Preseason week 2 GDT: 49ers vs Texans

[Justone2]

I feel with Taylor he just gets his yards without really being flashy. Same is with him as a receiver. He doesn't do very flashy things but he is so twitchy and surehanded that he is a very reliable slot receiver that is very crafty in the little things.

[757-NINER]

2 hours ago, rudyZ said:

I mean more in a playing time sense. Eli is using a roster spot and reps, and doesn't seem to have any upside. I know, everything's possible, but are we really on a superbowl run this year? Do we need Eli's adequateness, or do we need upside? I mean, Dekoda Watson has more upside than Eli. And he's more sound technically and assignment-wise than Pita. So, do we really still need Eli? Or could we afford to let him go, and give important reps to a raw player who has more upside? I don't know how much better Pita can get on the PS. It's preseason, throw him in there against the 2s, instead of the 3s, just to get better game tape on him (which comes back to something I mentioned, are we only playing him against 3s so there's no decent tape on him, so we can stash him on the PS more easily?). I just don't see what we're learning about guys like Eli and Dekoda by playing them, as opposed as what we could learn about Pita by playing him instead. 

I hope Marsh and Sneeze will be good enough, but so far, they have failed to make any visible impact, in my opinion. 

Okay so what's Pita's upside though? I mean I could see if he flashed or had a play or two where you thought, "man, I'd like to see more of him". But I haven't seen anything that warrants more opportunities. I remember watching some of the 1 on 1 pass-rush drills on different days and I was playing very close attention to Pita. Because he's always been viewed as a pass-rusher/Leo first, LB second. Wanted to see if he looked improved, added more to his aresnal...was he stronger, quicker, etc. But I came away unimpressed and slightly disappointed. I didn't see anything substantially better than what I'd seen previously. He didn't stand out in either pre-season game. And the fact that I haven't read one single positive review on him by any of beat writers at the open pratices leads to believe that my eyes weren't deceiving me. I don't recall anyone mentioning Pita as being improved or making plays. Ive heard/read about Harold, Marsh, Attachou, Blair even Watson at some point in these early days of TC. I thought Watson looked pretty good in those same drills, rushing the passer. And he's been a legitimate, space LB his entire pro career so if he can improve in that aspect and it's noticable, I really have to question why Pita hasnt shown much improvement.

It's one thing to want to see more because he shows potential but just to see him because you dont like the guys in front of him on the depth chart, though they seem to be better football players at every turn, just doesn't seem plausible. His play to this point is that of a fringe roster player. In terms of his production/skill-set, he's excatly where he should be in terms of playing time IMO.

I think Watson, Harold and Marsh are all competing@SAM so that's why those guys have gotten most of the reps at SAM. I think Harold makes the most sense there because he's seems to be the better coverage guy but I don't think it's set in stone at all. And Marsh, Attachou, and Watson are all getting reps at Leo to see which guys fit best with certain personnel/packages. Who's better at RE versus LE in the nickel, who looks better in base if Thomas has to play big end, etc. I think they're doing their due diligence with those guys so it's just not alot of opportunities for Pita to get extended looks. There are still personnel decisions up for grabs by guys who will play meaniful snaps on Sundays. 

 

[big9erfan]

4 hours ago, Forge said:

These are all punt returning figures: 

Arizona had about a 2:1 split. 

Denver was about 50/50

Houston didn't have a single punt returner over 10 attempts (this is mitigated by injury, I don't know what their structure would have been had Fuller and Ervin been healthy the full season). 

Hell, even in detroit, who had the best punt returner in football, TJ jones still got 10 returns. 

The Rams had probably the second best returner in Cooper, and Austin still got 25% of the returns. 

Miami had about a 3:1 split. 

The Saints were 32:24 between Kamara and Ginn

The Bucs were 21:13. 

Pitt had a 3:2 split. 

Carolina was about 55/45 in their split on punt returns. 

The Jets were 50/50

Etc etc. 

And yes, there are plenty of teams that also have a single returner. All I'm saying is that this idea isn't absolutely crazy or anything like that, and there's nothing wrong with making Pettis earn it. 

But it's not clear how many of those were coach's choice vs injury related. Even an injury to a guy other than the returner might cause him to lose the job if the coach thinks the risk of injury is too great and he's already down a key receiver or dB. I'm with J. When you've got one of the best returners n the history of college football that's the guy you use. 

