PDA

View Full Version : NFC West Thread


yodabear
05-11-2007, 11:31 PM
Ah ****, no one gives a damn about it, I just was felling left out. GO RAMS!

SuperMcGee
05-12-2007, 12:01 AM
Most exciting division in football this year? Yes, me thinks.
Two playoff teams this year, and holds a key component (the losing team) to the Bills-Rams Super Bowl.

cunningham06
05-12-2007, 12:06 AM
Hahaha Yodachu I'm sure you Tubby and Hawkeyefan will have a stimulating discussion.

sweetness34
05-12-2007, 12:52 AM
Cards, Rams, Seahawks, and 49ers. Yuck. Competative, yes. Good, no. Should be exciting to see these teams go at it though considering they're all pretty much on the same level, although Settle is still probably the class of that division.

NGSeiler
05-12-2007, 01:37 AM
Should be a fairly competitive division. Is this finally the year when the Arizona Cardinal hype becomes reality, or will we once again see them crumble in the face of high expectations? Will the San Francisco 49ers return to glory behind the tough running of Frank Gore, or will teams force Alex Smith to continue to step up as a quarterback to win games? Have the Seattle Seahawks put some of last year's stumbles behind them, or have they not done enough to stay ahead of the pack? And finally, will the St. Louis Rams see a revival of the Greatest Show on Turf due to the addition of numerous offensive weapons, or will their defense still haunt them and prevent them from ultimate success? Lots of good storylines in the West...

stl9erfan
05-12-2007, 04:57 AM
Rams: All about the run defense-- how much will Draft and Carriker help?

49ers: All about Alex Smith and Frank Gore. If Smith keeps improving and Gore stays healthy, the offense will be tough to stop.

Seahawks: All about the OL and health of key players (Alexander and Hasselbeck). Self explanatory really.

Cardinals: All about the coaches-- if and when they turn around the losing culture in Arizona (and fix the OL), the Cardinals will have the talent to win a lot of games.

AdrianWilson12
05-12-2007, 05:05 PM
If this thread gets a 10th of the posts in the NFC east thread it will be a miracle. I guess it just isn't a fashionable/rival filled division.

It pains me to say, but I think San Fran might be the favourites this year. I think the Cards - 49ers monday night game to begin the season could be very important. We have had your number recently and need a good start to the season.

fenikz
05-12-2007, 06:03 PM
Well the thing about the NFC West is that their isn't the rivalries that have been going on forever like the NFC North or the NFC

i mean Arizona's biggest rival is probably Dallas, San Fran is Oakland, Seattle is Denver, & im not sure about the Rams & the fact that a different team has won the division every year since it was created except with Seattle the last 2 years

yodabear
05-12-2007, 08:14 PM
Cards, Rams, Seahawks, and 49ers. Yuck. Competative, yes. Good, no. Should be exciting to see these teams go at it though considering they're all pretty much on the same level, although Settle is still probably the class of that division.

Its 10x better than that crap the Bears play in. I mean the Lions and Vikings, YUCK!

BuckNaked
05-12-2007, 08:19 PM
Its 10x better than that crap the Bears play in. I mean the Lions and Vikings, YUCK!

Watch it Yoda. I know when you are talking trash about the Vikings. Don't make me retaliate.

stl9erfan
05-12-2007, 08:20 PM
St. Louis and the Niners have had a nice rivalry going dating back to the days when the Rams played in LA. But yeah, other than that, no real old school rivalries. Seahawks and Rams are building a nice new one though.

yodabear
05-12-2007, 08:20 PM
Watch it Yoda. I know when you are talking trash about the Vikings. Don't make me retaliate.

At least the Rams have won a super bowl.

BuckNaked
05-12-2007, 08:26 PM
At least the Rams have won a super bowl.

At least the Vikings have.......At least the Vikings have.........Screw it, I got nothing.

yodabear
05-12-2007, 08:29 PM
At least the Vikings have.......At least the Vikings have.........Screw it, I got nothing.

At least St. Louis has an arch. At least St. Louis doesn't have fun boats.

BuckNaked
05-12-2007, 08:33 PM
At least St. Louis has an arch. At least St. Louis doesn't have fun boats.

Yeah, the Vikings are so awesome that we have sex on water. Your silly Rams only have sex on land.

NGSeiler
05-12-2007, 08:38 PM
St. Louis and the Niners have had a nice rivalry going dating back to the days when the Rams played in LA.

Thank you. SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/12/15/gallery.oldrivals/content.3.html)'s 8th ranked NFL rivalry.

the fact that a different team has won the division every year since it was created except with Seattle the last 2 years

You say that as if it's a bad thing. It just means the division is open for any of the four teams every year, which should be more appealing to fans. I'd much rather have that scenario than be in a situation where you basically have an idea in June of which team or maybe two teams will be vying for the top of the division.

yodabear
05-12-2007, 08:38 PM
Okay, so this thread has stalled a bit, so let us examine what has the city of Seattle and the state of Washington given to the world. The answer:nothing, abosolutly nothing. They give us a worthless baseball and football franchise and a basketball franchise that doesn't even want to be there. The only thing Washington has given us is the movie Black Sheep, so u know what, here is a solution to the national debt. Sell Washinton to Canada, so the Seahawks can still exist and we don't have to hear about them in the icy country that is wonderful Canada. And that scrubb ass ***** Josh Brown is out of the country. So that is my solution as the next president of the US. Thank u and God Bless America, which Washington is longer apart of. This would also get rid of Tubby.

Bengals1690
05-12-2007, 08:40 PM
Okay, so this thread has stalled a bit, so let us examine what has the city of Seattle and the state of Washington given to the world. The answer:nothing, abosolutly nothing. They give us a worthless baseball and football franchise and a basketball franchise that doesn't even want to be there. The only thing Washington has given us is the movie Black Sheep, so u know what, here is a solution to the national debt. Sell Washinton to Canada, so the Seahawks can still exist and we don't have to hear about them in the icy country that is wonderful Canada. And that scrubb ass ***** Josh Brown is out of the country. So that is my solution as the next president of the US. Thank u and God Bless America, which Washington is longer apart of. This would also get rid of Tubby.

i havent laughed thia hrd i na while, + rep...

fenikz
05-12-2007, 08:43 PM
better idea, stage a fake invasion of Washington by Canada & then take over the entire country in retaliation

yodabear
05-12-2007, 08:45 PM
better idea, stage a fake invasion of Washington by Canada & then take over the entire country in retaliation

But that doesn't get the awesome country of the U.S. money.

Bengals1690
05-12-2007, 08:48 PM
But that doesn't get the awesome country of the U.S. money.

yes, and another war would put us even more into debt, even if it would be easily won. i think we should stick with the first idea. ill never forgive seattlw for starting the grunge music crap.

XxXdragonXxX
05-12-2007, 08:48 PM
the fact that a different team has won the division every year since it was created except with Seattle the last 2 years

3 years, actually.


2002- San Francisco
2003- St. Louis
2004- Seattle
2005- Seattle
2006- Seattle

yodabear
05-12-2007, 08:52 PM
I petitioned the U.S. government about my plan a couple weeks ago. And they told me they already thought Washington was in Canada, so they are discussing.

XxXdragonXxX
05-12-2007, 10:14 PM
Or Egypt, or South Alaska.

KCJ58
05-12-2007, 11:21 PM
Adam Carriker = St. Louis Rams Defense: 0 TD allowed

sweetness34
05-13-2007, 01:44 AM
Its 10x better than that crap the Bears play in. I mean the Lions and Vikings, YUCK!

At least we've got a good team in our division.

sweetness34
05-13-2007, 01:45 AM
Btw, would anyone care if the city of Seattle was blasted off the map?

fenikz
05-13-2007, 01:50 AM
i actually just used scissor to remove it, but if ya got the equipment go ahead

Jensen
05-13-2007, 02:17 AM
Btw, would anyone care if the city of Seattle was blasted off the map?

I wouldn't object to it.

Frisco-9ers
05-13-2007, 02:19 AM
Well the thing about the NFC West is that their isn't the rivalries that have been going on forever like the NFC North or the NFC

i mean Arizona's biggest rival is probably Dallas, San Fran is Oakland, Seattle is Denver, & im not sure about the Rams & the fact that a different team has won the division every year since it was created except with Seattle the last 2 years

Division Championships (17)
NFC West: 1970, 1971, 1972, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2002

hmm........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_49ers

KCJ58
05-13-2007, 02:30 AM
Well the thing about the NFC West is that their isn't the rivalries that have been going on forever like the NFC North or the NFC

i mean Arizona's biggest rival is probably Dallas, San Fran is Oakland, Seattle is Denver, & im not sure about the Rams & the fact that a different team has won the division every year since it was created except with Seattle the last 2 years

I would say that St. Louis and San Fran are big rivals but i think Seattle and St. Louis are the new big time rivals in the NFC west cuz when i went to the Rams game in the Edwards Jones Dome there were a couple of drunk Seattle fans talkin crap say that all Rams fans are pussys and challenged any rams fan to a fight and onw guy sitting two rows in front of him punches him in the square in the face and he knocked him the **** out! he didnt say 1 word or any of the other Seattle fans but every1 applauded the Ram fan who hit him when he got out.

Jensen
05-13-2007, 02:35 AM
I would say that St. Louis and San Fran are big rivals but i think Seattle and St. Louis are the new big time rivals in the NFC west cuz when i went to the Rams game in the Edwards Jones Dome there were a couple of drunk Seattle fans talkin crap say that all Rams fans are pussys and challenged any rams fan to a fight and onw guy sitting two rows in front of him punches him in the square in the face and he knocked him the **** out! he didnt say 1 word or any of the other Seattle fans but every1 applauded the Ram fan who hit him when he got out.

Right, so rivalies are now based on when fans fight each other or talk crap about the other team because that doesn't happen at every stadium. Good reasoning.

fenikz
05-13-2007, 02:36 AM
Division Championships (17)
NFC West: 1970, 1971, 1972, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2002

hmm........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_49ers


that was a completely different division, after the Texans were added all of the divisions were rearranged, the Cards used to be in the NFC East and the Seahawks were in the AFC west

i believe the 49ers were playing the falcons, rams, & panthers?

KCJ58
05-13-2007, 02:42 AM
Right, so rivalies are now based on when fans fight each other or talk crap about the other team because that doesn't happen at every stadium. Good reasoning.

yea i kinda went off track there just remember that for some reason it gave me a chuckle

Borat
05-13-2007, 03:04 AM
that was a completely different division, after the Texans were added all of the divisions were rearranged, the Cards used to be in the NFC East and the Seahawks were in the AFC west

i believe the 49ers were playing the falcons, rams, & panthers?

