Peter King MMQB Camp Review of the 49ers

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/08/28/san-francisco-49ers-nfl-training-camp-report

I am not the biggest Peter King fan, but I think his points about the amount of turnover we have faced are valid.

He's a hater.

Ban heem.

/thread

Interesting read. Ready to get the season started so we can enjoy the ride! Go 49ers!

King is one of the writers I enjoy and he's usually at least articulate. His worry about niner receivers is odd. When has the team started the season with better starters than Boldin and Smith? He says that without Simpson, these two will have to get most of the work...with Simpson they would get most of the work. And Simpson will be back midseason if nothing else happens.

So he didn't mention the OL at all...hmm...

His concern about the DBs is legitimate untill they prove themselves in games that count, but as we have seen...the young guys appear to be picking things up quickly and in the near future I believe this will be a deep and talented backfield. Safety is strong and CB may be as well if they can play as well as they practice!

Edit: My criticism of King would be that he's a national guy and often doesn't have a good feeling for each team he writes about. He does quote the best local writers though rather than the Cohn's or TKs.

I agree with the whole article and it's pretty unbiased. Except for one line, we should be happy with 8 wins. I'm not saying I'll be shocked if we go 500 but we shouldn't be happy about that.

He doesn't seem to high on our young talent and thinks the team is over confident. Both are fair enough view points. Only the season will tell for sure though.

Good read but you can still see the superficial views based on comments such as these:

San Francisco's very shallow at cornerback - he was just watching Keith Reaser (and liked him) while not realizing Reaser is last in line and is getting current looks so we can get more evaluation on him. Reaser is the least known product compared to the men ahead of him in Brock, Wright, Johnson and even Acker. So if he liked Reaser, that speaks more to the depth and talent at that position vs. being "very shallow at cornerback."

Receiver depth is a big issue. With Jerome Simpson banned for the first six games (substance abuse), it's up to former Ravens Anquan Boldin and Torrey Smith to be the prime targets. Quinton Patton and undrafted rookie DeAndrew White—who started opposite Amari Cooper at Alabama—are in line for significant snaps - Ummm, when did depth become an issue at WR? Behind T.Smith we have a like-player in J.Simpson who will be back after 6 games. Behind our WR3 in Ellington, we have an electric DeAndrew White. And behind Boldin, after 6 weeks, we'll have Baby Boldin coming into the fold and in the short term, an experienced Patton. Most teams would kill to have Boldin and Smith as starters and with our developing young depth and proven players in Simpson and Patton.

Gut feeling about this team as I left town: San Francisco won't be as bad as the world thinks. I mean, not 3-13 bad. But the Niners have lost too much, and have too many holes (receiver, cornerback, linebacker especially if Brooks is lost, and offensive line) to contend. Tomsula and the braintrust should be happy with a .500 season. - Like always, it's easiest to resort back to "lost too much" without really evaluating the roster and how players are NOW going to be used. We have Tartt and Ward who are hybrid players who will cover up many concerns about NOT drafting an ILB...still much competition between Wilhoite and Moody who, at most, will probably only see the field 40% of the time. OLB? Naturally, that's a legit concern no doubt. But Lynch is still legit and the combo of Lemonier (run)/Harold (pass rush) could be legit as well esp. if Marcus Rush continues to rise in that Skuta-role and/or Brooks comes back. The other piece here is that Mangini's doesn't rely 100% on the WILL. His defense is designed around a team concept of bringing pressure from every position and creating pre and post snap confusion and disguised coverages and blitzers. Offensive line? Obviously THIS one we all agree with. We've got 3/5 of it figured out but there are serious battles at C and RG right now. Too early to tell. But the Texans and even the Dallas game, we saw some very positive signs. New schemes are hard at first.

This is an interesting piece as well and we've heard this over and over and over again in 1on1 interviews. These players believe. And that's more than half the battle. They believe b/c they feel they'll finally be used, used to their strengths and put in position to succeed again. They believe in the offensive, defensive and ST philosophies and scheme changes.

The thing I'll remember about Santa Clara: There's significantly more confidence here than the players probably have a right to have. "Every year there's change everywhere in this league,'' Anquan Boldin told me. "I don't think this is any big deal. I really don't. I've had new coaches. I've had lots of new teammates. This is just another year." In truth, of course, there's been a massive overhaul here, but Tomsula and the staff have players believing it's just another year with a little tinkering. Will that mean anything when the games start? I doubt it, but it's interesting to note. Boldin's not the only one who says that.

