York confirms no major offseason changes are coming

Originally posted by amir_tn80:

Originally posted by backontop:

Originally posted by amir_tn80:

Originally posted by backontop:

Originally posted by amir_tn80:
So throwing 3 picks isn't a terrible performance according to York Jr.? No wonder he thinks Mcloughan and Singletary are doing such a great job that no change is needed. Evidently missing the playoffs for 7th straight year and 3 interceptions in a game are not a terrible thing according to this ownership. Sad thing is this doesn't surprise me. This is the same ownership that didn't fire Mike Nolan when it should have. But as long as they have a naive fan base that believes continuity of mediocre football is a wonderful thing why should they make any major changes?

Favre has thrown a few 3 INT games during his career and he is going into the HOF.

That's a great comparison. Since Alex Smith has racked up all those passing titles, MVPs, passing records, and won as many games as Favre, makes that comparison so legit.

did I say that he was Favre? No I said that Favre has thrown a few 3+ INT games. So even the greats have bad games. I swear some fans think that elite QB's never have off days. NO I AM NOT CALLING SMITH AN ELITE QB!!!!! I am simply stating a fact that s**t happens. Players have bad days.

For every 3 INT game, Favre has had ten 300 YD and 3 TD games. I can count on one hand the number of 300 YD and 3 TD games Alex Smith has had.

Favre has also been in the league a lot longer. Again I wasn't comparing Smith to Favre I was simply stating that even HOF QB's throw multiple INT games. What is so hard to understand about that concept?

Originally posted by FourNine49:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by darkknight49:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by FourNine49:
I think its a smart move by Jed.

All of you guys expecting huge changes are need a reality check. Get off the instant-gratification hype

Instant Gratification? Wow. Here I thought we were in a historical drought

the lions are a historical drought.

pathetic. I hate when zoners do this. Who cares if there are a few teams out there worst than the Niners? The point is the Niners have SUCKED. And they have SUCKED for a very LONG time. Wanting that to stop might have been instant gratification 5-10 yrs ago. But since 2006 or so, the last thing you can call a Niner fan is impatient or wanting instant gratification

So by your logic blow it all up and change every year until we have a playoff appearance? You know who does that...the lions...how's that working out for them? The reason the team has been bad is lack of continuity, you cannot change OC's every year, change QB's every year, change HC's every year and ever be any good. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and let things that you have no control of happen (as if you could change anything anyways). We are one year into a new coaching staff and you want to blow it up again? Yeah let's do that because it has worked out so well for the past 7 years and 7 OC's. It isn't really hard to predict a team is going to be bad when it is in a constant state of flux, that is no brilliant flash of insight, it is just common sense. What is pathetic is thinking that you can rant on a message board and it is going to make a difference. That and patting yourself on the back for predicting that the team was going to suck for the past seven years.

Thats not true Memphis. And you are only assuming. For the past few years I have been asking for a blowup and rebuild.

Why have I done that for the past few years? Because it did not happen that is why.

IF, the Niners did start a rebuild and the next season I asked to blow it up again.....then what you are saying would be true.

I ask for a rebuild because I am prepared for at least 2-3 years of losing....followed by tremendous winning.

Well Dan, we are likely to have at least one more year with the current personnel. If things do not improve next year you will likely get your wish.

I stand next to my comment of INSTANT GRATIFICATION. Yes, you guys are right that the Niners have sucked for the past 7 years, but guess what, do you realize that in that 7 year span, we haven't had the same coaching staff and QB for more than 1 year at a time?

So you guys are telling me that you want the Niners to revamp everything they have, in hopes of "starting off fresh" and start with a "clean slate?" You guys are probably the same type of guys who have that attitude like, "Hey let's try _____, why not it can't be any worse." Let me tell you, IT CAN GET WORSE. Team's don't take a 180 spin in one off season. It doesn't work like that buddy. Almost every team that has a strong playoff run year after year are teams that have continuity.

What is this argument really about? Is this about the team, and what's best for it? Or is this about YOU GUYS who are nothing but impatient pathetic fans that hide behind a computer screen? We can't keep asking for something new every season and hope for the best.

Although we looked far from great this season, this team IS BETTER than any of the 49er teams in the past 7 years. THEREFORE, York is doing the correct thing and keeping things the same around here.

Put your guns away Pete...we're on the same side, if you read my first post, you'll see.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by FourNine49:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by darkknight49:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by FourNine49:
I think its a smart move by Jed.

