Smith, Tolzien thread. Yet again

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

good thing we don't play an up and down style.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

good thing we don't play an up and down style.

Yeah being down 7-0, 17-0, and 28-6 is very consistent.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

And it took Kaep 10 games to do it and get to the Supe Bowl. We don't even know if Smith beats the Packers or Falcons this year. He didn't even pass to WR's last year in the championship game and the 1 WR he had became one of the best WR's in the NFL after Smith was benched. Why take years to develop something when you can ride the kid to the super bowl? Smith had 7 years to get this team there and didn't, Kaep did it in 10 games.

Originally posted by Crysknife10:

Originally posted by real9erfan:
Right, the 49ers should make football decisions based on what would make the best fairy tale story lines for a particular player. People keep talking about being "flashy." Who said Kaepernick was given the starting job because he is more "flashy"? He was given the starting job because he is the better QB and the offense was more explosive under him. You need that on a team in case your defense and/or special teams don't play well, like what we saw in the playoffs. I really like Alex Smith and wish him the best, and although I think he may have gotten a raw deal in his first year with the Niners, I think the best thing that happened for his career is the arrival of Jim Harbaugh. The only reason he would have any interest on the market is because Harbaugh resurrected his career. But in the end, Jim Harbaugh has to do what is best for the TEAM, and not what is best to possibly make a feel good story for some emotional fans.

Alex was clutch in the redzone. Better chance of getting a TD in the last drive. I dissagree on Kaep being a better QB. I think they are very very close numbers wise, but Alex gets the edge on game management and smarts. I'm not just being emotional. You shouldn't lose your spot if you get hurt.

In the two playoff games the 49ers were 7/9 in the red zone. That's almost 78%. The difference on Sunday is that the Ravens have one of the best red zone defenses in the NFL, and on that last series I think the 49ers panicked and I do think Kaepernick panicked a little as he was anticipating the rush and getting rid of the ball maybe faster than he needed to. But the reality is that it is highly unlikely that Alex Smith could have brought the 49ers back from 17-0 in Atlanta or 28-6 against the Ravens. The bottom line is, regardless of stats, just watching the games gives you a clear indication that Kaepernick is a much more gifted player. That is not a knock on Alex Smith. Some people are just more physically gifted than others; there's nothing you can do about that. But even more than that, our offense averaged nearly 475 yards of total offense in the post-season under Kaepernick. Kaepernick also averaged 8.5, 11.1, and 10.8 YPA respectively in the three post-season games. That is elite level production. So I think this argument has long been settled. And Harbaugh clearly made the right decision as far as what is best for the team. Now if you have different aims, and would have liked for Alex Smith to complete a feel good story, that's a different issue. But Harbaugh cannot make decisions based on those factors.

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

And it took Kaep 10 games to do it and get to the Supe Bowl. We don't even know if Smith beats the Packers or Falcons this year. He didn't even pass to WR's last year in the championship game and the 1 WR he had became one of the best WR's in the NFL after Smith was benched. Why take years to develop something when you can ride the kid to the super bowl? Smith had 7 years to get this team there and didn't, Kaep did it in 10 games.

If all you're going to do is bring up the same old, uneducated, Alex-bashing talking points, then there is no point in discussing this with you. I'll leave you guys alone so you can worship Kaepernick and Harbaugh who can obviously do nothing wrong.

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

And it took Kaep 10 games to do it and get to the Supe Bowl. We don't even know if Smith beats the Packers or Falcons this year. He didn't even pass to WR's last year in the championship game and the 1 WR he had became one of the best WR's in the NFL after Smith was benched. Why take years to develop something when you can ride the kid to the super bowl? Smith had 7 years to get this team there and didn't, Kaep did it in 10 games.

Lets stop with the we dont know if Alex could win crap....he beat GB the first game of the season. Crabs was playing much better this year in general and had looked great with Alex at the helm. Keap took a Super Bowl ready team and had enough wins accumulated by Alex to damn near walk into the playoffs......when Keap is stuck with Nolan and Arnaz Battle the comparison of who did what at year 2 will make sense.

