Week 9 2015: Thoughts after rewatching the game...

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by wolfpack2192:
Anyone who thinks Tomsula makes the decision on who starts at QB is fooling themselves.

Ok I'll bite. In your world it presumably is Trent Baalke, Jed York, Denise York or God.

I think it's the players on the team. They've been saying to go with Gabbert. Tomsula goes with the locker room.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Mediocrity is the worst. Be bad enough to have a chance at the top of the draft to improve, or be a playoff team. Being mediocre breeds more mediocrity.

in theory, this is true. in practice...not so much in the NFL. teams can change very fast.
were we mediocre in 2010 ? yep.
did it breed more mediocrity in 2011 ? (rhetorical question really)

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by wolfpack2192:

Anyone who thinks Tomsula makes the decision on who starts at QB is fooling themselves.

Ok I'll bite. In your world it presumably is Trent Baalke, Jed York, Denise York or God.

I think it's the players on the team. They've been saying to go with Gabbert. Tomsula goes with the locker room.

My assumption, as a players coach, is that he will want to talk it over with both Gabbert and Kaepernick and probably sound out some of the team leaders like Boldin and Staley. But the final decision will be his. That being said, benching Gabbert straight away after that win would be odd.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by wolfpack2192:
Anyone who thinks Tomsula makes the decision on who starts at QB is fooling themselves.

Ok I'll bite. In your world it presumably is Trent Baalke, Jed York, Denise York or God.

I think it's the players on the team. They've been saying to go with Gabbert. Tomsula goes with the locker room.

My assumption, as a players coach, is that he will want to talk it over with both Gabbert and Kaepernick and probably sound out some of the team leaders like Boldin and Staley. But the final decision will be his. That being said, benching Gabbert straight away after that win would be odd.

Tomsula is also trying to hold his job.

The best players need to play.

A couple of thoughts -

The biggest asset Gabbert brought to the game was the ability to get the ball out to a dump off man quick enough to make a difference. Draughn had 4 catches - it was the most effective use of our running backs out of the backfield so far this year.

Jordan Devey - The guy played 9 snaps - but three full series. The 49ers went 3 and out in all three of his series. Those were the only drives the 49ers went 3 and out. For 3 of our first 4 drives, he played. I just don't get what he's doing out there.

Man, there are a lot of exciting guys on defense. Tartt, Ward, Johnson, Acker, Reaser, Lynch, Armstead... Making the games interesting to watch. There is a lot to be optimistic about regarding the defense. Baalke sure sucks at finding the offensive talent though. I wish Marcus Lattimore had worked out.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by wolfpack2192:
Anyone who thinks Tomsula makes the decision on who starts at QB is fooling themselves.

Ok I'll bite. In your world it presumably is Trent Baalke, Jed York, Denise York or God.

I think it's the players on the team. They've been saying to go with Gabbert. Tomsula goes with the locker room.

My assumption, as a players coach, is that he will want to talk it over with both Gabbert and Kaepernick and probably sound out some of the team leaders like Boldin and Staley. But the final decision will be his. That being said, benching Gabbert straight away after that win would be odd.

You have to go with the player with the 'hot hand'......now where have we heard that before?

Originally posted by English:
My assumption, as a players coach, is that he will want to talk it over with both Gabbert and Kaepernick and probably sound out some of the team leaders like Boldin and Staley. But the final decision will be his. That being said, benching Gabbert straight away after that win would be odd.

I think Kap is done (unless Gabbert gets injured). I don't think management took Kap's benching lightly. I agree with the decision. Now we'll sit back and see what Gabbert can accomplish the rest of the year. The bigger decision is whether we'll draft a QB one day one in 2016 or do we draft other positions because they are satisfied with the job Gabbert is doing.

Colin Kaepernick's name doesn't even enter the equation. He's basically trade fodder now. Finis. Put a fork in him.

Originally posted by pete98146:

Originally posted by English:

My assumption, as a players coach, is that he will want to talk it over with both Gabbert and Kaepernick and probably sound out some of the team leaders like Boldin and Staley. But the final decision will be his. That being said, benching Gabbert straight away after that win would be odd.

I think Kap is done (unless Gabbert gets injured). I don't think management took Kap's benching lightly. I agree with the decision. Now we'll sit back and see what Gabbert can accomplish the rest of the year. The bigger decision is whether we'll draft a QB one day one in 2016 or do we draft other positions because they are satisfied with the job Gabbert is doing.

Colin Kaepernick's name doesn't even enter the equation. He's basically trade fodder now. Finis. Put a fork in him.

Don't agree. Of course, it might turn out that way. But right now the season is just tipping in terms of winnable games and Gabbert can play himself into or out of the starting role. I don't see any reason to believe Tomsula won't send Kappernick back out on the field if the circumstance requires it. And whatever Colin wants in his future he would be an idiot to turn down the opportunity to help erase the memory of the earlier games this season.

