for Peyton, and that person is Peyton himself. The decision was based on money (Broncos), winning (Niners), and environment (Titans). Ultimately he chose what was most important to him at this point of his career.

I do agree with everything else you said though!

Originally posted by tjd808185:
Fan of the organization, not a fan of you. Not going any furthur into this either so since you have nothing to say regarding the topic leave it at that.

In your post (#211) you said "even a 3rd grader could tell that there is no chance in Hell that both Peyton Manning and Alex Smith could be a 49er," which was insulting to anyone who dared disagree with you. My attempt at sarcasm by criticizing your use of Frisco was dumb--mea culpa.

Smith went to Miami at their invitation, I'm sure their owner would have loved to steal him away as payback for Harbaugh rejecting them. Most other teams knew that Smith would likely sign with SF and there was no reason to make an attempt at signing him as he had already stated publicly that he would sign with SF.

The end of your post is the only thing I agree with--both sides likely knew that they were ideal for each other.

Originally posted by 16to87:
Not true, as a native born and raised blue collar San franciscan of over 60 years the term " Frisco " was commonly used with no offence taken. Only the social elite and out of state pervs who have overrun " the City " insist upon it.

Interesting! My grandfather lived in SF from the time my father was a baby, 1920's and was in construction. He never allowed us to use the term Frisco and said it evolved from an insult to the city--I'll try to google the source as my memory is lapsing. At any rate, my attempt to needle the poster for a remark I found offensive caused offense...so a lesson re-learned: never post when you are exhausted and in a bad mood! And lesson 2--humor often sounds better in your head than it does in a post. My mother's family moved to SF in the mid 1800's and also objected to the term. Neither group were elitists or "out of state pervs."

A couple of sources for objecting to the use of Frisco:

"San Francisco was named after a saint and it is unbecoming to abbreviate it." As my grandfather was a Catholic this is likely the source of his objection.

"Whoever after due and proper warning shall be heard to utter the abominable word "Frisco," which has no linguistic or other warrant, shall be deemed guilty of a High Misdemeanor, and shall pay into the Imperial Treasury as penalty the sum of twenty-five dollars." - NORTON I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, 1872 Mind you, it's only a High Misdemeanor, but refusing to pay the penalty is a felony, punishable by flogging.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
In your post (#211) you said "even a 3rd grader could tell that there is no chance in Hell that both Peyton Manning and Alex Smith could be a 49er," which was insulting to anyone who dared disagree with you. My attempt at sarcasm by criticizing your use of Frisco was dumb--mea culpa.

Smith went to Miami at their invitation, I'm sure their owner would have loved to steal him away as payback for Harbaugh rejecting them. Most other teams knew that Smith would likely sign with SF and there was no reason to make an attempt at signing him as he had already stated publicly that he would sign with SF.

The end of your post is the only thing I agree with--both sides likely knew that they were ideal for each other.

Yeah and I apologized to the person once I realized he took offense to it.

Smith went to Miami after news broke out that we interest in Peyton Manning. He was covering his bases because he had to. He wasn't going there for any other reason besides that because like you said he wanted to be here and Miami offered the same deal that we did showing that move was nothing more than a backup plan in case we landed Manning. Most other teams knew he would sign here but they also knew that we offered him a minimum contract for a starting qb. That info was available in Jan. There's a reason why this deal didn't get done.

Here's what it boils to and I don't think you find very many instances going against this notion. At least not since the start of free agency. If you consider someone as a franchise qb you don't flirt with other qbs. When that happens like in Denver (Culter) sh** tends to hit the fans. You really believe NE, NO, Pit, GB, NYG would do this to their guy? Not a chance in Hell. I'm not talking about the 35 year old guy that eventually needs to be replaced. Alex Smith is in the prime of his career and we didn't exclusively negotiate with him. That's saying alot.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:
I do understand that it would have to be 1 or the other. I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. If you re-read my previous post in this thread, you'll notice I point out 2 important things:
1. Smith signed a deal that allows him to be cut without a cap huge penalty & Manning would need to sign a low-risk/high-reward deal. This means neither QBs' contracts would have a significantly negative effect on the cap should they happen to be released.
2. We would have both QBs at least for training camp/preseason. This means we would have both QBs before the regular season, not necessarily during the season.

Now it should be more obvious what I'm trying to get across. Having both QBs on the roster creates a competition for the starting role. Since both guys have low-risk deals, the loser of the competition can be cut without doing too much cap damage. Obviously we wouldn't be carrying both QBs long-term and 1 would have to go.

The possibility of having both Manning & Smith may have been an unlikely scenario, but it was still an option that needed to be evaluated before completely ruling it out. It most likely wasn't gonna happen but it was definitely worth a look. It wouldn't hurt to at least try.



How about this...

Why Manning would sign (with Smith already on the roster):
1. In an open competition for the starting job, he will be the favorite to win.
2. He will be playing for a SB contender.
3. Despite the contract being low risk, he will maximize the deal by earning the incentives with great play.

Why Smith would sign (with Manning already on the roster):
1. Its his job to lose and he is confident he can keep it. Plus, Peyton may not be the same QB he used to be. A potentially worse version of Peyton might not provide the challenge people expect.
2. SF is the team he truly wants to play for.
3. Despite the contract being low risk, he can play his way into the long term deal he is seeking.

If things worked out this way, we would have had both QBs competing. Was this a possible scenario? Harbaugh wouldn't know unless he evaluated the situation and the players involved (which he did).

But the main point I wanted to get across in my original post was that Harbaugh didn't lie. The events that took place and the actions that occurred back up everything Harbaugh told the media.

It's not about contracts although I can't envision a scenario were that would work.

Peyton Manning would never, ever, ever, ever go here unless he was the undisputed starting qb. There's a reason why Tebow got kicked to the curb seconds after Manning landed in Denver. Denver wasn't going to let the media spin a qb controversy.

Alex Smith is not going to resign here when he realizes he has to compete with Peyton Manning. He knows he's a starting qb in this league and if we're not going to give him that gig he'll find someone that will.

Harbaugh is not going to want that distraction plaguing the locker room. Bringing in Manning and Smith would set off a nuke in the locker room. Our teammates are firmly behind Alex Smith. Peyton Manning is one of the best qbs to ever play the game.

Here's my point. The scenario you're throwing just isn't realistic and Harbaugh and Balke knew that option was never on the table. Point being if we had any interest in Manning it had to be as Alex's replacement because there is no maybe he'll play for free and compete with Alex.