Darth Tater

If Burrow is Rodgers, whose going to start for the next 3 years? When we go 6-10 in 2023, what is our reaction? I think it would really be funny if Cincinnati took Tua and the guy who helped make that decision came to the same organization that takes Burrow as HC. I wonder if Alex Smith passes his physical if McCarthy still thinks Smith is better than Rodgers?

My fear is that Brown decides he'd rather have several first rounders and would trade down for a haul to someone who wants Young (say NY).

Thing is being upset that his rookie QB (who he is claiming was forced on him) played so great would fit the pattern he had displayed since he had been HC in Oakland. Also remember, one of his first steps as HC was to destroy the base system of a top 10 defense because HE had a harder time game planning against a 3-4. He did not even bring in a top-flight 3-4 DC to help with the transition.

Of course, Mike had multiple long term successful runs at Denver and only one seasons of suck the year after Elway retired and Davis only saw 4 games. He had issues at the Raiders but Al Davis liked a power run attack and throwing the ball deep. Two big egos with diametrically opposed offensive philosophies. Snyder had hired only one coach who led a team to the playoffs twice (and this coach was also a very successful coach), never had 3 multiple good years in a row or even just 4 multiple non-suck years in a row (until 2015 to 2018) with one coach (interestingly he oversaw 4 straight non-suck years with coaches form 1999 to 2002). It is really about patterns. Now, I do question Mike's veracity for other reasons including what you said and Mike's pattern of butting heads (the Al Davis thing and the fact that a major reason Denver fired him was that the owner wanted the team back).

A 1991 offense could effectively game plan out a stud DE. Of course, planning is easy, execution is why you win SBs.

I agree that this is why we might be able to get our hopes up. I don't think we have any holes that we don't have the resources to fill. I do think we have lots of question marks though. My two biggest questions are will Haskins continue to develop or was the end of the year fools gold? How bad was our defensive system versus our personnel? In 2004 we either downgraded (Bailey to Springs? Plan B Mike?), brought in a question marks (couple of potential rising stars but not proven) or made no moves. Main obvious uograde was the defensive system and Sean Taylor (who was a huge character question mark himself). However, I am now more in show me mode as this team has dashed my hopes too many times! Further, Rivera has never really impressed me as a coach. While his best teams were very good, he never lead a team to multiple winning seasons.

While the 49ers defense took a big jump this year much of their success is really due to better performance on the offensive side and more than Nick Bosa was added to the defense anyway. Offensively, they were much better in the RZ (albeit are still mediocre but enough to explain much of their increased scoring), turn the ball over significantly less and convert more third down opportunities to increase their TOP. Further, much of our defensive problems this year were directly attributable to an offense that could not stay on the field (lots of 3 and outs, turnovers and dysfunction in the RZ).

Remember the San Fran narrative. This is actually not quite true. Had San Fran's offense been as good last year in the red zone and short area this year along with the health of Jimmy G and the step back by LA, they would likely have been a wild card team in 2018 or at least one of the last teams missing the playoffs. While the San Fran narrative has indications of not being quite true, I could see that given this narrative and the narrative of the Mike Brown being cheap along with his defacto GM status. The possibility of having multiple quality starters playing on rookie contracts in 2022 and 2023 would probably be a cheap way to maximize revenues would be a very strong carrot to dangle in front of Brown,

From Gruden's perspective, getting to put Sims on regular season IR and having Quick still available might be sort of blessing in disguise. Not personally sure of this, but I understand that Gruden considers Quick an excellent special teams guy and an adequate 4 or 5 while Sims was an unproven 5 (loads of potential maybe good enough to claw his way up) and an adequate teams guy. If he wants to be that run first team and being certain we can replace Crowder, Trey Quinn looks to be the guy that we'd miss (though I've never seen anything that would cast doubt on to Sims blocking ability).

Catch rate doesn't really mean crap for a WR as the targets include non-catchable throws (for example, when the QB is just throwing the ball out of the end zone), badly thrown passes. More importantly he had 6 TD including 4 in the red zone. His catching does not concern me what concerns me is his route running (another reason someone might have a lot of non-catchable targets) and his blocking (or lack thereof).

Crowder dropped big-time in the return game, but as a WR, his season was just a little worse than his norm. Most of his drop off as a WR probably comes from the fact that Pryor+Docston was not even close to Garcon+Jackson while Reed was 50% less available (usually if you cover him properly, Crowder will be open, its just a matter of getting the ball there). Thompson also created a lot of mismatches that Crowder could take advantage of. Docston showed in flashes last year. Of the receivers, only Vernon Davis got more snaps. He also has shown that he could be a huge red-zone threat and is a much better deep ball guy than most people think (well, DJax did spoil us here). Richardson has shown potential. Harris has shown he at least has the potential to replace Ryan Grant and may prove better. Quinn has shown he is competitive and looks to have potential and is a good blocker. Sims is a physical freak who could end up creating lots of mismatches. Vernon Davis can still beat most safety coverage. While not a great blocker, you lose a LB against him. Reeds biggest issue is health. He will kill you if healthy. Thompson is the devil in the backfield.