The rest seems pretty solid work though.

King, despite what some may think, has always been a 49ers supporter. I like his tempered optimism; it's really a solid and fair assessment. It's the team's job to show the fans/pundits that the over-confidence is warranted.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Peter King is not a hater. This was a well thought and reasonable article with more analysis than Paul G at ESPN or Pete Prisco. This wasn't Tim Kawakami dig at Baalke or Jed. See that's the difference between this article an many who claim to "disagree" with some here; explain why you feel the way you do. This wasn't 10 paragraphs of "The Yorks" have destroyed...... or Baalke needs to be fired ..... Peter King points out his concerns that we ALL have.

I just don't understand for some why everything needs to be painted in big absolute strokes; you can't feel positive about the teams chances and hope for the best despite concerns you have. The argument can never be nuanced here - like King's. It always has to be "this team is the worst" or "Trent has never done anything" or "The Yorks have always". King says they should feel good about a .500 season but he's NOT saying it's 2-12 with the top 3 pick in the draft next year. He says it's pretty much on Kaeps shoulders no one will disagree with that assessment on either side - I certainly don't disagree with that.

The team has lost a lot and there are chances things won't turn out well. We've all said that. BUT - I and many others here know a lot more goes into a season than what's projected. One thing King said is "they have a lot more confidence then they probably should." King is probably right, but that's why they play the games. A couple bounces here, a couple of lucky turnovers there, a big return here/there and you're in the play-offs. That's what I'm hoping for, but don't expect it. This is very different from not listening to any of your well thought out concerns. The key term here is well thought-out.

Agreed. This is about as high quality as you're going to get from a national media source not breaking down the roster (like Cossel). The fact that he watched the practices, talked to the players and referenced the two legit writers in MB and MM are early signs this was going to be a relatively fair piece, albeit, a bit misguided IMHO.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Peter King is not a hater. This was a well thought and reasonable article with more analysis than Paul G at ESPN or Pete Prisco. This wasn't Tim Kawakami dig at Baalke or Jed. See that's the difference between this article an many who claim to "disagree" with some here; explain why you feel the way you do. This wasn't 10 paragraphs of "The Yorks" have destroyed...... or Baalke needs to be fired ..... Peter King points out his concerns that we ALL have.

I just don't understand for some why everything needs to be painted in big absolute strokes; you can't feel positive about the teams chances and hope for the best despite concerns you have. The argument can never be nuanced here - like King's. It always has to be "this team is the worst" or "Trent has never done anything" or "The Yorks have always". King says they should feel good about a .500 season but he's NOT saying it's 2-12 with the top 3 pick in the draft next year. He says it's pretty much on Kaeps shoulders no one will disagree with that assessment on either side - I certainly don't disagree with that.

The team has lost a lot and there are chances things won't turn out well. We've all said that. BUT - I and many others here know a lot more goes into a season than what's projected. One thing King said is "they have a lot more confidence then they probably should." King is probably right, but that's why they play the games. A couple bounces here, a couple of lucky turnovers there, a big return here/there and you're in the play-offs. That's what I'm hoping for, but don't expect it. This is very different from not listening to any of your well thought out concerns. The key term here is well thought-out.

Hit the nail right on the head.

King was very generous in that piece

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Peter King is not a hater. This was a well thought and reasonable article with more analysis than Paul G at ESPN or Pete Prisco. This wasn't Tim Kawakami dig at Baalke or Jed. See that's the difference between this article an many who claim to "disagree" with some here; explain why you feel the way you do. This wasn't 10 paragraphs of "The Yorks" have destroyed...... or Baalke needs to be fired ..... Peter King points out his concerns that we ALL have.

I just don't understand for some why everything needs to be painted in big absolute strokes; you can't feel positive about the teams chances and hope for the best despite concerns you have. The argument can never be nuanced here - like King's. It always has to be "this team is the worst" or "Trent has never done anything" or "The Yorks have always". King says they should feel good about a .500 season but he's NOT saying it's 2-12 with the top 3 pick in the draft next year. He says it's pretty much on Kaeps shoulders no one will disagree with that assessment on either side - I certainly don't disagree with that.

