First 300 yard game for Alex against Seattle?

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:
I don't necessarily want my quarterback to throw for 300 yards. That's not always going to lead to a win.

I want my quarterback to be talented enough to able to throw for 300 yards if he wants to.

Does that make sense?

After reading your posts I'd say this: No, it doesn't make sense, you're are just searching fuel to maintain your status as a childish hater.

I don't know who you are. But labeling someone as a hater instead of attacking my argument is a cop-out....and won't help you build any credibility around here.

Well, I'm not sure if you are the right person to talk about credibility around here. Or do you really think you can build some by starting threads like "We should have paid Crabtree what he demanded in July " or "We need to replace Joe Nedney "?

You have a hard time detecting sarcasm, which is what the Nedney thread was. It was a parody of all the Ninertalk panic after the Falcons loss.

And we absolutely SHOULD have paid Michael Crabtree in July. If we had him earlier, he would have produced earlier, which could have led to more wins. Crabtree's holdout might keep us out of the playoffs.

If you believe he would have helped our defense prevent Brett Favre's miracle pass and the Falcons destroying our defense, then you are delusional.

Does Michael Crabtree play defense smart guy? No he doesn't.

He would have helped out our offensive woes in the first five games which could easily have led to more wins.

you know if our defence keeps getting us the ball in the other teams territory we wont pass for 300

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:
I don't necessarily want my quarterback to throw for 300 yards. That's not always going to lead to a win.

I want my quarterback to be talented enough to able to throw for 300 yards if he wants to.

Does that make sense?

After reading your posts I'd say this: No, it doesn't make sense, you're are just searching fuel to maintain your status as a childish hater.

I don't know who you are. But labeling someone as a hater instead of attacking my argument is a cop-out....and won't help you build any credibility around here.

Well, I'm not sure if you are the right person to talk about credibility around here. Or do you really think you can build some by starting threads like "We should have paid Crabtree what he demanded in July " or "We need to replace Joe Nedney "?

You have a hard time detecting sarcasm, which is what the Nedney thread was. It was a parody of all the Ninertalk panic after the Falcons loss.

And we absolutely SHOULD have paid Michael Crabtree in July. If we had him earlier, he would have produced earlier, which could have led to more wins. Crabtree's holdout might keep us out of the playoffs.

If you believe he would have helped our defense prevent Brett Favre's miracle pass and the Falcons destroying our defense, then you are delusional.

Does Michael Crabtree play defense smart guy? No he doesn't.

He would have helped out our offensive woes in the first five games which could easily have led to more wins.

You absolutely missed the point of my post, so let me try again.

Our team was 3-2 at the time of Michael Crabtree's signing.

In our first loss, the Vikings won on a miracle last second play. Our offense was fine as it scored 21 points. In the second game, our defense gave up 41 points. If you think Crabtree would have helped our offense make up 31 points, then yes, you are delusional.

It doesn't matter as long as we win games. Someone posted that (paraphrase here) they'd like to have a QB at the helm who COULD throw for 300 yards if they needed to. I agree with that assertion.

winning is the main thing

Originally posted by jreff22:

Al Davis sex change after the Raiders get booted from the NFL.

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:
I don't necessarily want my quarterback to throw for 300 yards. That's not always going to lead to a win.

I want my quarterback to be talented enough to able to throw for 300 yards if he wants to.

Does that make sense?

After reading your posts I'd say this: No, it doesn't make sense, you're are just searching fuel to maintain your status as a childish hater.

I don't know who you are. But labeling someone as a hater instead of attacking my argument is a cop-out....and won't help you build any credibility around here.

Well, I'm not sure if you are the right person to talk about credibility around here. Or do you really think you can build some by starting threads like "We should have paid Crabtree what he demanded in July " or "We need to replace Joe Nedney "?

You have a hard time detecting sarcasm, which is what the Nedney thread was. It was a parody of all the Ninertalk panic after the Falcons loss.

