San Francisco...... Most Improved TEAM...period

[piece of work 0]

SF better keep improving their entire team, because Alex Smith is a Rex Grossman clone but even worse.

 

 

respect your opinion but lost respect for your football knowledge on that one einstein......????????

[Savage Beast 1]

respect your opinion but lost respect for your football knowledge on that one einstein......????????

 

 

When did I ever say I knew anything about football, numb nuts?

 

I'm just posting here for laughs, and numb nuts fantasy advice about Alex Smith being worth a crap.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

SF has made some improvements and gone backwards in other places. I don't really care what anyone says about Norv Turners replacement. It's very hard to replace him at the OC position. Several teams have taken steps back in the running game upon Turners departure.

 

I think Willis may turn out to be the pick of the draft. He's the type of kid who (after 3 seasons) everyone will say was worth a top 3 pick when all is said and done.

 

I don't think Jackson is all that big of a pick up. He's an upgrade to the 49ers WR core. Which is by default, an improvement. But he was overhyped in Seattle. So the upgrade isn't that big.

 

I'll reserve judgement on Staley. You can hope for the best, but Kwame Harris was supposed to be the next big thing at OL for SF too. And he sorta busted. Staley may be the next big thing, or not. We'll see. For now, it's hype.

 

A healthy Davis and another year for Smith can't be anything but good. Davis sure looked good when he was in there last season.

 

As far as most improved? I don't know. Buffalo has made some big moves. Cleveland made some noise too. You don't have to make the playoffs to be the most improved. New England filled up several holes and look like the odds on favorite to win it all. Oakland won't have to do much to be considered most improved. Russell, Bush, Kiffin could go along way to accomplishing that.

[scherber830 0]

Darrell Jackson is a huge upgrade IMO. Ashlee Lelie will be the home run threat, but DJax will be the dependable guy who makes big catches at key times. Throw in VDavis who can both open up the middle of the field as well as stretch em, and this passing game could be vastly improved.

 

 

DJax was not overhyped in Seattle one bit. If anything he was underappreciated. This guy has consistently been drafted as a #1 or #2 receiver in fantasy, and has put up some good numbers. If he stays healthy, and i know that has been an issue, he can remain a solid #2 receiver in fantasy.

[Savage Beast 1]

Darrell Jackson is a huge upgrade IMO. Ashlee Lelie will be the home run threat, but DJax will be the dependable guy who makes big catches at key times. Throw in VDavis who can both open up the middle of the field as well as stretch em, and this passing game could be vastly improved.

 

Not with Alex Smith at QB. And Lelie has never been a home run threat in his entire NFL career.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Darrell Jackson is a huge upgrade IMO. Ashlee Lelie will be the home run threat, but DJax will be the dependable guy who makes big catches at key times. Throw in VDavis who can both open up the middle of the field as well as stretch em, and this passing game could be vastly improved.

DJax was not overhyped in Seattle one bit. If anything he was underappreciated. This guy has consistently been drafted as a #1 or #2 receiver in fantasy, and has put up some good numbers. If he stays healthy, and i know that has been an issue, he can remain a solid #2 receiver in fantasy.

I've watched Jackson a ton. He's not the best of the best. He is an average #1. Dependable when he is on the field. Always misses 2-3 games a year. Plays hampered another couple. Can grab 10 catches in a game and then only 2 in the next. Can be shut down by good corners. Good attitude. But not a game changer.

 

I won't even bring up Lelie. He's been a bust since the day Denver drafted him. He's gotta show me something before I'd even listen to Lelie talk.

[culboarder11 0]

nfc champs or nfc west champs ??????????

 

Both. They almost made it last year, while having more injuries than any team in recent memory.

[Demon 0]

And of course you don't bother supporting these retarded contentions in the slightest - better to simply not say anything rather than come in saying something stupid without trying to make a case for it.

 

Fact: the system Turner installed isn't changing in the slightest since they promoted from within. Oops - there goes the only semblance of a point you might have had.

 

 

 

And any contention to your line of thinking is retarded. It must be nice to be right all the time.

 

Fact: Someone else is going to be calling the plays, unless Turner is going to run the offense along with disappointing Chargers fans.

Fact: The Niners once again have a new offensive coordinator. I don't care if it is supposedly the same system, things are going to be different and Alex Smith's progression will be affected.

Fact: Your homerism is blatantly blinding and you resort to attacking peoples intelligence quickly, the sign of a weak case on your side.

[football_scooter 0]

And any contention to your line of thinking is retarded. It must be nice to be right all the time.

I'm sorry, was I addressing you with that comment? No - I was addressing a very specific member who frequently bashes the Niners without supporting his opinions.

 

And yes, it is nice being right all the time, thanks for your concern.

