Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Rhule on QB (Darnold) & my translation.


top dawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Perhaps, but at that point, we probably knew that it was a waste of time anyway, as the 49ers were already all-in, and we didn't want to spend the draft capital and decided that there was a better value.

Everybody at that point still thought the Niners were taking Mac Jones (not that this would have anything to do with system fit). 

The best read I've been able to make based on all the info surrounding the draft is that Fitterer and Rhule would only have been interested in a QB they saw as a sure fire franchise quarterback, and the only guys they saw fitting that description were Lawrence and Wilson. 

Frankly, it's not like they'd have been alone in that viewpoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Everybody at that point still thought the Niners were taking Mac Jones (not that this would have anything to do with system fit). 

The best read I've been able to make based on all the info surrounding the draft is that Fitterer and Rhule would only have been interested in a QB they saw as a sure fire franchise quarterback, and the only guys they saw fitting that description were Lawrence and Wilson. 

Frankly, it's not like they'd have been alone in that viewpoint. 

Opinions on this QB class were all over the place. Fit and Rhule certainly would have not been alone, but they would also have had plenty of scouts and fellow GMs disagree with them, especially the ones who staked their teams to Jones, Lances, and Fields. Those teams drafted them because they believed they are franchise guys. 

Edited by trueblade
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, trueblade said:

Opinions on this QB class were all over the place. Fit and Rhule certainly would have not been alone, but they would also have had plenty of scouts and fellow GMs disagree with them, especially the ones who staked their teams to Jones, Lances, and Fields. Those teams drafted them because they believed they are franchise guys. 

Par for the course...

There were professional personnel guys who believed in JaMarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf while others didn't think Russell Wilson or Tom Brady were worth first round picks. And of course there's the memory of Alex Smith going #1 and Aaron Rodgers still being available twenty spots later. 

We'll see what happens...

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

That may be true. But it does fit the profile. IMO, he is a narcissists, who cannot stomach the thought of his name not being associated with winning. And in the NFL, he wasn't winning enough.

“So I decided right then when that happened that we don’t have a quarterback in the NFL, we’re not going to win. I’m getting out of here. I’m not staying here. I’m not going to be responsible for this. That doctor didn’t know his ass from a handful of sand. Drew Brees plays 15 more years, wins a Super Bowl, goes to nine Pro Bowls. And we didn’t take him in Miami, where he wanted to go. Some things you can’t control. When we left there nobody understood why. Well that was why. There’s always a reason.”

I mean Saban isn't going to hang around take Ls.  We all know that.   But in the NFL, if you don't have a QB.....you are going to take Ls.  How great you are at coaching the sport isn't going to matter.  He is right about that.   

Miami gave him Joey Harrington.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jorgie said:

You’re confused in thinking that rhule dolled out the contract. Teddy underperformed, I think to say that it’s an example of how rhule doesn’t value the qb position, when he was publicly criticizing the teddy’s play makes no sense

He didn’t under perform. He is what he has always been

The biggest winner was NO for dumping him off on a division rival…knowing Brees was retiring, they chose to keep a Winston and Hill instead 

and don’t say, they didn’t have cap room, Payton always finds room for players they want. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, trueblade said:

Opinions on this QB class were all over the place. Fit and Rhule certainly would have not been alone, but they would also have had plenty of scouts and fellow GMs disagree with them, especially the ones who staked their teams to Jones, Lances, and Fields. Those teams drafted them because they believed they are franchise guys. 

 

Orrr...They drafted a QB hoping he would become a Franchise QB.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

He didn’t under perform. He is what he has always been

The biggest winner was NO for dumping him off on a division rival…knowing Brees was retiring, they chose to keep a Winston and Hill instead 

and don’t say, they didn’t have cap room, Payton always finds room for players they want. 

 

Have you seen what is going on in NO? The Cap came back to haunt them.  They lost some good talent this year because they couldn't pay them. Even in NO, the Cap finally bit them.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Everybody at that point still thought the Niners were taking Mac Jones (not that this would have anything to do with system fit). 

The best read I've been able to make based on all the info surrounding the draft is that Fitterer and Rhule would only have been interested in a QB they saw as a sure fire franchise quarterback, and the only guys they saw fitting that description were Lawrence and Wilson. 

