Look at what San Francisco has done in 3 years

[Four2itus]

Lol at fans that just have to play the blame game....

 

One could just as easily point out what many other teams have done in the last 3 years. The point?

 

The point is (this thread) = I'm not happy

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

5 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Yep. Didn't we just have one in Andrew Luck that used the time but also made plays outside the pocket when things broke down? I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. 

Agree with you guys. Would add that this QB alluded to is not a unicorn or once in a generation type. 

[Rackeen305]

17 hours ago, hambone35 said:

We are going into 3rd year with Reich, and Ballard together, SF has done it they wasn’t afraid to get free agents etc... So where do you believe we will be? No reason we should not be there!

Honestly speaking, When San Fran/john lynch and co was selecting at the top of the draft, selecting all those Dlineman (Armstead, S. Thomas, Bosa) I had no idea that they would turn the ship around so fast. I thought they were dead (non relevant) for at least 5 years.

[coltsva]

I think what Ballard is doing is setting us up well for the future. We have the resources to put a strong team in place for a young, healthy, QB who is on his rookie contract. Our defense is improving and is just a handful of pieces from being very good. We already have a strong Oline and run game, which will set up a young QB to be successful from the get go. Now it's up to Ballard and Reich to find that guy, which they will.

 

[Myles]

9 hours ago, Myles said:

49rs drafted in the top 10 4 of the past 6 years.   That means they also drafted high in the other rounds.  Not sure that is a model you want to follow.  With Luck, we probably finish 11-5 or 12-4.   So we pretty much would nearly be there now.  

I messed this up and missed the edit window.

The 49rs drafted in the top ten each of the last 4 years and had two 1st round picks in two of them.  

[jvan1973]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

I would say that if a GM is serious about a 3 year window...

 

BTW, I think that is a fan-base goal....imaginary....and I don't think Ballard ever said that...

 

A G and a C and FS are not the position you would draft to build towards that window...IMO.  Those are the spots you acquire 4 to 5 years after you build a core.  Where you have a reasonably winning record and they can be drafted in the 20s. 

 

By the time we get the players we need at the impactful positions every team needs; our C, FS, and G will be entering FA.  At which point, we either have to sign them as we would street FA or franchise them.  No, I don't want to pay a G, a FS, and a C top 5 money.  Maybe 1.

How is it you continue to leave out Andrew luck retired.    

[DougDew]

59 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Nelson was a no brainer in my opinion.  Even though his position has less value, he is so good that it makes up quite a bit of ground.  Smith pick has been fantastic.  He's playing at a high level at a higher valued position.

 

It sucks that the org was in a position to have to spend so much draft capital on interior linemen, but that was where they were weakest by far.  Luck used to get pummeled right up the middle.  It is amazing how good he played when he was getting all that pressure in his face.  It is hard to scramble well when the pressure comes directly from between the tackles.

 

I think everyone is underestimating some of the effectiveness of the players on this team because of the terrible QB play and the collapse of a young defense during the last month.

 

Prior to the last month the D was very good.

 

The rushing offense is fantastic on this one dimensional team.

 

Doug the elephant in the room is that we went from a great QB to a crap one.  It is impossible to discuss everything else without getting into Jacoby. 

 

With Luck, we could be playing in 2 weeks IMO.  I am not saying that for sure, but I think it would be possible for the team to show up better than KC.  We might have even had homefield advantage.  Their run D is subpar and probably we could have exploited that.  I think it would have been probable that the Colts would have improved more than KC improved since the playoff game a year ago.  

 

I think it would be tough, but I also think that beating KC is a daunting task for anyone.

 

I think anyone counting out Rock is short sighted.  He played relatively well with the exception of that one game.  I think he's a good one.  

 

I agree we need a DT, but who doesn't?  SF and a couple other teams maybe.

 

Again, I think an above average guy, a top 3rd QB would have this team right up there.  I think we would need to fill a couple of other needs to be on KC, SF, maybe NO level.

Agreed, for the most part.  My point is that with your high round picks, those are your elite players with which to build around.  If we have a top 5 oline in pass blocking and run blocking, then that should be our identity.  The escapability of the Qb becomes less valued than it does for a team that does not have a top 5 oline.    Its not like it isn't somehting nice to have, but it wouldn't be a key to our success, IMO.