 

Fact: Someone else is going to be calling the plays, unless Turner is going to run the offense along with disappointing Chargers fans.

Yes, someone else will be calling the plays. I see you've really been doing your homework and the change of OC didn't escape your keen attention. What you seem to have failed to notice is that they're using Turner's playbook, coaching staff and the new OC was his #1 guy. I don't anticipate a drop-off. Using the line of reasoning that "running backs suck after Turner is gone" seems to overlook that ones like Jordan were hurt the following season. Kinda important note there. Sorta dispells some of the mistique.

 

Fact: The Niners once again have a new offensive coordinator. I don't care if it is supposedly the same system, things are going to be different and Alex Smith's progression will be affected.

Your 1st two points appear to be redundant. Way to make a compelling case. Do I need to respond to this same assertion again, or did you catch it the 1st time? I mean, saying "someone else will be calling the plays" sort of implies that "the Niners once again have a new offensive coordinator", right?

 

Fact: Your homerism is blatantly blinding and you resort to attacking peoples intelligence quickly, the sign of a weak case on your side.

 

No, just ones who deserve it. You're rapidly climbing up that list - you've attempted to bash my opinions, dismissing them as "blind homerism", yet accuse me of making ad hominem attacks. All the while, I've given supporting commentary to make a case for my beliefs and you've done nothing to counter them except say we lost our OC, then repeat yourself while presenting it as two different facts. Ironic, no? And this, your third "fact" is really just you running your big mouth. I see no "fact" there - just you being a moron.

 

Come on back and play when you have something interesting to add to the topic, eh? You seem to be struggling a bit. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but at least try to sound relevant and interesting.

[phillybear 366]

San Fran is a team with a lot of potential. Don't overlook all the major injuries Seattle endured last year. If they remain relatively healthy, they should be closer to the team of two years ago rather than last year.

 

Being that Seattle has made the playoffs for a number of years in a row, including winning playoff games, and despite their bad luck last year, took Super Bowl bound Chicago to OT in the playoffs....Seattle on paper still is the team to beat. Which doesn't necessarily mean they will win the division. But they deserve the right to be considered the frontrunners until SF or another team in the division steps up and wrestles the division crown away.

 

Good luck on the upcoming season.

[FlaHawker 24]

But they deserve the right to be considered the frontrunners until SF or another team in the division steps up and wrestles the division crown away.

 

 

How dare you bash the niners

[RLLD 4,230]

Alex Smith is steadily improving, and I think he might take a big step forward this year.

 

The niners did some good work overall, and will be improved to be sure, but just HOW much will be tough to gauge right now, have to see how the new pieces meld with the existing....

[FlaHawker 24]

Alex Smith is steadily improving, and I think he might take a big step forward this year.

 

The niners did some good work overall, and will be improved to be sure, but just HOW much will be tough to gauge right now, have to see how the new pieces meld with the existing....

So basically, they have to go out on the field and actually do something, like win the division or at least get a wild card. If they don't, they become this year's version of the Arizona Cardinals--a great offseason followed up by a ho-hum regular season.

[RicemanX 20]

Everyone's gotta stop comparing us to the Arizona Cards.

We are a winning franchise and we've proven that, the Cardinals are...the suck, simple as that.

 

Alex Smith is only going to get better, saying that Norv Turner is responsible for Smith's improvement is correct, but there are other factors attributing to his improvement, therefore I don't expect Alex Smith to regress with the absence of Turner.

 

Even if Turner's absence brings down SF's offense a notch, we've added enough weapons on offense to make sure Smith has a great season. (DJax, Lelie, Hill, a healthy VDavis)

Gore is not going to be a one year wonder, sure you can figure out how he runs and his tendencies, but that's still not going to stop him from running you over.

And let's not forget the best trade of the draft, taking Joe Staley to replace Kwame "braking my balls" Harris on the line...which means 10 less holding calls this season on the OLine.

 

Oh, and with 5 (Clement, Lewis, BantaCain, Willis, Franklin) or possibly 6 (Ray McDonald possibly taking DOuglas' spot?) new starters on defense, there should be no question that the Niners defense is not going to be a joke this year.

 

We've got a young team that will be successful for years and years.

I predict a 10 - 6 season and us going 5-1 in the NFC West.

 

 

But with all that said, the Pats had the best offseason, NOT the most improved (really hard to IMPROVE from a 12-4 record and a AFC Championship game), the best.

[football_scooter 0]

So basically, they have to go out on the field and actually do something, like win the division or at least get a wild card. If they don't, they become this year's version of the Arizona Cardinals--a great offseason followed up by a ho-hum regular season.