Frankly, it's not like they'd have been alone in that viewpoint. 

That might not be true.  There were reports that we called about moving to #3.  That would mean we might have been interested in three QBs.  Problem was the cost was two high.

The decision isn't' as easy as Darnold vs Fields, they might have actually like Fields just as much.  The real decision was the cost of trading up to 3 for QB3 vs the cost of trading for Darnold.  Once the draft happened they had already invested in Darnold.  The problem is they couldn't go into the draft guaranteeing themselves that QB3 or even QB4 would be there at pick 8.  

You have to remember that we had already burned the bridges with TB, we couldn't go in the draft hoping a QB that liked fell to us.  

Think about this way, what if we would have lost one more game and had pick #3, do you still think we trade for Darnold?  I don't, but none of us will really ever know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

That might not be true.  There were reports that we called about moving to #3.  That would mean we might have been interested in three QBs.  Problem was the cost was two high.

The decision isn't' as easy as Darnold vs Fields, they might have actually like Fields just as much.  The real decision was the cost of trading up to 3 for QB3 vs the cost of trading for Darnold.  Once the draft happened they had already invested in Darnold.  The problem is they couldn't go into the draft guaranteeing themselves that QB3 or even QB4 would be there at pick 8.  

You have to remember that we had already burned the bridges with TB, we couldn't go in the draft hoping a QB that liked fell to us.  

Think about this way, what if we would have lost one more game and had pick #3, do you still think we trade for Darnold?  I don't, but none of us will really ever know.

Except now that the draft is over, the info on what went on behind the scenes is out there and none of it fits what you're suggesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • No idea what Bryce was thinking in that moment. He fixated on the receiver and failed to look at the wide open field to his right. 
    • I don't think the play calling is the issue. I don't think scheme is the issue.  I'm not even sure what the proper term is, but I think our entire philosophy and approach to offensive football is what's killing us. We try to slow down the game so much, and limit possessions. I'm just not sure we have the personnel to do that. A few Facts:  1. Bryce is better when we are trailing late.  2. Bryce has a miraculous number of game winning drives. 3. Chuba has been much less effective this season. 4. Our record is almost entirely dependent on the coin toss.  5. Some games Bryce looks like Tom Brady throwing the deep ball, sometimes he looks like Oprah Winfrey throwing a deep ball.  All these can be explained pretty simply with our offensive philosophy. Dave wants to slow the game down as much as humanly possible. This may be his philosophy as a coach, it may be due to his beliefs about the team, but it's clear that is his desire. It's a smart way to play football. The Eagles have won a lot of games doing this. I just don't think this team wins that way.  Bryce seems to look like a world beater after we are trailing, or after he throws his novelty INT in the first half, but I think that's because once we abandon the philosophy of slowing the game down, Bryce is more comfortable. I don't know how many of you played sports, but baseball, football, whatever, you have to stay loose and stay warm. When we throw it short 15 times and then throw one deep ball, it's hard to be accurate. When we throw it 40 times with 7 deep balls, those 7 are very likely much more accurate than the one. It's not surprise that we have so many game winning drives, because we have so many opportunities for game winning drives. The shorter the game, in theory, the closer the game will be. In a game when both teams get 6 possessions, it's pretty reasonable to assume that it will be a close game. It's also reasonable to assume that we will have the ball with a chance to win in the 4th quarter.  Chuba also seems to do well when we are spreading it out, and throwing it everywhere. Honestly, most running backs do.  I don't think he's built to line up with 10 in the box and run it 35 times a game. Rico is much more that back. Chuba played at OK State in a spread system, and seems to have more success when we are doing that late in games, like Bryce.  My last point is that our record is almost totally dependent on the coin toss. To win with limited possessions, you almost always have to win the "middle 8" of the game. When you lose the opening coin toss, it's harder to do that. We don't seem to be efficient enough on offense to overcome receiving the ball in the first half.  I think the playcalling is fine. I think the scheme is fine. It's the philosophy that doesn't seem to be working, and why I do still think Bryce could have a lot of success somewhere else. If were going to play this way, we need an athletic quarterback, or an extremely accurate one, but playing this style of football is always going to hurt a QB's accuracy. 
×
×
  • Create New...