And the Saints were in the old NFC West as well.

Tubby
05-13-2007, 03:36 AM
Okay, so this thread has stalled a bit, so let us examine what has the city of Seattle and the state of Washington given to the world. The answer:nothing, abosolutly nothing. They give us a worthless baseball and football franchise and a basketball franchise that doesn't even want to be there. The only thing Washington has given us is the movie Black Sheep, so u know what, here is a solution to the national debt. Sell Washinton to Canada, so the Seahawks can still exist and we don't have to hear about them in the icy country that is wonderful Canada. And that scrubb ass ***** Josh Brown is out of the country. So that is my solution as the next president of the US. Thank u and God Bless America, which Washington is longer apart of. This would also get rid of Tubby.

Seattle gave the world grunge rock. Much better than anything St. Louis has ever done.

On the topic of football, SF will only do well if all the pieces fall into place (which can be said about every team in the NFL), the Cards are still the cards, and the rams are still the rams. There is no competition.

fenikz
05-13-2007, 03:42 AM
the seahawks are who though they were, and we let them get away

btw cards division champs last year

Frisco-9ers
05-13-2007, 02:11 PM
that was a completely different division, after the Texans were added all of the divisions were rearranged, the Cards used to be in the NFC East and the Seahawks were in the AFC west

i believe the 49ers were playing the falcons, rams, & panthers?

Seattle has won the division 3 times in a row...
NFC West: 2004, 2005, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Seahawks

High Roller
05-14-2007, 07:41 AM
Should be a really interesting division this year. All about the runningbacks.

YAYareaRB
05-14-2007, 08:50 AM
Should be a really interesting division this year. All about the runningbacks.

I think the Cardinals are all about Leinart, Boldin, and Fitzgerald.

High Roller
05-22-2007, 09:18 AM
I think the Cardinals are all about Leinart, Boldin, and Fitzgerald.

True but they did well last year while Edge was avging under 4 YPC. If he can be productive, which I hope not, they can be scary.

XxXdragonXxX
05-28-2007, 09:36 PM
This thread reminded me of this picture.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f318/vetamur/mapcopy.jpg

nfrillman
05-31-2007, 02:35 AM
Seattle gave the world grunge rock. Much better than anything St. Louis has ever done.

On the topic of football, SF will only do well if all the pieces fall into place (which can be said about every team in the NFL), the Cards are still the cards, and the rams are still the rams. There is no competition.

Ummm, besides Blues music, The Spirit of St. Louis (find out what it is if you don't know), Nelly and the Luncatics, Ozzie Smith, Stan the Man, Bob Gibson, Pujols, Brett Hull, The Louis and Clark Expedition, 1904 Olympics, The Oregon Trail, Maya Angelou, Busch Beer, Jack Buck and Harry Carey (Yes he came from St.Louis), Redd Foxx, Jenna Fischer from The Office, Ryan Howard, Kellen Winslow Sr, Randy Orton.................yes besides those things any more that kick the living crap out of grunge rock, St. Louis doesn't have anything better.

And as for that 2004 "Division Title", that is a pretty weak division title seeing as the Rams beat the Seahawks three times that year, I mean technically the Seahawks won the division, but really, who ruled that division???

d34ng3l021
05-31-2007, 03:07 AM
So I went to Seattle last year (I was on my way back from a Canada vacation) and there was nothing but that Space Pin thing. Pretty boring place.

NGSeiler
05-31-2007, 12:17 PM
Jenna Fischer from The Office

And really, shouldn't that be enough to win anyone over?

yodabear
05-31-2007, 10:36 PM
So message of this thread: SEATTLE SUCKS!

Shiver
05-31-2007, 10:39 PM
The NFC South and East laugh at you.

yodabear
05-31-2007, 10:42 PM
The NFC South and East laugh at you.

Yeah, but thats not fair we have the Cardinals who just suck and we got the Seahawks who no one cares about. So its no fair. The South have the Saints, America's Favorites, Michael Vick, a porrenial contender in Carolina. And Tampa, well, I guess u have nice weather. In the east, every division game is a bloody rivalry.

yodabear
06-03-2007, 01:13 PM
Jeff Wilkins is better than Josh Brown, and so is whoever the 49ers and Cardinals kicker is too.

1. Jeff Wilkins
2. San Fran's Kicker
3. Arizona's Kicker
4. Our Backup
T-5. Arizona's Backup
T-5. Josh Brown






JOSH BROWN SUCKS!

XxXdragonXxX
06-03-2007, 01:16 PM
The Rams must suck pretty bad then, since Josh Brown beat them twice last year.

yodabear
06-03-2007, 01:20 PM
The Rams must suck pretty bad then, since Josh Brown beat them twice last year.

We have the 32nd best defense in the league. Hell, I think the Frankfurt Galaxy of NFL Euorpa have a better defense than us.

toonsterwu
06-05-2007, 11:56 AM
My picks as of now -

1. St. Louis Rams

Is this a great team? No. But this could be a good team. The offense should be one of the best, particularly if the OL improves. There's a lot of pieces for Olson (and Linehan), and Bulger's steadiness should maximize it. Defensively, I see a lot to like. Carriker's discipline should help inside, so if they could get Wroten going, there should be options. Hall should help off the edges. The secondary should be improved a bit. Improved DT play will help a lot on that D, and I like this squad.

2. Seattle Seahawks

Nothing really against the Seahawks, I just like the Rams a bit better. Can they get strong intermediate play from their TE's to match up with their guys outside? Will Shaun stay healthy for the whole year? The secondary depth is better, but the corner options go into the year with a question mark. But the key is arguably the play up front. Will Kerney stay healthy, and will Tubbs be there? IMO, Tubbs is the key to that defense, even if he is in a rotation. The reports of him being in shape have to be a positive sign, though.

3. San Francisco 49ers

I like the Niners. A lot. A lot of good young talent. It's a division that has gotten better, though. Losing Norv Turner was a big blow. Will the offense continue to click? That's a lot of savvy and experience that's lost. Will a lead receiver step up and/or Vernon Davis improve? What's the makeup of the OL? Can they increase the defensive pressure to protect against a vertical attack, as I still wonder about the safety play for this upcoming season?

4. Arizona Cardinals

Like SF, I like this team, it's just, I'm not sure if they are there yet. I love Russ Grimm, so I have blind faith that the OL should be fine ... but ... it's not as if the talent on the OL jumps outs at you. Can the run game get better? Edge isn't getting any younger. How will Leinart do with a new system? Can they get consistent production out of Johnson again and/or improved production from the TE? The bigger questions, though, are on defense, due to all the talk about a hybrid scheme. I just wonder if they have the personnel to jump around. They need consistent anchoring inside, even in the 4-3. Will another LB step up? Hood/Holt are nice and gave them draft flexibility, but they aren't great, and overall CB improvement is needed.
____________

I could, in all honesty, see any of these 4 teams win the division.

yodabear
06-05-2007, 01:14 PM
Toonster picked us to win the division, we are winning the division period. And we are gonna beat the Buffalo Bills 30-28 on a last second field goal by Jeff Wilkins in Miami to win super bowl 42.

NGSeiler
06-05-2007, 04:52 PM
Toonster picked us to win the division, we are winning the division period. And we are gonna beat the Buffalo Bills 30-28 on a last second field goal by Jeff Wilkins in Miami to win super bowl 42.

MONEY!! $$$$

Borat
06-05-2007, 05:20 PM
Toonster picked us to win the division, we are winning the division period. And we are gonna beat the Buffalo Bills 30-28 on a last second field goal by Jeff Wilkins in Miami to win super bowl 42.

We must get you some help Son

yodabear
06-05-2007, 06:36 PM
We must get you some help Son

I've been to some, they are helping.

Chief49er
06-07-2007, 11:06 PM
1. 49ers
2. Rams
3. Cards
4. Seahawks


yup... thats what I'm calling.

yodabear
06-07-2007, 11:52 PM
1. 49ers
2. Rams
3. Cards
4. Seahawks


yup... thats what I'm calling.

I can handle that.

23trufant
06-08-2007, 03:10 PM
Seahawks - 11-5 (NFC/Superbowl Champs)
Rams - 9-7
49ers - 8-8
Cardinals - 7-9

Borat
06-08-2007, 04:59 PM
Seahawks - 11-5 (NFC/Superbowl Champs)
Rams - 9-7
49ers - 8-8
Cardinals - 7-9

AHAHAHA. My thoughts on that list mirror my thoughts on Yodachu's predictions, but I can't post the same response because apparently that promotes illegal activity! This is going to be one hell of a division battle this year.

Phrost
06-08-2007, 05:09 PM
49ers = OVerrated.

stl9erfan
06-08-2007, 05:18 PM
49ers = OVerrated.

49ers-- 7-9 in 2006. At least 7 new starters added (5 D, 2 O) adding up to maybe 3 more wins, for a 10-6 record (which is about as high as you'll see anyone pick them). So, overrated how, exactly?

And they weren't that far from a better record in 06, either. They fell literally one inch short of 8-8 in St. Louis, and might have been 9-7 if Gore hadn't fumbled in the red zone against the Eagles, which was returned by Philly for a touchdown resulting in a 14 point swing. Philadelphia won the game by 14 points exactly, I think.

Time will tell, bro, but I think you're going to be in for a surprise.

Phrost
06-08-2007, 05:34 PM
49ers-- 7-9 in 2006. At least 7 new starters added (5 D, 2 O) adding up to maybe 3 more wins, for a 10-6 record (which is about as high as you'll see anyone pick them). So, overrated how, exactly?

And they weren't that far from a better record in 06, either. They fell literally one inch short of 8-8 in St. Louis, and might have been 9-7 if Gore hadn't fumbled in the red zone against the Eagles, which was returned by Philly for a touchdown resulting in a 14 point swing. Philadelphia won the game by 14 points exactly, I think.

Time will tell, bro, but I think you're going to be in for a surprise.

I was kiddin, just seein what peeps would say. Anyways if Smith can step up another level again...look out.

nfrillman
06-08-2007, 07:53 PM
49ers-- 7-9 in 2006. At least 7 new starters added (5 D, 2 O) adding up to maybe 3 more wins, for a 10-6 record (which is about as high as you'll see anyone pick them). So, overrated how, exactly?