And we absolutely SHOULD have paid Michael Crabtree in July. If we had him earlier, he would have produced earlier, which could have led to more wins. Crabtree's holdout might keep us out of the playoffs.

If you believe he would have helped our defense prevent Brett Favre's miracle pass and the Falcons destroying our defense, then you are delusional.

Does Michael Crabtree play defense smart guy? No he doesn't.

He would have helped out our offensive woes in the first five games which could easily have led to more wins.

You absolutely missed the point of my post, so let me try again.

Our team was 3-2 at the time of Michael Crabtree's signing.

In our first loss, the Vikings won on a miracle last second play. Our offense was fine as it scored 21 points. In the second game, our defense gave up 41 points. If you think Crabtree would have helped our offense make up 31 points, then yes, you are delusional.

The San Francisco 49ers were 0/11 on third down against the Minnesota Vikings in Week 3. ZERO FOR ELEVEN!. If you don't think Michael Crabtree would have helped us convert some of those third downs which could have led to a victory in a game we barely lost.....then I don't really know what to say to you.

And if you watched the Atlanta game, you'd know that 45-10 doesn't even begin to tell the entire story. Our offense woes in the Atlanta game again put our defense in precarious situations. The game was 14-10 with 9 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, and the Falcons turned over the football. The 49ers had 33 yards to go to get into the end zone. Instead, we went 3 and out and got sacked out of Nedney's field goal range. From that moment on the game was lost. With our defense staying on the field for almost 37 minutes, the Falcons wore them down, our D gave up big plays and we lost.

And imagine if Crabtree had been here in training camp. He probably has a bigger impact in the games that he HAS played in this season after fully grasping the 49er offense. Maybe he doesn't drop endzone touchdowns.

I stand by my point. Not signing Michael Crabtree on time might cost the 49ers the playoffs.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Hawksfan81:
Here is my opinion on the subject. I think that you have had success with the passing game since alex came back because people are still figuring out crabtree and smith has been rejuvenated with his starting roll. Its basically all new. Teams have a couple games to look at now and can start to break down film of the new niners offense and start to game plan appropriately. Not to say you won't have a better offense than you did with hill under center, but I do think that there will be some dropoff in the passing game from what it has been as of late.

Teams may figure Smith and/or the offense out, but they won't figure Crabtree out because Crabtree is just too good.

Right. But a good DC can come up with a solid game plan for him that can minimize his effect. The hawks did it against steve smith in '05 in the nfc championship game. It certainly is possible to limit a guys productivity thru solid game planning. I don't know that it will happen this week, but the more film there is on this offensive combination you guys have the easier it will be to prepare for it.

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:
I don't necessarily want my quarterback to throw for 300 yards. That's not always going to lead to a win.

I want my quarterback to be talented enough to able to throw for 300 yards if he wants to.

Does that make sense?

After reading your posts I'd say this: No, it doesn't make sense, you're are just searching fuel to maintain your status as a childish hater.

I don't know who you are. But labeling someone as a hater instead of attacking my argument is a cop-out....and won't help you build any credibility around here.

Well, I'm not sure if you are the right person to talk about credibility around here. Or do you really think you can build some by starting threads like "We should have paid Crabtree what he demanded in July " or "We need to replace Joe Nedney "?

You have a hard time detecting sarcasm, which is what the Nedney thread was. It was a parody of all the Ninertalk panic after the Falcons loss.

And we absolutely SHOULD have paid Michael Crabtree in July. If we had him earlier, he would have produced earlier, which could have led to more wins. Crabtree's holdout might keep us out of the playoffs.

If you believe he would have helped our defense prevent Brett Favre's miracle pass and the Falcons destroying our defense, then you are delusional.

Does Michael Crabtree play defense smart guy? No he doesn't.

He would have helped out our offensive woes in the first five games which could easily have led to more wins.

You absolutely missed the point of my post, so let me try again.

Our team was 3-2 at the time of Michael Crabtree's signing.

In our first loss, the Vikings won on a miracle last second play. Our offense was fine as it scored 21 points. In the second game, our defense gave up 41 points. If you think Crabtree would have helped our offense make up 31 points, then yes, you are delusional.

