Buyer Beware: The Cardinals Game Was A Fluke

I like the optimism in this thread. I think we've got a good shot in winning.

shut your damn mouth

[ Edited by RonMexico on Dec 16, 2009 at 23:59:16 ]

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
While there is not doubt Frank Gore was an elite back in 2006, there is no way that he is anywhere near the best backs in the NFL anymore. He is not consistent enough weekly.

Once again, for the skeptics, this performance was just one game. A QB who busts out a 400 yard game after throwing for 150 the week before, and averages 225 per game for the season, is not elite. He just had a studly performance.

Everyone knows the offensive line is certainly not very good, but to pin Gore's lack of game-by-game productivity only on the OL is simply not accurate. He is surely not the same back who could make sharp cuts to get into a hole from a few years ago, and seems to have lost his ability to find these same holes on a consistent basis. How many times have we seen this year when he runs into the wrong hole, or directly into the back of an OL? His best asset right now is running hard up the middle, and hope to break free. And, he is very good in this area.

Don't get me wrong. I love cheering for Frank. He's been the ultimate professional player, a truly classy guy. He wants to win, and he works hard to make himself and the team better. But, he's not elite anymore. I watch nearly every NFL game every week, and see the best of the NFL backs on side-to-side screens. Frank is not amongst the best, and that is due to consistency. He is not consistent enough on a week-to-week basis (outside of his three biggest games this season, he is averaging 44 yards/game). So, call it what you will. 10th best overall? 12th? 14th?

Career yards per rush for active players
1) Chris Johnson 5.5
2) DeAngelo Williams 5.1
3) Adrian Peterson 4.9
4) Michael Turner 4.9
5) Frank Gore 4.8

All with an offensive line whom you yourself disparage.

What is your opinion of the 49ers offense line compared to the lines of the above teams? And what about their quarterbacks?

[ Edited by BrianGO on Dec 17, 2009 at 00:49:30 ]

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
While there is not doubt Frank Gore was an elite back in 2006, there is no way that he is anywhere near the best backs in the NFL anymore. He is not consistent enough weekly.

Once again, for the skeptics, this performance was just one game. A QB who busts out a 400 yard game after throwing for 150 the week before, and averages 225 per game for the season, is not elite. He just had a studly performance.

Everyone knows the offensive line is certainly not very good, but to pin Gore's lack of game-by-game productivity only on the OL is simply not accurate. He is surely not the same back who could make sharp cuts to get into a hole from a few years ago, and seems to have lost his ability to find these same holes on a consistent basis. How many times have we seen this year when he runs into the wrong hole, or directly into the back of an OL? His best asset right now is running hard up the middle, and hope to break free. And, he is very good in this area.

Don't get me wrong. I love cheering for Frank. He's been the ultimate professional player, a truly classy guy. He wants to win, and he works hard to make himself and the team better. But, he's not elite anymore. I watch nearly every NFL game every week, and see the best of the NFL backs on side-to-side screens. Frank is not amongst the best, and that is due to consistency. He is not consistent enough on a week-to-week basis (outside of his three biggest games this season, he is averaging 44 yards/game). So, call it what you will. 10th best overall? 12th? 14th?

Career yards per rush for active players
1) Chris Johnson 5.5
2) DeAngelo Williams 5.1
3) Adrian Peterson 4.9
4) Michael Turner 4.9
5) Frank Gore 4.8

All with an offensive line whom you yourself disparage.

What is you opinion of the 49ers offense line compared to the lines of the above teams? And what about their quarterbacks?

MadDog....please quit while you're ahead. You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole with each and every post.

49ERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ Edited by bigmike55 on Dec 17, 2009 at 01:11:04 ]

Stoney, for the record, i do not think Dog is stupid, hateful, idiotic, or any of the other litany of vile and silly things Dog has been tagged with. I was just reciting the 266 unpleasant and rude comments that everyone else on this thread have made regarding Dog. As for how do I remember what Dog said in midyear, well that thread was resurrected (by Dog) less than a month ago. I was amazed at how prescient he had been, and that's how i recalled something that was discussed just a few weeks back. Dog just stated what he saw, and i agreed, but that doesn't make either of us bad fans. It is just what we see, and frankly, as mentioned earlier, the irrational exuberance is wonderful, but it is not something we should expect for the next 3 weeks.