The team has lost a lot and there are chances things won't turn out well. We've all said that. BUT - I and many others here know a lot more goes into a season than what's projected. One thing King said is "they have a lot more confidence then they probably should." King is probably right, but that's why they play the games. A couple bounces here, a couple of lucky turnovers there, a big return here/there and you're in the play-offs. That's what I'm hoping for, but don't expect it. This is very different from not listening to any of your well thought out concerns. The key term here is well thought-out.

Well articulated NinersGM and exactly sums up how I feel. The turnover is surely something to worry about, but nothing that can be pinned on any one individual. The team still has talent, definitely enough talent to be a .500 team. If the season completely craters and the Niners are way, way below .500, then I'll be concerned. But right now I see talent on this team, and the coaching staff seems to be addressing some of the issues that have plagued the team the past few years. There is reason for cautious optimism.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Good read but you can still see the superficial views based on comments such as these:

San Francisco's very shallow at cornerback - he was just watching Keith Reaser (and liked him) while not realizing Reaser is last in line and is getting current looks so we can get more evaluation on him. Reaser is the least known product compared to the men ahead of him in Brock, Wright, Johnson and even Acker. So if he liked Reaser, that speaks more to the depth and talent at that position vs. being "very shallow at cornerback."

Receiver depth is a big issue. With Jerome Simpson banned for the first six games (substance abuse), it's up to former Ravens Anquan Boldin and Torrey Smith to be the prime targets. Quinton Patton and undrafted rookie DeAndrew White—who started opposite Amari Cooper at Alabama—are in line for significant snaps - Ummm, when did depth become an issue at WR? Behind T.Smith we have a like-player in J.Simpson who will be back after 6 games. Behind our WR3 in Ellington, we have an electric DeAndrew White. And behind Boldin, after 6 weeks, we'll have Baby Boldin coming into the fold and in the short term, an experienced Patton. Most teams would kill to have Boldin and Smith as starters and with our developing young depth and proven players in Simpson and Patton.

Gut feeling about this team as I left town: San Francisco won't be as bad as the world thinks. I mean, not 3-13 bad. But the Niners have lost too much, and have too many holes (receiver, cornerback, linebacker especially if Brooks is lost, and offensive line) to contend. Tomsula and the braintrust should be happy with a .500 season. - Like always, it's easiest to resort back to "lost too much" without really evaluating the roster and how players are NOW going to be used. We have Tartt and Ward who are hybrid players who will cover up many concerns about NOT drafting an ILB...still much competition between Wilhoite and Moody who, at most, will probably only see the field 40% of the time. OLB? Naturally, that's a legit concern no doubt. But Lynch is still legit and the combo of Lemonier (run)/Harold (pass rush) could be legit as well esp. if Marcus Rush continues to rise in that Skuta-role and/or Brooks comes back. The other piece here is that Mangini's doesn't rely 100% on the WILL. His defense is designed around a team concept of bringing pressure from every position and creating pre and post snap confusion and disguised coverages and blitzers. Offensive line? Obviously THIS one we all agree with. We've got 3/5 of it figured out but there are serious battles at C and RG right now. Too early to tell. But the Texans and even the Dallas game, we saw some very positive signs. New schemes are hard at first.

This is an interesting piece as well and we've heard this over and over and over again in 1on1 interviews. These players believe. And that's more than half the battle. They believe b/c they feel they'll finally be used, used to their strengths and put in position to succeed again. They believe in the offensive, defensive and ST philosophies and scheme changes.

The thing I'll remember about Santa Clara: There's significantly more confidence here than the players probably have a right to have. "Every year there's change everywhere in this league,'' Anquan Boldin told me. "I don't think this is any big deal. I really don't. I've had new coaches. I've had lots of new teammates. This is just another year." In truth, of course, there's been a massive overhaul here, but Tomsula and the staff have players believing it's just another year with a little tinkering. Will that mean anything when the games start? I doubt it, but it's interesting to note. Boldin's not the only one who says that.

The rest seems pretty solid work though.

I wouldn't expect King to have this type of in-depth analysis, but it is a good article. I agree with him in many respects because there is something to be said about losses. That does effect a team. Knowing how to win is more experiential and when you start to lose that experience, it shows after a while. The loss to the Giants in 2011 in the NFCCG, it absolutely steeled the team for the 2012 season.