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

And it took Kaep 10 games to do it and get to the Supe Bowl. We don't even know if Smith beats the Packers or Falcons this year. He didn't even pass to WR's last year in the championship game and the 1 WR he had became one of the best WR's in the NFL after Smith was benched. Why take years to develop something when you can ride the kid to the super bowl? Smith had 7 years to get this team there and didn't, Kaep did it in 10 games.

Lets stop with the we dont know if Alex could win crap....he beat GB the first game of the season. Crabs was playing much better this year in general and had looked great with Alex at the helm. Keap took a Super Bowl ready team and had enough wins accumulated by Alex to damn near walk into the playoffs......when Keap is stuck with Nolan and Arnaz Battle the comparison of who did what at year 2 will make sense.

It doesn't matter what coaching staff he worked with, this coaching staff laid down a foundation for Smith to play better and they also had a guy they drafted and liked better so they went with him. They are not tied to Smith and even tried to replace him in the offseason. Smith got another chance at the Giants this year and wet the bed and I am pretty sure that is when the coaching staff wanted a reason the get Kaep in the game to see what they had.

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

And it took Kaep 10 games to do it and get to the Supe Bowl. We don't even know if Smith beats the Packers or Falcons this year. He didn't even pass to WR's last year in the championship game and the 1 WR he had became one of the best WR's in the NFL after Smith was benched. Why take years to develop something when you can ride the kid to the super bowl? Smith had 7 years to get this team there and didn't, Kaep did it in 10 games.

Lets stop with the we dont know if Alex could win crap....he beat GB the first game of the season. Crabs was playing much better this year in general and had looked great with Alex at the helm. Keap took a Super Bowl ready team and had enough wins accumulated by Alex to damn near walk into the playoffs......when Keap is stuck with Nolan and Arnaz Battle the comparison of who did what at year 2 will make sense.

It doesn't matter what coaching staff he worked with, this coaching staff laid down a foundation for Smith to play better and they also had a guy they drafted and liked better so they went with him. They are not tied to Smith and even tried to replace him in the offseason. Smith got another chance at the Giants this year and wet the bed and I am pretty sure that is when the coaching staff wanted a reason the get Kaep in the game to see what they had.

Well if its all about who can beat who its a good thing we dont use the Rams to make changes at QB.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by real9erfan:
Based on what Harbaugh said in his press conference, it doesn't sound like they will just release Alex.

Hinted they might keep him on the roster...oh..some people are gonna hate that.

I'm guessing it is posturing so they can get more value in a trade.

I hope they do keep him if they can reduce his salary. I've always believed Alex would be a great back up QB.

and i believe you have the potantial someday to be a great fan

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

And it took Kaep 10 games to do it and get to the Supe Bowl. We don't even know if Smith beats the Packers or Falcons this year. He didn't even pass to WR's last year in the championship game and the 1 WR he had became one of the best WR's in the NFL after Smith was benched. Why take years to develop something when you can ride the kid to the super bowl? Smith had 7 years to get this team there and didn't, Kaep did it in 10 games.

Lets stop with the we dont know if Alex could win crap....he beat GB the first game of the season. Crabs was playing much better this year in general and had looked great with Alex at the helm. Keap took a Super Bowl ready team and had enough wins accumulated by Alex to damn near walk into the playoffs......when Keap is stuck with Nolan and Arnaz Battle the comparison of who did what at year 2 will make sense.

It doesn't matter what coaching staff he worked with, this coaching staff laid down a foundation for Smith to play better and they also had a guy they drafted and liked better so they went with him. They are not tied to Smith and even tried to replace him in the offseason. Smith got another chance at the Giants this year and wet the bed and I am pretty sure that is when the coaching staff wanted a reason the get Kaep in the game to see what they had.

Well if its all about who can beat who its a good thing we dont use the Rams to make changes at QB.

We were losing the first Rams game when Smith went out.

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

And it took Kaep 10 games to do it and get to the Supe Bowl. We don't even know if Smith beats the Packers or Falcons this year. He didn't even pass to WR's last year in the championship game and the 1 WR he had became one of the best WR's in the NFL after Smith was benched. Why take years to develop something when you can ride the kid to the super bowl? Smith had 7 years to get this team there and didn't, Kaep did it in 10 games.

Lets stop with the we dont know if Alex could win crap....he beat GB the first game of the season. Crabs was playing much better this year in general and had looked great with Alex at the helm. Keap took a Super Bowl ready team and had enough wins accumulated by Alex to damn near walk into the playoffs......when Keap is stuck with Nolan and Arnaz Battle the comparison of who did what at year 2 will make sense.