 

If we don't think a team needs a top 5 oline to win a SB, then why bother spending capital to get one.

 

Its the NFL.  It is a one thing or the other world.  You can't have both.  You have to win with where you choose to be strong and where you allow yourself to not be as strong.  Then you draft and add pieces to fit that strategy the best you can.

 

For years, we had an elite QB to build around.  We don't now, so we have to build around what we have or think about finding the QB again.  Tough spot.

[DougDew]

23 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

How is it you continue to leave out Andrew luck retired.    

Relevance maybe?  Luck's retirement isn't relevant to my point about positional value.  And how ignoring it over three years can hurt a team's timeline, especially when you eventually then have to find players that have positional value, like a 3T, a #1WR, and an LT.  You know, ACs maturing contract didn't really sneak up on anybody, did it?  Or TY's age creep?

 

Alternative universe I guess.  

 

If Luck was here, I'm assuming we would have won more and we would have a different opinion about the  players on the roster now?  I'm assuming that not many would say that Luck had to carry the team....IOW, that we are only a 7 and 9 team without Luck (or a 2 and 7 team without Luck after the league figured us out?).  

 

 

   

 

 

[Myles]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed, for the most part.  My point is that with your high round picks, those are your elite players with which to build around.  If we have a top 5 oline in pass blocking and run blocking, then that should be our identity.  The escapability of the Qb becomes less valued than it does for a team that does not have a top 5 oline.    Its not like it isn't somehting nice to have, but it wouldn't be a key to our success, IMO.

 

If we don't think a team needs a top 5 oline to win a SB, then why bother spending capital to get one.

 

Its the NFL.  It is a one thing or the other world.  You can't have both.  You have to win with where you choose to be strong and where you allow yourself to not be as strong.  Then you draft and add pieces to fit that strategy the best you can.

Who's this "we" you are speaking of?   Luck had a crap O-line most of his career and it got him beat up.   Ballard said he would fix it and he did it in 1 year.  That also improved the running game.  

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

Who's this "we" you are speaking of?   Luck had a crap O-line most of his career and it got him beat up.   Ballard said he would fix it and he did it in 1 year.  That also improved the running game.  

Do you think an NFL team needs a top 5 oline to win a SB?  IDK, I was just putting that question into a collective "we" bucket to see what the thought was.

 

I think most would say that a team needs a top5 QB? 

 

A top 5 EDGE player or a top 5 dlineman?  Idk, I'm just guessing at what most would say about those spots.

 

IDK what they would say about needing a top 5 oline, or a top 5 FS for that matter.

[Myles]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Do you think an NFL team needs a top 5 oline to win a SB?  IDK, I was just putting that question into a collective "we" bucket to see what the thought was.

 

I think most would say that a team needs a top5 QB?

 

A top 5 EDGE player or a top 5 dlineman?  Idk, I'm just guessing at what most would say about those spots.

 

IDK what they would say about needing a top 5 oline, or a top 5 FS for that matter.

We needed a top O-line in order to keep a top 5 QB.   We needed it in order to have a top running game.  6 of the top 10 rated O-lines made the playoffs.  

 

 

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Myles said:

We needed a top O-line in order to keep a top 5 QB.   We needed it in order to have a top running game.  6 of the top 10 rated O-lines made the playoffs.  

 

 

Ok.  I havent looked at the stats to see if the top dline corps also made the playoffs, top RBs, top WRs or TEs etc.  

 

I'm assuming teams that make the playoffs have a lot of near top5 things.

 

Some here advocate winning with a strong running game and stout D and lesser QB.  Others say those teams that won it that way are an exception.

 

Everybody has an opinion as to what is needed.

 

I'm not saying that I do, or that I know what works and what doesn't, other than we need a better QB than JB and better receivers than the ones playing in the games this season. 

 

I'm saying that we have already made a big investment in the oline....and will again when we replace AC, so lets build the team around that oline. I don't really know what that team would look like, but would escapability of a QB matter all that much?

 

I'd say having a Derrick Henry instead of a Marlon Mack would be a consistent thought, but that's another topic.

[Jackie Daytona]

21 hours ago, hambone35 said:

We are going into 3rd year with Reich, and Ballard together, SF has done it they wasn’t afraid to get free agents etc... So where do you believe we will be? No reason we should not be there!

