The 49ers Super Bowl problem

[MasterAwesome]

14 hours ago, pantherj said:

Ok so either you think Purdy isn't a game manager, or you think Mahomes won't make the HoF, or both. Is that correct? I didn't call Purdy a JAG as that is a little too vague.

Nah I agree with both of those characterizations, although I'd probably clarify that Purdy is a very good game manager since there's generally an inherent negative stigma associated with game managers and I feel like Purdy deserves at least a little asterisk amongst that class of QBs.  My disagreement is more with the conclusion you're drawing from this Super Bowl.  After watching that game, my takeaway wouldn't be "see, this game perfectly exemplifies why a game manager QB like Purdy could never win against an elite HoF QB like Mahomes unless everything falls perfectly in place for him".  I'm saying you could easily make the case that Mahomes caught more breaks and that he was better supported by his team (strictly in this one game) and yet his team barely won in overtime.  That doesn't really mesh with your conclusion.  I just think this was simply a damn close game between two strong teams that could've easily gone either way.  I still think an elite QB obviously gives you the best chance at success, broadly speaking, but I don't think this Super Bowl was a slam dunk showcase of that.  Yes the talent gap between Mahomes and Purdy is huge, but I would argue this particular win came down more to the clutch/experience factor than simply a product of sheer talent.  This was Mahomes' 4th Super Bowl to Purdy's 1st, and I don't think the significance and impact of that can be understated.

Just like if Purdy and the 49ers pulled off the win in OT, I also wouldn't argue "see, this game proves that the recipe for success is to get a game manager QB and then focus on building a strong supporting cast around him".

[CRA]

2 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Shannon has the #1 podcast in the country!

 

Put some respect on his name!

not sure he even has the #1 athlete lead podcast

[CamWhoaaCam]

1 hour ago, CRA said:

not sure he even has the #1 athlete lead podcast

Who's bigger?

 

I think he broke the record for the most watched podcast for an athlete. I think his Katt Williams interview did like 57mil views in 2 weeks.

[CRA]

Just now, CamWhoaaCam said:

Who's bigger?

 

I think he broke the record for the most watched podcast for an athlete. I think his Katt Williams interview did like 57mil views in 2 weeks.

I mean, that one interview certainly went viral.  

Current rankings show the Kelce Bros ahead of him of in terms of sports guys.  Joe Rogan holding down the actual #1.   

[CamWhoaaCam]

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

I mean, that one interview certainly went viral.  

Current rankings show the Kelce Bros ahead of him of in terms of sports guys.  Joe Rogan holding down the actual #1.   

Oh I didn't know that. I just heard the chick on First Take and Pat McAfee congratulate him on having the #1 podcast for the sports/entertainment industry.

 

 

[CRA]

10 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Oh I didn't know that. I just heard the chick on First Take and Pat McAfee congratulate him on having the #1 podcast for the sports/entertainment industry.

 

 

he certainly might of that week he dropped that interview with Katt.  So they might of cherry picked that window or something.   I could definitely see him being #1 that week.  Athletes are sort of flooding the market at this point.  Well, everyone is.  Everyone got a podcast.  Everyone starting one.  From your favorite athlete to the soccer moms down the street. Someone probably about to start one to recap the huddle postings of each day.  

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Oh I didn't know that. I just heard the chick on First Take and Pat McAfee congratulate him on having the #1 podcast for the sports/entertainment industry.

 

 

Yeah, that is about what those sources are worth.

That is easily verifiable information and they are not correct at all.

[pantherj]

7 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

Nah I agree with both of those characterizations, although I'd probably clarify that Purdy is a very good game manager since there's generally an inherent negative stigma associated with game managers and I feel like Purdy deserves at least a little asterisk amongst that class of QBs.  My disagreement is more with the conclusion you're drawing from this Super Bowl.  After watching that game, my takeaway wouldn't be "see, this game perfectly exemplifies why a game manager QB like Purdy could never win against an elite HoF QB like Mahomes unless everything falls perfectly in place for him".  I'm saying you could easily make the case that Mahomes caught more breaks and that he was better supported by his team (strictly in this one game) and yet his team barely won in overtime.  That doesn't really mesh with your conclusion.  I just think this was simply a damn close game between two strong teams that could've easily gone either way.  I still think an elite QB obviously gives you the best chance at success, broadly speaking, but I don't think this Super Bowl was a slam dunk showcase of that.  Yes the talent gap between Mahomes and Purdy is huge, but I would argue this particular win came down more to the clutch/experience factor than simply a product of sheer talent.  This was Mahomes' 4th Super Bowl to Purdy's 1st, and I don't think the significance and impact of that can be understated.

Just like if Purdy and the 49ers pulled off the win in OT, I also wouldn't argue "see, this game proves that the recipe for success is to get a game manager QB and then focus on building a strong supporting cast around him".

This version of the Chiefs had a weak offense. Imagine Tyreek Hill out there, and a KC offense not depleted by free agency. SF would have been roasted imo. Now the quotes you are using are made up by you just to be clear. You're not quoting me up there in your post for anyone wondering.