 

I disagree. Again. You keep ignoring something that renders your comparison moot. Despite the projections, after a terrible 2005 with uber-bust JJ Arrington out of Cal, the 2005 AZ Cardinals had not done anything on the field to warrant the hype going into 2006 - even with James, they failed to improve the worst O-Line in the NFC, and they had a rookie QB in Leinart and an older less effective Warner behind center. The defense was poor and lost some pieces. No one really hyped AZ as a "winner" - they hyped them as a fantasy gold mine because the D was bad and Fitz/Boldin would be money. All told, the bad line and "rebuilding season" turned out to be a recipe for disaster AND they underachieved. I thought Edge would be good for 10 TDs - with those WRs they should have had at least that many interferance calls to put them on the 1. But then it became a learning experience for Leinart and Fitz got hurt - Edge never got it going and worse had GL carries poached by Shipp or Arrington (I forget which)

 

The difference is that the 2006 Niners actually DID get some things done. The D rank for the year doesn't reflect it, but they played their asses off at the end of 2006. You have to have been paying attention to the Niners, so I understand if you have the impression you do from looking at overall rankings....but the last 5 games, the D didn't allow many points. In Denver, they held the Broncos to 3 points in 4 red zone attempts, 2 of which were 4-and-out on the 1 yard line. That's "doing it on the field". And to the already talented core of Harris, Moore, Lawson, Larry Allen, Jennings, they added Willis, Clements, Michael Lewis, and a number of parts and peices. They should have a better pass rush and a vastly improved secondary. A nice mix of veteran and youth which should gel together fairly well.

 

As for the offense, they have a very good posession receiver now in Jackson, Gore had the 3rd highest rushing yards in the NFL (that was "on the field too, btw), and Battle and Vernon Davis. Also "on the field", Alex Smith went from 1 TD to 16 TDs in 1 season. They added DJax & Lelie, plus VD coming back. You honestly think that losing Norv Turner will retard his progress? They asked him this on the radio here (KNBR) and the response he gave was, "don't be ridiculous...I have the same playbook and the same QBs coach. I expect to continue to improve.". This is a guy who's a gym rat and spends the entire offseason working with coaches and WRs. If you want to believe that he's going to regress, you're welcome to, but I don't see it. Regardless, what he did in his improvement was on the field.

 

So expecting this team to compete is not as unrealistic as you assert, and your analogy to the Cardinals hype last year is deeply flawed.

 

I'm not saying that they're going to win the NFC, I'm not saying they're going to win the NFC West even - hell, I'm not even saying they'll make a wild card. That seems to be the other "tactic" of the Niners haters around here - claim that we fans are overhyping and crowing the Niners champs. I most certainly am not doing that. What I am saying is that the Niners will compete for the NFC west, and possibly compete for the NFC. At least I think they have a legitimate shot at the wild card. They were a 7-9 team last year and addressed WR, pass rush, OT, and secondary. Plus they have Vernon Davis coming in healthy, and he was coming on at the end of last year. Believe it or don't - the Niners have successfully rebuilt themselves through 2 drafts and FA. So my expecting them to go from 7-9 to 9-7 or 10-6 in a pretty weak NFC is, in my opinion, very realistic. And 10-6 = playoffs in the NFC.

 

So no - I won't say that they "have to win the division" to not be a disappointment - that's a ridiculous assertion. What I will say is that they should improve 2 wins from their 7-9 2006 season or it will be somewhat disappointing. Regardless, football's a game of inches and if they are 7-9 or 8-8 this year, it will be a season that the youth develops and 2008 will be 10-6 or 11-5. Regardless, I see the Niners as a team in the rise, and fast tracked by making great decisions and moves. Maybe you don't like it, but we as fans certainly do. I can understand your bitterness as a Seahawk fan. You feel gyped by the refs for the Superbowl loss, you had the "we want the ball and we're going to win!" experience the year before...you watched the poison pill of Hutchinson to the Vikes...I understand completely. But you're misguided if you think the Niners have not done anything "on the field" - as a cohesive unit, no...the new players have not played together. Fine. But the core of this team is intact from last year, and many of last year's players most certainly did do it on the field.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...an how about Nolan getting back a 1st rounder right after trading it away. Genius. Never have seen that before.

[MahSoonerz 0]

By the way, that Alex Smith you're so unimpressed with? He was better than Hasselbeck last year. Stats don't lie....

 

QB Rating:

Smith - 74.8

Hasselback - 76.0

 

I'm amazed nobody else caught this blatant moronicism.

