Week 16: Thoughts after rewatching the game...

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:
BTW with this loss, i read where some say I have to have the same mindframe as i would of with Alex.

And if this is so, then lets give Kaep the harsh reality that we have when Smith was under center. Just like if a person asks what kind of ice cream flavors u like and u say well it depends on where u go. But thats not answering the main question. What flavor do u like, chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, etc.

in this case i use that example becasue the D let them score 42 points, but lets stop using that as the excuse for Kaeps lack of production. He failed to make something out of nothing period. I mean was Wilson just sitting in the pocket all day picking us off, no. He outplayed us, just like Kaep should of been able to do against their D.

It just came to me now, but I think the reason they went soo much with the pass this last week, because Kaep for starters has the arm. And if they are gonna run the same version of the O that they ran with Smith, then there is no need to put Kaep in. Problem is, when things broke down for kaep he couldnt make things happen. That smart decision making wasnt a factor. That rolling out and getting the 50yd run a game wasnt a factor. I mean s**t, if anything i would of like to had seen Kaep running and making things happen with his feet just as did Wilson.

So overall, please make sure u hear what im saying with no hidden meanings. Yes Kaep doesnt play defense, yes the playcalling was bad at times, and yes he didnt get much help. But now focusing on the offensive aspect, Kaep did nothing to help his team win. When he did get the ball back, and a good call was called, he either audibled out, or we stalled. just that simple.

And im focusing just on this game. not next weeks, not the new england game. Just this one. This was a true test of enviornment and playoff atmosphere. Actually more than New England, because their stadium is no where near the same as Chicken stadium. He failed to do anything until garbage time. Does this mean it will happen in next weeks game, nope. Does it mean he stinks, nope. or even mean he's not the QB of the future, nope.

But everytime someone says about what he didnt do. Can we stop with the Smith wouldnt of done that either, or he didnt score 42 points. Thats just a way of trying to find another out, rather than just taking ownership as we say for the aspect of the game, Kaep didnt help in. thats all tho. nutin personal

Uh...just a question. How do you know he audibled out of a good call? How is that clear?

Come on now Marv, your a vet like me. You really want me to tell u how that's clear brotha. Well i'll just entertain ya. Their at the line of scrimmage. He looks, points a few places, then the formation changes. he looks around, sees a few other things, then the formation changes again. Then with a few seconds left, he turns and then calls a timeout. Happened a few times last game wouldnt u say. Wasnt because the original play wasnt given. I mean i have a hard time believeing that on all those timeouts it was cuz the incorrect call came in, know what i mean.

I'm just sayin alot of people are making alot of assumptions about how Smith would have played in Seattle.

Oh nah Marv, I got you. But you know how the zone is. And i gotta say. You left the door open when if im not mistaken in your opening statment in this thread. instead of just focusing on Kaep and writing your expert analysis on that, which you do a good job of I think. U fell into the hole as well, and brought up what u thought Smith wouldnt of done. Had u not done that we wouldn't even be talkin about it.

So with next weeks column i'll just say just write about what kaep did or didnt do, without the comparison to what smith would of done.

Marv, I hope you are not stressing too much off trying to explain things in this thread. This thread I believe was mainly for folks who watched the game a second time, but usually I get the sense that some (instead of asking questions, if they only watched it once) give opinions based off of watching the game once. And I don't think that's fair.

Marv, if something doesn't make sense to you...there is probably a reason, don't over think it. I know you were one of Alex's biggest backers, and I know you still support the guy.....but I get the sense that some feel or try to post as if you are an "Alex hater".

Originally posted by Afrikan:
Marv, I hope you are not stressing too much off trying to explain things in this thread. This thread I believe was mainly for folks who watched the game a second time, but usually I get the sense that some (instead of asking questions, if they only watched it once) give opinions based off of watching the game once. And I don't think that's fair.

Marv, if something doesn't make sense to you...there is probably a reason, don't over think it. I know you were one of Alex's biggest backers, and I know you still support the guy.....but I get the sense that some feel or try to post as if you are an "Alex hater".

Brotha, Afrik, wuz up man. Actually and i know u didnt mean that for me, am gonna say i think it's the exact opposite. Long time in a while that we are able to debate, with no cheap shots, no one getting banned, and no cursing. s**t i wish the zone was like this in a lot of other threads.

Just trying to prevent something getting started with the Alex hater idea, cuz this isnt the vibe im getting at all, and i dont want things to go down this road. just debating healthily thats all, IMHO.