All of you guys expecting huge changes are need a reality check. Get off the instant-gratification hype

Instant Gratification? Wow. Here I thought we were in a historical drought

the lions are a historical drought.

pathetic. I hate when zoners do this. Who cares if there are a few teams out there worst than the Niners? The point is the Niners have SUCKED. And they have SUCKED for a very LONG time. Wanting that to stop might have been instant gratification 5-10 yrs ago. But since 2006 or so, the last thing you can call a Niner fan is impatient or wanting instant gratification

So by your logic blow it all up and change every year until we have a playoff appearance? You know who does that...the lions...how's that working out for them? The reason the team has been bad is lack of continuity, you cannot change OC's every year, change QB's every year, change HC's every year and ever be any good. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and let things that you have no control of happen (as if you could change anything anyways). We are one year into a new coaching staff and you want to blow it up again? Yeah let's do that because it has worked out so well for the past 7 years and 7 OC's. It isn't really hard to predict a team is going to be bad when it is in a constant state of flux, that is no brilliant flash of insight, it is just common sense. What is pathetic is thinking that you can rant on a message board and it is going to make a difference. That and patting yourself on the back for predicting that the team was going to suck for the past seven years.

Thats not true Memphis. And you are only assuming. For the past few years I have been asking for a blowup and rebuild.

Why have I done that for the past few years? Because it did not happen that is why.

IF, the Niners did start a rebuild and the next season I asked to blow it up again.....then what you are saying would be true.

I ask for a rebuild because I am prepared for at least 2-3 years of losing....followed by tremendous winning.

Well Dan, we are likely to have at least one more year with the current personnel. If things do not improve next year you will likely get your wish.

I stand next to my comment of INSTANT GRATIFICATION. Yes, you guys are right that the Niners have sucked for the past 7 years, but guess what, do you realize that in that 7 year span, we haven't had the same coaching staff and QB for more than 1 year at a time?

So you guys are telling me that you want the Niners to revamp everything they have, in hopes of "starting off fresh" and start with a "clean slate?" You guys are probably the same type of guys who have that attitude like, "Hey let's try _____, why not it can't be any worse." Let me tell you, IT CAN GET WORSE. Team's don't take a 180 spin in one off season. It doesn't work like that buddy. Almost every team that has a strong playoff run year after year are teams that have continuity.

What is this argument really about? Is this about the team, and what's best for it? Or is this about YOU GUYS who are nothing but impatient pathetic fans that hide behind a computer screen? We can't keep asking for something new every season and hope for the best.

Although we looked far from great this season, this team IS BETTER than any of the 49er teams in the past 7 years. THEREFORE, York is doing the correct thing and keeping things the same around here.

Put your guns away Pete...we're on the same side, if you read my first post, you'll see.

Yah, sorry about that. I was actually responding to danimal

ain't broke, don;t fix. we are far from being broke as we are waiting to find out who we will play in the playoff so Singletary can start game planning.

Originally posted by jed_york:
ain't broke, don;t fix. we are far from being broke as we are waiting to find out who we will play in the playoff so Singletary can start game planning.

nhap?

Originally posted by socal81:
York also promised the team during the announcement of the Singletary hiring that this would be the last time the season ends in December...what month is this? I think if Mike Shannahan has interest I wouldn't think twice. Sing is an excellent coach but we need someone with offensive experience and has been there before ( 3 super bowls)

We have a game January 3rd against the Rams. It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Fans are always looking for a scapegoat for a season that didn't go as planned. It doesn't matter whether it's a player, a coach, GM or a HC.

Someone just has to be fired in their eyes so that their emotions can be taken out on a person losing a job - no matter how direct their contribution was to the loss or whatever legitimate reason there may be for retaining them.

It's the only way that some fans can feel good about the upcoming season, "Lookey, shiny new QB, he'll fix our problems! Yeah!"

We've done this for the past 7 years and it has not worked yet people want to push the reset button.

And for every firing that doesn't occur as everybody desires, it's all the regular doom and gloom.

-9fA

I'm not looking for a scapegoat, I'm looking for responsibility.

I have posted here about this issue last January about how the OL needs to be addressed. It's not the first season we've had abysmal play from the OL. Snyder has been average for a long time, a bench player, NEVER a starter and good Lord, NEVER a starting tackle.

We signed Marvel Smith who hadn't played a down in 2 seasons and I posted along with others that this was a monumentally bad move because (1) it wastes a lot of time despite it being a great deal and prevents us from replacing him with another viable candidate who can at least practice and (2) if the gamble fails you have no depth at the position.