 

Having made my requisite fun of the scooter, I will go ahead and crown the 49ers' ass. All of the individual moves deserve praise, but what I really like is how Mike Nolan is reshaping this franchise in very short order, and Coach Nolan apparently stands for everything that is right and good in football. I love the guys he is bringing into both lines. Cashing in Antonio Bryant for Darrell Jackson and Ashlie Lelie is a *major* upgrade, not just in talent, and I say this as a (soon to be former) Antonio Bryant owner. They were the team that gave American Dreamer Jim Davis a tryout. He is gathering around him guys who buy into his system and when that happens scrubs can become stars and stars stick around for less money. I have not seen such a right thinking attitude out of any NFL team in years and years, and yes that includes the Patriots (we'll see if the 49ers use up and throw away guys like the Pats do once they reach the top). We are going to see some very exciting old school smashmouth football coming out of San Francisco and I for one - Lord hallelujah! - I am ready for it.

[football_scooter 0]

I'm amazed nobody else caught this blatant moronicism.

 

 

Hey focknut - I posted a dozen stats and stated quite clearly that Smith was better in all but two.

 

I completely understand your lack of comprehension, but thought I'd point it out to everyone else.

 

And you're calling me a moron. Irony: catch it!

 

 

 

Having made my requisite fun of the scooter, I will go ahead and crown the 49ers' ass. All of the individual moves deserve praise, but what I really like is how Mike Nolan is reshaping this franchise in very short order, and Coach Nolan apparently stands for everything that is right and good in football. I love the guys he is bringing into both lines. Cashing in Antonio Bryant for Darrell Jackson and Ashlie Lelie is a *major* upgrade, not just in talent, and I say this as a (soon to be former) Antonio Bryant owner. They were the team that gave American Dreamer Jim Davis a tryout. He is gathering around him guys who buy into his system and when that happens scrubs can become stars and stars stick around for less money. I have not seen such a right thinking attitude out of any NFL team in years and years, and yes that includes the Patriots (we'll see if the 49ers use up and throw away guys like the Pats do once they reach the top). We are going to see some very exciting old school smashmouth football coming out of San Francisco and I for one - Lord hallelujah! - I am ready for it.

 

The bandwagon's full - we don't want you.

 

 

just kidding...you wine & cheesers have to go somewhere I guess.

[MahSoonerz 0]

Ya scootie, it'll kinda blow to actually have a decent team to root for for once. You might as well get used to it.

 

You make annoying you waaay too entertaining.

[Walter34 3]

Alex Smith

 

Starts: 23

Comp%: 56.2

Yds: 3765

TDs: 17

INTs: 27

Rating: 65.5

 

Rex Grossman

 

Starts: 23

Comp%: 72.4

Yds: 4496

TDs: 27

INTs: 26

Rating: 72.4

 

Grossman > Smith

 

Discuss

[Young 8 0]

Alex Smith

 

Starts: 23

Comp%: 56.2

Yds: 3765

TDs: 17

INTs: 27

Rating: 65.5

 

Rex Grossman

 

Starts: 23

Comp%: 72.4

Yds: 4496

TDs: 27

INTs: 26

Rating: 72.4

 

Grossman > Smith

 

Discuss

 

 

Grossman 27yrs old

Smith 23yrs old

[football_scooter 0]

Ya scootie, it'll kinda blow to actually have a decent team to root for for once. You might as well get used to it.

 

You make annoying you waaay too entertaining.

 

 

Geez, you're right. I mean, watching them through the 70s, into the 80s and 90s and through until today, I've never had anything to cheer for until now.

 

Why you insist on going out of your way to annoy anyone is a mystery. You're a kind of likable guy other than that d0uchebag thing you've got going on.

 

Alex Smith

 

Starts: 23

Comp%: 56.2

Yds: 3765

TDs: 17

INTs: 27

Rating: 65.5

 

Rex Grossman

 

Starts: 23

Comp%: 72.4

Yds: 4496

TDs: 27

INTs: 26

Rating: 72.4

 

Grossman > Smith

 

Discuss

 

In addition to the age difference, Grossman has been hurt several times in his young career, whereas Alex Smith seems to be pretty big and tough comparatively. I'd say that for the money, the Niners have gotten more out of Smith in 2 years than the Bears have out of Grossman in 5 years.

 

Also of note is that while the pure stats seem to reflect Grossman as the "better" QB, when looking game by game, Smith was far more consistent.

 

Grossman had a couple of monster games, posting QB ratings over 100. Then he had several games posting a rating well under 100. Including one game where he posted a 0. That's a z-e-r-o. Another game he posted a 1.6 rating. Alex Smith's worst game of 2006 was a 27.4 rating, and other than that he didn't have a game below 41.

 

I'd rather have a QB who I know will go out and consistently play pretty well than a guy who's up & down like a yo yo, and I'm pretty sure Bears fans would too.

 

How much of a difference is there between a guy who throws 27 TDs and 26 Ints and a guy who throws 16 and 16? Seems pretty similar to me.

 

Discuss.

[MahSoonerz 0]

Geez, you're right. I mean, watching them through the 70s, into the 80s and 90s and through until today, I've never had anything to cheer for until now.