[Forge]

16 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

When you've got one of the best returners n the history of college football that's the guy you use

Seems like flawless logic. Antonio Perkins will be stoked to know that he's bound for greatness in the NFL as a returner. 

 

[big9erfan]

On 8/19/2018 at 9:35 AM, Forge said:

I love this argument because it insinuates that the list of guys who washed out because they don't have the physical tools (or were even given a chance in the first place)  isn't impossibly long as well 

No. That's not my point because guys that don't have great arms don't then automatically lack physical tools. There's a huge middle ground between "great arm" and "inadequate arm". That's why I mentioned Joe. He didn't have a great arm, but nobody ever thought he was lacking in physical tools. His arm was in that huge middle ground. But his head was as good as it gets. Sure guys that truly lack physical tools don't have much of a chance. But a guy with merely a decent NFL arm and a great head probably has a better chance than a guy with a great arm and no head for the game. FWIW if I had to choose between great arm and OK head or great head and OK arm I'd take the latter. That's why I was agreeing that head > arm. 

[Forge]

9 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

No. That's not my point because guys that don't have great arms don't then automatically lack physical tools. There's a huge middle ground between "great arm" and "inadequate arm". That's why I mentioned Joe. He didn't have a great arm, but nobody ever thought he was lacking in physical tools. His arm was in that huge middle ground. But his head was as good as it gets. Sure guys that truly lack physical tools don't have much of a chance. But a guy with merely a decent NFL arm and a great head probably has a better chance than a guy with a great arm and no head for the game. FWIW if I had to choose between great arm and OK head or great head and OK arm I'd take the latter. That's why I was agreeing that head > arm. 

And that's why your post isn't relevant...my point on Mullens is that he doesn't have an adequate arm for the NFL level in my opinion. 

Completely changes the context, yeah? Maybe that wasn't evident in the way I posted, not sure. That could be my bad. 

If you have a functional arm (accuracy and strength), I'll take you as a backup over the guy who has a cannon but lacks the head. As a starter, I'd probably switch that around, but depends on the players to be honest. 

[big9erfan]

13 minutes ago, Forge said:

Seems like flawless logic. Antonio Perkins will be stoked to know that he's bound for greatness in the NFL as a returner. 

 

I have no idea how this applies to what I said. Pettis is one of the best returners in the history of college football. That's why I think he should be our returner. If there's some problem with that logic you'll have try again to explain to me what it is. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, big9erfan said:

I have no idea how this applies to what I said. Pettis is one of the best returners in the history of college football. That's why I think he should be our returner. If there's some problem with that logic you'll have try again to explain to me what it is. 

So was Antonio Perkins. That's whose record Pettis broke as a punt returner for career touchdowns (his and Welker's) He never returned a punt in the NFL. 

Let's say you want something a little more applicable (like, mainly a guy that could actually play in the NFL). That  would be Javier Arenas, also one of the GOAT punt returners in college football history. He spent 3 years as a primary punt returner in the NFL. He did have one very good season, but book ended that with averages that were 18th and 20th in the NFL in return yard average then that was it.. Never returned a punt for a touchdown. All time great in college does not make you great at the NFL level, even for a punt returner. McKelvin would be another. Had one truly great season as a punt returner, two additional below average ones, and he also was a great punt returner in college. We have a pretty good returner back there now. There is no harm in making him earn it as there is certainly no guarantee that he is better. Taylor is not sexy, but more than 2/3rd's of the league wasn't able to put out someone as good as he was last year in the role. Typically, great punt returns have a history of excelling at the role in the NFL, but its certainly not a guarantee. 

[big9erfan]

18 minutes ago, Forge said:

And that's why your post isn't relevant...my point on Mullens is that he doesn't have an adequate arm for the NFL level in my opinion. 

Completely changes the context, yeah? Maybe that wasn't evident in the way I posted, not sure. That could be my bad. 

If you have a functional arm (accuracy and strength), I'll take you as a backup over the guy who has a cannon but lacks the head. As a starter, I'd probably switch that around, but depends on the players to be honest. 

Someone said head > arm. The first thing in your response was "wish that was true". I was explaining why I think it is true. Seemed totally relevant to me..