Scott and Singletary waited until August for Smith to retire which was a "shock" to Scott. When that happened, so went the season IMHO. Gore again didn't have holes and the QB didn't have protection. Yes Baas and especially Rachal have been bad, but Snyder hasn't helped one, single bit.

Scott to admit he gambled, the line suffered as a result and he's going to do something about it. We've heard NOTHING on this and notice Scotty isn't doing any interviews since Marvel "shockingly" retired.

I'm not sure if Smith was ever expected to be given a starting role. To me, it was simply a low risk, (potential) high reward signing. I personally thought he was going to be limited to bench duty. He wasn't signed for much money, so I don't think it was a big loss.

IIRC, there weren't many good starting caliber OTs in FA that were worth pursuing. If there were, I would have been shocked that we didn't pursue them. And yes, I was surprised that we didn't draft any OTs, but we didn't draft any OLBs either and yet our pass rush has been quite better than expected.

One key point that I think you're missing is that Scott and Singletary were hoping that Snyder could evolve into a RT. Snyder himself said that he would play well if he was just left at one position. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out, and it's time to look to the draft again.

-9fA

Well part of your post is revisionist history and I'm sorry that happens far too often around here without the most simplest of searches on the internet:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) After the Pittsburgh Steelers didn't welcome back Marvel Smith this winter, the veteran offensive tackle decided he'd continue his career near his most faithful supporters.

Smith agreed to a two-year deal Monday to return to his native Bay Area with the San Francisco 49ers, who expect him to be their starting right tackle.

Read more: http://www.sofantasyfootball.com/nfl/f2/marvel-smith-will-niners-rt-26689/#ixzz0adjSNBJJ

Offensive tackle Marvel Smith has signed a two-year deal with the San Francisco 49ers, who expect him to be their starting right tackle.

http://www.kolotv.com/sports/headlines/42149802.html

Yes, the Niners did expect Marvel Smith to be their starter which is why they didn't make any attempt to draft a ROT. They also signed Wragge as an insurance policy at the OG positions.

Telling a coach you will develop into a ROT and actually doing so are two different things. I'm sorry but the logic is flawed here - the coach assess if a player has the potential he claims. If not, than you're honest with said player about his ability limits. Snyder has never been starting material. That has always been clear. To absolve McCloughan for the Marvel Smith debacle is apologist in its highest order. He's responsible - no Nolan having the last say, so Singletary influence. This was his call and it failed horribly significantly impacting the season.

The biggest joke of this whole scenario is Marvel Smith was completely injured which, perhaps is why Pitt didn't extend him. Just another case of the 49ers brass not doing there homework

The biggest change that this team needs is

sell back the team To Eddie D the Yorks are like what Al Davis is to Oakland....

Originally posted by Tru2RedNGold25:
The biggest change that this team needs is

sell back the team To Eddie D the Yorks are like what Al Davis is to Oakland....

Eddie D couldn't keep his nose clean so now he was/is banned from the NFL. This is a different league now anyways, we need to quit living in the past and focus on the future. Eddie needs to help his nephew out with his decision making more, like was claimed when Jed first got promoted to his position.

Originally posted by ninerfan818:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Fans are always looking for a scapegoat for a season that didn't go as planned. It doesn't matter whether it's a player, a coach, GM or a HC.

Someone just has to be fired in their eyes so that their emotions can be taken out on a person losing a job - no matter how direct their contribution was to the loss or whatever legitimate reason there may be for retaining them.

It's the only way that some fans can feel good about the upcoming season, "Lookey, shiny new QB, he'll fix our problems! Yeah!"

We've done this for the past 7 years and it has not worked yet people want to push the reset button.

And for every firing that doesn't occur as everybody desires, it's all the regular doom and gloom.

-9fA

I'm not looking for a scapegoat, I'm looking for responsibility.

I have posted here about this issue last January about how the OL needs to be addressed. It's not the first season we've had abysmal play from the OL. Snyder has been average for a long time, a bench player, NEVER a starter and good Lord, NEVER a starting tackle.

We signed Marvel Smith who hadn't played a down in 2 seasons and I posted along with others that this was a monumentally bad move because (1) it wastes a lot of time despite it being a great deal and prevents us from replacing him with another viable candidate who can at least practice and (2) if the gamble fails you have no depth at the position.

Scott and Singletary waited until August for Smith to retire which was a "shock" to Scott. When that happened, so went the season IMHO. Gore again didn't have holes and the QB didn't have protection. Yes Baas and especially Rachal have been bad, but Snyder hasn't helped one, single bit.