And they weren't that far from a better record in 06, either. They fell literally one inch short of 8-8 in St. Louis, and might have been 9-7 if Gore hadn't fumbled in the red zone against the Eagles, which was returned by Philly for a touchdown resulting in a 14 point swing. Philadelphia won the game by 14 points exactly, I think.

Time will tell, bro, but I think you're going to be in for a surprise.

The Niners also didn't have any big time injuries last year which is unusal, they won't get that lucky again. Another reason they are overrated is that their record does not indicate there level of play. They were 24th in points scored and dead last in points against. Simply put, that would not normally indicate a 7-9 record, or in other words they were lucky to finish 7-9. Their points differential was worse than the Cards, Redskins, Vikings, Lions, Dolphins, and Texans.............. or worse than every team but the Bucs, Raiders, and Browns. All those things make it very evident that the Niners played far beyond their means last year, meaning they lucked out to go 7-9.

Chief49er
06-08-2007, 08:18 PM
Seahawks - 11-5 (NFC/Superbowl Champs)
Rams - 9-7
49ers - 8-8
Cardinals - 7-9

Sorry but the Seahawks are on their way down. This is wrong... I wouldnt be surprised if they are last in the division.

stl9erfan
06-08-2007, 08:42 PM
The Niners also didn't have any big time injuries last year which is unusal, they won't get that lucky again. Another reason they are overrated is that their record does not indicate there level of play. They were 24th in points scored and dead last in points against. Simply put, that would not normally indicate a 7-9 record, or in other words they were lucky to finish 7-9. Their points differential was worse than the Cards, Redskins, Vikings, Lions, Dolphins, and Texans.............. or worse than every team but the Bucs, Raiders, and Browns. All those things make it very evident that the Niners played far beyond their means last year, meaning they lucked out to go 7-9.

On the points scored/points against: Yes, but take a closer look at the games. A lot of those stats are so out of whack because the Niners were a young team, and when they got down against good teams, things snowballed. Take out absolute blowouts against the Bears, Chargers, and Chiefs at Arrowhead and the Niners' numbers would be a lot more respectable.

Also, all those particular losses occurred before a major midseason shakeup that saw SF's defense really improve when Brandon Moore and Keith Lewis were inserted into the starting lineup. So all things considered, those numbers don't really tell the whole story.

And other than those numbers your big argument is that guys are going to get hurt? Who exactly? The Niners had their fair share of injuries last year-- mostly along the offensive line and at TE, where depth was just really good. So that's really what I think you were seeing. Not so much that nobody on the team got hurt, just that their replacements did their jobs and did them well.

yodabear
06-08-2007, 11:27 PM
Rams 10-6
49ers 9-7
Seahawks 7-9
Cardinals 6-10

nfrillman
06-09-2007, 05:52 PM
On the points scored/points against: Yes, but take a closer look at the games. A lot of those stats are so out of whack because the Niners were a young team, and when they got down against good teams, things snowballed. Take out absolute blowouts against the Bears, Chargers, and Chiefs at Arrowhead and the Niners' numbers would be a lot more respectable.

Also, all those particular losses occurred before a major midseason shakeup that saw SF's defense really improve when Brandon Moore and Keith Lewis were inserted into the starting lineup. So all things considered, those numbers don't really tell the whole story.

And other than those numbers your big argument is that guys are going to get hurt? Who exactly? The Niners had their fair share of injuries last year-- mostly along the offensive line and at TE, where depth was just really good. So that's really what I think you were seeing. Not so much that nobody on the team got hurt, just that their replacements did their jobs and did them well.

I'm sorry, but I don't like going with that kind of logic. Any team can say, "Hey, if you take out these games here and here, and maybe a few more plays in these few games we'd be looking at the playoffs." Even when you take out those three games the Niners still gave up more points than they scored.

Now lets use the same logic with the Rams. First off, the two games against Seattle, losing on last second 50+ yard FG's. Well lets just say Brown misses those, then BAM the Rams are 10-6, but wait there's more. Now lets take out the Chargers, Chiefs, Panthers, Cardinals, and Bears losses which were each 14 or 15 point losses. Well after that the Rams all the sudden have a points differential of 279 scored to 221 against. But lets just take out three games like you did, which will all be in far closer games with 15 point losses to the Bears and Panthers, then one of the 14 point losses and the Rams are plus 30 points differential.

I can understand that Niners fans are excited because they are certainly headed in the right direction. But lets not get ahead of ourselves here. The defense was god awful last year. Alex Smith made great strides last year compared to his rookie year, but that is mostly because he was so incredibly terrible his rookie year that anything besides that would look amazing. I will give him credit for not being horrendous last year, but his QB rating was still only good for 22nd. He is going to have to be one of the top 10 QB's in the league for the Niners to have any kind of shot, because I'm sorry, but the additions of Clements, Banta-Cain, Willis, and Michael Lewis aren't going to be enough to make that defense good. I predict that their defense will still be one of the worst in the league, the lower third of the league I'll say.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but I'm just warning Niners fans, and Cardinals fans while I'm at it, that the higher the expectations you have the bigger the disappoinment will be.

Rams- 10-6 to 11-5
Seattle- 8-8 to 10-6
Arizona and San Fran 5-11 to 7-9

stl9erfan
06-09-2007, 06:18 PM
Dude, you're not really listening. That D that earned the horrible point differential, etc. shares almost nothing in common with the D that will be taking the field this year.

1) Of the LBs who began the year in 06 as starters, only Lawson returns, and Manny made big strides down the stretch and will be given more opportunities to rush the passer this year.

2) Of the DBs that started the year last year, only 2 will be returning (Roman and Harris-- Roman was decent, Harris was a pro bowler).

3) Along the DL, there will most likely be only one returning starter-- Bryant Young.

So yeah, what I'm saying is your stats would have more bearing on this year if they were actually relevant to this years players-- to make things easier on you, we're talking about a revamping similar to what happened with the Rams between the 2000 and 2001 seasons. There could very well be 7 new starters on that side of the ball. And there will be two new starters at the team's worst offensive position in 2006, WR.

7-9 was our record in 2006, and based on the team's overall level of play, I'd say that was about as well as they played. They lost a few ugly games against good teams, and they won a few games they probably shouldn't have (Seattle once, and Denver). But they also lost a few games they should have probably won-- that's the kind of thing that happens with young teams. Overall, though, to say that the Niners haven't improved to the point where an extra win or two is just ridiculous.

Oh, and I expect Alex Smith to continue improving as well. That's just the kind of workaholic QB he is-- every offseason he has and every game he plays he's going to get better and better because of his maniacal work habits. And for the first time in his playing career, he gets to play in the same offense for two years in a row. And he finally has some decent targets to throw to.

Chief49er
06-09-2007, 10:02 PM
All this mumbo jumbo is crap, time will tell.

Jensen
06-09-2007, 11:15 PM
I'm going with reverse logic. Cardinals go 1-15, now we're gonna make the playoffs.

GSOT
06-10-2007, 09:37 AM
Will the offense measure up to the 'Greatest Show On Turf?'

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/rams/story/54306E286980C778862572F5000EBC9F?OpenDocument

Barring unexpected developments, Rams quarterback Marc Bulger will line up under center Sept. 10 for the first snap of the regular season surrounded by teammates who have produced 35,742 yards and 217 touchdowns in the National Football League.

Those are eye-popping numbers, perhaps unsurpassed throughout the 32-team league. It breaks down like this:

Wide receiver Isaac Bruce: 887 receptions, 13,376 yards and 80 touchdowns in 13 seasons.

Wide receiver Torry Holt: 712 receptions, 10,675 yards and 64 touchdowns in eight seasons.

Wide receiver Drew Bennett: 273 receptions, 4,033 yards and 25 touchdowns in six seasons.

Tight end Randy McMichael: 283 receptions, 3,096 yards and 18 touchdowns in five seasons.

Running back Steven Jackson: 4,562 total yards and 30 touchdowns in three seasons.

Bulger is no slouch himself, with 16,233 passing yards and 95 touchdown passes in six seasons.

It adds up to this: The Rams could be headed for their most explosive season offensively since the "Greatest Show on Turf" tore up the league.

"I'm real excited about the things we're going to be able to hopefully do," coach Scott Linehan said during preparations for this week's full-squad minicamp. "But the bottom line is, we've got to go out and do it."

The Rams led the NFL in total offense and scoring in 1999, 2000 and 2001. With "mad scientist" Mike Martz whipping up an innovative recipe, Kurt Warner at the controls, supplemented by wideouts Bruce, Holt and Az-Zahir Hakim, plus Marshall Faulk at running back, the Rams became the first team in league history to roll up at least 500 points in three consecutive seasons.

Two Super Bowl trips, and one league championship were the results.

The luster began to fade in 2002, when the first in a succession of injuries began to diminish Warner's effectiveness. Bulger started the last seven games that season, and became the full-time starter in '03. Warner was released in June 2004.

Still, the Rams never dipped lower than ninth in the league in total offense in the five seasons (2002-06) that followed their Super Bowl loss to New England. They wound up sixth last year, Linehan's first season after succeeding Martz as head coach.

But over those five years, the team posted just one winning record. It was plagued by feeble special-teams play and a defense that, after ranking third (1999) and seventh (2001) in the Super Bowl seasons, dipped dramatically.

The Rams tumbled to 13th in total defense in 2002, 17th in '03, 19th in '04 and 30th in '05. Under new coordinator Jim Haslett, they moved up to 23rd last year.

Despite that improvement, the rebuilding of the defense is in its infancy. So the team set out in the offseason to beef up the offense even further.

"I don't think we were too shabby a year ago," said Linehan, a former quarterback and offensive coordinator. "But I think we've made a lot of strides."

During free agency, the Rams signed Bennett and McMichael. Wide receiver/returner Dante Hall was obtained from Kansas City for a fifth-round draft pick. In the draft, they selected Rutgers running back Brian Leonard in the second round.

Lost from the unit were free-agent wideouts Kevin Curtis and Shaun McDonald, who combined for 242 catches, 2,929 yards and 18 touchdowns over four seasons with the Rams. But Linehan wanted taller targets, especially for red-zone situations. The 6-5 Bennett and the 6-3 McMichael fill that bill.

McMichael not only averaged nearly 60 catches at Miami, he plugs another hole: a veteran tight end who can block effectively on passing and running plays.

"We've added good production in Drew and Randy, guys that have experience in the league and also success with the teams they were with before," offensive coordinator Greg Olson said. "We've got a lot of guys that are going to want the ball. And that's a good problem to have."