There's only one major claim that I disagree with that King argues; the team will be a run-heavy team (again) like under Harbaugh. I don't see this happening. I really believe it will be a lot more balanced with the return of true WCO concepts. The backs as receivers are going to totally transform what we've seen in the passing game. Given that King was watching a practice prior to the 2nd PS game, I'm not sure if Chryst has the entire offense installed at this point. Look for the backs to be the 3rd receiver in this offense behind Davis and Boldin.

Agreed, no way he's sifting through the projected 53, reviewing the depth, the scheme, package 'starters,' offensive/defensive/ST philosophy changes, etc. So this article is about as good as you're going to get IMHO.

As to the misperception, this is NOT a young and inexperienced team...even among our own fan base, there is this believe that every position is starting a rookie or 2nd year player and lost-player production can not be compensated for. But reality is, I'd like to see someone compare these facts to other rosters around the NFL right now:

Of the 29 starting positions we have...
Veteran Starters (3 or more years of experience) – 21 (18 of 21 with playoff experience); average age of our veteran starters = 7+ years
First Year Starters – 6 (Most of these players have 2-5 years of NFL experience but are expected to start for the first time with us; ALL have been with only us while growing within our offensive and defensive systems)
Rookie Starter – 1 (Bradley Pinion; already looks legit )
Second Year Starter – 1 (Jimmie Ward; and this may be Brock now )

How many other teams in the NFL will start 21 of 29 veterans averaging 7+ years of experience while 18 of them have proven playoff experience?

IMHO, this team SHOULD be confident. We ALL knew exactly what was wrong with this team offensively, defensively and even with ST. And Baalke and this new coaching staff have gone right down that list and addressed each one of those issues as best they could.

We still have to see if they can correct those issues on game days but I can certainly see why these players are now so happy, excited and perhaps, a little "over confident."

Originally posted by NCommand:

IMHO, this team SHOULD be confident. We ALL knew exactly what was wrong with this team offensively, defensively and even with ST. And Baalke and this new coaching staff have gone right down that list and addressed each one of those issues as best they could.

This team had a crappy oline last season, has since lost three starters -- one to FA, one to retirement and one to injury -- and didn't add any real talent to the unit.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Good read but you can still see the superficial views based on comments such as these:

San Francisco's very shallow at cornerback - he was just watching Keith Reaser (and liked him) while not realizing Reaser is last in line and is getting current looks so we can get more evaluation on him. Reaser is the least known product compared to the men ahead of him in Brock, Wright, Johnson and even Acker. So if he liked Reaser, that speaks more to the depth and talent at that position vs. being "very shallow at cornerback."

Receiver depth is a big issue. With Jerome Simpson banned for the first six games (substance abuse), it's up to former Ravens Anquan Boldin and Torrey Smith to be the prime targets. Quinton Patton and undrafted rookie DeAndrew White—who started opposite Amari Cooper at Alabama—are in line for significant snaps - Ummm, when did depth become an issue at WR? Behind T.Smith we have a like-player in J.Simpson who will be back after 6 games. Behind our WR3 in Ellington, we have an electric DeAndrew White. And behind Boldin, after 6 weeks, we'll have Baby Boldin coming into the fold and in the short term, an experienced Patton. Most teams would kill to have Boldin and Smith as starters and with our developing young depth and proven players in Simpson and Patton.

Gut feeling about this team as I left town: San Francisco won't be as bad as the world thinks. I mean, not 3-13 bad. But the Niners have lost too much, and have too many holes (receiver, cornerback, linebacker especially if Brooks is lost, and offensive line) to contend. Tomsula and the braintrust should be happy with a .500 season. - Like always, it's easiest to resort back to "lost too much" without really evaluating the roster and how players are NOW going to be used. We have Tartt and Ward who are hybrid players who will cover up many concerns about NOT drafting an ILB...still much competition between Wilhoite and Moody who, at most, will probably only see the field 40% of the time. OLB? Naturally, that's a legit concern no doubt. But Lynch is still legit and the combo of Lemonier (run)/Harold (pass rush) could be legit as well esp. if Marcus Rush continues to rise in that Skuta-role and/or Brooks comes back. The other piece here is that Mangini's doesn't rely 100% on the WILL. His defense is designed around a team concept of bringing pressure from every position and creating pre and post snap confusion and disguised coverages and blitzers. Offensive line? Obviously THIS one we all agree with. We've got 3/5 of it figured out but there are serious battles at C and RG right now. Too early to tell. But the Texans and even the Dallas game, we saw some very positive signs. New schemes are hard at first.