It doesn't matter what coaching staff he worked with, this coaching staff laid down a foundation for Smith to play better and they also had a guy they drafted and liked better so they went with him. They are not tied to Smith and even tried to replace him in the offseason. Smith got another chance at the Giants this year and wet the bed and I am pretty sure that is when the coaching staff wanted a reason the get Kaep in the game to see what they had.

Well if its all about who can beat who its a good thing we dont use the Rams to make changes at QB.

We were losing the first Rams game when Smith went out.

We were coming back, hence the TD. Smith doesn't get hurt, we win that game.

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by InHarbsWeTrust:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you see no connection between the style of offense that is played, and the performance of the defense?

I edited my post. No. I see no connection.

You have obviously never played, coached, or been associated with any type of football team. Even still, the connection should be obvious to anyone who is more than just a casual fan. My 12 year old who played his first season of football this year even pointed this out about the 49ers.

Mybe you shouldn't listen to 12 year olds, or atleast ask him why this style didn't affect the defense against the Bears, Saints, Rams, Dolphins, and Cards?

Funny. Have you ever played or coached football?

Yes, I played 4 years in HS and 1 year in college. The style we play now has the D on the field longer so people think they will give up more points, but if you look at the postseason games, the defense played bad when they were fresh and not tired in the 1st half and played better in the 2nd half when we were scoring at a more frantic pace. The pace will get to them sometimes, but that doesn't explain the last 3 games. They were getting beat because they couldn't get a pass rush, bit on play action, and couldn't cover the deep reciever, and Whitner can't cover at all.

Wrong. We were actually SCORING in the 2nd half, which meant the Ravens had a longer field to score. Which helps the defense. Field position battle is HUGE in football. Turnovers are HUGE in football. This style of offense is prone to turnovers and losing the field position battle, which we did to start out our playoff games and the Super Bowl. We were able to overcome it, until we weren't.

I simply do not like this up and down style of football. It makes it very hard on the defense, as we have seen.

That style is what wins super bowls these days. The Ravens play that way and have been through the playoffs this year, The Giants are a throwing and quick strike team, the Packers won it like that, the Saints won like that, when PIT won they were a team that relied on big plays from the QB, The Colts and Manning were a quick strike team. The top teams this year were all teams that can score quick and often in the Packers, Ravens (during Flaccos run), Pats, Broncos, Falcons, even the Seahawks became a quick strike team.

The difference is those teams took time to develop their offensive systems around those QB's so that they could gradually become more and more aggressive. I'm not saying we should throw 5 yard curl routes forever. You start out conservative, and gradually build up the offensive system around the QB. Then you can alter the pace as each game calls for. Every single one of those teams has a pocket passing, precise, efficient attack - that took YEARS to develop. Thank you for proving my point.

And it took Kaep 10 games to do it and get to the Supe Bowl. We don't even know if Smith beats the Packers or Falcons this year. He didn't even pass to WR's last year in the championship game and the 1 WR he had became one of the best WR's in the NFL after Smith was benched. Why take years to develop something when you can ride the kid to the super bowl? Smith had 7 years to get this team there and didn't, Kaep did it in 10 games.

Lets stop with the we dont know if Alex could win crap....he beat GB the first game of the season. Crabs was playing much better this year in general and had looked great with Alex at the helm. Keap took a Super Bowl ready team and had enough wins accumulated by Alex to damn near walk into the playoffs......when Keap is stuck with Nolan and Arnaz Battle the comparison of who did what at year 2 will make sense.

It doesn't matter what coaching staff he worked with, this coaching staff laid down a foundation for Smith to play better and they also had a guy they drafted and liked better so they went with him. They are not tied to Smith and even tried to replace him in the offseason. Smith got another chance at the Giants this year and wet the bed and I am pretty sure that is when the coaching staff wanted a reason the get Kaep in the game to see what they had.

Well if its all about who can beat who its a good thing we dont use the Rams to make changes at QB.

We were losing the first Rams game when Smith went out.

We were coming back, hence the TD. Smith doesn't get hurt, we win that game.

Maybe. Or we could of totally gotten whooped.