All the parts

The new faces aren't the only reason for optimism. These carry-over components also are key:

Linehan no longer being a rookie head coach.

"Guys are going to be that much more comfortable with the offense and with the coaching staff," tackle Orlando Pace said. "That's going to make everybody's job a lot easier."

Olson calling the plays for the second season (he took over for Linehan for the final six games last year).

"I've got a good feel now for what Scott wants to see and wants from me," Olson said. "There's just an overall comfort feeling."

Bulger's steady improvement. He posted career bests last year in completions (370), passing yards (4,301), touchdown passes (24) and interceptions (eight).

"Obviously, he's a huge part of it," Olson said. "If he could match those numbers, or even have bigger numbers, that would be a plus."

Jackson's ascension into the upper echelon of running backs after piling up a league-leading 2,334 yards from scrimmage last season, the fifth-highest total in NFL history.

"Steven can pretty much do all the roles," Linehan said. "He's our feature back, but he became a very effective short-yardage player."

A young offensive line that showed strong signs of promise late last season and will be bolstered by the return from injury of veterans Pace and Andy McCollum.

"I think this is the best offensive line we've had since I've been here," Jackson said. "They definitely came on, and they're hungry. You can see that."

So, the parts appear to be in place. Still, before talk of a "Greatest Show on Turf II" gets too heated, Bulger provided some perspective.

"You hate to put the expectations too high or just assume things," he said. "That group before was pretty good."

Then, with a smile spreading, he added: "But the potential's there."

Chief49er
06-10-2007, 12:21 PM
zzzZZZzzz... wonder if anyone read all that crap?

Fossils?

nfrillman
06-11-2007, 01:51 AM
zzzZZZzzz... wonder if anyone read all that crap?

Fossils?

Yeahhh, fossils.

Bulger- 30
Jackson- 23
Bennett- 28
Bruce- 34
Holt- 31
McMichael- 27

Some may say that is fossil age, but other people would prefer to those ages as primes. The only player in that group that isn't in the prime of their careers (not as good now as they once were) is Bruce, and he'd still be by far the best WR on the Niners. While 34 is not young, it is definitely not old, seeing as great WR's can play into their late 30's. Harrison is also 34 and you don't hear people grumbling about his age. Just because being a Niners fan you keep hearing these same names year in and year out doesn't mean they're old, it just means they've been on the same team for a while and you assume they must be old.

stl9erfan
06-11-2007, 03:49 AM
A 34 year old Bruce over D-Jack? Sorry, I don't think many non-Ram fans would be cool with that.

I'll admit the Niner WR corps is largely unproven. But there are some solid vets there and some young guys with potential. It's a position that could be improving a lot this year.

Plus, there's Vernon and Delanie Walker (remember that name other NFC West fans, he's SF's secret weapon) at TE, and Frank Gore at RB to take some of the pressure off the WRs to make plays. And with a very good, very deep OL and Smith's mobility, there should be plenty of time to find the open receiver.

BlindSite
06-11-2007, 05:04 AM
Toonster picked us to win the division, we are winning the division period. And we are gonna beat the Buffalo Bills 30-28 on a last second field goal by Jeff Wilkins in Miami to win super bowl 42.


I'd probably die from laughter if Josh Brown was traded to the BIlls and he kicked the game winner to beat your team.

Tubby
06-11-2007, 11:03 AM
Seahawks: 12-4
Rams: 8-8
49ers: 6-10
Cards: 5-11

BlindSite
06-11-2007, 05:56 PM
Every year there's a new team in the NFC West that's picked to win for some reason.

I don't buy it, I'm going with Seattle again because its still the most talented, most well coached team in the divison.

rainbeaukid2
06-11-2007, 08:14 PM
Seahawks: 12-4
Rams: 8-8
49ers: 6-10
Cards: 5-11

that's pretty homeristic

KCJ58
06-11-2007, 08:16 PM
I'd probably die from laughter if Josh Brown was traded to the BIlls and he kicked the game winner to beat your team.

I would jump off a bridge if that happened

Tubby
06-11-2007, 09:45 PM
that's pretty homeristic

This entire thread is pure homer, I just thought I'd pitch in.

rainbeaukid2
06-11-2007, 09:57 PM
This entire thread is pure homer, I just thought I'd pitch in.

ok then, in that case.

niners 13-3
seahawks 4-12
rams 2-12
cards 1-15

Borat
06-11-2007, 10:08 PM
ok then, in that case.

niners 13-3
seahawks 4-12
rams 2-12
cards 1-15

Come on man! How are we going to lose 3 games? :confused:

rainbeaukid2
06-11-2007, 10:42 PM
Come on man! How are we going to lose 3 games? :confused:

baltimore, new orleans, and cinci are iffy, so that record is worst case scenario

nfrillman
06-11-2007, 11:26 PM
Alright, well I guess I'm done trying to save Niners and Cardinals fans some embarassment and disappointment. Sure they appear to be headed in the right direction, but come on people. Alex Smith had an insane improvement last year, and you know where that insane improvement catapulted him to, 22nd in QB rating. People need to slow their roll before talking like he is gonna be Carson Palmer or Peyton. As for the Cardinals, I said last year that simply being the Cardinals is a good enough reason to say they will suck. People said I was ridiculous last year, and look what happened, the Cardinals sucked. If you want a reason though, the main one is the O-line, or lack thereof.

yodabear
06-11-2007, 11:38 PM
Fine then.....

Rams 6-10 :)
Cardinals 3-12-1*
49ers 2-13-1**
Seahawks 0-16

*-2 wins against the Seahawks and 1 against the Niners and a tie against the Niners.

**-2 wins against the Seahawks and a tie against the Cardinals.

:)-6 wins against the division.

BlindSite
06-11-2007, 11:52 PM
baltimore, new orleans, and cinci are iffy, so that record is worst case scenario

No offense but you guys don't stand a chance against Carolina or Atlanta if they've got Vick either.

Borat
06-12-2007, 12:14 AM
Come on man! How are we going to lose 3 games? :confused:

baltimore, new orleans, and cinci are iffy, so that record is worst case scenario

No offense but you guys don't stand a chance against Carolina or Atlanta if they've got Vick either.

No offense taken since the joke apparently is on you. We just screw around with sarcasm in the NFC West thread. Now go take your serious takes back to the NFC South thread and tell everyone how we all agreed that Carolina would go 0-16 this year.

stl9erfan
06-12-2007, 12:14 AM
Alright, well I guess I'm done trying to save Niners and Cardinals fans some embarassment and disappointment. Sure they appear to be headed in the right direction, but come on people. Alex Smith had an insane improvement last year, and you know where that insane improvement catapulted him to, 22nd in QB rating. People need to slow their roll before talking like he is gonna be Carson Palmer or Peyton.

No one's saying he's going to be Carson or Peyton in 07. But you make a good point, he really developed a lot in 06. Moreover, he kept getting better as the year went on with some really good play down the stretch (against Denver and Seattle most notably). So why, exactly, is his "insane" development going to necessarily stop? True, Norv is now with the Chargers, but I don't think Alex's development in his second year was entirely based on Norv's presence. Sure, it helped, but a lot of it was due to his second year taking snaps under center and familiarity with the speed of the game/the pro style of offense.

We're not saying he's going to be great-- we're saying we expect him to improve, again, along with a lot of the other young players (Vernon Davis, Manny Lawson, young OL Snyder and Baas, etc.) and that this, coupled with free agent additions, is going to be enough to get the Niners 2-3 more wins this year, putting them in the 9-7 or 10-6 range.

Larry
06-12-2007, 11:16 AM
Niners 10-6 - Good coaching combined with improved personnel, we're done rebuilding. There ready to take the next step.

Seahawks 9-7- Will be in a pretty close race with the Niners also season, I think the fall just short and get a wildcard spot.

Rams 7-9- Who can't run on there defense? - Overrated

Cards 5-11- Same old Cardinals until proven other wise.

Chief49er
06-12-2007, 04:12 PM
Seahawks 3-13

BlindSite
06-12-2007, 06:09 PM
No offense taken since the joke apparently is on you. We just screw around with sarcasm in the NFC West thread. Now go take your serious takes back to the NFC South thread and tell everyone how we all agreed that Carolina would go 0-16 this year.

I apologize for not reading the rest of the thread, but next time, try not to act like an asshole.

Borat
06-12-2007, 06:40 PM
I apologize for not reading the rest of the thread, but next time, try not to act like an asshole.

Ahaha. No problem. I think you're still not getting it.

nfrillman
06-15-2007, 05:19 PM
Ahaha. No problem. I think you're still not getting it.

Yeah, you're just not getting it you silly NFC South fan. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that that NFC West is going to prove to be the greatest division in NFL history, somehow getting 4 playoff teams. That's right, FOUR!!!

rainbeaukid2
06-15-2007, 09:19 PM
Yeah, you're just not getting it you silly NFC South fan. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that that NFC West is going to prove to be the greatest division in NFL history, somehow getting 4 playoff teams. That's right, FOUR!!!

ya, 4 teams! ok, maybe only 3 cuz the cardinals still suck

23trufant
06-15-2007, 09:40 PM
Why all the hate for the Seahawks?

23trufant
06-15-2007, 10:04 PM
Sorry but the Seahawks are on their way down. This is wrong... I wouldnt be surprised if they are last in the division.


The Seahawks won the division last year with Matt Hasselback and Shaun Alexander missing alot of time, and playing with injuries alot. Hasselbeck missed 4 games and was playing through the injury in probably 4 other games. Shaun Alexander missed like 8 games and tbe crack in his foot was there from like week 6 to the end of the season. Deion Branch never got on the same page with Hasselbeck because he did not get to the team til week 3 then Hasselbeck got the injuries. I exect the line also to play far better than last year. I think the entire O will play better. The D should be better next season as well. The addition of Kerney should help the Dline and Tapp should be better in his 2nd season. If Tubbs can stay healthy that would be a huge help, but thats unlikely. The LBs have got to be a top 5 group in the NFL, Peterson, Tatupu, Hill. The secondary has been cause for concern but with some nice additions in the offseason, I think Seattle should be fine. Trufant will hopefully live up to his potential, Kelly Jennings should improve in his second year, Josh Wilson should provide some depth. Jordan Babineaux is reallyt underrated and plays all around the secondary with some new Safties signed he will probably help the CBs out. Deon Grant and Brian Russell are slated to start and they should be an upgrade, atleast in coverage. Seahawks have great Saftey depth with Michael Boulware, Mike Green, and possibly Babineaux.

yodabear
06-15-2007, 11:56 PM
Why all the hate for the Seahawks?

