The 49ers Super Bowl problem

[CamWhoaaCam]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

It happened long before social media. Look at the evolution of Fox News when they basically turned their entire network into "Crossfire" from CNN.

Conflict sells more than sex.

I remember the early 2000's debate shows. They were mostly discussing the game. These debate shows now are rarely discussing the X's and O's. You got people discussing sports topics about Taylor Swift and how much made the SB more money.

 

It's about what's trending these days. I really miss the days before social media. Life seemed more exciting. Now everyone is on their phones trying to go viral lol.

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I remember the early 2000's debate shows. They were mostly discussing the game. These debate shows now are rarely discussing the X's and O's. You got people discussing sports topics about Taylor Swift and how much made the SB more money.

 

It's about what's trending these days. I really miss the days before social media. Life seemed more exciting. Now everyone is on their phones trying to go viral lol.

Preaching to the choir, brother. That poo is so disgusting. You can't have any sort of reasonable discussion without it basically being a live troll battle. I hate it.

[pantherj]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

One underappreciated takeaway from the KC situation should be how KC had an elite game manager in Alex Smith but still took a gamble on greatness. 

TBH, we should be looking at this closely as a franchise as Bryce tracks more closely as a game manager than anything. Never pass on potential greatness, even if the status quo is pretty good. Always strive to be great.

Honestly, that is the same thing I would do if I was the 49ers. To an extent they did when they upgraded from Lance to Purdy.

Hurney and Fitt were basically doing the exact opposite of what I wanted QB wise in recent years. While I was saying we needed to cycle through QBs and look for a star, Fitt and Hurney were taking in QBs other teams were discarding for being game managers or worse. For instance:

Teddy Bridgewater was a QB the Saints cycled out of and Hurney snapped him up. He was a known game manager with limited upside. He had peaked as a QB. The proper move would have been to trade up for Justin Herbert. We easily could have moved up.

Sam Darnold. The Jets were dumping Sam because he was playing at a backup quality level, and we massively overpaid for no reason. We were not up against any other teams making offers. Unreal. Take that 2nd and 4th you paid for Sam and draft two QBs, or move up for one. We were doing all the wrong things.

Baker Mayfield. He cost 5 million and didn't have a multi-year deal, and cost zero draft picks from what I remember. This wasn't a terrible move because of the low cost, but by this point the fan base was dead and the owner's confidence in his staff was zero. Mayfield was the best of the bunch, but he's not the type of QB who should make you stop looking for a better option.

Bryce Young. I think when you have a 5'10" QB who has a weak arm by NFL standards you don't want to trade up at a huge expense. The reason is because his ceiling is likely to be a game manager. Could we not have obtained a game manager QB at the #9 pick without trading up? It doesn't matter now because Fitt was fired, so he can't make that mistake again for the Panthers.

Making QB mistakes is how you end up with a franchise that is an embarrassment to your owner, state, fan base, and the NFL.

Moving forward I see Young as a game manager who shouldn't prevent us from looking for other QBs. If Dan and his staff think they spot an upgrade over Young then I want them to pull the trigger. I don't this "but we spent so much on Young we have stick with him" mentality. No. If you spot a special QB and he's in our reach, then make a move. Like when Herbert went one pick ahead of us. Don't hesitate just because we have Young. I don't mind a QB controversy. They can compete for the starting spot. Decide things on the field, and if they're both really good, then trade one. It's not a problem. If they're both ass, then dump them and reload.  

 

Edited February 15 by pantherj

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

One underappreciated takeaway from the KC situation should be how KC had an elite game manager in Alex Smith but still took a gamble on greatness. 

TBH, we should be looking at this closely as a franchise as Bryce tracks more closely as a game manager than anything. Never pass on potential greatness, even if the status quo is pretty good. Always strive to be great.

Honestly, that is the same thing I would do if I was the 49ers. To an extent they did when they upgraded from Lance to Purdy.

I think the Garoppolo-led 49ers moving up to draft Trey Lance at 3rd overall was their attempt at striving to be great and not being complacent with the status quo.  And that was an absolute disaster lol.  But they got pretty lucky with Purdy...although it almost feels like they reverted back to the comfort of a Garoppolo-type QB in Purdy, so I'm not sure what to take away from all this lol.  I still wholeheartedly agree about taking a chance on greatness and not being complacent, but the 49ers almost seem like an ass-backwards horror story about the flip side of that. 

On a bit of a tangent: I would've thought the awful trade-up to get Lance would set them back quite a bit, but their team is so damn strong that they still made it to three straight NFC Championship games (+ the Super Bowl this year) every year since drafting Lance, despite him not contributing in the slightest.  But even though they were a top team in spite of the failed Lance trade, you gotta wonder if they wouldn't have won at least one Super Bowl in the last three seasons if they had used all those draft assets elsewhere.

[Ricky Prickles]

I'm no rocket scientist or do I even claim to be but I believe the biggest problem with the 49ers in the Super Bowl was when overtime ended, they did not have more points than the Chiefs. My opinion is of the belief that if the 49ners would have scored more points than the Chiefs in overtime, they may have very well won that game because frequently we have been seeing the team that has the most points by the time the whistle blows for the end of the game, those teams usually do win. I would suggest to 49er faithful that the next time they find themselves in the Super Bowl (or any game for that matter I guess...?) they should try to be the ones with more points at the end when everyone is told the game is over. I feel like this would help better ensure them of victory. 

FYI, I have a theory that this may be true in other sports as well but I may be wrong I am not sure..... The team with the most points would probably win so teams should strive to have more points than the opposing team by the time the game is over.

[kungfoodude]

4 hours ago, Ricky Prickles said:

I'm no rocket scientist or do I even claim to be but I believe the biggest problem with the 49ers in the Super Bowl was when overtime ended, they did not have more points than the Chiefs. My opinion is of the belief that if the 49ners would have scored more points than the Chiefs in overtime, they may have very well won that game because frequently we have been seeing the team that has the most points by the time the whistle blows for the end of the game, those teams usually do win. I would suggest to 49er faithful that the next time they find themselves in the Super Bowl (or any game for that matter I guess...?) they should try to be the ones with more points at the end when everyone is told the game is over. I feel like this would help better ensure them of victory. 

FYI, I have a theory that this may be true in other sports as well but I may be wrong I am not sure..... The team with the most points would probably win so teams should strive to have more points than the opposing team by the time the game is over.

[cvlngnir]

12 hours ago, Ricky Prickles said:

I'm no rocket scientist or do I even claim to be but I believe the biggest problem with the 49ers in the Super Bowl was when overtime ended, they did not have more points than the Chiefs. My opinion is of the belief that if the 49ners would have scored more points than the Chiefs in overtime, they may have very well won that game because frequently we have been seeing the team that has the most points by the time the whistle blows for the end of the game, those teams usually do win. I would suggest to 49er faithful that the next time they find themselves in the Super Bowl (or any game for that matter I guess...?) they should try to be the ones with more points at the end when everyone is told the game is over. I feel like this would help better ensure them of victory. 

FYI, I have a theory that this may be true in other sports as well but I may be wrong I am not sure..... The team with the most points would probably win so teams should strive to have more points than the opposing team by the time the game is over.

I am ashamed you took the time to write that out. I am more ashamed of myself for reading all of it and then responding to it. It's Friday and I have little on my plate for the day.