Marv does the expert analysis thing, and there are those that agree with certain aspects, and debating him on the ones they dont see eye to eye on. Thats all.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4 minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's before the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15 more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had 4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Well I have to say that I too like Marv's analysis, just differ when it comes to the smith debate.

Yes for starters, Kaep is our starter and we have to ride or die with him and i support coach if that's who he wants behind center. Always will support the HC whether i believe his decision making is best or not. Some say that because he took a chance on Smith, that we have to give Kaep a chance. I think this is true, it just sucks that it had to come at the expense of this years season.

Kaep does have it, and the intangibles somewhat. I do believe he will be something, but honestly wont commit to either side, because im still on the fence with him. Speaking strictly in regards to him, i just hate the move because, IT DIDNT HAVE TO BE MADE, IMHO.

I live somewhat by the adage that if it aint broke dont fix it. And thats what happened with us. Smith was replaced, because of the potential that kaep has in all phases of the game. So it came down to, do u go with the guy that has shown he can get it done, and was a few fumbles away from the SB, or go with an unproven guy that has tremendous upside, with the willingness to be able to say that working through the ups downs, wins and losses, will prepare him for the playoffs.

With Seattle, even u Marv, fell into the whole of trying to convey what Smith wouldnt of been able to do in that enviornment, when in all actuality, there is almost one thing he would of done, and i honestly feel, beat Seattle. Under harbs with Smith at center he's helped lead them to 3-0 vs Seattle. in the past 2 seasons, correct. One win in Seattle, and I think 2 at home. And thats actual proof not conjecture.

We equally are "hoping that Kaep can learn on the job, hoping that he'll redeem himself this week, better prepared for it down the road hopefully. But you see the key word there... Hoping and hopefully. Regardless of what we think we may have gotten in Smith, the point is we got 6-2 with him at the helm, before the new move was made, and now dealing with the idea of hope in a situation, where we shouldnt have to be, this late in the season.

Heath Evens on NFL network hates the move and has all season. But it was funny last night, when he said yeah, whats gonna happen when we dont make it far with kaep. The vets that want and have to win now because their future is uncertain, will now have almost wasted a season, becasue of what coach thought was the best decision. And as i said, even coach is human and can run the race with the hare, but we all know the tortoise wins in the end.

Harbs pulled a hare move, and i just feel that it may hurt us. But to let that deter my love for my team, or alter me following them, hell no. If i can make it through Rattay and Rashaun times, i can def stick with them through anything.

Go Niners!

I will never understand the thought process that Smith would have won in Seattle. I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me. He put 13 points on the board and struggled BADLY when they played in SF. Alot of that had to do with the Seattle DBs mugging the Niner receivers, but the same thing happened in Seattle. My thought process on the game in Seattle had never been that "Alex sucks so he couldn't win in Seattle either". It has been "Alex doesn't play special teams or defense and Seattle put 42 points on the board". The 49ers have scored 13 points twice against the Seahawks. In both games the Niners starting QB threw an INT in the end zone. What's the difference? In the second matchup, the other team blocked a FG and scored a TD, injured a starting WR who promptly fumbled the ball on a drive that was moving, and freakin scored AT WILL on the best D in the NFL.

I simply don't get the argument that Smith could have overcome all that. To watch that game in those circstances and come away thinking "yeah, the QB was the problem" is simply ludicrous. He was down 14-0 before he blinked.

Look, there are alot of peeps here who aren't in favor of the move to Kaep. That's all good, but the insistence on putting games where the D never gets off the bus on the QB is just nuts.

It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4 minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's including the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15 more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had 4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Wow. That a reach of the first order. Yeah... Alex never had a 3 and out. LOL!!! Did everyone forget the Niners FIRST game with Seattle!?! It was SEATTLE who played ball control in this game because they converted almost every single third down they were encountered with. Seattle scored a TD almost every single time they had the ball. Is you expection that Smith would have methodically done the same thing...even though he has never done so and muster a grand total of 6 points in the first half in their first meeting?

This reasoning makes zero sense.

Originally posted by Afrikan:

Marv, I hope you are not stressing too much off trying to explain things in this thread. This thread I believe was mainly for folks who watched the game a second time, but usually I get the sense that some (instead of asking questions, if they only watched it once) give opinions based off of watching the game once. And I don't think that's fair.

Marv, if something doesn't make sense to you...there is probably a reason, don't over think it. I know you were one of Alex's biggest backers, and I know you still support the guy.....but I get the sense that some feel or try to post as if you are an "Alex hater".

Lol. No worries.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4+ minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's before the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15+ more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had +4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Well I have to say that I too like Marv's analysis, just differ when it comes to the smith debate.