They are the champs and we are not, so we are in a way, jealous little bastards.

RedAttack
06-16-2007, 05:56 PM
ya, 4 teams! ok, maybe only 3 cuz the cardinals still suck

Least we forget?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2104950264238875744

Still good enough to own your team 4 times in a row. Talk is cheap, you haven't proven anything yet.

stl9erfan
06-16-2007, 09:29 PM
Least we forget?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2104950264238875744

Still good enough to own your team 4 times in a row. Talk is cheap, you haven't proven anything yet.

lol, the video's epic music to underscore Arizona beating an eventual 7-9 team is pretty ridiculous. You'd think they were crushing the playoff hopes of the Patriots or Colts or something.

The fact that the Cardinals have won the last four doesn't concern me that much. The defense should be better able to match up with the big receivers now with an improved secondary and pass rush, and if the offense continues to improve, SF should at least be able to get a season split.

RedAttack
06-17-2007, 05:42 AM
How did you exactly improve the pass rush? Not a single player on the 49ers roster recorded anything above 6.5 sacks last year.

duckseason
06-17-2007, 05:57 AM
How did you exactly improve the pass rush? Not a single player on the 49ers roster recorded anything above 6.5 sacks last year.

You're in for a big surprise if you think Nolan isn't currently laying the foundation for a dominating defense. Introduce yourself to the player profiles of Manny Lawson and Patrick Willis sometime. I'm pretty sure guys like Leinart are already well aware. From where I sit, that 9er team is improving as fast as any in the league. If I were forced to put money on which team will win that division the most times in the next 5 years, it would be the 9ers.

RedAttack
06-17-2007, 06:15 AM
Yeah, Manny Lawson and Patrick Willis could be good players in time.

But, where did they exactly improve their pass rush? Lawson was pushed around last year and Willis is going to play inside.

SF is going to continue to struggle with the 3-4 until they can generate pressure on a regular basis. They have yet to do anything that can fix that problem.

duckseason
06-17-2007, 06:30 AM
Yeah, Manny Lawson and Patrick Willis could be good players in time.

But, where did they exactly improve their pass rush? Lawson was pushed around last year and Willis is going to play inside.

SF is going to continue to struggle with the 3-4 until they can generate pressure on a regular basis. They have yet to do anything that can fix that problem.
I think that remains to be seen. They have been making a lot of changes to their roster, and it appears as though Nolan knows what the hell he's doing. I know he has that team headed in the right direction, and I'm sure he is well aware of the need for a consistent pass rush. Let's let him get his pieces in place, and then evaluate the pass rush. You don't necessarily need to sign new pass rush specialists to improve your pass rush. Sometimes it's the other cogs that aren't working correctly. Ray Lewis didn't look so hot when the Ravens were missing those big boys up front. Remember? I hate the 9ers with a passion, but I'm a fan of what Nolan has been doing down there. All I can say is just wait and see. I can't tell you what they've done to fix the rush because I haven't seen this years edition yet.

papa burgundy
06-17-2007, 08:47 AM
Yeah, Manny Lawson and Patrick Willis could be good players in time.

But, where did they exactly improve their pass rush? Lawson was pushed around last year and Willis is going to play inside.

SF is going to continue to struggle with the 3-4 until they can generate pressure on a regular basis. They have yet to do anything that can fix that problem.

Lawson hardly ever blitzed.. I don't know where you're getting your pushed around info at. The only guy who was blitzed on a regular basis was Brandon Moore.. and he had 6.5 sacks in 11 starts as a strong side linebacker out of his natural inside position that he's gonna be in as the center piece for most of the blitz packages this year. Where the improvement will come from is in the switch to the 3-4. Considering we ran a 4-3 with Bryant Young and Melvin Oliver at the ends all of last year. Adding a NT makes it possible for Manny Lawson Roderick Green Parys Haralson and Tully Banta-Cain to rush the passer more instead of dropping back in to coverage more if they were in the 4-3. But you're right that the production isn't there but on paper it does look improved.. but then again it could be the same paper that has been saying the Cardinals are a playoff team for the past couple of years. And if thats the case.. we're screwed.

stl9erfan
06-17-2007, 01:13 PM
Improved pass rush:

1) Lawson enters year two and the Niners finally have the rest of the personnel to run a 3-4, hence more opportunities for him to rush the passer. He was not "pushed around" last year-- just not asked to rush very often. SF was forced to run a 4-3 because they didn't have enough quality LBs and so Lawson had to drop back into coverage a lot. He did a nice job overall and only improved as the season went on.

2) Signed Tully Banta-Cain from the Pats to play the other 3-4 OLB spot-- he applied pretty good pressure in New England even though he was mostly used in a "wave" role. With SF he'll get more playing time and could put up bigger numbers.

3) Signed Michael Lewis, a solid in the box safety and blitzer.

Those are the main additions/changes. I think mostly, it's going to be the scheme change that helps out. Also, the team added Ray McDonald in the 3rd round to play DE (and he can rush the passer a little, though in the 3-4 he'll be asked mostly to occupy OL) and the addition of Clements will force opposing QBs to hold the ball longer, giving the pass rush more time to get there.

Any more questions?

Larry
06-17-2007, 03:58 PM
I'm still not that sold on our pass rush either. Lawson looks like better fit as a coverage LB more then your dominant 3-4 OLB pass rusher. Cain is reportedly is very overweight right now which probably will affect him from becoming a good speed rusher off the edge also.

stl9erfan
06-17-2007, 04:07 PM
I think we're making too much out of Banta-Cain's weight. It's June and he's about 15 lbs overweight now, for crying out loud. He's got about 5 weeks to get it taken care of before training camp, and losing 3 lbs a week is very doable for a professional athlete. If he's 15 lbs overweight when camp starts, I'll be worried.

RedAttack
06-17-2007, 06:20 PM
Lawson hardly ever blitzed.. I don't know where you're getting your pushed around info at.

Even with the protection that comes from the 4-3 he was ineffective. Do you think that Lawson is suddenly going to blow up with less protection in the 3-4 as an OLB? I find that hard to believe. He is going to be taking on linemen now, not backs looking to pick up the blitz.

The only guy who was blitzed on a regular basis was Brandon Moore.. and he had 6.5 sacks in 11 starts as a strong side linebacker out of his natural inside position that he's gonna be in as the center piece for most of the blitz packages this year.

He got 6.5 sacks as a 4-3 OLB. Blitzing as an ILB in the 3-4 is a different concept all together because he will be taking on the interior of the line rather than backs and TE's.

Where the improvement will come from is in the switch to the 3-4. Considering we ran a 4-3 with Bryant Young and Melvin Oliver at the ends all of last year. Adding a NT makes it possible for Manny Lawson Roderick Green Parys Haralson and Tully Banta-Cain to rush the passer more instead of dropping back in to coverage more if they were in the 4-3. But you're right that the production isn't there but on paper it does look improved..

Sounds good in theory. But none of those guys have proven anything yet. Your counting on four guys who have no track record of being effective pass rushers suddenly blowing up to help that pass rush.

but then again it could be the same paper that has been saying the Cardinals are a playoff team for the past couple of years. And if thats the case.. we're screwed.

Scoreboard, bud. Just take a look at the scoreboard the last two years. That's all that needs to be said.

Phrost
06-17-2007, 07:11 PM
I am sorry but if the Raiders upgrade their D-Line. They have more potential then any other team in the league.

KCJ58
06-17-2007, 07:18 PM
I am sorry but if the Raiders upgrade their D-Line. They have more potential then any other team in the league.


this is a NFC West Thread not the AFC west Thread :):):)

Phrost
06-17-2007, 07:26 PM
this is a NFC West Thread not the AFC west Thread :):):)

Just had to state that lol.

MasterShake
06-17-2007, 07:47 PM
Even with the protection that comes from the 4-3 he was ineffective. Do you think that Lawson is suddenly going to blow up with less protection in the 3-4 as an OLB? I find that hard to believe. He is going to be taking on linemen now, not backs looking to pick up the blitz.


Manny Lawson played 4-3 OLB...they don't pass rush much and he didn't. He got 2 sacks in his limited opportunities last year. He also was playing at 240lbs. He's bigger this year and will be rushing the passer alot more with his insane speed. He hasn't proven anything as a pass rusher yet, but he has proved he will be successful in the NFL as a coverage LB at very least. I'd expect 5-7 sacks from him this year, but he has the talent to explode


He got 6.5 sacks as a 4-3 OLB. Blitzing as an ILB in the 3-4 is a different concept all together because he will be taking on the interior of the line rather than backs and TE's.


Moore has done blitzing from the 3-4 alignment before (2005) and he was successful at it.


Sounds good in theory. But none of those guys have proven anything yet. Your counting on four guys who have no track record of being effective pass rushers suddenly blowing up to help that pass rush.


Roderick Green has shown himself to be a good pass rusher, he had 4.5 sacks in VERY limited action (maybe 9 games of spot duty) including 2 against Walter Jones. The reason he gets limited action is because thats about all he can do...not very good in coverage or against the run. Overall we don't have a dominant pass rusher, but alot of potential in this group. We won't have a dominant pass rush, but it will be improved.

Frisco-9ers
06-17-2007, 08:34 PM
Scoreboard, bud. Just take a look at the scoreboard the last two years. That's all that needs to be said.

Look at the "scoreboard" of your sh!tty teams whole existence.

In the last 24 years, the Cardinals have made the playoffs once.

stl9erfan
06-17-2007, 09:35 PM
RedAttack:

I don't think you're quite grasping the different roles of a 3-4 versus a 4-3 OLB. The former is freed to rush the passer more than the latter, not the other way around as you seem to be suggesting.

YAYareaRB
06-17-2007, 09:46 PM
What will looking at the scoreboard do for this upcoming season? This year, the Cardinals Offensive Line got worse barring a ROY season from rookie tackle Levi Brown. If the pass protection was questionable with Leonard Davis there, what do you think it'll be with him gone? Face it, there will be no more pop passes to Fitz and Boldin seeing that are secondary is improved and there will be no running game with E-James and Aarington running the rock behind that waste of space you call a line.

papa burgundy
06-17-2007, 11:45 PM
Even with the protection that comes from the 4-3 he was ineffective. Do you think that Lawson is suddenly going to blow up with less protection in the 3-4 as an OLB? I find that hard to believe. He is going to be taking on linemen now, not backs looking to pick up the blitz.