Scott to admit he gambled, the line suffered as a result and he's going to do something about it. We've heard NOTHING on this and notice Scotty isn't doing any interviews since Marvel "shockingly" retired.

I'm not sure if Smith was ever expected to be given a starting role. To me, it was simply a low risk, (potential) high reward signing. I personally thought he was going to be limited to bench duty. He wasn't signed for much money, so I don't think it was a big loss.

IIRC, there weren't many good starting caliber OTs in FA that were worth pursuing. If there were, I would have been shocked that we didn't pursue them. And yes, I was surprised that we didn't draft any OTs, but we didn't draft any OLBs either and yet our pass rush has been quite better than expected.

One key point that I think you're missing is that Scott and Singletary were hoping that Snyder could evolve into a RT. Snyder himself said that he would play well if he was just left at one position. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out, and it's time to look to the draft again.

-9fA

Well part of your post is revisionist history and I'm sorry that happens far too often around here without the most simplest of searches on the internet:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) After the Pittsburgh Steelers didn't welcome back Marvel Smith this winter, the veteran offensive tackle decided he'd continue his career near his most faithful supporters.

Smith agreed to a two-year deal Monday to return to his native Bay Area with the San Francisco 49ers, who expect him to be their starting right tackle.

Read more: http://www.sofantasyfootball.com/nfl/f2/marvel-smith-will-niners-rt-26689/#ixzz0adjSNBJJ

Offensive tackle Marvel Smith has signed a two-year deal with the San Francisco 49ers, who expect him to be their starting right tackle.

http://www.kolotv.com/sports/headlines/42149802.html

Yes, the Niners did expect Marvel Smith to be their starter which is why they didn't make any attempt to draft a ROT. They also signed Wragge as an insurance policy at the OG positions.

Telling a coach you will develop into a ROT and actually doing so are two different things. I'm sorry but the logic is flawed here - the coach assess if a player has the potential he claims. If not, than you're honest with said player about his ability limits. Snyder has never been starting material. That has always been clear. To absolve McCloughan for the Marvel Smith debacle is apologist in its highest order. He's responsible - no Nolan having the last say, so Singletary influence. This was his call and it failed horribly significantly impacting the season.

The biggest joke of this whole scenario is Marvel Smith was completely injured which, perhaps is why Pitt didn't extend him. Just another case of the 49ers brass not doing there homework

Ahh man I forgot about that guy. He would have DEFINITELY helped. Lot better than Snyder thats for sure. Oh well.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Fans are always looking for a scapegoat for a season that didn't go as planned. It doesn't matter whether it's a player, a coach, GM or a HC.

Someone just has to be fired in their eyes so that their emotions can be taken out on a person losing a job - no matter how direct their contribution was to the loss or whatever legitimate reason there may be for retaining them.

It's the only way that some fans can feel good about the upcoming season, "Lookey, shiny new QB, he'll fix our problems! Yeah!"

We've done this for the past 7 years and it has not worked yet people want to push the reset button.

And for every firing that doesn't occur as everybody desires, it's all the regular doom and gloom.

-9fA

I'm not looking for a scapegoat, I'm looking for responsibility.

I have posted here about this issue last January about how the OL needs to be addressed. It's not the first season we've had abysmal play from the OL. Snyder has been average for a long time, a bench player, NEVER a starter and good Lord, NEVER a starting tackle.

We signed Marvel Smith who hadn't played a down in 2 seasons and I posted along with others that this was a monumentally bad move because (1) it wastes a lot of time despite it being a great deal and prevents us from replacing him with another viable candidate who can at least practice and (2) if the gamble fails you have no depth at the position.

Scott and Singletary waited until August for Smith to retire which was a "shock" to Scott. When that happened, so went the season IMHO. Gore again didn't have holes and the QB didn't have protection. Yes Baas and especially Rachal have been bad, but Snyder hasn't helped one, single bit.

Scott to admit he gambled, the line suffered as a result and he's going to do something about it. We've heard NOTHING on this and notice Scotty isn't doing any interviews since Marvel "shockingly" retired.

I'm not sure if Smith was ever expected to be given a starting role. To me, it was simply a low risk, (potential) high reward signing. I personally thought he was going to be limited to bench duty. He wasn't signed for much money, so I don't think it was a big loss.

IIRC, there weren't many good starting caliber OTs in FA that were worth pursuing. If there were, I would have been shocked that we didn't pursue them. And yes, I was surprised that we didn't draft any OTs, but we didn't draft any OLBs either and yet our pass rush has been quite better than expected.