Yes for starters, Kaep is our starter and we have to ride or die with him and i support coach if that's who he wants behind center. Always will support the HC whether i believe his decision making is best or not. Some say that because he took a chance on Smith, that we have to give Kaep a chance. I think this is true, it just sucks that it had to come at the expense of this years season.

Kaep does have it, and the intangibles somewhat. I do believe he will be something, but honestly wont commit to either side, because im still on the fence with him. Speaking strictly in regards to him, i just hate the move because, IT DIDNT HAVE TO BE MADE, IMHO.

I live somewhat by the adage that if it aint broke dont fix it. And thats what happened with us. Smith was replaced, because of the potential that kaep has in all phases of the game. So it came down to, do u go with the guy that has shown he can get it done, and was a few fumbles away from the SB, or go with an unproven guy that has tremendous upside, with the willingness to be able to say that working through the ups downs, wins and losses, will prepare him for the playoffs.

With Seattle, even u Marv, fell into the whole of trying to convey what Smith wouldnt of been able to do in that enviornment, when in all actuality, there is almost one thing he would of done, and i honestly feel, beat Seattle. Under harbs with Smith at center he's helped lead them to 3-0 vs Seattle. in the past 2 seasons, correct. One win in Seattle, and I think 2 at home. And thats actual proof not conjecture.

We equally are "hoping that Kaep can learn on the job, hoping that he'll redeem himself this week, better prepared for it down the road hopefully. But you see the key word there... Hoping and hopefully. Regardless of what we think we may have gotten in Smith, the point is we got 6-2 with him at the helm, before the new move was made, and now dealing with the idea of hope in a situation, where we shouldnt have to be, this late in the season.

Heath Evens on NFL network hates the move and has all season. But it was funny last night, when he said yeah, whats gonna happen when we dont make it far with kaep. The vets that want and have to win now because their future is uncertain, will now have almost wasted a season, becasue of what coach thought was the best decision. And as i said, even coach is human and can run the race with the hare, but we all know the tortoise wins in the end.

Harbs pulled a hare move, and i just feel that it may hurt us. But to let that deter my love for my team, or alter me following them, hell no. If i can make it through Rattay and Rashaun times, i can def stick with them through anything.

Go Niners!

I will never understand the thought process that Smith would have won in Seattle. I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me. He put 13 points on the board and struggled BADLY when they played in SF. Alot of that had to do with the Seattle DBs mugging the Niner receivers, but the same thing happened in Seattle. My thought process on the game in Seattle had never been that "Alex sucks so he couldn't win in Seattle either". It has been "Alex doesn't play special teams or defense and Seattle put 42 points on the board". The 49ers have scored 13 points twice against the Seahawks. In both games the Niners starting QB threw an INT in the end zone. What's the difference? In the second matchup, the other team blocked a FG and scored a TD, injured a starting WR who promptly fumbled the ball on a drive that was moving, and freakin scored AT WILL on the best D in the NFL.

I simply don't get the argument that Smith could have overcome all that. To watch that game in those circstances and come away thinking "yeah, the QB was the problem" is simply ludicrous. He was down 14-0 before he blinked.

Look, there are alot of peeps here who aren't in favor of the move to Kaep. That's all good, but the insistence on putting games where the D never gets off the bus on the QB is just nuts.

It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4+ minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's including the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15+ more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had +4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Wow. That a reach of the first order. Yeah... Alex never had a 3 and out. LOL!!! Did everyone forget the Niners FIRST game with Seattle!?! It was SEATTLE who played ball control in this game because they converted almost every single third down they were encountered with. Seattle scored a TD almost every single time they had the ball. Is you expection that Smith would have methodically done the same thing...even though he has never done so and muster a grand total of 6 points in the first half in their first meeting?

This reasoning makes zero sense.

Well with a full quarter difference in TOP between the two yeah.

How do they score when they don't have the ball? I don't get how that makes no sense. How does our defense expect to play well being out there 15 more minutes a game? You honestly thing that makes no difference? Again I said "maybe" cause this is nothing but a hypothetical, but I don't see how us not maintaining ball control had no effect on this game.

Originally posted by FourNine49:
Some people are not getting it.

Last year's Defense and Special Teams were AMAZINGLY good. +28 in the turnover ratio and Akers set the single season scoring record (non TD).

This year, the Defense isn't getting as many turnovers and Akers is missing A LOT of FGs. When 2 out of the 3 phases of football aren't as dominant as they once were, you HAVE to step up that third area, the offense.