Look what Cleveland's done in three years.   

 

You can't cherry pick either way.

[GRUMPY OLD MAN]

13 hours ago, boo2202 said:

Benefitting from years of top ten picks. The past 4-5 years and getting a steal with grappolo trade,’. 

result of a great gm

[GRUMPY OLD MAN]

46 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

Look what Cleveland's done in three years.   

 

You can't cherry pick either way.

cleveland went the draft pick route

[GRUMPY OLD MAN]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

Do you think an NFL team needs a top 5 oline to win a SB?  IDK, I was just putting that question into a collective "we" bucket to see what the thought was.

 

I think most would say that a team needs a top5 QB? 

 

A top 5 EDGE player or a top 5 dlineman?  Idk, I'm just guessing at what most would say about those spots.

 

IDK what they would say about needing a top 5 oline, or a top 5 FS for that matter.

our first round pick at free safety is not top 5, just average

[NewColtsFan]

On 1/21/2020 at 8:28 PM, hambone35 said:

We are going into 3rd year with Reich, and Ballard together, SF has done it they wasn’t afraid to get free agents etc... So where do you believe we will be? No reason we should not be there!

 

First,  let's get one thing out of the way....      it WASN'T three years.    It was FIVE.

 

Here is the 49ers record leading up to 2019,   The previous 6 years.

 

Year             Wins               Losses             Divisional Place           Notes

2013:              12                       4                          2nd                   Lost in SB

2014                 8                        8                         3rd

2015                 5                      11                         4th

2016                 2                      14                         4th

2017                 6                      10                         4th

2018                 4                      12                         3rd

 

4 straight losing seasons.   All with double digit losses.   That's how they had so many top-10 and top-5 draft picks.    People here are complaining we went 7-9 and pick 13th.    Who is ready for lots more losing on this level?    I don't think you'll find many hands raised. 

 

Also,  the 49ers lucked into getting Jimmy Garrappolo for just a 2nd round pick.   That's a gift wrap for a franchise level quarterback. 

 

So, San Francisco was terrible for far longer than this thread recognizes.   It came with much more pain that Colts fan can withstand.    And they got a gift in finding their high level QB.

 

Winning in the NFL is flat-out incredibly hard.    It's not as easy as saying...   look what the 49ers did!     Much harder.

 

[ClaytonColt]

• - The 49ers have prioritized their defense through the draft
• - Swung hard from some key free agents
• - Made brave trades when opportunity arose

 

- We prioritized our O-Line in the draft

- Avoided 'overpaying' for free agents and focused on the second tier

- Were conservative in trades

 

Which strategy was right? I suppose the records speak for themselves? 

[DougDew]

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

First,  let's get one thing out of the way....      it WASN'T three years.    It was FIVE.

 

Here is the 49ers record leading up to 2019,   The previous 6 years.

 

Year             Wins               Losses             Divisional Place           Notes

2013:              12                       4                          2nd                   Lost in SB

2014                 8                        8                         3rd

2015                 5                      11                         4th

2016                 2                      14                         4th

2017                 6                      10                         4th

2018                 4                      12                         3rd

 

4 straight losing seasons.   All with double digit losses.   That's how they had so many top-10 and top-5 draft picks.    People here are complaining we went 7-9 and pick 13th.    Who is ready for lots more losing on this level?    I don't think you'll find many hands raised. 

 

Also,  the 49ers lucked into getting Jimmy Garrappolo for just a 2nd round pick.   That's a gift wrap for a franchise level quarterback. 

 

So, San Francisco was terrible for far longer than this thread recognizes.   It came with much more pain that Colts fan can withstand.    And they got a gift in finding their high level QB.

 

Winning in the NFL is flat-out incredibly hard.    It's not as easy as saying...   look what the 49ers did!     Much harder.

 

Good post.  To the bolded: Correct.  They were the beneficiaries of whatever turmoil was going on with the Kraft/Brady thing and BB decided to let go of JG.  If that turmoil wasn't  there, would JG be sitting in SF and how would Lynch be viewed.  Ballard had Luck retire.  Both what if scenarios.  Both alternative universes. It makes a direct comparison difficult.  Other than we can say that a GM has an advantage when his franchise QB is on the roster via giftwrap.

