Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

If you knew then what you know now...


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
75 replies to this topic

#37 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • Joined: 13-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,751
  • Reputation: 2,345
HUDDLER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:07 PM

Steve McNair...

Aaron Rodgers...

And now, Colin Kaepernick.

There are others too.

And I seriously doubt there are any benefits coming out of this season.


Colin Kaepernick has started 1 game. Don't you think it's a little early to decide what company he is keeping?

#38 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,075
  • Reputation: 15,606
SUPPORTER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:07 PM

If Cam didn't dress that way he wouldn't have been raped!

Cam doesn't deserve to be benched for the sake of Chud's terrible decisions. I think his first year was very valuable experience for him. Plus, even if it meant that Cam would be in a pro style Coryell offense this year, what keeps Chud from changing it to this same bad scheme next year? He obviously changed the scheme based on how he thought Cam's play and potential would allow him to do, so why wouldn't he do that after Cam's first year as a starter, regardless of when it was?


Where in any of this did I suggest this was Newton's fault?

What logic would there have been to have him learn a scheme for a year, then change schemes once he was inserted as a starter? They believed they could change schemes as much as anything because he had starting experience, hence the expectation he could handle it?

And Newton should sit now for the sake of his future, not as a punishment (but that won't happen).

#39 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,075
  • Reputation: 15,606
SUPPORTER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:09 PM

Colin Kaepernick has started 1 game. Don't you think it's a little early to decide what company he is keeping?


He's an example of guys (in this case, Harbaugh) valuing long-term benefits over short term gains.

That's something our staff didn't do with Newton.

I sincerely wish they had.

#40 fieryprophet

fieryprophet

    WARNING: Do not annoy!

  • Joined: 15-December 08
  • posts: 5,448
  • Reputation: 5,699
SUPPORTER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:09 PM

Where in any of this did I suggest this was Newton's fault?

What logic would there have been to have him learn a scheme for a year, then change schemes once he was inserted as a starter? They believed they could change schemes as much as anything because he had starting experience, hence the expectation he could handle it?

And Newton should sit now for the sake of his future, not as a punishment (but that won't happen).


Scot, seriously, how is it possibly logical to bench Cam because of being forced to run an offense that doesn't work, when he did perfectly fine in a pro-style offense last year? Take your frustrations out on the staff, Cam will be fine once they're gone. He's been in five different offenses in five years, he can adapt.

#41 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,075
  • Reputation: 15,606
SUPPORTER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:13 PM

Scot, seriously, how is it possibly logical to bench Cam because of being forced to run an offense that doesn't work, when he did perfectly fine in a pro-style offense last year? Take your frustrations out on the staff, Cam will be fine once they're gone. He's been in five different offenses in five years, he can adapt.


Because benching him means he doesn't have to trot out on the field behind a horrible line in a bad scheme. Things that are 1) helping to reinforce bad habits 2) beating the living daylights out of him and 3) exposing him to the risk of injury in a now pretty much meaningless season.

There is no benefit I see in the next six games that is worth the risk of ruining him for future seasons.

Will say again what I've repeatedly said already. Sitting him now would be a favor to him, not a punishment.

But it's not going to happen.

#42 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • Joined: 13-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,751
  • Reputation: 2,345
HUDDLER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:18 PM

He's an example of guys (in this case, Harbaugh) valuing long-term benefits over short term gains.

That's something our staff didn't do with Newton.

I sincerely wish they had.


Harbaugh had enough confidence in his coaching and scheme that he could put a good product on the field with Smith. However, even Harbaugh couldn't have know how strong the team was until he saw them on the field. And there is no way he could have pulled a healthy Smith last year in the midst of that season.

Colin started because he had to, and looked great. Now Harbaugh has a reason to switch things up for awhile. We'll see whether that turns out to be the right decision over time.

In our case, JR and MH wanted Newton to start day 1 and told Ron and Chud that Cam's development was more important than winning immediately. The problems came because we have neither the defense, nor the o-line, nor the coaching quality the Niners do.

All sitting him would have done is probably given Marty and Ron et al another year, and that is not a good thing.