What are you talking about? He didn't take on any blockers last year. If you're saying he was ineffective in general well that is just not true. He was very effective in coverage and chasing down running backs behind the LOS. If you're talking about as a pass rusher.. he's not ineffective. Just unproven.. for now.

He got 6.5 sacks as a 4-3 OLB. Blitzing as an ILB in the 3-4 is a different concept all together because he will be taking on the interior of the line rather than backs and TE's.

Well that's good, because in 05 he started in about 8 games at ILB in the 3-4 and had 5 sacks in his first real starting experience. And that was with Anthony friggin Adams a 6' 300lb NT in the middle not doing anything to keep blockers off Moore. So I think its safe to say he can do it.

Sounds good in theory. But none of those guys have proven anything yet. Your counting on four guys who have no track record of being effective pass rushers suddenly blowing up to help that pass rush.

What did I say? I said I know the production wasn't there. What I was saying is being in the 3-4 it will play more to the players strength with Banta-Cain Green Haralson and Lawson as opposed to rushing players who are not known to have pass rush skills or have limited pass rush skills in Young and Oliver. Again on paper it looks good, but you know how tricky those papers can be.

Scoreboard, bud. Just take a look at the scoreboard the last two years. That's all that needs to be said.

Super Bowls, bud. 5 to 0. Oh hey look.. I can play the things in the past that don't mean a damn thing about this upcoming season game too.

RedAttack
06-18-2007, 04:40 AM
RedAttack:

I don't think you're quite grasping the different roles of a 3-4 versus a 4-3 OLB. The former is freed to rush the passer more than the latter, not the other way around as you seem to be suggesting.

I actually think that is totally debatable based on what gap(s) the DT's and DE's are called to hold on a particular play.

But generally, in the 3-4, the OLB will more often than not will come up against an OT.

In the 4-3, the OLB will most likely face a back or TE when asked to blitz (because the DE is already occupying the OT).

Which is the more advantagous match up for the OLB? Obviously the latter.

Doesn't it concern you that a guy who is suppossedly so athletic and explosive didn't show more as a pass rusher when he is facing backs and TE's on a blitz?

Or that Nolan didn't call Lawson to blitz more often in light of the 49ers poor pass rush?

RedAttack
06-18-2007, 05:25 AM
[B]Manny Lawson played 4-3 OLB...they don't pass rush much and he didn't.

That is really based on the scheme. But just look at other OLB's in the West, Karlos Dansby had 8 sacks and Julian Peterson had 10. So I don't think it is THAT unusual.

Moore has done blitzing from the 3-4 alignment before (2005) and he was successful at it.

You're right, I had actually forgotten about that. So I will concede on that point.

RedAttack
06-18-2007, 05:29 AM
Look at the "scoreboard" of your sh!tty teams whole existence.

In the last 24 years, the Cardinals have made the playoffs once.

Talk about irrelevant. You have not beaten us for two years, pal. Until you do, you aren't sniffing an NFC West title.

RedAttack
06-18-2007, 05:40 AM
What will looking at the scoreboard do for this upcoming season? This year, the Cardinals Offensive Line got worse barring a ROY season from rookie tackle Levi Brown.

The offensive line is a total unknown at this point. The scheme is totally new so I would atleast wait until the pre-season starts before calling it 'better' or 'worse'.

If the pass protection was questionable with Leonard Davis there, what do you think it'll be with him gone?

Leonard Davis is a totally average OT. He improved once he had front-side responsibilities and the TE was able to help him out.

Face it, there will be no more pop passes to Fitz and Boldin seeing that are secondary is improved and there will be no running game with E-James and Aarington running the rock behind that waste of space you call a line.

Fitz and Boldin are good enough that they have been dominant without a viable OL and running game since they entered the NFL.

But, the OL and running game picked up down the stretch. Remains to be seen how that translates to this year.

papa burgundy
06-18-2007, 05:53 AM
Or that Nolan didn't call Lawson to blitz more often in light of the 49ers poor pass rush?

Not really considering we hardly blitzed our linebackers aside from Brandon Moore who was moved around from inside to outside and even to DE. And late in the season we started to put Roderick Green, Parys Haralson (when healthy), and Brandon Moore at DE on 3rd downs and passing situations. Where we blitzed a lot from was from the corner and safety spots. Which shows how much confidence we had in Lawson's skills in coverage. Which is why I'm not worried about him not used more often as a blitzer.

papa burgundy
06-18-2007, 06:15 AM
The offensive line is a total unknown at this point. The scheme is totally new so I would atleast wait until the pre-season starts before calling it 'better' or 'worse'.

Leonard Davis is a totally average OT. He improved once he had front-side responsibilities and the TE was able to help him out.

Gotta agree that Davis was a completely average OT. Only was recognized as the best lineman the Cardinals had because he was a high draft pick. Definitely thought Reggie Wells was the Cards best lineman last season at RT. Buuuut.. I am happy he's being moved back to guard. And I'm even happier that they drafted Levi Brown who I wasn't very high on to begin with. Add in that Mike Gandy was downright awful in Buffalo and I didn't really consider Al Johnson all that special as a center. And well lets just say.. as a Niner fan I would gladly welcome the Cardinals into the stick this year with an O-Line of Gandy-Wells-Johnson-Latui-Brown.

Fitz and Boldin are good enough that they have been dominant without a viable OL and running game since they entered the NFL.


Yeah, Fitz and Boldin are nuts. Among not having an OL or running game I wouldn't say they've had much in the QB situation either(aside from Leinart coming into this next season). You can't really hope to stop them.. only contain them. Which I would say is probably one of the main reasons the Niners brought in the 80 million dollar man. Which says alot with how our coaching staff and front office feels about the Cardinals as a threat.

Chief49er
06-18-2007, 07:13 PM
The offensive line is a total unknown at this point. The scheme is totally new so I would atleast wait until the pre-season starts before calling it 'better' or 'worse'.



Leonard Davis is a totally average OT. He improved once he had front-side responsibilities and the TE was able to help him out.



Fitz and Boldin are good enough that they have been dominant without a viable OL and running game since they entered the NFL.

But, the OL and running game picked up down the stretch. Remains to be seen how that translates to this year.



Hey Redattack,
Don't worry man, even if we don't get the pass rush we are looking for from all the teams we play this year. At least we can record some serious sacks versus the Cards to pad the stats, I mean... Have you looked at your offensive line?

stl9erfan
06-18-2007, 07:20 PM
I actually think that is totally debatable based on what gap(s) the DT's and DE's are called to hold on a particular play.

But generally, in the 3-4, the OLB will more often than not will come up against an OT.

In the 4-3, the OLB will most likely face a back or TE when asked to blitz (because the DE is already occupying the OT).

Which is the more advantagous match up for the OLB? Obviously the latter.

Doesn't it concern you that a guy who is suppossedly so athletic and explosive didn't show more as a pass rusher when he is facing backs and TE's on a blitz?

Or that Nolan didn't call Lawson to blitz more often in light of the 49ers poor pass rush?

Ok, but this is exactly what you're not getting. It's not that he was ineffective in a pass rush role, it's that he was so valuable as a drop back defender Nolan had him do that more often. Basically, our coaching staff was more confident that they could manufacture a pass rush with scheme than coverage with scheme, so they used Lawson's talent in coverage and just tried to get guys like Rodrick Green in the right place to make plays rushing the passer.

It doesn't concern me at all that Nolan didn't use Lawson to rush the passer more. He made the judgment early in the year that Lawson would be a key piece to the D, and also that if he played all three downs he would wear out late in the season (as so many college players do when making that kind of transition). So Nolan decided he'd play 1st and 2nd downs and sit on 3rd downs for the most part-- hence fewer opportunities to rush the passer.

Does it make sense now? It wasn't because the coaching staff made the determination that Lawson was incapable of being a good pass rusher-- but rather because they decided he could be so good in coverage and didn't want him wearing out late in the season so they let him focus on that role as a rookie.

yodabear
06-19-2007, 12:06 AM
We've almost went a page without saying this. The Seahawks suck donkey testes.

Caddy
06-19-2007, 01:25 AM
Talk about irrelevant. You have not beaten us for two years, pal. Until you do, you aren't sniffing an NFC West title.

Unless the Cards suddenly create an O-line out of thin air then I think you will find that the 49ers will beat you at least once during the season and finish above you on the table when all is done and said.

YAYareaRB
06-19-2007, 09:56 AM
We've almost went a page without saying this. The Seahawks suck donkey testes.

Haha.. QFT

yodabear
06-19-2007, 02:01 PM
Haha.. QFT

I was just trying to lighten the thread up cuz its getting quite heated.

nfrillman
06-19-2007, 04:11 PM
Unless the Cards suddenly create an O-line out of thin air then I think you will find that the 49ers will beat you at least once during the season and finish above you on the table when all is done and said.

I'd have to agree with this, not so much about who will win the games cuz who knows, but the Cardinals had better start working on their O-line from thin air recipe quickly. It's amazing that year in and year out the Cardinals either add one lineman or none and everyone is like, "Well I guess that problem is solved." All the while I'm sitting there saying what.

draftguru151
06-19-2007, 05:44 PM
I think a top 5 pick and a 2nd rounder isn't really thin air, nor is one of the best offensive line coaches in the game. The Cardinals OL really improved towards the end of last season, Deuce and Wells were doing good. Gandy is a question but the OL has been improved.

stl9erfan
06-19-2007, 10:56 PM
I think a top 5 pick and a 2nd rounder isn't really thin air, nor is one of the best offensive line coaches in the game. The Cardinals OL really improved towards the end of last season, Deuce and Wells were doing good. Gandy is a question but the OL has been improved.

still, a rookie tackle protecting leinart is probably going to go through a few rough patches. I really like Levi Brown, but expecting him to be an all pro from the word "go" and instantly transform that line is probably a bit much.

draftguru151
06-19-2007, 11:13 PM
Well obviously he isn't going to come in and be an all pro but to say the Cards have to create an OL from thin air is a bit ridiculous.

NGSeiler
06-19-2007, 11:29 PM
A 34 year old Bruce over D-Jack? Sorry, I don't think many non-Ram fans would be cool with that.

You're right, clearly the 34-year-old Bruce showed last year that he just doesn't have what it takes anymore...

...oh wait, nearly 1100 yards, a 14.8 average per reception, and tied for fourth in the league in receptions of 25+ yards says otherwise.

But if you'd rather have Darrell "Tied for Second in the League in Dropped Passes" Jackson, be our guest.

yodabear
06-20-2007, 11:39 AM
The Rams have the best QB in the division.