I posted that Gabbert should have a good first half, mainly by getting ris of the ball earlier. But I was curious to see how he was going to do in the second half when the Falcons tried to adjust.

in the second half Gabbert was 5-9 for 55 yards..and 2INTs.

now obviously that should be 6-9 for 75 yards and 1INT if Simpson just caught that perfect pass.

and I don't know how many lost yardage there was because of drops in the 2nd half compared to the first.

but let's go with that 75 yards number. I'm worried about how a great Seattle defense would adjust...in comparison to that Falcons defense.

now it goes both ways. Gabbert might have been rusty, first start in 2 years. He was missing Hyde and Boldin, who he might get back.....and we'll have two weeks to prepare for the Seahawks. And maybe Geep will have something up his sleave that Roman and Harbs didn't try.

other side of it is, we are playing IN Seattle...it's going to be loud and the Seahawks defense is going to want to punk Gabbert early on. Maybe we can use that against them.

but anyway, reason for this post is I see alot of folks getting excited for Gabbert (or just having a QB that got rid of the ball quick or hit his check downs) and that is understandable. But I'm curious to know how did he play in the second half....I think some are ignoring that. And how will that come into play these next few weeks versus better defenses.

Did the Falcons adjust to him or our offense? and if so what did they do? If Gabbert played the second half like he did the first half, I 100% believe that Dan Quinn would've went for it on 4th down late in the game. But he felt confident for a reason..I'm curious why.

Kap basically killed that one drive. Bullsit Gab had to come out

Great post Marv.

1.
Agreed. Lets pump the breaks on Gabbert. I just don't think he's what we need going forward. He can be a decent place holding bridge QB, but not anything we should be thinking long-term.

3.
Yet another Baalke special. Why Patton isn't getting looks at the #2 WR spot is beyond me.

4.
Bowman is just a beast, but I still think it was a friable offence (among other offences) that Baalke didn't address this position in the draft.

5.
I think we need to pump the breaks on this guy too. He played decent, and provided a decent pass catching option out of the backfield. 58 yards on 16 carries, 30 yards coming on one play, for an average of 3.6 yards a carry. Not gonna crown the guy just yet. But with a healthy Hyde Draughn would be a decent #2 back. I will say that if we had him as our #2 back at the start of the season I just don't Hyde would be so worn down now with injury. Draughn should be kept as a long-term option as the #2, at least until Mike Davis can prove he's the better option.

6.
Glad to see Arik Armstead get way more time. I hope we've seen the last of Tank starting. As I've stated before, at best he's a good rotational guy. With Armstead on the field the pocket seemed to collapse more.

7.
I am on record as predicting that Tartt would be starting over Bethea at some point of the season. I just didn't think it would have been due to injury. But even if Bethea was healthy I still think the coaching staff would have found it hard to keep him off the field. Tartt brings back an intimidating force in the sceondary we lost with Hitner and Goldson. (I still think is was a royal mistake to not resign Hitner.) I understand the whole safety thing and fines, but we need a guy on the field who consistently can violently separate a guy from the ball, or punish him for catching it without concussing himself (see Reid). We got a gem in Tartt.

8.
Johnson and Cromartie looked like pro-bowlers against top WR/QB competition. If they play like that against Seattle it's gonna be hard to put Acker and Brock back in the field over them. And I have to say I've been begging for us to feature bigger, more physical CB's for some time now. The way the league has gone sub 6 foot light in the ass CB's are just not getting it done. I really don't know why Johnson isn't getting more snaps. Sometimes I think coaches can really over-coach players at times. I'm not saying that that's what going on with Cromartie and Johnson but that sometimes, as a coach, you just have to let guys play. Waiting on players to develop to your ideal level of development (which is what I DO think this coaching staff is doing) can slow down the overall progress of the team. Sometimes "development" can easily turn to just holding players back.

Also, maybe it's me, but it seemed that Mangini had better success at his more complicated pressure packages with that defensive backfield unit. Don.t know what to attribute this to though. And speaking of Mangini, one again he had D-lineman in coverage (Armstead) and it resulted in a TD. I really wish Mangini stops this and just let guys do what they do best.

10.
I'm conflicted about winning. Do I think we should tank the season? No! But do I want to see us be in position to draft a QB (Lynch, Cook, Goff) early enough in the draft? Absolutely! And that means winning might not be in the best long-term interest for the 49ers. I mean, the writing is on the wall for Kaep. And who among us thinks Gabbert is the answer long-term? We'd be better served by being able to draft Lynch, Cook, or Goff, and let him sit a year as the back-up under Gabbert and Dylan Thompson (or whatever #2 QB). That way we'll be looking good for the 2017/2018 season. This is another reason I think we should just play all the kids and let the rest of this season be an evaluation period. But you are so right. " Being mediocre breeds more mediocrity." I cannot argue with that.