 

But, what we can learn from SF is what they did with those picks when they had them, and are those high pick players the ones making the contributions, or, are they only average contributors and is SF relying upon the lucky 4th round hit that elevated himself.  Those picks contribute to the record, so its important not to ignore them and just assume that we'll be in the same situation in 2 more years if we keep doing things the same way we've done them.

[Myles]

46 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

• - The 49ers have prioritized their defense through the draft
• - Swung hard from some key free agents
• - Made brave trades when opportunity arose

 

- We prioritized our O-Line in the draft

- Avoided 'overpaying' for free agents and focused on the second tier

- Were conservative in trades

 

Which strategy was right? I suppose the records speak for themselves? 

I think Luck retiring 2 weeks before the season started makes comparisons impossible.   With Luck, this team could also be in the Superbowl.  I'm also not sure how much depth the 49rs had a few years ago.   I do know that Ballard had to build depth first.  

I do agree that I'd like to see them use more of their cap space.   

[ColtJax]

Quote

Also,  the 49ers lucked into getting Jimmy Garrappolo for just a 2nd round pick.   That's a gift wrap for a franchise level quarterback.

 

Really? He's a game manager, he's not the guy you turn the game over to. Look at the last game against the Packers, do you think Payton would have been handing the ball off 90% of the time? The 49'ers are winning with a great defense and a line that's letting street FA running backs run for 200+ yards. It doesn't hurt to have a quality TE to throw too as well..

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

• - The 49ers have prioritized their defense through the draft
• - Swung hard from some key free agents
• - Made brave trades when opportunity arose

 

- We prioritized our O-Line in the draft

- Avoided 'overpaying' for free agents and focused on the second tier

- Were conservative in trades

 

Which strategy was right? I suppose the records speak for themselves? 

OK, I'll get accused of being a Grigson lover, but I just want to point out your point about strategy. "Swung hard in FA" "Made brave trades when the opportunity arose."  Those are two things you should do when you have an elite QB on the roster.  Because, frankly, when you have that QB, you always have a chance to advance through the playoffs.  You tend to be in "win now" mode.  BB did that each of the last 5 years with an old Brady, and it paid off.  I think RG tried the same thing.

 

The player selections were bad, but I think the strategy was the correct one for the situation.

 

You're not really worried about building a core group of young players.  Hopefully that happens via the draft, but that's not really a strategy for winning while you have the QB.

 

Ballard has stated he wants to build through the draft.  That's going to take time (maybe Luck didn't want to stick around getting beaten up waiting for the team to arrive.  Maybe AC won't either).

 

But since we don't currently have the QB, and our GM is intent on building through the draft trying to get a core group of young players, its probably best just to think that we are in full blown rebuild mode that will take some time.  

[ClaytonColt]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

OK, I'll get accused of being a Grigson lover, but I just want to point out your point about strategy. "Swung hard in FA" "Made brave trades when the opportunity arose."  Those are two things you should do when you have an elite QB on the roster.  Because, frankly, when you have that QB, you always have a chance to advance through the playoffs.  You tend to be in "win now" mode.  BB did that each of the last 5 years with an old Brady, and it paid off.  I think RG tried the same thing.

 

The player selections were bad, but I think the strategy was the correct one for the situation.

 

You're not really worried about building a core group of young players.  Hopefully that happens via the draft, but that's not really a strategy for winning while you have the QB.

 

Ballard has stated he wants to build through the draft.  That's going to take time (maybe Luck didn't want to stick around getting beaten up waiting for the team to arrive.  Maybe AC won't either).

 

But since we don't currently have the QB, and our GM is intent on building through the draft trying to get a core group of young players, its probably best just to think that we are in full blown rebuild mode that will take some time.  

I think too much is made of whether you're in "win now" mode or "rebuilding" you should always try to be getting the players in place to improve and win. 

 

The season after the 49ers lost Kap (which was equally as unexpected as losing Luck) they traded for Garappolo. There was no period of starting again and rebuilding, it was just another move in a process of trying to get better. 

 

 

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

I think too much is made of whether you're in "win now" mode or "rebuilding" you should always try to be getting the players in place to improve and win. 