I think I value the mental aspect of a qb's game more than you do. I think there is as big a difference in guys' mental abilities as in their arm strength. Even in this last post of yours above  you mentioned a qb with a functional arm without talking about his mental game. And without  considering his mental capabilities you relegated him to a backup role. I'm saying that if he has a  "functional arm" and the equivalent of a "cannon" in the mental aspects of the game that guy is going to be much better than an OK backup. I think you just relegated Joe Montana to a backup role. There was nothing at all "special" about his arm. The mental part of his game was Joe's "cannon". 

[Forge]

2 hours ago, big9erfan said:

Someone said head > arm. The first thing in your response was "wish that was true". I was explaining why I think it is true. Seemed totally relevant to me..

But it was in regards to Mullens specifically - it wasn't a broad spectrum comment. 

2 hours ago, big9erfan said:

I think I value the mental aspect of a qb's game more than you do. I think there is as big a difference in guys' mental abilities as in their arm strength. Even in this last post of yours above  you mentioned a qb with a functional arm without talking about his mental game. And without  considering his mental capabilities you relegated him to a backup role. I'm saying that if he has a  "functional arm" and the equivalent of a "cannon" in the mental aspects of the game that guy is going to be much better than an OK backup. I think you just relegated Joe Montana to a backup role. There was nothing at all "special" about his arm. The mental part of his game was Joe's "cannon". 

Actually need to edit this - you were correct, I did indicate functional arm in my last post. That was a mistake to some extent. The initial comments were made about an inadequate arm, not a functional one (again, it was Mullens specific - whom I believe has an inadequate arm for the NFL) and that is an absolutely important distinction to make, because I don't think you have major issues with a functional arm. Maybe a limited ceiling, but maybe not. I would prefer the stronger arm with a decent head, and I'll take that over a functional arm with a good head. So in that situation, you may value the mental game more than I do, that could very well be the case. If I have to choose one or the other - a good head / bad arm or a bad head with a good arm, I'd take the good head as my back up, the bad head as a guy I can groom. If you gave me a functional arm with a good head or a functional head with a good arm, I'd probably do the same, but again, player specific, so i could vary. 

Damn, I got all sorts of turned around in this conversation. 

For a functional arm, yes, I know what you're saying. And that would be player dependent to be honest, as I indicated. I advocated Smith > Kaep in 2012 (obviously was on board with cutting ties with Smith after the season), but Kaep > Hoyer last year. 

So in summation, here is my opinion on the matter- 

I do think that physical tools matter to the NFL more than mental capacity does. That's independent of whatever I believe (which was the initial post).

I believe that Mullens lacks even a functional NFL arm to truly compete at this level. He's on the smallish side, he doesn't push the ball with a ton of force, I think he'd get eaten alive trying to fit balls into windows. I think Beathard lacks an NFL arm as well - not because he lacks velocity in the truest sense - but because he doesn't consistently utilize the force behind the throw and he's so woefully inconsistently inaccurate. Unfortunately to me, he doesn't have a true redeeming quality in his arm (again, this is going back to my initial post)

If we are talking about a broad spectrum, then there are conditions and it could vary by player. A functional arm with a great head has a solid floor, but a questionable ceiling. An all time great can still be an all time great, however. I don't know that it's as likely or less likely as someone with a great arm and a functional head (Marino made it work), but I don't know how you quantify a comparison there, so I'm not really going to debate that point. There's also variation there. Like, Brees never really had a cannon the way Marino did, but his accuracy was incredible...does that make the arm great? I would think so, and that's the way I view it. That's an extreme example though, because Brees' arm, while not Marino like, was still solid and not just "functional".  So there's some things that would have to be more readily defined in what makes up what.  

If we are talking about one or the other - you have a player with a good head and a bad arm (below the mendoza line, if you will), or a bad head with a good arm, I'll take the former as my backup, the latter as my potential starter and hope to work around his limitations. If I could only have one, for whatever reason and had to choose, I'll take the guy with the physical upside. I think it's easier to be effective with the latter if you're in the right situation. If we are talking about each one being adequate in one function and great in the other, that'd be a little more dependent on different factors, and though I think my slant would be still toward the guy with the arm, it's closer.  If you have a powerful arm, but an inaccurate one, that does me know good. So the arm has to be the full package. So you could absolutely value the mental aspect more than me in that regard. I do think that great head + functional arm can get you an all time great, though I would counter that I think if you have the functional arm, your accuracy needs to be better than just functional. 