We all knew that we wouldn't be able to produce the same defensive output like last year. We still have a very good record and we have beat some good teams in their house. A common thread with our losses is that we got beat by teams that punched us in the mouth and for whatever reason we are not punching back. That's normally what we do to teams. In our losses, teams seem to get up on us very quickly and you can almost tell that nothing is going to stop it. I think our guys will be ready come playoff time. I just hope mental mistakes don't burn us like penalties or costl;y turnovers.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4 minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's before the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15 more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had 4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Well I have to say that I too like Marv's analysis, just differ when it comes to the smith debate.

Yes for starters, Kaep is our starter and we have to ride or die with him and i support coach if that's who he wants behind center. Always will support the HC whether i believe his decision making is best or not. Some say that because he took a chance on Smith, that we have to give Kaep a chance. I think this is true, it just sucks that it had to come at the expense of this years season.

Kaep does have it, and the intangibles somewhat. I do believe he will be something, but honestly wont commit to either side, because im still on the fence with him. Speaking strictly in regards to him, i just hate the move because, IT DIDNT HAVE TO BE MADE, IMHO.

I live somewhat by the adage that if it aint broke dont fix it. And thats what happened with us. Smith was replaced, because of the potential that kaep has in all phases of the game. So it came down to, do u go with the guy that has shown he can get it done, and was a few fumbles away from the SB, or go with an unproven guy that has tremendous upside, with the willingness to be able to say that working through the ups downs, wins and losses, will prepare him for the playoffs.

With Seattle, even u Marv, fell into the whole of trying to convey what Smith wouldnt of been able to do in that enviornment, when in all actuality, there is almost one thing he would of done, and i honestly feel, beat Seattle. Under harbs with Smith at center he's helped lead them to 3-0 vs Seattle. in the past 2 seasons, correct. One win in Seattle, and I think 2 at home. And thats actual proof not conjecture.

We equally are "hoping that Kaep can learn on the job, hoping that he'll redeem himself this week, better prepared for it down the road hopefully. But you see the key word there... Hoping and hopefully. Regardless of what we think we may have gotten in Smith, the point is we got 6-2 with him at the helm, before the new move was made, and now dealing with the idea of hope in a situation, where we shouldnt have to be, this late in the season.

Heath Evens on NFL network hates the move and has all season. But it was funny last night, when he said yeah, whats gonna happen when we dont make it far with kaep. The vets that want and have to win now because their future is uncertain, will now have almost wasted a season, becasue of what coach thought was the best decision. And as i said, even coach is human and can run the race with the hare, but we all know the tortoise wins in the end.

Harbs pulled a hare move, and i just feel that it may hurt us. But to let that deter my love for my team, or alter me following them, hell no. If i can make it through Rattay and Rashaun times, i can def stick with them through anything.

Go Niners!

I will never understand the thought process that Smith would have won in Seattle. I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me. He put 13 points on the board and struggled BADLY when they played in SF. Alot of that had to do with the Seattle DBs mugging the Niner receivers, but the same thing happened in Seattle. My thought process on the game in Seattle had never been that "Alex sucks so he couldn't win in Seattle either". It has been "Alex doesn't play special teams or defense and Seattle put 42 points on the board". The 49ers have scored 13 points twice against the Seahawks. In both games the Niners starting QB threw an INT in the end zone. What's the difference? In the second matchup, the other team blocked a FG and scored a TD, injured a starting WR who promptly fumbled the ball on a drive that was moving, and freakin scored AT WILL on the best D in the NFL.

I simply don't get the argument that Smith could have overcome all that. To watch that game in those circstances and come away thinking "yeah, the QB was the problem" is simply ludicrous. He was down 14-0 before he blinked.

Look, there are alot of peeps here who aren't in favor of the move to Kaep. That's all good, but the insistence on putting games where the D never gets off the bus on the QB is just nuts.

It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4 minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's including the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15 more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had 4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Wow. That a reach of the first order. Yeah... Alex never had a 3 and out. LOL!!! Did everyone forget the Niners FIRST game with Seattle!?! It was SEATTLE who played ball control in this game because they converted almost every single third down they were encountered with. Seattle scored a TD almost every single time they had the ball. Is you expection that Smith would have methodically done the same thing...even though he has never done so and muster a grand total of 6 points in the first half in their first meeting?

This reasoning makes zero sense.

Originally posted by Afrikan:
Marv, I hope you are not stressing too much off trying to explain things in this thread. This thread I believe was mainly for folks who watched the game a second time, but usually I get the sense that some (instead of asking questions, if they only watched it once) give opinions based off of watching the game once. And I don't think that's fair.