Do i want us to cream philly? Absolutely. Actually i would like to see us embarrass them. But is it likely to happen? Nah. Stoney, think back to the Walsh/montana 6-10 yr, when we lost 10, but were in every game, and then won the SB following season. I would say this is a little like that yr, EXCEPT: We now don't have the greatest coach of all time, we don't have one of the greates QBs of all time, we don't have one of our 3-4 greatest OCs of all time, we haven't had a draft like many that walsh pulled off , eg the Eric Wright, Ronnie lott, Williamson D backfield, etc. Back then, i was full of irrational exuberance based on what we had esp from coaching , talent evaluation, ownership, and esp HOF players. Now we have p-52, frank, and really nothing else remotely close to that '77-'80 team. Now we have an owner looking at a mountain of learning on the learning curve. We have a HC who never put the time in the trenches of asst coach at multiple positions, and sadly has never even been a DC (or OC).

BigMike is a welcome change based on what we have had here since mooch. But he has so many holes in his coaching knowledge that we cannot expect him to do much more than make mistakes and learn as he goes. Talentwise? We need an OL and have a GM who doesn't think OL , esp OGs are worth the money.Well, he is dead wrong, and those OLs are worth every penny. Why after 5 yrs scot has amassed p-52 , Frank, Staley, maybe crabs, and not much else is not a mystery, but a saga that no GM would be proud of. Ownership has to take credit for the inept coaching and GM, but frankly, there is nothing in the mgmt dept of this team that has me encouraged.

Dog doesn't need me to defend him, and i am not. I just happen to agree with him.
As for the Frank issue, the guy has played his heart out for us, but honestly, how many yrs does an elite RB have? Answer: 4-6 yrs. And frank is about there. With any kind of an OL he would have been greater still, but i don't think that would have kept the toll of time at bay re: RBs career longevity.

Lastly, if someone wrote a thread on the 9ers that was negative, and based on no facts, then i would have added to the group's negative responses. Dog is just saying it like it is, but that doesn't make him a bad fan. He is just a 49er fan, who also happens to be observant.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Stoney, for the record, i do not think Dog is stupid, hateful, idiotic, or any of the other litany of vile and silly things Dog has been tagged with. I was just reciting the 266 unpleasant and rude comments that everyone else on this thread have made regarding Dog. As for how do I remember what Dog said in midyear, well that thread was resurrected (by Dog) less than a month ago. I was amazed at how prescient he had been, and that's how i recalled something that was discussed just a few weeks back. Dog just stated what he saw, and i agreed, but that doesn't make either of us bad fans. It is just what we see, and frankly, as mentioned earlier, the irrational exuberance is wonderful, but it is not something we should expect for the next 3 weeks.

Do i want us to cream philly? Absolutely. Actually i would like to see us embarrass them. But is it likely to happen? Nah. Stoney, think back to the Walsh/montana 6-10 yr, when we lost 10, but were in every game, and then won the SB following season. I would say this is a little like that yr, EXCEPT: We now don't have the greatest coach of all time, we don't have one of the greates QBs of all time, we don't have one of our 3-4 greatest OCs of all time, we haven't had a draft like many that walsh pulled off , eg the Eric Wright, Ronnie lott, Williamson D backfield, etc. Back then, i was full of irrational exuberance based on what we had esp from coaching , talent evaluation, ownership, and esp HOF players. Now we have p-52, frank, and really nothing else remotely close to that '77-'80 team. Now we have an owner looking at a mountain of learning on the learning curve. We have a HC who never put the time in the trenches of asst coach at multiple positions, and sadly has never even been a DC (or OC).

BigMike is a welcome change based on what we have had here since mooch. But he has so many holes in his coaching knowledge that we cannot expect him to do much more than make mistakes and learn as he goes. Talentwise? We need an OL and have a GM who doesn't think OL , esp OGs are worth the money.Well, he is dead wrong, and those OLs are worth every penny. Why after 5 yrs scot has amassed p-52 , Frank, Staley, maybe crabs, and not much else is not a mystery, but a saga that no GM would be proud of. Ownership has to take credit for the inept coaching and GM, but frankly, there is nothing in the mgmt dept of this team that has me encouraged.

