Originally posted by jonnydel:
Originally posted by okdkid:
Originally posted by cciowa:
i stand by much of what i said in that first year. i think he made many mistakes, i think he was learning as he went. i never said i was one to be patient. i liked none of the free agents he signed and i was right with smith and hoyer. i jumped the gun bad on juice. i think he got better and the team got better and we actually had direction once he got jimmy. lynch got nothing but praise from me with jimmy and i was one of the few who loved the sherman signing from day one.. this... oh we can not sign sherman cuz he ate turkey was stupid. he was right about crabtree
I always love the "yOu WeRe ToO cRiTiCaL!" takes. As if this team wasn't complete ass for the last two years... literally the 2nd worst in the league last year.
Any criticism they received over the past two years was fully earned. Just like any praise they get this year is earned.
Was it though? Not saying anyone likes seeing losing football. I couldn't go near any 49ers stuff for almost a month after Jimmy went down last year because of how painful it was going to be watching the team lose every week.
The team lost a lot of games, there's no denying it. To say they earned those losses and criticism is where I and so many others have a problem. It's acting like they were giving an equal shot as any other team, HC, or GM in the league to put together a winning team.
It ignores the awful drafting and development that came before them. It believes that players acquired should immediately be good. Fred Warner is looking lightyears ahead of where he was last year. Why? Because he's no longer a rookie. The passing game looks much more efficient and capable this year. Why? Because Jimmy didn't just have surgery to repair a torn ACL. The running game looks much stronger this year. Why? Because Richburg isn't running on one wheel and the O-line and RB's have all spent a lot of time in the system. The pass rush was greatly improved. Why? Because we finally had some good options available that didn't mortgage the entire future.
Think about that. People all over here wanted Khalil Mack so badly last year. What the Bears gave up to get Mack, we would've given up Bosa. While it's still very good, instead of Ford, AA, Buck and Bosa we'd have AA, Buck and Mack. I'd take the former.
Yes. The team was awful with a few glimmers of hope... which are areas that are now prospering. Sure, it's a process. And any FO will win on some transactions, miss out and/or lose on others.
In regard to your Mack example... few people here would be complaining about taking on Mack (at the time or now) if Mack was playing at the level he has with the Bears. Even if that meant missing on Bosa. Fans inherently want to support their teams. So their criticism would be "well, they had to do what they had to do at the time to get an All-Pro talent."
For starters, yes, we would have been better with Mack last year. But still would have wound up with a top 10 pick...potentially drafting a Josh Allen or similar caliber top 10 defensive player... and not cashing in a 2nd rounder for Ford. (that's not a criticism of any move, just furthering the hypothetical)
Also, this is the internet. Early, unrelenting criticism is the way of the world in lieu of utter domination.
[ Edited by okdkid on Oct 15, 2019 at 10:51 AM ]