 

Why you insist on going out of your way to annoy anyone is a mystery. You're a kind of likable guy other than that d0uchebag thing you've got going on.

 

I am a very easygoing guy but I'll call out my own mama in public if I catch her trying to lie with statistics. The whole purpose of the QB rating is to answer the question you attempted to dissect. If you agree with that, you had no business quoting other stats to make your case. If you don't, then you had no business quoting that stat. On the question of who was better last year, Smith or Hasselbeck, you yourself proved Hasselbeck has a slight edge.

 

Now, if you had made a simpler case that Smith was already a decent QB and is poised for a breakout year, I would've totally agreed with you.

 

Then I heaped sincere praise on your team and you gave me abuse for it. That's not just being a d0uche, that's gs17 d0uchedom. Then you throw the d-word at me? Weak.

 

Most of the time I find you quite likable and very much appreciate your fact-based arguments - right or wrong at least you give solid reasons for your opinion, and don't take that compliment lightly because that general attitude among us is what makes this bored far superior to others with twice the activity - but dude, get over yourself.

[football_scooter 0]

I am a very easygoing guy but I'll call out my own mama in public if I catch her trying to lie with statistics. The whole purpose of the QB rating is to answer the question you attempted to dissect. If you agree with that, you had no business quoting other stats to make your case. If you don't, then you had no business quoting that stat. On the question of who was better last year, Smith or Hasselbeck, you yourself proved Hasselbeck has a slight edge.

Then you 'd best go call your mamma, because I didn't try to "lie with statistics" - you did try to misrepresent me as doing so by selectively taking something out of context, but I called you on that already.

 

And yes - I disagree that QB rating is the end-all, be-all stat for QBs, and I find your assertion that if I disagree with you that it is that I had "no business quoting it" to be asinine. That's laughably weak in terms of argument tactics. As stated, Smith was far more consistent and did not have any 0 or 1.6 QB rating games, whereas that's exactly what Grossman had - wild inconsistency one game to the next. So his overall rating being a point and a half higher, in my opinion, proves nothing if one is armed with the knowledge that his 130+ QB rating games are offset by total stinkers.

 

It is also but one of a dozen stats I cited, yet you chose to single that out and make some federal case about it, even though I specifically indicated that Smith was superior in all but two areas, that being one. I didn't try to hide it. That's pretty d0uchetastic of you, no?

 

Now, if you had made a simpler case that Smith was already a decent QB and is poised for a breakout year, I would've totally agreed with you.

 

Then I heaped sincere praise on your team and you gave me abuse for it. That's not just being a d0uche, that's gs17 d0uchedom. Then you throw the d-word at me? Weak.

 

Geez, mayeb that was because you first chose to be an ass towards me, which got my ire up. Here's a tip sh!tbag: start off on the right foot and we'll get along better. I couldn't care less if you're complimentary towards my team AFTER acting like a d0uchebag. You acted like a d0uchebag and got called a d0uchebag for it. Don't like it? Don't act like that. Easy.

 

Most of the time I find you quite likable and very much appreciate your fact-based arguments - right or wrong at least you give solid reasons for your opinion, and don't take that compliment lightly because that general attitude among us is what makes this bored far superior to others with twice the activity - but dude, get over yourself.

 

I have nothing to "get over" - I am quite comfortable with myself. I post opinions and make assertions and generally support them with solid foundations. You're the one who seems to have a problem with me. You selectively took a small excerpt from my post and tried to use it to bash on me. So thanks for the compliment but you can go blow it out your ass.

 

Next time try starting off on the right foot and we'll avoid all this unpleasantness. Come at me like a d0uchebag again and don't be shocked or cry when you get called on it.

[MahSoonerz 0]

I don't find this unpleasant in the slightest. I think it is very funny. You act as if I give a damn what you think about me.

 

Serious, unsarcastic, unrhetorical question: why does the QB rating exist, except for the exact purpose of accurately summarizing that half page of stats you presented?

[football_scooter 0]

I don't find this unpleasant in the slightest. I think it is very funny. You act as if I give a damn what you think about me.

 

Then the feelingis mutual. Next time try not calling someone out in your first sentence if you want to engage them in intelligent debate. Just a tip, since you cried about being called a D-bag.

 

Serious, unsarcastic, unrhetorical question: why does the QB rating exist, except for the exact purpose of accurately summarizing that half page of stats you presented?

 

It's a moot question: better to ask yourself if game-by-game QB rating is more interesting than the QB rating for a season. Statistics are a flawed measure of anything if used inappropriately. If Grossman played 1 game and posted a 101.8 rating and Smith played all 16 games and posted a 76.7 rating, who had the better season? By your deeply flawed reasoning, it would be Grossman, even though he was only on the field 1/16 as much as Smith. See anything wrong with that line of reasoning? I sure do.