But I do think that this works not that dissimilarly to a graph, tbh. Your all time greats are still coming from 2 main quadrants (if x-axis is physical talent / arm and y axis is mental acuity). 

I get too hyped up in trying to be good with the vocabulary sometimes and don't consider how some words will come across. 

Now damnit Big, stop carrying on two debates with me at the same time while I'm working! Clearly my pea sized melon can't handle that level of thinking!

[big9erfan]

10 minutes ago, Forge said:

So was Antonio Perkins. That's whose record Pettis broke as a punt returner for career touchdowns (his and Welker's) He never returned a punt in the NFL. 

Let's say you want something a little more applicable (like, mainly a guy that could actually play in the NFL). That  would be Javier Arenas, also one of the GOAT punt returners in college football history. He spent 3 years as a primary punt returner in the NFL. He did have one very good season, but book ended that with averages that were 18th and 20th in the NFL in return yard average then that was it.. Never returned a punt for a touchdown. All time great in college does not make you great at the NFL level, even for a punt returner. McKelvin would be another. Had one truly great season as a punt returner, two additional below average ones, and he also was a great punt returner in college. We have a pretty good returner back there now. There is no harm in making him earn it as there is certainly no guarantee that he is better. Taylor is not sexy, but more than 2/3rd's of the league wasn't able to put out someone as good as he was last year in the role. Typically, great punt returns have a history of excelling at the role in the NFL, but its certainly not a guarantee. 

OK. For me this is simple. Not every great college qb becomes a great NFL qb. Not every great college wr becomes a great NFL wr. And certainly not every great college returner becomes a great NFL returner. But if I'm building my depth chart I'm giving preference to guys that were great in college until they prove that confidence is misplaced. Of course if I've got a proven nfl star it's different. But, to me, Taylor doesn't qualify as proven nfl star returner. He's somewhere between OK and good. And that's for part of a single season. That's not going to keep me from giving the job to my rookie who was phenomenal at it in college.

FwiW I think it's hard to "earn" the pr job on the field. 4 preseason games. A few returns per game. Many of those unreturnable or just really well covered. If I split those reps between two guys I'm never going to see enough to separate them. So for that reason too I'm going with the guy who was great at int in college. 

 

[Forge]

7 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

OK. For me this is simple. Not every great college qb becomes a great NFL qb. Not every great college wr becomes a great NFL wr. And certainly not every great college returner becomes a great NFL returner. But if I'm building my depth chart I'm giving preference to guys that were great in college until they prove that confidence is misplaced. Of course if I've got a proven nfl star it's different. But, to me, Taylor doesn't qualify as proven nfl star returner. He's somewhere between OK and good. And that's for part of a single season. That's not going to keep me from giving the job to my rookie who was phenomenal at it in college.

FwiW I think it's hard to "earn" the pr job on the field. 4 preseason games. A few returns per game. Many of those unreturnable or just really well covered. If I split those reps between two guys I'm never going to see enough to separate them. So for that reason too I'm going with the guy who was great at int in college. 

 

Okay, and this is all well and good. I can totally understand and appreciate this, particularly about Taylor not being a star. We are on the same page there. I can even agree to some extent about the "it's tough to earn the job", because there are limited opportunities and that is the best argument I have heard for not splitting it or making him earn it. I may not necessarily agree with it right off, I still like the idea of starting them off together, but as I stated in a previous post, probably my overly cautious nature talking. 

[mw2noobbuster]

I'm not adding anything of substance but I love the 2-page argument on punt returning and third string QB's. 

[Forge]

16 minutes ago, mw2noobbuster said:

I'm not adding anything of substance but I love the 2-page argument on punt returning and third string QB's. 

I'm feisty

[TecmoSuperJoe]

I'm guessing Jeff Wilson isn't going to even make the practice squad.Even if he does shine in the final two games with some more chances to prove himself. He looked good in limited action late in the game. Even with, and against scrubs it's better to show something compare to nothing. Williams, Morris, Mosert, and McNichols all seem ahead of him on the pecking order for that third spot behind McKinnon, and Brieda.