The San Francisco 49ers were 0/11 on third down against the Minnesota Vikings in Week 3. ZERO FOR ELEVEN!. If you don't think Michael Crabtree would have helped us convert some of those third downs which could have led to a victory in a game we barely lost.....then I don't really know what to say to you.

And if you watched the Atlanta game, you'd know that 45-10 doesn't even begin to tell the entire story. Our offense woes in the Atlanta game again put our defense in precarious situations. The game was 14-10 with 9 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, and the Falcons turned over the football. The 49ers had 33 yards to go to get into the end zone. Instead, we went 3 and out and got sacked out of Nedney's field goal range. From that moment on the game was lost. With our defense staying on the field for almost 37 minutes, the Falcons wore them down, our D gave up big plays and we lost.

And imagine if Crabtree had been here in training camp. He probably has a bigger impact in the games that he HAS played in this season after fully grasping the 49er offense. Maybe he doesn't drop endzone touchdowns.

I stand by my point. Not signing Michael Crabtree on time might cost the 49ers the playoffs.

crzy, now is when they will begin to say, "Even with Crabtree in there, the playcalling would be too conservative or the 3rd situations Raye would put us in would be too difficult." further supporting that Hill was in a terrible situation no different than what Alex was under Nolan.

Don't tell me Hill can't make those throws because he did just fine under Martz and he had a solid drive against MIN where he threw for some good chunks on a TD scoring drive.

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:
I don't necessarily want my quarterback to throw for 300 yards. That's not always going to lead to a win.

I want my quarterback to be talented enough to able to throw for 300 yards if he wants to.

Does that make sense?

After reading your posts I'd say this: No, it doesn't make sense, you're are just searching fuel to maintain your status as a childish hater.

I don't know who you are. But labeling someone as a hater instead of attacking my argument is a cop-out....and won't help you build any credibility around here.

Well, I'm not sure if you are the right person to talk about credibility around here. Or do you really think you can build some by starting threads like "We should have paid Crabtree what he demanded in July " or "We need to replace Joe Nedney "?

You have a hard time detecting sarcasm, which is what the Nedney thread was. It was a parody of all the Ninertalk panic after the Falcons loss.

And we absolutely SHOULD have paid Michael Crabtree in July. If we had him earlier, he would have produced earlier, which could have led to more wins. Crabtree's holdout might keep us out of the playoffs.

If you believe he would have helped our defense prevent Brett Favre's miracle pass and the Falcons destroying our defense, then you are delusional.

Does Michael Crabtree play defense smart guy? No he doesn't.

He would have helped out our offensive woes in the first five games which could easily have led to more wins.

You absolutely missed the point of my post, so let me try again.

Our team was 3-2 at the time of Michael Crabtree's signing.

In our first loss, the Vikings won on a miracle last second play. Our offense was fine as it scored 21 points. In the second game, our defense gave up 41 points. If you think Crabtree would have helped our offense make up 31 points, then yes, you are delusional.

The San Francisco 49ers were 0/11 on third down against the Minnesota Vikings in Week 3. ZERO FOR ELEVEN!. If you don't think Michael Crabtree would have helped us convert some of those third downs which could have led to a victory in a game we barely lost.....then I don't really know what to say to you.

And if you watched the Atlanta game, you'd know that 45-10 doesn't even begin to tell the entire story. Our offense woes in the Atlanta game again put our defense in precarious situations. The game was 14-10 with 9 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, and the Falcons turned over the football. The 49ers had 33 yards to go to get into the end zone. Instead, we went 3 and out and got sacked out of Nedney's field goal range. From that moment on the game was lost. With our defense staying on the field for almost 37 minutes, the Falcons wore them down, our D gave up big plays and we lost.

And imagine if Crabtree had been here in training camp. He probably has a bigger impact in the games that he HAS played in this season after fully grasping the 49er offense. Maybe he doesn't drop endzone touchdowns.