49ersfan_87
06-20-2007, 11:45 AM
I don't know what to make of this division. When people thought the cards would breakout/win the division kind of stuff, i never thought that would happen. But i feel this could be a good year for the cards. They have some good coaching and added some beef to the trenches with brown and branch.

In the end, i still think seattle wins the division. What happens 2nd-4th place is anybody's guess. All 3 teams are primed for breakout seasons. You could literally put any order for 2-4 and it would be difficult to disagree with it. But i think seattle is still going to be the NFC west champion, unfortunately..

Geo
06-20-2007, 11:49 AM
I'd agree to that, yoda, although imo it will be Leinart within a year.

Hasselbeck peaked in 2005, and the fact that the Seahawks have been able to have as much success with him as their quarterback can be mainly attributed to the football acumen of Mike Holmgren.

49ersfan_87
06-20-2007, 11:50 AM
You're right, clearly the 34-year-old Bruce showed last year that he just doesn't have what it takes anymore...

...oh wait, nearly 1100 yards, a 14.8 average per reception, and tied for fourth in the league in receptions of 25+ yards says otherwise.

But if you'd rather have Darrell "Tied for Second in the League in Dropped Passes" Jackson, be our guest.

Darrell Jackson was pretty productive as well...15.2 yards per catch, 10 touchdowns, playing with a backup QB for a portion of the season and playing with a very crowded WR position in seattle (branch, hackett, burleson, engram). In 13 games as well.

Bruce in his prime was better than jackson in his prime, but i doubt bruce would beat jackson at this day and age.

Smokey Joe
06-20-2007, 05:51 PM
I predict: 49'ers, Rams, Seahawks, Cards

NGSeiler
06-20-2007, 07:52 PM
playing with a very crowded WR position in seattle (branch, hackett, burleson, engram).

I don't see how you can use this as reasoning in Jackson's favor since Bruce also had competition for touches with Steven Jackson (2300+ total yards last year w/ a whopping 90 receptions), Torry Holt (another 90+ reception Pro Bowl season), and Kevin Curtis (40 receptions, arguably the top free agent WR on the market this spring). Furthermore, even in his crowded offense, Jackson was the target of nearly as many passes as Bruce was in 2006. Jackson was thrown to 112 times, Bruce 126. The difference is Jackson dropped nearly 10% of the passes thrown his way, whereas Bruce dropped only 1.5%.

stl9erfan's implication was that only Rams fans would take Bruce over D-Jack as if it was some homer opinion, and my point is that given what Bruce was able to accomplish last year at age 34 as a #2 receiver in a more balanced Rams offense, I think that's a pretty questionable statement.

Tubby
06-20-2007, 09:24 PM
The Rams, 49ers, and Cards suck donkey testes.

stl9erfan
06-20-2007, 10:15 PM
stl9erfan's implication was that only Rams fans would take Bruce over D-Jack as if it was some homer opinion, and my point is that given what Bruce was able to accomplish last year at age 34 as a #2 receiver in a more balanced Rams offense, I think that's a pretty questionable statement.

I don't think it's questionable at all. Seriously, do you think a poll of fans of the 30 other teams in the league (not 49ers and Rams) would be even close? Maybe one or two teams would want Bruce over Jackson this year-- but the Reverend is near the end of the line. He's had a great career, but come on, he's not the receiver he used to be. You don't need stats to see that, just watch the games. I don't think Jackson is a truly great receiver, like Isaac was at one point, but at this stage it's not even that close.

49ersfan_87
06-20-2007, 10:15 PM
I don't see how you can use this as reasoning in Jackson's favor since Bruce also had competition for touches with Steven Jackson (2300+ total yards last year w/ a whopping 90 receptions), Torry Holt (another 90+ reception Pro Bowl season), and Kevin Curtis (40 receptions, arguably the top free agent WR on the market this spring). Furthermore, even in his crowded offense, Jackson was the target of nearly as many passes as Bruce was in 2006. Jackson was thrown to 112 times, Bruce 126. The difference is Jackson dropped nearly 10% of the passes thrown his way, whereas Bruce dropped only 1.5%.

stl9erfan's implication was that only Rams fans would take Bruce over D-Jack as if it was some homer opinion, and my point is that given what Bruce was able to accomplish last year at age 34 as a #2 receiver in a more balanced Rams offense, I think that's a pretty questionable statement.

Fair enough.

YAYareaRB
06-20-2007, 10:41 PM
The Rams, 49ers, and Cards suck donkey testes.

Already done.. Not funny!

yodabear
06-20-2007, 10:48 PM
I predict: 49'ers, Rams, Seahawks, Cards

U and I are through.

nfrillman
06-20-2007, 10:59 PM
I don't think it's questionable at all. Seriously, do you think a poll of fans of the 30 other teams in the league (not 49ers and Rams) would be even close? Maybe one or two teams would want Bruce over Jackson this year-- but the Reverend is near the end of the line. He's had a great career, but come on, he's not the receiver he used to be. You don't need stats to see that, just watch the games. I don't think Jackson is a truly great receiver, like Isaac was at one point, but at this stage it's not even that close.

You sir, are being declared a Homer. I can say with almost 100% confidence that when D Jack was with the Seahawks your opinion of him was, "Man, he's overrated, he drops too many balls. I'll tell ya one thing, I'd take Brandon Lloyd or Arnaz Battle over him any day of the week." Or something along those lines. Averages over the past three seasons:

Bruce- 66.3 catches, 971.7 yards, 14.6 ypc, 4 td's.........as the 2nd and arguably 3rd option last year

Jackson- 62.7 catches, 879.0 yards, 14.0 ypc, 6.6 td's..........as the number 1 WR

I don't think I really need to bring the drops issue into the argument, but I think everyone knows who is the drop machine between these two. I'm surprised that that old man Bruce is spry enough to even put on a uniform, much less outperform Jackson who happens to be the number 1 target on his team.

As for the watching the games thing, I don't think you need to be telling Rams fans to watch Rams games so we will know what you are saying. I watch every Rams game and watch as many Seahawks games as possible hoping they will lose. I have seen more than enough of Bruce and Jackson to tell you who is better. No one seems to be bringing in the wheel chair for that decrepit old man in Indy by the name of Harrison who also happens to be 34, or that 33 year old mummy of a WR in Dallas by the name of Owens.

fenikz
06-21-2007, 06:02 AM
Cards are gonna win the division

KCJ58
06-21-2007, 06:14 AM
Steven Jackson will win the MVP as The Rams win the super bowl over the patriots 34-28

yodabear
06-21-2007, 01:44 PM
Steven Jackson will win the MVP as The Rams win the super bowl over the patriots 34-28

I want no part of the Patriots ever.

stl9erfan
06-21-2007, 04:24 PM
You sir, are being declared a Homer. I can say with almost 100% confidence that when D Jack was with the Seahawks your opinion of him was, "Man, he's overrated, he drops too many balls. I'll tell ya one thing, I'd take Brandon Lloyd or Arnaz Battle over him any day of the week." Or something along those lines. Averages over the past three seasons:


Ever wonder what my name means? I grew up in St. Louis, I live in St. Louis, I couldn't avoid watching the Rams if I tried. I've seen just about every game the Rams have played in the past 8 years, and it's becoming more and more obvious that Bruce is over the hill. For crying out loud, Kevin Curtis was a better option last year.

And don't tell me what my opinion is-- you have no idea. Bro, I hated Lloyd since 2004, and I've always called Arnaz Battle what he is: a serviceable, not great, 3rd receiver and special teamer.

What Jackson is (and has been in my opinion when he was with the Seahawks too) is a 1.5 receiver. By which I mean he's not really an ideal primary option, but he's better than your average secondary option too. Bruce might be somewhere near that level right now too-- the difference is he's on the downside of his career.

I'm no homer, man, I call it like I see it. I'll tell you straight up that the 49ers pretty obviously have the worst receiving corps in the division, but in a one on one comparison between which player is more valuable, Bruce or Jackson, the answer is obviously Jackson. From youth to stats to performances in big games against good defenses recently (see SB XL v. the Steelers) Jackson is a very good player still in his prime. Bruce is a former great player now past his.

Whether Jackson is overrated by many I don't know... I don't personally think he's awesome or even an ideal top option at receiver, just an improvement over what the team had at the position previously. Overrated and underrated doesn't really matter-- that's all perception. If most guys think Jackson is a number one receiver and he's really just a very good second option, that doesn't make him any worse as that really good second option (hope that makes sense).

Anyway, I think I'm done on this debate. I've pretty much said all that needs saying, but if you'd like to put in one last plug for Bruce and get the last word, be my guest. I think anyone who doesn't look at this with blue and gold colored glasses would probably agree with me that, over the long run at least (ie not just next season) Jackson will probably be a more valuable commodity than Bruce from here on out.

ETA: those stats you're quoting are all well and good too, man, but you're forgetting that Jackson played in 3 fewer games than Bruce last year, and that Seahawks O was suffering from a lot of injuries last year, including Matt Hasselbeck missing 4 games.

nfrillman
06-21-2007, 05:14 PM
Ever wonder what my name means? I grew up in St. Louis, I live in St. Louis, I couldn't avoid watching the Rams if I tried. I've seen just about every game the Rams have played in the past 8 years, and it's becoming more and more obvious that Bruce is over the hill. For crying out loud, Kevin Curtis was a better option last year.

And don't tell me what my opinion is-- you have no idea. Bro, I hated Lloyd since 2004, and I've always called Arnaz Battle what he is: a serviceable, not great, 3rd receiver and special teamer.

What Jackson is (and has been in my opinion when he was with the Seahawks too) is a 1.5 receiver. By which I mean he's not really an ideal primary option, but he's better than your average secondary option too. Bruce might be somewhere near that level right now too-- the difference is he's on the downside of his career.

I'm no homer, man, I call it like I see it. I'll tell you straight up that the 49ers pretty obviously have the worst receiving corps in the division, but in a one on one comparison between which player is more valuable, Bruce or Jackson, the answer is obviously Jackson. From youth to stats to performances in big games against good defenses recently (see SB XL v. the Steelers) Jackson is a very good player still in his prime. Bruce is a former great player now past his.

Whether Jackson is overrated by many I don't know... I don't personally think he's awesome or even an ideal top option at receiver, just an improvement over what the team had at the position previously. Overrated and underrated doesn't really matter-- that's all perception. If most guys think Jackson is a number one receiver and he's really just a very good second option, that doesn't make him any worse as that really good second option (hope that makes sense).