Marv, if something doesn't make sense to you...there is probably a reason, don't over think it. I know you were one of Alex's biggest backers, and I know you still support the guy.....but I get the sense that some feel or try to post as if you are an "Alex hater".

Lol. No worries.

Marv's a fantastic poster. Probably one of the best most knowledgable on here. I just disagree with him on this one.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4+ minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's before the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15+ more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had +4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Well I have to say that I too like Marv's analysis, just differ when it comes to the smith debate.

Yes for starters, Kaep is our starter and we have to ride or die with him and i support coach if that's who he wants behind center. Always will support the HC whether i believe his decision making is best or not. Some say that because he took a chance on Smith, that we have to give Kaep a chance. I think this is true, it just sucks that it had to come at the expense of this years season.

Kaep does have it, and the intangibles somewhat. I do believe he will be something, but honestly wont commit to either side, because im still on the fence with him. Speaking strictly in regards to him, i just hate the move because, IT DIDNT HAVE TO BE MADE, IMHO.

I live somewhat by the adage that if it aint broke dont fix it. And thats what happened with us. Smith was replaced, because of the potential that kaep has in all phases of the game. So it came down to, do u go with the guy that has shown he can get it done, and was a few fumbles away from the SB, or go with an unproven guy that has tremendous upside, with the willingness to be able to say that working through the ups downs, wins and losses, will prepare him for the playoffs.

With Seattle, even u Marv, fell into the whole of trying to convey what Smith wouldnt of been able to do in that enviornment, when in all actuality, there is almost one thing he would of done, and i honestly feel, beat Seattle. Under harbs with Smith at center he's helped lead them to 3-0 vs Seattle. in the past 2 seasons, correct. One win in Seattle, and I think 2 at home. And thats actual proof not conjecture.

We equally are "hoping that Kaep can learn on the job, hoping that he'll redeem himself this week, better prepared for it down the road hopefully. But you see the key word there... Hoping and hopefully. Regardless of what we think we may have gotten in Smith, the point is we got 6-2 with him at the helm, before the new move was made, and now dealing with the idea of hope in a situation, where we shouldnt have to be, this late in the season.

Heath Evens on NFL network hates the move and has all season. But it was funny last night, when he said yeah, whats gonna happen when we dont make it far with kaep. The vets that want and have to win now because their future is uncertain, will now have almost wasted a season, becasue of what coach thought was the best decision. And as i said, even coach is human and can run the race with the hare, but we all know the tortoise wins in the end.

Harbs pulled a hare move, and i just feel that it may hurt us. But to let that deter my love for my team, or alter me following them, hell no. If i can make it through Rattay and Rashaun times, i can def stick with them through anything.

Go Niners!

I will never understand the thought process that Smith would have won in Seattle. I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me. He put 13 points on the board and struggled BADLY when they played in SF. Alot of that had to do with the Seattle DBs mugging the Niner receivers, but the same thing happened in Seattle. My thought process on the game in Seattle had never been that "Alex sucks so he couldn't win in Seattle either". It has been "Alex doesn't play special teams or defense and Seattle put 42 points on the board". The 49ers have scored 13 points twice against the Seahawks. In both games the Niners starting QB threw an INT in the end zone. What's the difference? In the second matchup, the other team blocked a FG and scored a TD, injured a starting WR who promptly fumbled the ball on a drive that was moving, and freakin scored AT WILL on the best D in the NFL.

I simply don't get the argument that Smith could have overcome all that. To watch that game in those circstances and come away thinking "yeah, the QB was the problem" is simply ludicrous. He was down 14-0 before he blinked.

Look, there are alot of peeps here who aren't in favor of the move to Kaep. That's all good, but the insistence on putting games where the D never gets off the bus on the QB is just nuts.

It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4+ minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's including the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15+ more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had +4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Wow. That a reach of the first order. Yeah... Alex never had a 3 and out. LOL!!! Did everyone forget the Niners FIRST game with Seattle!?! It was SEATTLE who played ball control in this game because they converted almost every single third down they were encountered with. Seattle scored a TD almost every single time they had the ball. Is you expection that Smith would have methodically done the same thing...even though he has never done so and muster a grand total of 6 points in the first half in their first meeting?

This reasoning makes zero sense.

Well with a full quarter difference in TOP between the two yeah.

How do they score when they don't have the ball? I don't get how that makes no sense. How does our defense expect to play well being out there 15 more minutes a game? You honestly thing that makes no difference? Again I said "maybe" cause this is nothing but a hypothetical, but I don't see how us not maintaining ball control had no effect on this game.