One key point that I think you're missing is that Scott and Singletary were hoping that Snyder could evolve into a RT. Snyder himself said that he would play well if he was just left at one position. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out, and it's time to look to the draft again.

-9fA

I am. Part of your post is revisionist history and I'm sorry that happens far too often around here without the most simplest of searches on the internet:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) After the Pittsburgh Steelers didn't welcome back Marvel Smith this winter, the veteran offensive tackle decided he'd continue his career near his most faithful supporters.

Smith agreed to a two-year deal Monday to return to his native Bay Area with the San Francisco 49ers, who expect him to be their starting right tackle.

Read more: http://www.sofantasyfootball.com/nfl/f2/marvel-smith-will-niners-rt-26689/#ixzz0adjSNBJJ

Offensive tackle Marvel Smith has signed a two-year deal with the San Francisco 49ers, who expect him to be their starting right tackle.

http://www.kolotv.com/sports/headlines/42149802.html

Yes, the Niners did expect Marvel Smith to be their starter which is why they didn't make any attempt to draft a ROT. They also signed Wragge as an insurance policy at the OG positions.

So it's either Marvel Smith or "no other better options?" I don't buy that one bit. Someone in camp competing is better than no one competing. The coaches had no one to really evaluate someone against when it was clear they didn't want Sims t have the job. Snyder competed with himself. It was never a competition.

As for Snyder, telling a coach you will develop into a ROT and actually doing so are two different things. I'm sorry but the logic is flawed here - the coach assess if a player has the potential he claims. If not, than you're honest with said player about his ability limits. Snyder has never been starting material. That has always been clear. To absolve McCloughan for the Marvel Smith debacle is apologist in its highest order. He's responsible - no Nolan having the last say, so Singletary influence. This was his call and it failed horribly significantly impacting the season.

I'm not sure whether to cut this post otherwise we'll get sidetracked again like last time.

Anyways, onto your points.

1st of all, show me a quote from either Singletary or McCloughan that says that Smith was to automatically be given the starting job at RT as evidence that McCoughan put all his faith in Smith to solve our issues at RT. The articles that you link to have no quotes to support the claims that they make and that you use.

Again, I interpreted the signing of Smith to be a "lets try this out" type of deal. I personally came to this conclusion because of his injury history, the length of his contract, the amount that he signed for, and the demand that he had on the open market. It was hardly a "debacle" as you put it.

Where I lay some blame is on Singletary and McCloughan for hoping that Snyder would excel at RT if Snyder was just asked to learn one position. Obviously, it hasn't worked as they thought.

Again, when FA started, the OT market was very very slim. There weren't many obvious upgrades.

-9fA

You place blame at McCloughan and/or Singletary for signing Smith and giving him the starting RT job. Yet, you still haven't provided me a quote from them that it was their plan. Yes it will take me a quote from them to be satisfied. Am I asking for maybe a little too much? Sure..

In any case, I guess we're just gonna differ then. I interpret the media differently than you do. If there's no quote attached, I don't make any assumptions.

Good example, Barrows says, "He is being penciled in as the starter at right tackle." But what information is that based on? Is that his own gut feeling? Did he consult with someone off the record?

We just don't know, which is why I didn't take anything away from that. Maybe you did.

Something to ponder: if he was penciled in as the starter at RT as the media seems to interpret the signing, then why did Snyder get almost all the 1st team reps? Doesn't this indicate that all those articles were wrong, and that Smith was NOT be handed a starting role? IIRC, Snyder started in all exhibition games at RT before Smith's retirement. Again, doesn't this indicate that Snyder was to be the starter at RT?

I think we're arguing over semantics again. Happy holidays!

-9fA

Why mess with all this awesomeness. Winning is so overrated.

Originally posted by boast:
c-o-n-t-i-n-u-i-t-y

finally!

When you suck, continuity is not a good thing.

Well NinerGM, either you can't express your point or I cant understand it - take your pick.

I thought we were debating the fact that you think that Marvel Smith was expected to be given a starting role by McCloughan (reply 114). All I asked for is a quote from McCloughan or Singletary indicating so and so far you have gravely failed. If you had provided so, I would have gladly admitted that I was wrong.

Again, I told you beforehand, that we're gonna have to agree to disagree if you feel that quotes from articles speculating that he's to be the starter are sufficient to illustrate your point.

Btw, there's a reason why Runyan hasn't signed with a team till 1 month ago....

Don't bother replying to me if you can't stick to a debate.

-9fA