 

The season after the 49ers lost Kap (which was equally as unexpected as losing Luck) they traded for Garappolo. There was no period of starting again and rebuilding, it was just another move in a process of trying to get better. 

 

 

Semantics maybe.  But stating that you build through the draft means that you plan to take some time.  And I believe Ballard said that his immediate goal was to build a core group of young players, and THAT would take three years.  But I could be mistaken.

 

There is a strategy to where you load up on FA to win soon, and not be overly concerned about what the future looks like.  Spend more right now to take that extra step. That's a more extreme example than what you suggested of signing FA to continuously get better. 

 

Having said that, we were never hamstrung with dead salary cap issues under RG as we were under Polian, who was clearly signing our own FA to extremely high contracts to try to keep it together for one more SB run for PM, his franchise QB.

[coltsva]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

I think Luck retiring 2 weeks before the season started makes comparisons impossible.   With Luck, this team could also be in the Superbowl.  I'm also not sure how much depth the 49rs had a few years ago.   I do know that Ballard had to build depth first.  

I do agree that I'd like to see them use more of their cap space.   

IMO, what Ballard does this year in free agency and how he handles the QB position will tell us how close he thinks we are to competing for a championship.

[ClaytonColt]

21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Semantics maybe.  But stating that you build through the draft means that you plan to take some time.  And I believe Ballard said that his immediate goal was to build a core group of young players, and THAT would take three years.  But I could be mistaken.

 

There is a strategy to where you load up on FA to win soon, and not be overly concerned about what the future looks like.  Spend more right now to take that extra step. That's a more extreme example than what you suggested of signing FA to continuously get better. 

 

Having said that, we were never hamstrung with dead salary cap issues under RG as we were under Polian, who was clearly signing our own FA to extremely high contracts to try to keep it together for one more SB run for PM, his franchise QB.

I don't think its semantics and I completely take your point.

 

I just think theres an ethos in the NFL that I find a bit old school where you build through the draft and then use free agency to get yourself "over the hump" with a key players or two but I don't see it that way myself.

 

I think you have to be in a continual process of trying to improve by whatever route you can. Don't just limit yourself to the draft but embrace every avenue.

 

It's even more key nowadays where the window is getting smaller due to early retirements and other off field activities which have shortened the career of some star NFL players. You probably only have 7 or 8 years during which a squad is built, to me there's no point taking 4 years to try and build slowly and then the remaining 3 while you're trying to cram everything in before your initial draftees start declining. Its continual.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, ColtJax said:

 

Really? He's a game manager, he's not the guy you turn the game over to. Look at the last game against the Packers, do you think Payton would have been handing the ball off 90% of the time? The 49'ers are winning with a great defense and a line that's letting street FA running backs run for 200+ yards. It doesn't hurt to have a quality TE to throw too as well..

You are mistaken here.   Don't let the Packers game fool you.   He didn't throw because the running game was getting it done and by running it they shortened a game they were leading big.  

In the season, he threw for 3978 yards and 27 TD's.  Rating of 102.  

Granted the offense isn't pass dependent, but he can light it up when needed.   

[coltsva]

3 minutes ago, Myles said:

You are mistaken here.   Don't let the Packers game fool you.   He didn't throw because the running game was getting it done and by running it they shortened a game they were leading big.  

In the season, he threw for 3978 yards and 27 TD's.  Rating of 102.  

Granted the offense isn't pass dependent, but he can light it up when needed.   

Garoppolo is 21-5 as a starter!

In 2018 his team went 3-10 without him, in a season sandwiched between him going 5-0 in 2017 and 13-3 in 2019.

 

[Myles]

1 minute ago, coltsva said:

Garoppolo is 21-5 as a starter!

In 2018 his team went 3-10 without him, in a season sandwiched between him going 5-0 in 2017 and 13-3 in 2019.

 

Yep.   So far in the NFL he has shown that he is a good QB.    He hasn't reached that "elite" level.  He may never reach that, but he is far above the Brissett, Trubisky Winston range.  

[coltsva]

24 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

It's even more key nowadays where the window is getting smaller due to early retirements and other off field activities which have shortened the career of some star NFL players. You probably only have 7 or 8 years during which a squad is built, to me there's no point taking 4 years to try and build slowly and then the remaining 3 while you're trying to cram everything in before your initial draftees start declining. Its continual.