I would 100% take on a plan of cycling through QB until we hit on a elite QB. Why? Not just because of this one close SB game where KC had a weak offense. No. I'd do it because of what we see in the NFL nearly every season. Is this one SB game enough to make a case to cycle through QBs, no, but added to all the other games it helps somewhat.

 

Edited February 15 by pantherj

[MasterAwesome]

13 hours ago, pantherj said:

Now the quotes you are using are made up by you just to be clear. You're not quoting me up there in your post for anyone wondering.

 

On 2/13/2024 at 1:29 PM, pantherj said:

When a game managing QB faces a HoF QB the team with the game manager has to have an "A" game to win. You can't have major mistakes and expect to beat a team with a HoF level QB. CMC fumbled and the other guy fumbled as well among other major mistakes. A game manager QB needs near perfect play from everyone to defeat a HoF type QB.

 

21 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

After watching that game, my takeaway wouldn't be "see, this game perfectly exemplifies why a game manager QB like Purdy could never win against an elite HoF QB like Mahomes unless everything falls perfectly in place for him"

I can't imagine anyone thought I was directly quoting you; there's a quote feature for that.  In this case, the quotation marks served to distinguish and confine where the inner dialogue of my takeaway begins and ends.  But also, I don't feel like it was an unfair framing of the argument you were making?  What part of my faux-quote misrepresents your position?  Just the "this game perfectly exemplifies" part?  Because at the time, it certainly sounded like you were using this game to prove your point.  This whole thread was about this Super Bowl, and you even referenced the 49ers' two fumbles.  Like I've said, I agree with your broad point about an elite QB vs. game manager QB, I just think some of the specific claims you're making to substantiate that point don't really make sense and don't jive with the Super Bowl I just watched.

Also yeah KC's offense was "weak" (relative to previous years and certainly compared to the 49ers), but why is that the only relevant part of a supporting cast?  Their defense and coaching staff are elite - both Top 2 in the league (better than San Francisco).  Holding a high-powered offense like SF to 19 points in regulation takes a lot of pressure off Mahomes and his offense.  In this hypothetical where Tyreek Hill is out there in the Super Bowl, are we gonna subtract 1st team All-Pro CB Trent McDuffie who significantly contributed to that elite #2 ranked defense?  Cause they acquired him with the picks from the Tyreek Hill trade.

[mrcompletely11]

20 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Oh I didn't know that. I just heard the chick on First Take and Pat McAfee congratulate him on having the #1 podcast for the sports/entertainment industry.

 

 

you watch First Take?  damn dude

[pantherj]

1 hour ago, MasterAwesome said:

 

 

I can't imagine anyone thought I was directly quoting you; there's a quote feature for that.  In this case, the quotation marks served to distinguish and confine where the inner dialogue of my takeaway begins and ends.  But also, I don't feel like it was an unfair framing of the argument you were making?  What part of my faux-quote misrepresents your position?  Just the "this game perfectly exemplifies" part?  Because at the time, it certainly sounded like you were using this game to prove your point.  This whole thread was about this Super Bowl, and you even referenced the 49ers' two fumbles.  Like I've said, I agree with your broad point about an elite QB vs. game manager QB, I just think some of the specific claims you're making to substantiate that point don't really make sense and don't jive with the Super Bowl I just watched.

Also yeah KC's offense was "weak" (relative to previous years and certainly compared to the 49ers), but why is that the only relevant part of a supporting cast?  Their defense and coaching staff are elite - both Top 2 in the league (better than San Francisco).  Holding a high-powered offense like SF to 19 points in regulation takes a lot of pressure off Mahomes and his offense.  In this hypothetical where Tyreek Hill is out there in the Super Bowl, are we gonna subtract 1st team All-Pro CB Trent McDuffie who significantly contributed to that elite #2 ranked defense?  Cause they acquired him with the picks from the Tyreek Hill trade.

The words you use like "never" and "perfectly exemplifies" in your inner thoughts don't represent my views overall. I hope I clarified my views in my previous post. No one, literally no one on Earth, would use one game to decide to adopt a strategy of cycling through QBs. Yes the topic was the SB game, and to some degree, when taken in with everything else that's happen in the last 20 years in the NFL, that SB game adds some weight to the strategy. When taken in context with reality. In context with the rest of the NFL's history over the last 20 years. I didn't state that in the original post as I thought it was implied. I'm stating it now.

I'd rather have Tyreek obviously, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

[kungfoodude]

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.

[CamWhoaaCam]

2 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

you watch First Take?  damn dude

I know I'm ashamed of myself for even watching it.

 

Most of the time it's just them flirting with the host. People rarely talk about the game anymore. Everything has become about what's trending and the drama around the sport.

 

Kind of sad how social media changed the way we view sports.

[kungfoodude]

9 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I know I'm ashamed of myself for even watching it.

 

Most of the time it's just them flirting with the host. People rarely talk about the game anymore. Everything has become about what's trending and the drama around the sport.

 

Kind of sad how social media changed the way we view sports.

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.