 

We're talking apples and oranges. I maintain that wild swings in QB rating game-by-game are far more telling about a QB's ability than a season's worth of games averaged out.

 

For some reason you seem to feel the opposite and for even more odd reasons you seem to feel that my belief is worthy of your bashing me for it. Good luck with that.

[MahSoonerz 0]

Dude, if you lie with stats then expect to be called out. I surround myself with friends who can be trusted to call me on it anytime they think I am full of it. Recommend you not take it so personally next time (and don't lie to me and tell me you didn't - first one who trots out the d-word loses that argument).

 

Having said that, you have made the one possible argument that has any chance of saving you on this one - consistency. Would you rather have a 76.0 QB (Hass) over 12 games or a 74.8 QB over 16 (Smith)? I would give the opposite answer because injuries are unpredictable, but one can make a legit case either way.

 

But then you lose me when you bring out the fruit. If this is apples and oranges, then why did you trot out that stat in the first place? Don't try to make an objective case and then appeal to subjectivity when someone pokes a hole in it.

[football_scooter 0]

Dude, if you lie with stats then expect to be called out. I surround myself with friends who can be trusted to call me on it anytime they think I am full of it. Recommend you not take it so personally next time (and don't lie to me and tell me you didn't - first one who trots out the d-word loses that argument).

 

Having said that, you have made the one possible argument that has any chance of saving you on this one - consistency. Would you rather have a 76.0 QB (Hass) over 12 games or a 74.8 QB over 16 (Smith)? I would give the opposite answer because injuries are unpredictable, but one can make a legit case either way.

 

But then you lose me when you bring out the fruit. If this is apples and oranges, then why did you trot out that stat in the first place? Don't try to make an objective case and then appeal to subjectivity when someone pokes a hole in it.

 

So let me get this straight - You started with an insult, and have been owned on every retarded contention since. You seem to have no point, other than to attempt to bash me and then backpeddle when proven to be an idiot again, and again.

 

My original use of statistics employed ALL the numbers. YOU employed selective stats, so calling me out for something you are doing is idiotic at best.

 

I never "lied with statistics" - repeating a falsehood over and over doesn't make it true. You obviously have no intention of debating anything here - you came in, insulted me with your first sentence, misrepresented something I said and have tried to hang your hat on that ever since. But you were wrong then and remain wrong now. Too bad you value this website, because after this you don't have a stitch of credibilty left here. Well done. You've put yourself into the class of "troll", and not a very intelligent or creative one at that.

 

For this entire retarded exchange you initiated, you win the coveted "asshat of the year" award. Congratulations - I know it means a lot to you. So just shut your cake hole already - I'm done with you.

[MahSoonerz 0]

So let me get this straight - You started with an insult, and have been owned on every retarded contention since. You seem to have no point, other than to attempt to bash me and then backpeddle when proven to be an idiot again, and again.

 

My original use of statistics employed ALL the numbers. YOU employed selective stats, so calling me out for something you are doing is idiotic at best.

 

I never "lied with statistics" - repeating a falsehood over and over doesn't make it true. You obviously have no intention of debating anything here - you came in, insulted me with your first sentence, misrepresented something I said and have tried to hang your hat on that ever since. But you were wrong then and remain wrong now. Too bad you value this website, because after this you don't have a stitch of credibilty left here. Well done. You've put yourself into the class of "troll", and not a very intelligent or creative one at that.

 

For this entire retarded exchange you initiated, you win the coveted "asshat of the year" award. Congratulations - I know it means a lot to you. So just shut your cake hole already - I'm done with you.

 

If you are done with me, then why are you stalking me in other threads? (Check the time stamps.)

 

My mama raised me not to eat cake with my fingers.

 

I submit that instead of losing credibility, I have instead brought entertainment to the entire bored. I mean, poke little scootie and watch him go. Hours of fun for the whole family.

 

Speaking in utter and gentle seriousness for one brief moment, I did not mean to attack your character by saying you lied with stats, I'm only attacking your specific argument here. As for myself, I'd rather be accused of that than of being a d0uchebag, an asshat or a troll because at least then we are still in the realm of rational discourse. If you have a rational defense make it, and if we continue to disagree, well, different opinions is what keeps life interesting here on this bored. You actually have made a rational argument and identified exactly where our values are different on this one - you value the game-by-game range of the QB rating more, while I prefer to look at overall QB rating on the season - and that is cool. No need to get your panties in a bunch and start stalking me all over the bored just because I take issue with one statistical analysis of yours.

 

Oh yeah, and btw, IBTL.

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

Sorry to interrupt the bickering........but:

 

-Are people really arguing over who the better QB is between Hasselbeck and and Alex Smith. I mean, really??? Think about it -- It's Alex Smith and Matt Hasselbeck... not a tough call (at this point in their respective careers).