Ok. Let's say they hold the ball longer and score the same 13 points they scored in SF. Seattle had the ball twice and the score was 14-0. They made it 21-0 after the blocked FG. No matter how much you play ball control, the other team eventually gets the ball. The Niner D didn't stop them. At all.

Again. Argument makes no sense. Teams can win by limiting the other teams possessions, but that only works if you PLAY DEFENSE.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4 minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's before the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15 more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had 4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Well I have to say that I too like Marv's analysis, just differ when it comes to the smith debate.

Yes for starters, Kaep is our starter and we have to ride or die with him and i support coach if that's who he wants behind center. Always will support the HC whether i believe his decision making is best or not. Some say that because he took a chance on Smith, that we have to give Kaep a chance. I think this is true, it just sucks that it had to come at the expense of this years season.

Kaep does have it, and the intangibles somewhat. I do believe he will be something, but honestly wont commit to either side, because im still on the fence with him. Speaking strictly in regards to him, i just hate the move because, IT DIDNT HAVE TO BE MADE, IMHO.

I live somewhat by the adage that if it aint broke dont fix it. And thats what happened with us. Smith was replaced, because of the potential that kaep has in all phases of the game. So it came down to, do u go with the guy that has shown he can get it done, and was a few fumbles away from the SB, or go with an unproven guy that has tremendous upside, with the willingness to be able to say that working through the ups downs, wins and losses, will prepare him for the playoffs.

With Seattle, even u Marv, fell into the whole of trying to convey what Smith wouldnt of been able to do in that enviornment, when in all actuality, there is almost one thing he would of done, and i honestly feel, beat Seattle. Under harbs with Smith at center he's helped lead them to 3-0 vs Seattle. in the past 2 seasons, correct. One win in Seattle, and I think 2 at home. And thats actual proof not conjecture.

We equally are "hoping that Kaep can learn on the job, hoping that he'll redeem himself this week, better prepared for it down the road hopefully. But you see the key word there... Hoping and hopefully. Regardless of what we think we may have gotten in Smith, the point is we got 6-2 with him at the helm, before the new move was made, and now dealing with the idea of hope in a situation, where we shouldnt have to be, this late in the season.

Heath Evens on NFL network hates the move and has all season. But it was funny last night, when he said yeah, whats gonna happen when we dont make it far with kaep. The vets that want and have to win now because their future is uncertain, will now have almost wasted a season, becasue of what coach thought was the best decision. And as i said, even coach is human and can run the race with the hare, but we all know the tortoise wins in the end.

Harbs pulled a hare move, and i just feel that it may hurt us. But to let that deter my love for my team, or alter me following them, hell no. If i can make it through Rattay and Rashaun times, i can def stick with them through anything.

Go Niners!

I will never understand the thought process that Smith would have won in Seattle. I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me. He put 13 points on the board and struggled BADLY when they played in SF. Alot of that had to do with the Seattle DBs mugging the Niner receivers, but the same thing happened in Seattle. My thought process on the game in Seattle had never been that "Alex sucks so he couldn't win in Seattle either". It has been "Alex doesn't play special teams or defense and Seattle put 42 points on the board". The 49ers have scored 13 points twice against the Seahawks. In both games the Niners starting QB threw an INT in the end zone. What's the difference? In the second matchup, the other team blocked a FG and scored a TD, injured a starting WR who promptly fumbled the ball on a drive that was moving, and freakin scored AT WILL on the best D in the NFL.

I simply don't get the argument that Smith could have overcome all that. To watch that game in those circstances and come away thinking "yeah, the QB was the problem" is simply ludicrous. He was down 14-0 before he blinked.

Look, there are alot of peeps here who aren't in favor of the move to Kaep. That's all good, but the insistence on putting games where the D never gets off the bus on the QB is just nuts.

It's called ball control. How does the opposition score 41 when we don't give them the ball? WIth Alex they had the ball 1 time in both first quarters. He maintained 9 minutes of TOP in his first game, and 10 minutes in his second game in the first quarter. By not giving them 3 and outs every possesion we do not allow them to score 41 points. That's 4 minutes last game of ball control. With Kaep it was -11 minutes, and that's including the 5:22 seconds of the garbage time TD.

So with Alex WE COULD POSSIBLY of had 15 more minutes of ball control. You can't score 42 points with 15 minutes less. Even 10 minutes less, maybe even 5 minutes. Now I think this convo. sucks cause there is really no way to know, but this is my opinion. Alex could have maintained more possesion. With him we had 4 minutes. With Kaep -11 minutes. That's a full quarter of football right there.