Totally agree it's continual. You don't need to "bottom out" to rebuild. I do think you need to get to a certain level of competing, and then you sustain that level as you continually lose and add players. Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Packers, Seahawks, Eagles. Sure, some of these teams will have a down season, going 5-11 or 6-10, but it's rare.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

OK, I'll get accused of being a Grigson lover, but I just want to point out your point about strategy. "Swung hard in FA" "Made brave trades when the opportunity arose."  Those are two things you should do when you have an elite QB on the roster.  Because, frankly, when you have that QB, you always have a chance to advance through the playoffs.  You tend to be in "win now" mode.  BB did that each of the last 5 years with an old Brady, and it paid off.  I think RG tried the same thing.

 

The player selections were bad, but I think the strategy was the correct one for the situation.

 

You're not really worried about building a core group of young players.  Hopefully that happens via the draft, but that's not really a strategy for winning while you have the QB.

 

Ballard has stated he wants to build through the draft.  That's going to take time (maybe Luck didn't want to stick around getting beaten up waiting for the team to arrive.  Maybe AC won't either).

 

But since we don't currently have the QB, and our GM is intent on building through the draft trying to get a core group of young players, its probably best just to think that we are in full blown rebuild mode that will take some time.  

 

 

Grigson lover.

[Nickster]

One of the things I think people are not considering is that SF sucking last year helped the team immensely.  I doubt they are where they are without Bosa.  He's a game changer.  You might get lucky on a Bosa type down the draft, but usually these elite edge guys are top couple of 3 picks.

 

Anyone who says that Luck retiring is irrelvant to this particular discussion is in an alternative reality.

 

He reset the whole organizational strategy with that bombshell.

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

One of the things I think people are not considering is that SF sucking last year helped the team immensely.  I doubt they are where they are without Bosa.  He's a game changer.  You might get lucky on a Bosa type down the draft, but usually these elite edge guys are top couple of 3 picks.

 

Anyone who says that Luck retiring is irrelvant to this particular discussion is in an alternative reality.

 

He reset the whole organizational strategy with that bombshell.

Yes, yes and yes.    

Bosa would have made the Colts defense so much better.  When judging DB's performance, it is wise to take the pass rush into account.   

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, ClaytonColt said:

I don't think its semantics and I completely take your point.

 

I just think theres an ethos in the NFL that I find a bit old school where you build through the draft and then use free agency to get yourself "over the hump" with a key players or two but I don't see it that way myself.

 

I think you have to be in a continual process of trying to improve by whatever route you can. Don't just limit yourself to the draft but embrace every avenue.

 

It's even more key nowadays where the window is getting smaller due to early retirements and other off field activities which have shortened the career of some star NFL players. You probably only have 7 or 8 years during which a squad is built, to me there's no point taking 4 years to try and build slowly and then the remaining 3 while you're trying to cram everything in before your initial draftees start declining. Its continual.

I think of BB signing his Dbs (Revis?) told me he was looking at FA to get over the hump that particular year, and not really caring about the impact of that decision two years ahead.  Same with the big signing of Gilmore recently.  And the trading of JG.  The bold signing of A. Brown.  The trade for Sanu.  All win now decisions with his franchise QB on the roster (that didn't work out this time) without much eye towards the future, IMO.

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Anyone who says that Luck retiring is irrelvant to this particular discussion is in an alternative reality.

 

He reset the whole organizational strategy with that bombshell.

Nah, not when the subject is the building of a team.  His retirement changed our w/l record, but didn't have much impact on the rest of the team.

 

We were 2 and 7 down the stretch, 7 and 9 total.  Sure we would have played to more wins, but looking at how Luck always carried this team, by how we won shootouts around the centric performance of a QB, and comparing that with how JG threw 11 passes in the championship game, says a lot about each teams roster.

[fahlman]

On 1/21/2020 at 11:28 PM, hambone35 said:

We are going into 3rd year with Reich, and Ballard together, SF has done it they wasn’t afraid to get free agents etc... So where do you believe we will be? No reason we should not be there!

3 years? From where did you pull that number? the 49ers have been rebuilding for 5 years.

[Nickster]

34 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nah, not when the subject is the building of a team.  His retirement changed our w/l record, but didn't have much impact on the rest of the team.