Dog doesn't need me to defend him, and i am not. I just happen to agree with him.
As for the Frank issue, the guy has played his heart out for us, but honestly, how many yrs does an elite RB have? Answer: 4-6 yrs. And frank is about there. With any kind of an OL he would have been greater still, but i don't think that would have kept the toll of time at bay re: RBs career longevity.

Wtf...Maddog is Dog?



Lastly, if someone wrote a thread on the 9ers that was negative, and based on no facts, then i would have added to the group's negative responses. Dog is just saying it like it is, but that doesn't make him a bad fan. He is just a 49er fan, who also happens to be observant.

Glory, yes, i was referring to the author of this thread, Dog.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
Sorry, dont agree MadDog, yeah they beat a good Vikes team, but the D came out and out played the cards last nite.

We deserved it, and we arent a terrible team, we have talent, and we proved it.

The only game we werent in was the Atlanta game, all the others we have won or lost close. Thats not a bad team. Thats a team with some questions, but a team that doesnt give up or in.

You are right. We are not a terrible team. But, we are also not a good team. We lost the Seahawks last week, and they are not a good team. We have a losing record, and a ton of issues, including the inability to run consistently from week to week, cover anyone on the secondary, etc.

So would you say Philly's not a good team then? Remember they lost to the Raiders. I think a lot of over analyzing has clouded some people’s outlook. With the exception of NO and the Colts, every team has been up and down from week to week. Hate to sound redundant but that’s why we play the game, any given Sunday, remember?

It bugs me when people imply that the 7 turnovers were gifts. Those turnovers were pure and simple takeaways. Maybe one or two we can argue about (INTs) but the fumbles, especially, were FORCED.

Our punt return reverse that ended in a fumble last week against the Seahawks, THAT is a gift. When your safety crashes his helmet on the ball or your OLB swats the ball out of the QB's hand on a pass rush, it's earned.



[ Edited by ghostrider on Dec 17, 2009 at 11:39:05 ]

I appreciate some of the kind thoughts by fellow board members in this thread, and also the members who thoughtfully challenged my arguments.

The overarching argument I presented is that the Niners are not there yet, and until they consistently perform at a high level the team is simply not playoff ready. Managing expectations is going to be important to fans, as games like the one on Monday night are rare, even for good teams.

The combination of many abnormalities made this game a certain fluke to me. Some may choose another word to describe the outcome that is less offensive to the eye.

The reality is that I expect the Niners to play at a much lower level against the Eagles. The 49ers have come off a big emotional win, are riding a short week, have to fly across the country, and will be playing in cold weather. Not a good combo, but you never know. This is the NFL and strange things happen every week.

The good news is that even if we get blown out on Sunday, the final two weeks present winnable games to help us finish at .500. An 8-8 year is a big leap forward for this franchise (a departure from a losing season is well overdue), and does bode well for the future.

yeah, we suck.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
I appreciate some of the kind thoughts by fellow board members in this thread, and also the members who thoughtfully challenged my arguments.

The overarching argument I presented is that the Niners are not there yet, and until they consistently perform at a high level the team is simply not playoff ready. Managing expectations is going to be important to fans, as games like the one on Monday night are rare, even for good teams.

The combination of many abnormalities made this game a certain fluke to me. Some may choose another word to describe the outcome that is less offensive to the eye.

The reality is that I expect the Niners to play at a much lower level against the Eagles. The 49ers have come off a big emotional win, are riding a short week, have to fly across the country, and will be playing in cold weather. Not a good combo, but you never know. This is the NFL and strange things happen every week.

The good news is that even if we get blown out on Sunday, the final two weeks present winnable games to help us finish at .500. An 8-8 year is a big leap forward for this franchise (a departure from a losing season is well overdue), and does bode well for the future.

Or we come up to play and win...point of view again based on opinion, simple as that because we don't know.

Where are you grounded with all due respect, MD?

Why can't it be? Why can't we believe and expect a win?

I have seen some glimpses that make me wonder whether or not I have been to quick to judge the shortcomings of this team. We have been sooooo close so many times except for that debacle against the Falcons. Instead, I rather look forward for these guys to make me eat my words because in my wrong, we have move forward to the right. In that right, we are only winning which ultimately is what every 49er fan wants.

Why can't it just be, "Dang, I didn't expect that!", thread?

By the way man, I do look forward to your analysis in the draft forum...

What? a Niner Bro still can't be respectful and appreciative of another's differences and their insight?

