The York's have FIRED the last two WINNING Coaches

one needs to get his/her head check if you think Mooch is a winning coach..

cause you may as well say that SEIFERT was also a winning coach..

while no doubt that both had won, by no means that they are winning coaches.. both happened to land a very good team that woulda won no matter what the coaches were..

Just like the Cowboys w/Switzer, the U with Erickson, or even with Jimmy (after Schnellenberger), the 49ers after Walsh had a team that didn't need a great coach to win.. Mooch was handed with a team that was a driver away from winning the NASCAR and couldn't do it..

Two sure Super Bowl teams at hand, and still couldn't deliver, all because he wanted to transform Steve Young to a Brett Favre..

Originally posted by FL9er:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Like Deion said in the instant classic, "must be the money."

They don't want to pay for coaches or players.

Originally posted by 9moon:

one needs to get his/her head check if you think Mooch is a winning coach..

cause you may as well say that SEIFERT was also a winning coach..

while no doubt that both had won, by no means that they are winning coaches.. both happened to land a very good team that woulda won no matter what the coaches were..

Just like the Cowboys w/Switzer, the U with Erickson, or even with Jimmy (after Schnellenberger), the 49ers after Walsh had a team that didn't need a great coach to win.. Mooch was handed with a team that was a driver away from winning the NASCAR and couldn't do it..

Two sure Super Bowl teams at hand, and still couldn't deliver, all because he wanted to transform Steve Young to a Brett Favre..

Siefert are you serious the fist Super Bowl was 6 years from the second Super Bowl and one of the best winning percentages as a head coach. While in 89 I could say inherited it doesn't explain '95 with a second QB. He was handed a team but that team kept winning and winning. Face it the Cowboys had Smith and the best offensive line in football, and Charles Haley. They were a better team.

Mariucci was handed a team are you serious? He had a CFL QB, an old Jerry Rice, Hearst who was on his 4th team in 5 years. He won a lot of games. He didn't win it all but was much much better than this garbage now and all terrible football from 2003 to 2010.

My wife who knows nothing about football said it amazed her how much difference a coach can make.

You want to watch teams win there are 3 thing that make the biggest difference.

1. Having an great QB. See Manning-less Colts, Romo-less Cowboys, and if Rodgers went down Green Bay would be terrible. See Cardinals with and without Palmer

2. Having a strong HC. See why people keep paying Matt Cassel, see Bill Walsh, bad teams win instantly when Harbaugh becomes coach, see difference between Bills
And Jets.

3. Elite defense. See 2011-2013 49ers, Seahwaks, Panthers.

There is a lot of different ways to win in this league but those are are top 3 ways that teams win year in and year out.

Montana was a show and when asked about Harbaugh vs Baalke he said maybe Harbaugh wasn't the difficult one to deal with and that would explain why a lot of guys left like Davis, Willis, and JustinSmith.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by mitpdub:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Janitor:

It seriously doesn't make any sense. You have a coach that just took you to the playoffs (mooch) and you fire him.

Then you have a coach who took you to 3 NFCCG's in a row, who has one "Jeff Fisher Deluxe" season, and you fire him.

In the interim you hold on to coaches who go 2-4 seasons without a wining record.

*brain melts*

TO had a very huge influence on that...not that it helps. Fans were also upset at Mooch's conservative offense

If Moochs offense was conservative, what kind of offense do we have now ? I would take his offense in a heartbeat because at least it's watchable.

You're getting mooch's offense right now, just not the players

Except Greg Knapp>Geep Chryst at OC

Mooch and Harbaugh are both rumored to have asked for complete control (which they're not entitled to, privilege not a right). But yeah their other hires have been trash. Had no plan for a replacement either time. There was no Fred Hoiberg or Steve Kerr ready to take over.

who are this Yorks you speak highly off??

I have posted this before... Just jeds Dad. And remember both coaches were rumored to have talked to colleges... Notre dame for mooch. Just saying

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Janitor:
It seriously doesn't make any sense. You have a coach that just took you to the playoffs (mooch) and you fire him.

Then you have a coach who took you to 3 NFCCG's in a row, who has one "Jeff Fisher Deluxe" season, and you fire him.

In the interim you hold on to coaches who go 2-4 seasons without a wining record.

*brain melts*

TO had a very huge influence on that...not that it helps. Fans were also upset at Mooch's conservative offense

If this is what had any major influence on the decision to fire Mooch, then maybe there is a chance Tomsula and the 49ers mutually depart and Jimmy T can be reassigned to a soccer club.

Originally posted by nj9er:

Siefert are you serious the fist Super Bowl was 6 years from the second Super Bowl and one of the best winning percentages as a head coach. While in 89 I could say inherited it doesn't explain '95 with a second QB. He was handed a team but that team kept winning and winning. Face it the Cowboys had Smith and the best offensive line in football, and Charles Haley. They were a better team.

Mariucci was handed a team are you serious? He had a CFL QB, an old Jerry Rice, Hearst who was on his 4th team in 5 years. He won a lot of games. He didn't win it all but was much much better than this garbage now and all terrible football from 2003 to 2010.

My wife who knows nothing about football said it amazed her how much difference a coach can make.

You want to watch teams win there are 3 thing that make the biggest difference.

1. Having an great QB. See Manning-less Colts, Romo-less Cowboys, and if Rodgers went down Green Bay would be terrible. See Cardinals with and without Palmer

2. Having a strong HC. See why people keep paying Matt Cassel, see Bill Walsh, bad teams win instantly when Harbaugh becomes coach, see difference between Bills
And Jets.