Wow. That a reach of the first order. Yeah... Alex never had a 3 and out. LOL!!! Did everyone forget the Niners FIRST game with Seattle!?! It was SEATTLE who played ball control in this game because they converted almost every single third down they were encountered with. Seattle scored a TD almost every single time they had the ball. Is you expection that Smith would have methodically done the same thing...even though he has never done so and muster a grand total of 6 points in the first half in their first meeting?

This reasoning makes zero sense.

Originally posted by Afrikan:

Marv, I hope you are not stressing too much off trying to explain things in this thread. This thread I believe was mainly for folks who watched the game a second time, but usually I get the sense that some (instead of asking questions, if they only watched it once) give opinions based off of watching the game once. And I don't think that's fair.

Marv, if something doesn't make sense to you...there is probably a reason, don't over think it. I know you were one of Alex's biggest backers, and I know you still support the guy.....but I get the sense that some feel or try to post as if you are an "Alex hater".

Lol. No worries.

Marv's a fantastic poster. Probably one of the best most knowledgable on here. I just disagree with him on this one.

I never took it otherwise.

Originally posted by Jersey9er:
BTW with this loss, i read where some say I have to have the same mindframe as i would of with Alex.

And if this is so, then lets give Kaep the harsh reality that we have when Smith was under center. Just like if a person asks what kind of ice cream flavors u like and u say well it depends on where u go. But thats not answering the main question. What flavor do u like, chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, etc.

in this case i use that example becasue the D let them score 42 points, but lets stop using that as the excuse for Kaeps lack of production. He failed to make something out of nothing period. I mean was Wilson just sitting in the pocket all day picking us off, no. He outplayed us, just like Kaep should of been able to do against their D.

It just came to me now, but I think the reason they went soo much with the pass this last week, because Kaep for starters has the arm. And if they are gonna run the same version of the O that they ran with Smith, then there is no need to put Kaep in. Problem is, when things broke down for kaep he couldnt make things happen. That smart decision making wasnt a factor. That rolling out and getting the 50yd run a game wasnt a factor. I mean s**t, if anything i would of like to had seen Kaep running and making things happen with his feet just as did Wilson.

So overall, please make sure u hear what im saying with no hidden meanings. Yes Kaep doesnt play defense, yes the playcalling was bad at times, and yes he didnt get much help. But now focusing on the offensive aspect, Kaep did nothing to help his team win. When he did get the ball back, and a good call was called, he either audibled out, or we stalled. just that simple.

And im focusing just on this game. not next weeks, not the new england game. Just this one. This was a true test of enviornment and playoff atmosphere. Actually more than New England, because their stadium is no where near the same as Chicken stadium. He failed to do anything until garbage time. Does this mean it will happen in next weeks game, nope. Does it mean he stinks, nope. or even mean he's not the QB of the future, nope.

But everytime someone says about what he didnt do. Can we stop with the Smith wouldnt of done that either, or he didnt score 42 points. Thats just a way of trying to find another out, rather than just taking ownership as we say for the aspect of the game, Kaep didnt help in. thats all tho. nutin personal

Let's see defense and special teams gives up 42 points to a red hot team who is undefeated at home.

Defense allows 28 points in 18 minutes at New England in December. (Oh by the way Kaep throws 4 tds including a game winner.)

Kaep wins against a hot Chicago team in his first start.

He wins at New Orleans against another hot team at the time albeit the defense scored 2 tds.

He puts the team in to position to win against the Rams at home only to see Akers miss the game winner. (Kicking game has been an issue all season).

He overcomes his mistakes at St. Louis to win that game but 2 guys paid to do their job Walker catching and Akers kicking don't come through (I know "Kaepercuses").


So now you want us as Niner fans to stand up acknowledge and nitpick the Quarterback play in a 42-13 loss? Regardless of what I mentioned above recapping what Kaep has accomplished so far is irrelevant and insignificant because of the Seattle game where you're micro analyzing QB play justifying in your mind that Harbaugh made a mistake going with Kaep and the arrogance to think if he stayed with the other guy it would of been a different outcome in the game.

Ok I get it now.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Ok. Let's say they hold the ball longer and score the same 13 points they scored in SF. Seattle had the ball twice and the score was 14-0. They made it 21-0 after the blocked FG. No matter how much you play ball control, the other team eventually gets the ball. The Niner D didn't stop them. At all.

Again. Argument makes no sense. Teams can win by limiting the other teams possessions, but that only works if you PLAY DEFENSE.

Well we will agree to disagree I guess. No need to argue.