 

-Ashley Lelie is an underachieving bum. It's that simple. Until he DOES SOMETHING to prove otherwise, that's what he is. He should've signed with the Jags because he'd fit in perfect with their receiving corps of guys who have "tons of potential"...

 

That being said, I really like the moves Nolan and the 49ers are making. Darrell Jackson and Jason Hill (along with a semi-seasoned and healthy Vernon Davis) should definitely bolster that receiving corps to aid in young Smith's development and potential ascend up the ranks of NFL quarterbacks. And I needn't mention their defensive personnel changes as those speak for themselves.

 

The bar is high San Francisco.

[football_scooter 0]

Sorry to interrupt the bickering........but:

 

-Are people really arguing over who the better QB is between Hasselbeck and and Alex Smith. I mean, really??? Think about it -- It's Alex Smith and Matt Hasselbeck... not a tough call (at this point in their respective careers).

 

Actually no, we're not. Were referring to last season only. FlaHawker was bashing on Smith and referring to the Seahawks as the class of the division, and as he's a Seahawks fan I thought it worth pointing out that statistically they weren't very far apart.

 

 

HTh

 

If you are done with me, then why are you stalking me in other threads? (Check the time stamps.)

 

My mama raised me not to eat cake with my fingers.

 

same reason that you're trolling for me: pure entertainment.

 

I submit that instead of losing credibility, I have instead brought entertainment to the entire bored. I mean, poke little scootie and watch him go. Hours of fun for the whole family.

Admission of being a troll doesn't absolve you from that general d0uchieness of such behavior. just saying.

 

Speaking in utter and gentle seriousness for one brief moment, I did not mean to attack your character by saying you lied with stats, I'm only attacking your specific argument here. As for myself, I'd rather be accused of that than of being a d0uchebag, an asshat or a troll because at least then we are still in the realm of rational discourse.

 

Just calling a spade a spade. Yes, I'm racist like that.

 

If you have a rational defense make it, and if we continue to disagree, well, different opinions is what keeps life interesting here on this bored. You actually have made a rational argument and identified exactly where our values are different on this one - you value the game-by-game range of the QB rating more, while I prefer to look at overall QB rating on the season - and that is cool. No need to get your panties in a bunch and start stalking me all over the bored just because I take issue with one statistical analysis of yours.

 

Oh yeah, and btw, IBTL.

 

Uhm, yeah - except I'd already made that point prior to your assertions. You either chose to ignore, or failed to comprehend my original statement (which, according to the post position and time stamp was long before your responses) where I specifically pointed out that the wild swings in performance were what put Smith ahead of Grossman in their respective learning curves. Do yourself a favor and scroll up, read my post at the top of the page and in response to Walter where I said (and I quote)

posted by scooter

"Grossman had a couple of monster games, posting QB ratings over 100. Then he had several games posting a rating well under 100. Including one game where he posted a 0. That's a z-e-r-o. Another game he posted a 1.6 rating. Alex Smith's worst game of 2006 was a 27.4 rating, and other than that he didn't have a game below 41.

 

Now, I'm not sure how you missed that, but I bet it's hard to pronounce and expensive to cure. This quaint attempt at civility is interesting, but in the end only served to hurt your credibility further with your admission of trolling, and your misguided attempt to assert that you were "disagreeing with how I value QB rating" when in fact, I'd made my valuation of that statistic abundantly clear from the onset. Good try though.

 

Next time try not to be such a trolling d0uchebag and we'll get along better. From seeing how others on this site react to your behavior, I think that could be a valuable lesson for you.

[MahSoonerz 0]

My remarks were only about Hass vs. Smith, not Grossman vs. Smith. Based on the not-yet-quoted stat of Grossman's overall 2006 QB rating of 73.9, if you were capable of logically following my argument you would be able to predict that I would agree Smith was better than Grossman.

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

Actually no, we're not. Were referring to last season only. FlaHawker was bashing on Smith and referring to the Seahawks as the class of the division, and as he's a Seahawks fan I thought it worth pointing out that statistically they weren't very far apart.

HTh

 

Ok good. Glad you cleared that up. I was worried for a sec that someone was suggesting Smith and Hasselbeck were comparable quarterbacks in general. And that's asinine at this point considering one is a proven performer who was banged up last year (and played sans Alexander for half the season) and the other is an unproven, albeit, promising commodity.