Anyway, I think I'm done on this debate. I've pretty much said all that needs saying, but if you'd like to put in one last plug for Bruce and get the last word, be my guest. I think anyone who doesn't look at this with blue and gold colored glasses would probably agree with me that, over the long run at least (ie not just next season) Jackson will probably be a more valuable commodity than Bruce from here on out.

ETA: those stats you're quoting are all well and good too, man, but you're forgetting that Jackson played in 3 fewer games than Bruce last year, and that Seahawks O was suffering from a lot of injuries last year, including Matt Hasselbeck missing 4 games.

Well now you have gone off and changed the issue we are talking about. I am simply saying that right now Bruce is better. I never said anything about the long run. Someone would have to be insane to think that over the long run Jackson won't be more productive, he is 6 years younger, but as of right now Bruce is still a better WR. I also was not aware there was a stat category called "performances in big games against good defenses recently". That is one of the most ridiculous points I have heard, especially since in the game you mentioned Jackson had 5 catches for 50 yards. Whew, with a performance like that I'm guessing the Steelers DB's are still getting treated for that severe burning Jackson gave them.

As for the fact that Jackson has missed 13 games in the past 2 years. That would raise a red flag for most people about whether they would want that guy or a guy who missed 5 games, but obviously that thought doesn't enter your mind.

Those stats were from the past three seasons by the way. There is no room for boo-hooing about Hasselbeck actually missing 6 games last year and 8 games over that 3 year period, because Bulger missed 10 games over that same time span.

With a statement like Curtis being a better option last year than Bruce, you are clearly grasping for straws. Bruce- 74 catches, 1098 yards. Curtis- 40 catches, 479 yards. I just wish that someone would have passed your knowledge on to the Rams coaching staff because they obviously don't know their own personel, That way they could have put Curtis as the number 2 WR. We might have made the playoffs then. *Note the sarcasm*

I have never said that Jackson is not a fine WR. All I am saying, and if you look up some stats you will see this, is that Bruce is still right around a top 20 WR in the NFL.

stl9erfan
06-21-2007, 08:48 PM
alright you drew me back in:

SB stats: irrelevant... did you watch that game and see some of the ridiculous calls that went against the seahawks? I was pulling for the Steelers in that one and even I thought Seattle got jobbed. And putting up a valiant effort on the game's biggest stage irrelevant? Seems pretty significant to me.

My supposed changing of the argument: We've been talking about which player is more valuable all along-- value clearly entails which player is likely to play longer in the league

on your stats: who even cares? stats measure the past, we're talking about the future and one of the players in question is 34 years old. It ain't gonna last.

on injuries: Jackson might miss three games each year until he retires-- that would still make him more valuable than Bruce at this point, who is likely to retire after a year or two.

And even your Rams agree with me-- they went out and signed Drew Bennett to be a starter, relegating Bruce to the 3rd receiver role. If they thought he was still that valuable of a performer, they could have better spent that money to shore up the run defense, or maybe add another cb.

In short (again) I'm not saying Jackson is the god of all receivers. I'm not even saying he's that great. I'm just saying that right now, pretty much every NFL team out there would consider him to be a more valuable player than Isaac Bruce (which obviously takes age into account and has since I first couched my argument in that fashion). That's all I'm saying.

And now, I'm really done with this. Really. Like for real. And to get this thread back on track:

The Seahawks suck donkeys' testes. And personally, I'm not too fond of the Rams, either. :P

Smokey Joe
06-21-2007, 09:37 PM
U and I are through.
I'm sorry yoda... If it is any consolation, I could put the Rams as a WC!

yodabear
06-21-2007, 09:55 PM
I'm sorry yoda... If it is any consolation, I could put the Rams as a WC!

U better, if u still wanna be my friend.

NGSeiler
06-22-2007, 03:27 PM
SB stats: irrelevant...

That's interesting. What exactly are you complimenting Jackson on it's not the catches he made or the yards he gained in that game? His "never say die" attitude? The cleanliness of his helmet? His sideline motivational techniques? The speed and sense of urgency he displayed when he ran onto the field?

Stats are a record of performance, what players were able to accomplish with the ball in their hands. Are they overrated in many discussions? Sure. But you specifically cited his performance in the Super Bowl as evidence to his talent, so it's clearly relevant to look at how he performed. And based on the numbers, it was a rather pedestrian performance for a #1 receiver in the biggest game of his career.

You bring up his performance in the SB to support your case in one post, and then do a complete 180 and scoff when someone actually talks about the specifics of that performance. Sorry, but you really can't have it both ways.

My supposed changing of the argument: We've been talking about which player is more valuable all along

Uhh, not quite. Look back at nfrillman's original statement that prompted the Bruce/Jackson debate:

The only player in that group that isn't in the prime of their careers (not as good now as they once were) is Bruce, and he'd still be by far the best WR on the Niners.

So clearly "all along" we've been talking about whether or not the 34-year-old Bruce is better than any WR on the 49ers as of right now, specifically Darrell Jackson.

Obviously the discussion is about the present, not the long-term future. Why, you ask? Well primarily, logic dictates that it has to be. First, we're talking about Bruce at a specific age, 34-years-old, the age he is right now. Also, we're talking about a specific group of wide receivers, the group San Francisco has right now. Why in the world would someone try to make the claim that Bruce would be the best WR on the Niners 2-3+ years from now when (1) we don't even know if Bruce will be playing then and (2) we have no idea who the Niner WRs will be at that time? Makes no sense.

So no, the discussion "all along" has not been whether or not Bruce is more valuable with specific attention paid to career longevity. It was about whether or not he is better right now than any WR the 49ers have. It's right there in the statement, and as I recall, there was nothing specifically mentioned about value until you tried to shift the discussion towards that topic in this post (http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showpost.php?p=465983&postcount=150).

Thus, either you are in fact changing the issue being discussed as nfrillman claimed, or you've been misunderstanding the entire debate from the moment it started.

on your stats: who even cares?

Again, you seemed to care just a post ago when you said, "From youth to stats to performances in big games against good defenses recently (see SB XL v. the Steelers) Jackson is a very good player still in his prime."

And as nfrillman pointed out, over the last three years Bruce's numbers as a #2 have been better in nearly all mentioned categories than those of Jackson's. If you don't care about stats, why did you specifically mention them to support your opinion of Jackson? Do you regularly bring up supporting evidence that you find irrelevant or unimportant to discussions? :confused:

And even your Rams agree with me-- they went out and signed Drew Bennett to be a starter, relegating Bruce to the 3rd receiver role.

I find it odd that you brag about how much Rams exposure you get, yet you get something like this so fundamentally wrong.

The Rams did not sign Bennett to be an immediate starter and push Bruce to the #3 role. The Rams signed Bennett to be the #3 receiver, to provide a big target specifically in the red zone, and then to eventually be phased into the starting line-up when Bruce is no longer with the team.

One needs only look so far back as this June 13th article (http://www.bnd.com/sports/rams/story/57049.html) from the Belleville News Democrat to get a description of Bennett as the third receiver. The article opens, "Drew Bennett isn't afraid of collecting dust as the St. Louis Rams' No. 3 wide receiver behind Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce."

There are plenty of other news sources I can provide links to if necessary, but hopefully that's enough to do the job.

yodabear
07-04-2007, 11:49 PM
Whose the only team to win a super bowl in this division this decade, that would be us, thank u all. And **** the Steelers and Patriots.

KCJ58
07-04-2007, 11:51 PM
Whose the only team to win a super bowl in this division this decade, that would be us, thank u all. And **** the Steelers and Patriots.

Seahawks = CHOKE :D

49erfanatic
07-05-2007, 01:27 PM
Stats are a record of performance, what players were able to accomplish with the ball in their hands.

Numbers are good, but when coupled with some common sense they are even better. Lets look at both Isaac Bruce and Darrell Jackson from 2003 to 2006.
In 2003 Isaac Bruce played in 15 games, catching 69 passes for 981 yards and 5 TDs. That year Jackson played in 16 games, catching 68 passes for 1137 and 9 touchdowns. Similar numbers, with the edge going to Jackson in both yards and touchdowns. 2004 saw Bruce catching 89 passes for 1292 yards and 6 TDs. Jackson had 87 catches for 1199 yards and 7 touchdowns. Pretty much identical numbers. 2005 is somewhat of a wash as Bruce only played 10 games and Jackson only played in 6. However in 4 less games, Jackson was able to put up numbers nearly indentical to Bruce (38 receptions for 482 yards and 3 TDs for Jackson, compared to 36 receptions 525 yards and 3 TDs for Bruce). Again in 2006 we saw very similar numbers between the two recievers. Bruce played in all 16 games, catching 74 passes for 1098 yards and 3 touchdowns. Jackson, who only played in 13 games caught 63 passes for 956 yards and 10 touchdowns. Gotta give the edge to Jackson here.

Jackson has put up his numbers while being the number one option for the Seahawks. His supporting cast has consisted of a solid Bobby Engram, a drunk Koren Robinson (for two years), the village idiot Jeremy Stevens, and a Dieon Branch who came to the Hawks very late last year. Meanwhile Bruce has played with one of the best three WRs in the game the past four years in Torry Holt who teams consistantly double team, one of the better number 3 WRs in the game in Kevin Curtis, and backs who are threats out of the backfield in Faulk and Stephen Jackson (Shaun Alexander is virtually non-existent in the passing game).

When you take all this together, I think it is easy to see that Jackson is the better reciever than an over the hill Isaac Bruce

Brent
07-05-2007, 04:41 PM
My prediction:
San Francisco 49ers 12-4 (Garcia & Owens? Awesome)
Atlanta Falcons 8-8 (Chandler should really retire)
New Orleans Saints 7-9 (I like this Aaron Brooks guy)
St. Louis Rams 8-8 (I don't think Warner is going to get it done this year.)
Carolina Panthers 6-10 (Chris Weinke? Yikes.)

nfrillman
07-05-2007, 08:51 PM
My prediction:
San Francisco 49ers 12-4 (Garcia & Owens? Awesome)
Atlanta Falcons 8-8 (Chandler should really retire)
New Orleans Saints 7-9 (I like this Aaron Brooks guy)
St. Louis Rams 8-8 (I don't think Warner is going to get it done this year.)
Carolina Panthers 6-10 (Chris Weinke? Yikes.)

Haha, nice post. I do think there is something to this Aaron Brooks guy. I really don't see him being the kind of QB to throw a ball backwards.