But what do you say about having to simplify the offense at half? Why did we have to do that? If the offense had no bearing on the game, why are we simplifying our offense mid-game? Did this have nothing to do with us being totally inept? To me that makes no sense. I don't see a single reason we should have to simplify the offense week 16.

And I agree that the defense played like s**t, but so did our offense and it seems like many don't even care to go there. Nobody cares to divulge into why our offense can't score t.d's. We did against NE but besides that we had 2 t.d's in the 3 other games. NE has everybody so excited, but in all reality his pass to moss was a designed play. His pass to Walker was a designed play. His pass to Crabs was a thing of beauty, but his other one was a pretty simple read as well.

They should have started Alex Smith in the game vs the Rams and vs the Seahawks, he knows them better and plays both team better, Huge mistake on Jimmy H. He screwed Alex Smith does not really care what players think, so switching back to Alex for these two games is no big deal.......

Marvin, your thoughts after rewatching the game should of been "Kaep should of thrown 7 TDS" and left it at that.

Originally posted by JustaFan45:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

BTW with this loss, i read where some say I have to have the same mindframe as i would of with Alex.

And if this is so, then lets give Kaep the harsh reality that we have when Smith was under center. Just like if a person asks what kind of ice cream flavors u like and u say well it depends on where u go. But thats not answering the main question. What flavor do u like, chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, etc.

in this case i use that example becasue the D let them score 42 points, but lets stop using that as the excuse for Kaeps lack of production. He failed to make something out of nothing period. I mean was Wilson just sitting in the pocket all day picking us off, no. He outplayed us, just like Kaep should of been able to do against their D.

It just came to me now, but I think the reason they went soo much with the pass this last week, because Kaep for starters has the arm. And if they are gonna run the same version of the O that they ran with Smith, then there is no need to put Kaep in. Problem is, when things broke down for kaep he couldnt make things happen. That smart decision making wasnt a factor. That rolling out and getting the 50yd run a game wasnt a factor. I mean s**t, if anything i would of like to had seen Kaep running and making things happen with his feet just as did Wilson.

So overall, please make sure u hear what im saying with no hidden meanings. Yes Kaep doesnt play defense, yes the playcalling was bad at times, and yes he didnt get much help. But now focusing on the offensive aspect, Kaep did nothing to help his team win. When he did get the ball back, and a good call was called, he either audibled out, or we stalled. just that simple.

And im focusing just on this game. not next weeks, not the new england game. Just this one. This was a true test of enviornment and playoff atmosphere. Actually more than New England, because their stadium is no where near the same as Chicken stadium. He failed to do anything until garbage time. Does this mean it will happen in next weeks game, nope. Does it mean he stinks, nope. or even mean he's not the QB of the future, nope.

But everytime someone says about what he didnt do. Can we stop with the Smith wouldnt of done that either, or he didnt score 42 points. Thats just a way of trying to find another out, rather than just taking ownership as we say for the aspect of the game, Kaep didnt help in. thats all tho. nutin personal

Let's see defense and special teams gives up 42 points to a red hot team who is undefeated at home.

Defense allows 28 points in 18 minutes at New England in December. (Oh by the way Kaep throws 4 tds including a game winner.)

Kaep wins against a hot Chicago team in his first start.

He wins at New Orleans against another hot team at the time albeit the defense scored 2 tds.

He puts the team in to position to win against the Rams at home only to see Akers miss the game winner. (Kicking game has been an issue all season).

He overcomes his mistakes at St. Louis to win that game but 2 guys paid to do their job Walker catching and Akers kicking don't come through (I know "Kaepercuses").


So now you want us as Niner fans to stand up acknowledge and nitpick the Quarterback play in a 42-13 loss? Regardless of what I mentioned above recapping what Kaep has accomplished so far is irrelevant and insignificant because of the Seattle game where you're micro analyzing QB play justifying in your mind that Harbaugh made a mistake going with Kaep and the arrogance to think if he stayed with the other guy it would of been a different outcome in the game.

Ok I get it now.

Kaep didn't play well. If said that many times. Nobody is saying otherwise. I mentioned that Smith wouldn't have either not as a defense of Kaep, but as an attempt to the argument that we could have won this game with Alex behind center. It wouldn't have mattered if Montana or Ypung were back there. This is a good Seattle D, they were in the elements, they were playing in the hardest away stadium in the NFL...and oh yeah, the defense never got off the bus. The Seahawks had 2 possessions and a blocked kick and it was already 21-0.

Originally posted by JustaFan45:

Marvin, your thoughts after rewatching the game should of been "Kaep should of thrown 7 TDS" and left it at that.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Pretty much.