As far as any damage done to Newton in this process, I think he is confident enough to overcome it once he has the right leadership guiding him.

#43 Bwood

Bwood

    It's all about the

  • Joined: 04-November 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,491
  • Reputation: 190
HUDDLER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:20 PM

UGH Kaepernick is the new The Golden Calf of Bristol...

#44 carolinarolls

carolinarolls

    Mel's brother Del

  • Joined: 03-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,459
  • Reputation: 451
HUDDLER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:20 PM

Kaepernick compared to Cam Newton

lmao

#45 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,075
  • Reputation: 15,606
SUPPORTER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:21 PM

Harbaugh had enough confidence in his coaching and scheme that he could put a good product on the field with Smith. However, even Harbaugh couldn't have know how strong the team was until he saw them on the field. And there is no way he could have pulled a healthy Smith last year in the midst of that season.

Colin started because he had to, and looked great. Now Harbaugh has a reason to switch things up for awhile. We'll see whether that turns out to be the right decision over time.

In our case, JR and MH wanted Newton to start day 1 and told Ron and Chud that Cam's development was more important than winning immediately. The problems came because we have neither the defense, nor the o-line, nor the coaching quality the Niners do.

All sitting him would have done is probably given Marty and Ron et al another year, and that is not a good thing.

As far as any damage done to Newton in this process, I think he is confident enough to overcome it once he has the right leadership guiding him.


Rivera has actually stated that the reason they started Newton from day one was because it gave them the best chance to win. They would have preferred he sit and learn, but ultimately chose to throw him in the fire.

See why I say "choosing short term benefits over long term ones" applies here?

#46 unicar15

unicar15

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,824
  • Reputation: 204
HUDDLER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

Day one...invest in a good offensive line. This isn't a Newton problem. This is a "we spent all our money on an 80 million dollar backfield" problem. We should have invested in different areas. Carl Nicks could have been a great pickup. A lot of us also wanted Ben Grubbs. We needed to get better OL play than what we had. We lost Travelle Wharton to FA. Jordan Gross was coming off an injury. We were planning all along to have a rookie starting at left guard. We have a career journeyman our best option at right guard. Then we have a 2nd year guy who has been mediocre at best as our best option at right tackle.

No QB, RB, FB is going to be successful behind that group of OL. Everything starts with those guys and you can't expect a 2nd year pro to be successful when he gets zero protection. Imagine how bad it would be if Newton wasn't as mobile as he is? It would be a complete disaster instead of a disaster with occassional bright spots.

#47 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,075
  • Reputation: 15,606
SUPPORTER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:26 PM

Day one...invest in a good offensive line. This isn't a Newton problem. This is a "we spent all our money on an 80 million dollar backfield" problem. We should have invested in different areas. Carl Nicks could have been a great pickup. A lot of us also wanted Ben Grubbs. We needed to get better OL play than what we had. We lost Travelle Wharton to FA. Jordan Gross was coming off an injury. We were planning all along to have a rookie starting at left guard. We have a career journeyman our best option at right guard. Then we have a 2nd year guy who has been mediocre at best as our best option at right tackle.

No QB, RB, FB is going to be successful behind that group of OL. Everything starts with those guys and you can't expect a 2nd year pro to be successful when he gets zero protection. Imagine how bad it would be if Newton wasn't as mobile as he is? It would be a complete disaster instead of a disaster with occassional bright spots.


It's a coaching and decision making problem.

And you'll find no bigger proponent of building the OL than me. The braintrust completely blew it there.

#48 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • Joined: 13-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,751
  • Reputation: 2,345
HUDDLER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:28 PM

Rivera has actually stated that the reason they started Newton from day one was because it gave them the best chance to win. They would have preferred he sit and learn, but ultimately chose to throw him in the fire.

See why I say "choosing short term benefits over long term ones" applies here?


What Rivera said was probably true, he did give them the best chance to win. However, RR stated repeatedly through the first part of the season that their objective was to develop Cam first and foremost. If that meant throwing more than would normally be desirable, or if it meant losing more games, so be it. Their objective was to develop Cam. Do you really think they were going to do that by having him on the bench?