Not saying PS Simms but even if we keep him on the 53, he won't see game time this year unless we get unlucky (I'd even be surprised if he gets activated unless we have injury at WR). Taking Jordan Reed's (or Vernon Davis) position would let him see the field next year which he won't unless Richardson or Docston are busts. Only other way to get playing time would be if he is an excellent blocker (does look like I might be a better blocker than Doc, Richardson or Crowder). Remember Quick was our 5 last year and only played in 11 games (several misses were due to injury but he would have been inactive anyway) despite being an important ST guy. Harris was promoted mostly because Pryor was hurt and looks to have fought his way up to number 4. Unless his injury is more severe than is being let on and the coaches can be believed (versatile enough to backup all 3 WR slots and has been impressive in camp) , Harris is a lock for a 4 spot because that means you only have to have 4 active on most Sundays if Stroman or Johnson somehow got PR duties. Harris has also done both KR and PR duty. I don't know why fans are enamored with Quinn either but that is not relevant. The coaches seem to see him as the primary PR guy (as opposed to Stroman or Johnson who would make more sense to me, see above). He gets more snaps with the number ones than all but the three starting WR. Now, he does look like the best blocker of our WR group (which may be why he was in for the AP plays) and he may really be a placeholder for Harris. Haven't really had time to look at Cam Simms as a blocker but I'd expect he is decent. If Crowder, Stroman or Johnson do end up doing PRs while Harris is healthy, I won't be surprised if Quinn doesn't even make the PS.

I really suspect that Paul was moved to TE more because he wasn't showing he'd be a decent 4th WR but was a guy you want active Sunday for teams.

Simms seems to have a frame that could take about 15-20 pounds. I wonder if he could take over for Jordan Reed since Reed is basically a WR listed as TE. Don't know if he could block but he can't be much worse than Reed at it.

He wasn't number one for most of the season though he was far and away our best red zone receiving threat. At first we tried Pryor. Crowder was primary in a several. Even Vernon Davis was primary in at least one. Also, there is a knock on Cousins that he is not good at throwing the types of passes Docston is best at catching. AP was mad a Docston (he didn't directly address that it was Docston but I just watched the highlights) for not maintaining a block on AP's 13 yard run. AP believes he might have taken that one to the house if Doc keeps his block. For as big as he is, Docston's main fail seems to be in the blocking department.

I just picked Taylor because if we cut him, I am pretty certain he will be available later. Figuring out guys who you can cut and will almost certainly be available later is a way to extend your roster. Mo plays teams already. Both are not 100% but I definitely think you keep Mo over Quick if that is an issue. Quick also one who has a lower chance of catching on with another team so may be a candidate for roster expansion but that is very risky, As far as not looking good catching the ball, we must not be talking about the same guy. OK, he hasn't looked great but he has been serviceable and has played quite a few snaps with the number ones. I do not think we allow Crowder to return punts and Trey looks to be the guy we've decided to have to do that. The primary use of PS is not about stashing guys, it is a way to expand your roster.

Why do people seem to have this injury fantasy about Doctston? Docston played in all 16 games last season and was on the field more often than all but 4 other guys (and all but 1 of those guys are guys that should get nearly 100% of the snaps!).

I think Trey Quinn makes it as he looks like he is now our primary PR and he does get snaps with the first team, From everything I've heard, unless Mo Harris' is worse off than we think (then we may IR him), he's pretty much a lock for number 4. We may actually keep 6 wr on the final 53 since we also have guys like Phil Taylor who we probably could cut and will be available later if needed.

But I did hope Marko Mitchell would be somewhat analogous to Rod Smith. Bronco's had only an aging Miller as their top guy and a couple of journeyman (although McCaffrey did make a good #2 to Rod Smith's #1). I also remember hoping that Todd Hugesack would become the next Kurt Warner or Jordan Palmer would turn into the next Tom Brady.

Huh? Just saying that all true fans of a team desperate for a young, quality WR, hope that some UDFA or low round guy is the next Rod Smith. Marko Mitchell was that guy that true fans put their hope in even though there was really no evidence that he even had the potential. Currently we have at least 4 guys with that have actually have shown potential to be that guy.

Marko Mitchell was a draft pick on a team with only one WR who was any good and he was 30. The others included a guy whose football IQ was lower than a box of rocks, a gimp and a guy who never lived up to his billing. Even the most positive polly needed somebody to put their hope in. This year we have a guy whose done at least a solid job as a slot guy, another guy who was one of our prize FA acquisitions, a guy who looks to be on the verge of breaking out and another who has done pretty amazing things himself. Simms becoming just a solid 53rd guy would be a bonus.

You only get two but you don't have to designate anybody. They do need to make the final 53 though.

No, there really is no such enforceable rule. What limits this is cap management (IRed players still count to cap), IRed players can't practice with the team and can't even attend meetings (there is a 6 week rule if the player makes the final 53, IIRC). It is also season ending unless the player is put on IR after he makes the 53 then it is 8 weeks before the player can return to active. I also think it is considered a year for contract purposes (that may only be true if he hits the 53). Of course, some of the details may have changed.

@Malapropismic Depository Says the NFL has been fixing games since about 2000. In 2005, I think the NFL would have wanted the 'Skins to beat Tampa. Would have likely ended up with a re-match between Seattle and Washington for the NFC Championship followed by a possible re-match in the SB along with a Portis versus Champ story line or a SB match up between two of the NFL's oldest franchises.

Before 1999, lots of negative press about the Redskins, we win the division. Going into 2005, negative press abounded. Going into 2015, lots of negatives in the press with the only thing done that got any positive reviews was hiring Scott. The negative Dan Snyder stories seem to be true and, unlike the Squire who also was subject to a lot of negative stories, the team sucks. Dan had no more football IQ than the average fan but was playing GM like Jerry who had played at a relatively high level with several guys who would go on to be future elites at leading and building football teams. Even Gibbs could do no more than turn us from a disaster to a level of mediocrity. In 2000, we used our injury card badly (we lost two games, maybe 3, because Conway was out for the season) and have a history of flukes going against us since 1996 (first Dallas in 2000, at Cardinals, Tampa in the playoffs).