 

We were 2 and 7 down the stretch, 7 and 9 total.  Sure we would have played to more wins, but looking at how Luck always carried this team, by how we won shootouts around the centric performance of a QB, and comparing that with how JG threw 11 passes in the championship game, says a lot about each teams roster.

 

The team is in decent shape IMO.  They just suck at QB.  SF has built a D by drafting top 5 talent because they sucked.  They spent a buttload on a top 3rd QB and can run because they have a passing threat.  

 

The quality of talent on Dlines is almost always toward the top.  The Colts have not had the luxury to draft top 5 talent.

 

I think it's difficult to argue that the Nelson pick wasn't a great pick.

 

What did SF do without JG and Bosa last year Doug?  cripe is what they did.  I think they won 2 games all year.   So do you think their rebuild plan was to have their high priced FA QB go down, be the worst team in the leauge and draft a trancendent young pass rusher?  I doubt it.  They are good partly because they've been so bad for so long.  And had the good fortune to be able to tank last year.

 

They had crap QBing and not near as good on the D line.

 

Truth is, the best thing the Colts to do is to bring back Painter and go winless, and draft Lawrence.  This would be following the SF plan.

 

 

 

[Nickster]

38 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nah, not when the subject is the building of a team.  His retirement changed our w/l record, but didn't have much impact on the rest of the team.

 

We were 2 and 7 down the stretch, 7 and 9 total.  Sure we would have played to more wins, but looking at how Luck always carried this team, by how we won shootouts around the centric performance of a QB, and comparing that with how JG threw 11 passes in the ch

ampionship game, says a lot about each teams roster.

 

And Doug go back and look at Luck's game log from last year.  Starting with the 1st game of the 10 out of 11 streak, Luck only threw for 300 yds. twice and had 2 games under 200.  

 

Before last year's 10 out of 11 I agree, we needed hero ball from Luck.  Not last year.

 

In the playoff win v Houston.  Luck threw for only 222.  

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

 

The team is in decent shape IMO.  They just suck at QB.  SF has built a D by drafting top 5 talent because they sucked.  They spent a buttload on a top 3rd QB and can run because they have a passing threat.  

 

The quality of talent on Dlines is almost always toward the top.  The Colts have not had the luxury to draft top 5 talent.

 

I think it's difficult to argue that the Nelson pick wasn't a great pick.

 

What did SF do without JG and Bosa last year Doug?  cripe is what they did.  I think they one 2 games all year.   So do you think their rebuild plan was to have their high priced FA QB go down, be the worst team in the leauge and draft a trancendent young pass rusher?  I doubt it.  They are good partly because they've been so bad for so long.

 

They had crap QBing and not near as good on the D line.

 

 

 

Were talking about the 49ers and the Colts only, right?  And how Luck's retirement relative to that is or isn't relevant.

 

Relative to the QB, SF has made the SB with a Qb that has played like a game manager.  He may have the talent to be more than that, but the talent he could have used but didn't use isn't really relevant.  Did SF have to give a second to get the level of QB play they've gotten? 

 

The Colts have never been built to win with a game manager.  We have been built to support a performance by an elite QB.  I don't see how Luck's retirement is relevant to the discussion of rosters, unless you say that Luck's retirement exposed the roster and our strategy. 

 

We either had a good 52 roster or a bad 52 roster whether Luck was here or not.  That's just the way I was looking at it. That's reality, the part about assuming what we could have had was the alternative reality.

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Were talking about the 49ers and the Colts only, right?  And how Luck's retirement relative to that is or isn't relevant.

 

Relative to the QB, SF has made the SB with a Qb that has played like a game manager.  He may have the talent to be more than that, but the talent he could have used but didn't use isn't really relevant.  Did SF have to give a second to get the level of QB play they've gotten? 

 

The Colts have never been built to win with a game manager.  We have been built to support a performance by an elite QB.  I don't see how Luck's retirement is relevant to the discussion of rosters, unless you say that Luck's retirement exposed the roster and our strategy. 

 

We either had a good 52 roster or a bad 52 roster whether Luck was here or not.  That's just the way I was looking at it. That's reality, the part about assuming what we could have had was the alternative reality.

 

So Doug how do you account for SFs crap season last year?

 

Now you shouldn't have to think to hard here.