This is an interesting piece as well and we've heard this over and over and over again in 1on1 interviews. These players believe. And that's more than half the battle. They believe b/c they feel they'll finally be used, used to their strengths and put in position to succeed again. They believe in the offensive, defensive and ST philosophies and scheme changes.

The thing I'll remember about Santa Clara: There's significantly more confidence here than the players probably have a right to have. "Every year there's change everywhere in this league,'' Anquan Boldin told me. "I don't think this is any big deal. I really don't. I've had new coaches. I've had lots of new teammates. This is just another year." In truth, of course, there's been a massive overhaul here, but Tomsula and the staff have players believing it's just another year with a little tinkering. Will that mean anything when the games start? I doubt it, but it's interesting to note. Boldin's not the only one who says that.

The rest seems pretty solid work though.

I wouldn't expect King to have this type of in-depth analysis, but it is a good article. I agree with him in many respects because there is something to be said about losses. That does effect a team. Knowing how to win is more experiential and when you start to lose that experience, it shows after a while. The loss to the Giants in 2011 in the NFCCG, it absolutely steeled the team for the 2012 season.

There's only one major claim that I disagree with that King argues; the team will be a run-heavy team (again) like under Harbaugh. I don't see this happening. I really believe it will be a lot more balanced with the return of true WCO concepts. The backs as receivers are going to totally transform what we've seen in the passing game. Given that King was watching a practice prior to the 2nd PS game, I'm not sure if Chryst has the entire offense installed at this point. Look for the backs to be the 3rd receiver in this offense behind Davis and Boldin.

Agreed, no way he's sifting through the projected 53, reviewing the depth, the scheme, package 'starters,' offensive/defensive/ST philosophy changes, etc. So this article is about as good as you're going to get IMHO.

As to the misperception, this is NOT a young and inexperienced team...even among our own fan base, there is this believe that every position is starting a rookie or 2nd year player and lost-player production can not be compensated for. But reality is, I'd like to see someone compare these facts to other rosters around the NFL right now:

Of the 29 starting positions we have...
Veteran Starters (3 or more years of experience) – 21 (18 of 21 with playoff experience); average age of our veteran starters = 7+ years
First Year Starters – 6 (Most of these players have 2-5 years of NFL experience but are expected to start for the first time with us; ALL have been with only us while growing within our offensive and defensive systems)
Rookie Starter – 1 (Bradley Pinion; already looks legit )
Second Year Starter – 1 (Jimmie Ward; and this may be Brock now )

How many other teams in the NFL will start 21 of 29 veterans averaging 7+ years of experience while 18 of them have proven playoff experience?

IMHO, this team SHOULD be confident. We ALL knew exactly what was wrong with this team offensively, defensively and even with ST. And Baalke and this new coaching staff have gone right down that list and addressed each one of those issues as best they could.

We still have to see if they can correct those issues on game days but I can certainly see why these players are now so happy, excited and perhaps, a little "over confident."

For everything you have said, I agree. But I do think it takes time to gain that experience as a team. To go through that fire. I really will be pleased with a 7-9 or 8-8 or 9-7 season--to me that is not giving up, it is just tempering expectations. Surely, I would love for more. One thing is for sure, I am glad they are confident. Whether overly or not.

Originally posted by zugschef:

Originally posted by NCommand:
IMHO, this team SHOULD be confident. We ALL knew exactly what was wrong with this team offensively, defensively and even with ST. And Baalke and this new coaching staff have gone right down that list and addressed each one of those issues as best they could.

This team had a crappy oline last season, has since lost three starters -- one to FA, one to retirement and one to injury -- and didn't add any real talent to the unit.

You're right and that is why we all have the same concern - the OL. We would have all felt better had Davis not retired and Kilgore was not still healing.

Staley - Boone - Kilgore - (Thomas/Martin/Looney) - Davis

Baalke drafted Brown and Silberman and Brown looks legit even in his developmental year. But sh!t happens and now it's:

Staley - Boone - Pears with battles between Looney, M.Martin and Thomas at C and RG. Brown will backup Pears and continue to push him.

This could still end up a legit line but it is young, untested, new and they are all learning a new scheme.