[DocNiner 70]

Don't know about being the most improved team but they did very well in free agency and the draft. I'm very excited about the direction they're going but I will temper my enthusiasm a bit so as not to get too disappointed if they don't progress as I feel they should. The whole NFC West division is gonna be tough this year and tougher to win the division. Not sure as of right now that they'll win the division because that would be a difficult task. Setting very lofty ambitions for oneself could hinder their progress so I hope they don't go hog wild on their expectations. I root for and hope they win the division this year but that may be asking a little too much out o fthem in 2007. If they continue to develop this year I'd say their chances of winning the division next year are greatly improved. I do however think they have a legitimate chance to make the playoffs this year as a wild card team. I'd be happy with that for 2007.

[piece of work 0]

san fran will be most improved.... imo. Yes nengland has made some good moves too but will they be better than 12-4? I doubt it.

 

Sorry scooter, Once anyone says anything positive about the niners and you back it up with facts.....other posters begin to CRY.

 

I should have thought before i started this thread..... It put you on the stand in a nightmarish episode of Judge Judy..... Hang in there.

 

for all you seahawk lovers out there....... I believe the niners have a better current situation and are on the up and up. And the past history of the niners speaks for itself.

 

signed.......non niner fan.....pow

[bigtuna 0]

They are still a mediocre team.

 

They get a good QB and that could change, But Alex Smith sucks monster Donkey balls

 

I Like Seattle by a lot in the NFC West, but the rest; Arizona, STL, and SF are kinda all the same. They could finish in any way. I would favor STL since they have a good QB...and Arizona is looking good (finally) with Leinhart. All the teams in the division have stu d RB's in their backfield

[football_scooter 0]

They are still a mediocre team.

 

They get a good QB and that could change, But Alex Smith sucks monster Donkey balls

 

care to support any of that crap-ola with some semblance of reasoning, or are we to just take everything you say at face value, despite your history of not backing up anything you say?

 

 

guarentee Tuna never shows his face in here again, much less makes a case for any of the above - it's his MO. Come in, lob a grenade, vanish. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[piece of work 0]

care to support any of that crap-ola with some semblance of reasoning, or are we to just take everything you say at face value, despite your history of not backing up anything you say?

guarentee Tuna never shows his face in here again, much less makes a case for any of the above - it's his MO. Come in, lob a grenade, vanish. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

LOL.....grenade,lather, rinse........tuna......ha ha.

 

he favors stlouis......wow i guess adam carriker will be the next savior of defense in stlouis......good luck ........youll need it.

[FlaHawker 24]

 

 

for all you seahawk lovers out there....... I believe the niners have a better current situation and are on the up and up. And the past history of the niners speaks for itself.

 

signed.......non niner fan.....pow

Call me crazy, but I don't think Joe Montana, Steve Young, or Bill Walsh will help the 49ers this year.

[FlaHawker 24]

Regardless, I see the Niners as a team in the rise, and fast tracked by making great decisions and moves. Maybe you don't like it, but we as fans certainly do. I can understand your bitterness as a Seahawk fan. You feel gyped by the refs for the Superbowl loss, you had the "we want the ball and we're going to win!" experience the year before...you watched the poison pill of Hutchinson to the Vikes...I understand completely. But you're misguided if you think the Niners have not done anything "on the field" - as a cohesive unit, no...the new players have not played together. Fine. But the core of this team is intact from last year, and many of last year's players most certainly did do it on the field.

...an how about Nolan getting back a 1st rounder right after trading it away. Genius. Never have seen that before.

Personally, I don't care if the 49ers rise or remain a doormat (as they have been basically since the Hawks entered the NFC West). The 49ers have been a nonfactor and their improvement is hardly a reason for me or any other Seahawk fan to be "bitter" LOL Hell, I wish all three bottom feeders in the NFC West would actually start to improve so the Hawks don't have to hear, "yeah you won your division but look at those three slobs fighting for last place." Let's actually get a rep as having the best division in the NFL instead of the worst.

 

The 49ers were 7-9 last year. What exactly did they do? The goal in the NFL is to make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. You don't get awards for great offseasons or subpar regualr seasons. The 49ers had a great offseason, no doubt. They should contend for the division this year (you can protect yourself by saying you don't expect them to win it, but deep down you do) if a few things go their way:

1-Alex Smith steps

2- Frank Gore stays healthy and plays like last year

3-They get the WR production form DJAX they expect

4-The defense continues to improve

 

However, until they make the playoffs with the team they have assembled people will only shrug and say, "So what?" That was my original point. They have to produce on the field or the offseason stuff is meaningless. How I got labeled as a 49er hater and bitter, I'll never know, but whatever makes you feel good . I hate the Raiders; I hate the Cowboys; I hate the Broncos; I hate the Rams. The 49ers? To me, they are vanilla ice cream. Not crazy about it, but I don't hate it either.

 

Like I said, let's hope all four teams are competitive so the NFC West isn't the joke of the NFL.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Like I said, let's hope all four teams are competitive so the NFC West isn't the joke of the NFL.

 

I think this year is finally a step in that direction.