3. Elite defense. See 2011-2013 49ers, Seahwaks, Panthers.

There is a lot of different ways to win in this league but those are are top 3 ways that teams win year in and year out.

Montana was a show and when asked about Harbaugh vs Baalke he said maybe Harbaugh wasn't the difficult one to deal with and that would explain why a lot of guys left like Davis, Willis, and JustinSmith.

Davis left because he was traded. Willis and Smith retired and neither have said anything since to support this at all.

Originally posted by sanjo49er:
who are this Yorks you speak highly off??

You must be new to the internet if you gotta ask

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Yeah, but the Broncos transition has gone a tad bit smoother than ours lol. They have a winning record, a better coaching staff, and continue to field a talented roster.

I tried very hard to give York/Baalke the benefit of the doubt. That Tomsula would be a good HC, Baalke's roster moves would pan out, and we'd keep winning. But it hasn't happened, so it'd be downright stubborn and in denial to give these guys any kind of pass. They've made big mistakes.

They also didn't lose 20 players and 12 starters in the off-season let's be real I don't think any coach or GM could recover from that in one season.

BUT Tomsula and his goof troop need to go....there isn't a successful coach in that whole building ( minus the WR coaches).

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by nj9er:

Siefert are you serious the fist Super Bowl was 6 years from the second Super Bowl and one of the best winning percentages as a head coach. While in 89 I could say inherited it doesn't explain '95 with a second QB. He was handed a team but that team kept winning and winning. Face it the Cowboys had Smith and the best offensive line in football, and Charles Haley. They were a better team.

Mariucci was handed a team are you serious? He had a CFL QB, an old Jerry Rice, Hearst who was on his 4th team in 5 years. He won a lot of games. He didn't win it all but was much much better than this garbage now and all terrible football from 2003 to 2010.

My wife who knows nothing about football said it amazed her how much difference a coach can make.

You want to watch teams win there are 3 thing that make the biggest difference.

1. Having an great QB. See Manning-less Colts, Romo-less Cowboys, and if Rodgers went down Green Bay would be terrible. See Cardinals with and without Palmer

2. Having a strong HC. See why people keep paying Matt Cassel, see Bill Walsh, bad teams win instantly when Harbaugh becomes coach, see difference between Bills
And Jets.

3. Elite defense. See 2011-2013 49ers, Seahwaks, Panthers.

There is a lot of different ways to win in this league but those are are top 3 ways that teams win year in and year out.

Montana was a show and when asked about Harbaugh vs Baalke he said maybe Harbaugh wasn't the difficult one to deal with and that would explain why a lot of guys left like Davis, Willis, and JustinSmith.

Davis left because he was traded. Willis and Smith retired and neither have said anything since to support this at all.

Not saying it is true, but do you think Willis and Smith would say anything to the media if it was.

Originally posted by joaosoarrs99:
Teams fire coaches that doesn't win Super Bowls even if they can get to the playoffs in a regular basis.

Look at the Broncos last offseason.

The question is not whether teams do that, but whether it makes sense.

Originally posted by 9moon:

one needs to get his/her head check if you think Mooch is a winning coach..

cause you may as well say that SEIFERT was also a winning coach..

while no doubt that both had won, by no means that they are winning coaches.. both happened to land a very good team that woulda won no matter what the coaches were..

Just like the Cowboys w/Switzer, the U with Erickson, or even with Jimmy (after Schnellenberger), the 49ers after Walsh had a team that didn't need a great coach to win.. Mooch was handed with a team that was a driver away from winning the NASCAR and couldn't do it..

Two sure Super Bowl teams at hand, and still couldn't deliver, all because he wanted to transform Steve Young to a Brett Favre..

On what planet was George Seifert not a winning coach with us?

14-2 champ
14-2 nfc title appearance
10-6
14-2 nfc title appearance
10-6 nfc title appearance
13-3 champ
11-5
12-4

George Seifert was in fact the winningest coach percentage wise when he left us. Obviously, He wasn't Walsh but to try and downplay his coaching accomplishments is ridiculous. 2 titles and 5 conference title game appearances in 8 years is a little more than just "winning".

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by 9moon:
one needs to get his/her head check if you think Mooch is a winning coach..

cause you may as well say that SEIFERT was also a winning coach..

while no doubt that both had won, by no means that they are winning coaches.. both happened to land a very good team that woulda won no matter what the coaches were..

Just like the Cowboys w/Switzer, the U with Erickson, or even with Jimmy (after Schnellenberger), the 49ers after Walsh had a team that didn't need a great coach to win.. Mooch was handed with a team that was a driver away from winning the NASCAR and couldn't do it..

Two sure Super Bowl teams at hand, and still couldn't deliver, all because he wanted to transform Steve Young to a Brett Favre..

On what planet was George Seifert not a winning coach with us?

14-2 champ
14-2 nfc title appearance
10-6
14-2 nfc title appearance
10-6 nfc title appearance
13-3 champ
11-5
12-4

George Seifert was in fact the winningest coach percentage wise when he left us. Obviously, He wasn't Walsh but to try and downplay his coaching accomplishments is ridiculous. 2 titles and 5 conference title game appearances in 8 years is a little more than just "winning".

It could be argued that he got a great roster because he didn't look so great in Carolina