Sure we can. We are 49ers!

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Why do people insist on making this an absolute valuation:

The team is neither good NOR bad, they're just below average and their record reflects that.

They're just below a .500 team. That what they are. Those teams can turn in a dominant game some times, but MOST times do not. That's what the record shows. Yes we may have the talent, but that talent may not show up all at once every week. We may have the coaches and the game plan, but that doesn't show up every week.

You are a good team when all of that shows up (talent, execution and coaching) most times each week. And you're a really good team when you can win despite your mistakes.

The 49ers are there yet. We all have different observations as to why they haven't reached that point (I certainly have my strong disagreements with personnel decisions) but over all, they are what their record says they are. Fluke? I probably wouldn't use that word, but I certainly wouldn't say this is the norm for the 49ers - at least until proven repeatedly.

So let's chill on the name calling and have a rational debate about a just below average football team that's trying to improve.

A rational debate should also include a discussion around progress. Specifically, some of the players that hadn't shown much of it before this season, or are just now getting the chance to show it. That's a HUGE part of the conversation as to how good this team is now and how good it can be in the future.

Here's my take:



Players that have shown excellent progress in 2009:

Vernon Davis: Still drops to many passes, but no one (not even krizay) can deny that he's playing pro-bowl-caliber football this year
Michael Crabtree: Looks like the real deal and could be the #1 WR we've been seeking since TO left
Aubrayo Franklin - Has dominated in the middle of our defense for most of the year
Alex Smith - Easily his best year so far in the pocket; actually looks like an NFL QB now...can still get better


Players that have shown flashes of progress over last year:

Dashon Goldson: Still finding his way, but has shown clear playmaking ability
Ahmad Brooks: Explosive pass rusher who's just now "getting it"; has all the tools to be a defensive force
Delanie Walker - Only on this list because we're using him more; should be a bigger part of the offense next year
David Baas - People might disagree, but he's played better overall this year than in the past (not saying much, but it's a start)
Barry Sims - EVERYONE hated this guy as a RT, but he's done a great job stepping in for Staley at LT
Manny Lawson - Was a bust as a pass rusher before this year; is really showing signs of becoming a playmaker


Players that will need to step up next year to take this team to the next level:

Kentwan Balmer - No need to go into details
Reggie Smith - Can he up his game like Goldson did this past year?
Josh Morgan - If he can be a factor, we could have one of the best young WR tandems in the NFL
Chilo Rachal - Took a step back this year, but has all the tools to be a force at OG
Parys Haralson - Having an off year; needs to return to his 2008 form for us to be a domintant pass rushing team
Tarrell Brown - Has all the talent needed to be a top corner and did some decent things, but still gives up WAY to many big plays
Joe Staley - Wasn't playing all that well before the injury; if he's going to stay at LT, he needs to step up

Originally posted by matt49er:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
While there is not doubt Frank Gore was an elite back in 2006, there is no way that he is anywhere near the best backs in the NFL anymore. He is not consistent enough weekly.

Once again, for the skeptics, this performance was just one game. A QB who busts out a 400 yard game after throwing for 150 the week before, and averages 225 per game for the season, is not elite. He just had a studly performance.

Everyone knows the offensive line is certainly not very good, but to pin Gore's lack of game-by-game productivity only on the OL is simply not accurate. He is surely not the same back who could make sharp cuts to get into a hole from a few years ago, and seems to have lost his ability to find these same holes on a consistent basis. How many times have we seen this year when he runs into the wrong hole, or directly into the back of an OL? His best asset right now is running hard up the middle, and hope to break free. And, he is very good in this area.

Don't get me wrong. I love cheering for Frank. He's been the ultimate professional player, a truly classy guy. He wants to win, and he works hard to make himself and the team better. But, he's not elite anymore. I watch nearly every NFL game every week, and see the best of the NFL backs on side-to-side screens. Frank is not amongst the best, and that is due to consistency. He is not consistent enough on a week-to-week basis (outside of his three biggest games this season, he is averaging 44 yards/game). So, call it what you will. 10th best overall? 12th? 14th?

Gore is not consistent for 2 reasons:
1) the OL is one of the 10 worst in the NFL
2) the playcalling has been crazy pass oriented lately save the last game

when the OL is good Gore is great period.

Watch out or the Smith haters might start saying Gore is making excuses on your first part.