Originally posted by Afrikan:
I posted that Gabbert should have a good first half, mainly by getting ris of the ball earlier. But I was curious to see how he was going to do in the second half when the Falcons tried to adjust.

in the second half Gabbert was 5-9 for 55 yards..and 2INTs.

now obviously that should be 6-9 for 75 yards and 1INT if Simpson just caught that perfect pass.

and I don't know how many lost yardage there was because of drops in the 2nd half compared to the first.

but let's go with that 75 yards number. I'm worried about how a great Seattle defense would adjust...in comparison to that Falcons defense.

now it goes both ways. Gabbert might have been rusty, first start in 2 years. He was missing Hyde and Boldin, who he might get back.....and we'll have two weeks to prepare for the Seahawks. And maybe Geep will have something up his sleave that Roman and Harbs didn't try.

other side of it is, we are playing IN Seattle...it's going to be loud and the Seahawks defense is going to want to punk Gabbert early on. Maybe we can use that against them.

but anyway, reason for this post is I see alot of folks getting excited for Gabbert (or just having a QB that got rid of the ball quick or hit his check downs) and that is understandable. But I'm curious to know how did he play in the second half....I think some are ignoring that. And how will that come into play these next few weeks versus better defenses.

Did the Falcons adjust to him or our offense? and if so what did they do? If Gabbert played the second half like he did the first half, I 100% believe that Dan Quinn would've went for it on 4th down late in the game. But he felt confident for a reason..I'm curious why.

He didn't have as much success as the 1st half. One positive in the 2nd half was his passes that got us out of starting at the 3yd line, 11 yd, and 8yd on 3rd and 2nd downs. Pressure situation for any qb. That's good quarterbacking.

Originally posted by Afrikan:
I posted that Gabbert should have a good first half, mainly by getting ris of the ball earlier. But I was curious to see how he was going to do in the second half when the Falcons tried to adjust.

in the second half Gabbert was 5-9 for 55 yards..and 2INTs.

now obviously that should be 6-9 for 75 yards and 1INT if Simpson just caught that perfect pass.

and I don't know how many lost yardage there was because of drops in the 2nd half compared to the first.

but let's go with that 75 yards number. I'm worried about how a great Seattle defense would adjust...in comparison to that Falcons defense.

now it goes both ways. Gabbert might have been rusty, first start in 2 years. He was missing Hyde and Boldin, who he might get back.....and we'll have two weeks to prepare for the Seahawks. And maybe Geep will have something up his sleave that Roman and Harbs didn't try.

other side of it is, we are playing IN Seattle...it's going to be loud and the Seahawks defense is going to want to punk Gabbert early on. Maybe we can use that against them.

but anyway, reason for this post is I see alot of folks getting excited for Gabbert (or just having a QB that got rid of the ball quick or hit his check downs) and that is understandable. But I'm curious to know how did he play in the second half....I think some are ignoring that. And how will that come into play these next few weeks versus better defenses.

Did the Falcons adjust to him or our offense? and if so what did they do? If Gabbert played the second half like he did the first half, I 100% believe that Dan Quinn would've went for it on 4th down late in the game. But he felt confident for a reason..I'm curious why.

I may be wrong,but it may be that the team started setting on their lead, trying to eat the clock like usual. With nothing to lose,I'd like to see them go for the jugular when they get ahead. If Falcons coaches don't spazz out at the one yard line and punch it in for the win instead of taking the FG, everyone would be saying, "Gabbert is just good enough to get you beat" I think the fact that the team was even competitive finally is what has everyone pumped. I hoped they would win yesterday but wasn't expecting it. The team was actually fun to watch, even if they had lost, and not an embarrassment. It was hard to believe how flat out terrible they have looked this year.
BTW.Patton starting to show up.Like to see more of him and Ellington with Boldin and Smith and no Simpson.

Keep Vance McDonald as a blocker just don't throw him the ball.

Whats with Bruce Miller and Staley's constant bickering?

Nice group of young DB's bode well for the future.

Need to add McDONALD to item # 3.

Originally posted by Afrikan:

I posted that Gabbert should have a good first half, mainly by getting ris of the ball earlier. But I was curious to see how he was going to do in the second half when the Falcons tried to adjust.

in the second half Gabbert was 5-9 for 55 yards..and 2INTs.

now obviously that should be 6-9 for 75 yards and 1INT if Simpson just caught that perfect pass.

and I don't know how many lost yardage there was because of drops in the 2nd half compared to the first.

but let's go with that 75 yards number. I'm worried about how a great Seattle defense would adjust...in comparison to that Falcons defense.

now it goes both ways. Gabbert might have been rusty, first start in 2 years. He was missing Hyde and Boldin, who he might get back.....and we'll have two weeks to prepare for the Seahawks. And maybe Geep will have something up his sleave that Roman and Harbs didn't try.

other side of it is, we are playing IN Seattle...it's going to be loud and the Seahawks defense is going to want to punk Gabbert early on. Maybe we can use that against them.

but anyway, reason for this post is I see alot of folks getting excited for Gabbert (or just having a QB that got rid of the ball quick or hit his check downs) and that is understandable. But I'm curious to know how did he play in the second half....I think some are ignoring that. And how will that come into play these next few weeks versus better defenses.

Did the Falcons adjust to him or our offense? and if so what did they do? If Gabbert played the second half like he did the first half, I 100% believe that Dan Quinn would've went for it on 4th down late in the game. But he felt confident for a reason..I'm curious why.

Completely agree. Blaine was effective, but nothing special. It's basically a wait to see how he does going forward.