I stand by my point. Not signing Michael Crabtree on time might cost the 49ers the playoffs.

I agree with you on the third down thing. Had you converted on a third of those and kept drives going then it not only can put you in control of the clock and get in a postition to score points, but it also keeps favre, harvin, peterson, ect.....off the field. Giving that offense less of an opportunity to be in a position at the end of the game to score that crazy td. Crabtree certainly could have helped the team in that respect. He doesn't have to score a huge amount of points. Sometimes its better to methodically move down field, pick up a bunch of first downs, eat the clock, and keep that other offense on the bench.

I hope so but I honestly believe it will happen back to back week 16 and 17.

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Who gives a s**t, I just want a win.

This...you guys are absolutely too hung up about stats, all that matters is the W.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Who gives a s**t, I just want a win.

This...you guys are absolutely too hung up about stats, all that matters is the W.

It would be nice....but Ws are more important than YDs.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by Twister68:

Originally posted by crzy:
I don't necessarily want my quarterback to throw for 300 yards. That's not always going to lead to a win.

I want my quarterback to be talented enough to able to throw for 300 yards if he wants to.

Does that make sense?

After reading your posts I'd say this: No, it doesn't make sense, you're are just searching fuel to maintain your status as a childish hater.

I don't know who you are. But labeling someone as a hater instead of attacking my argument is a cop-out....and won't help you build any credibility around here.

Well, I'm not sure if you are the right person to talk about credibility around here. Or do you really think you can build some by starting threads like "We should have paid Crabtree what he demanded in July " or "We need to replace Joe Nedney "?

You have a hard time detecting sarcasm, which is what the Nedney thread was. It was a parody of all the Ninertalk panic after the Falcons loss.

And we absolutely SHOULD have paid Michael Crabtree in July. If we had him earlier, he would have produced earlier, which could have led to more wins. Crabtree's holdout might keep us out of the playoffs.

If you believe he would have helped our defense prevent Brett Favre's miracle pass and the Falcons destroying our defense, then you are delusional.

Does Michael Crabtree play defense smart guy? No he doesn't.

He would have helped out our offensive woes in the first five games which could easily have led to more wins.

You absolutely missed the point of my post, so let me try again.

Our team was 3-2 at the time of Michael Crabtree's signing.

In our first loss, the Vikings won on a miracle last second play. Our offense was fine as it scored 21 points. In the second game, our defense gave up 41 points. If you think Crabtree would have helped our offense make up 31 points, then yes, you are delusional.

The San Francisco 49ers were 0/11 on third down against the Minnesota Vikings in Week 3. ZERO FOR ELEVEN!. If you don't think Michael Crabtree would have helped us convert some of those third downs which could have led to a victory in a game we barely lost.....then I don't really know what to say to you.

And if you watched the Atlanta game, you'd know that 45-10 doesn't even begin to tell the entire story. Our offense woes in the Atlanta game again put our defense in precarious situations. The game was 14-10 with 9 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, and the Falcons turned over the football. The 49ers had 33 yards to go to get into the end zone. Instead, we went 3 and out and got sacked out of Nedney's field goal range. From that moment on the game was lost. With our defense staying on the field for almost 37 minutes, the Falcons wore them down, our D gave up big plays and we lost.

And imagine if Crabtree had been here in training camp. He probably has a bigger impact in the games that he HAS played in this season after fully grasping the 49er offense. Maybe he doesn't drop endzone touchdowns.

I stand by my point. Not signing Michael Crabtree on time might cost the 49ers the playoffs.

crzy, now is when they will begin to say, "Even with Crabtree in there, the playcalling would be too conservative or the 3rd situations Raye would put us in would be too difficult." further supporting that Hill was in a terrible situation no different than what Alex was under Nolan.

Don't tell me Hill can't make those throws because he did just fine under Martz and he had a solid drive against MIN where he threw for some good chunks on a TD scoring drive.

Hill is not the starter so who cares if he can make the throws , Hill is on the bench for a reason .

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Who gives a s**t, I just want a win.