2023 NFL offseason

[John232]

JTO said something about shanny? Seeing drama on twitter, need to verify the tea here 

[757-NINER]

1 hour ago, John232 said:

JTO said something about shanny? Seeing drama on twitter, need to verify the tea here 

Basically said Shanny puts his QBs in harm's way from flawed play designs/schemes. Broke down each one of the plays on which Lance, Jimmy, Brock and Josh Johnson were all injured and how flawed the play design was.

Also said the drop-back passing game is redundant and hasn't evolved since his dad's days in Denver. 

He made some valid points and do respect JT's view on offensive football.

He feels like Shanny's run design is next level but his passing game design is archaic and doesn't match the current landscape of modern football. He's not the first person I heard say something similar so I don't really see what all the uproar is for.

[John232]

Say what you want about Cohn, but I appreciate him holding shanny, lynch accountable. 
 

if the Lance thing doesn’t workout and Darnold is truly the #2 it’s hard to say this isn’t one of the worst trade ups in nfl history, behind only the saints.  I’m not sure I agree with Grant that the FO feels completely out on Lance, but if Paxton Lynch ends up getting more runway to become a starter than Lance did, then it’s nothing but an abject failure. Striking good on Purdy (which they had no idea he’d be that good) does not undo  the god awful handling of Trey Lance.

agree with Cohn on a lot of his takes on this situation, no 100%, but a lot of it. And it’s stuff we’ve been calling out on this board long before he/pundits called out. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by John232

[oldman9er]

4 minutes ago, John232 said:

Say what you want about Cohn

I have been listening to guys like Krueger, Cohns, , Matts, and Lombardi plenty over the last few? months now. 

I was liking the Grant pods so-so, but it's been more of an eye roll lately, imho. 

the few things I get mildly annoyed at: 

consistent obsession of anti-Kyle 

HIS admitted desire to pump up young QBs simply due to skin color, which leads to his obsession over Lance, while ignoring the Sunk Cost Fallacy, at this point.

his desire to harp on the possible negatives vs given positives.. in a clear effort to generate drama for clicks...

Again, just my observations.. no one forces us to click into these trivial things.

 

 

[John232]

1 minute ago, oldman9er said:

I have been listening to guys like Krueger, Cohns, , Matts, and Lombardi plenty over the last few? months now. 

I was liking the Grant pods so-so, but it's been more of an eye roll lately, imho. 

the few things I get mildly annoyed at: 

consistent obsession of anti-Kyle 

HIS admitted desire to pump up young QBs simply due to skin color, which leads to his obsession over Lance, while ignoring the Sunk Cost Fallacy, at this point.

his desire to harp on the possible negatives vs given positives.. in a clear effort to generate drama for clicks...

Again, just my observations.. no one forces us to click into these trivial things.

 

 

Totally agree. I was heading into eye rolling when he starts speculating on things he has no real idea on. But i at lesser find grant to be a character. He definitely has his anti Kyle bone going on, but he oddly gives him credit a lot of the time. But it’s clear he doesn’t like or respect the person that is Kyle. 
 

Middlekauf and have ran i like but it’s hard to tolerate Middlekauf when he gets his mind made up. Can’t stand his revisionist lance history.

[Forge]

 

[Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420]

14 hours ago, 757-NINER said:

Basically said Shanny puts his QBs in harm's way from flawed play designs/schemes. Broke down each one of the plays on which Lance, Jimmy, Brock and Josh Johnson were all injured and how flawed the play design was.

Also said the drop-back passing game is redundant and hasn't evolved since his dad's days in Denver. 

He made some valid points and do respect JT's view on offensive football.

He feels like Shanny's run design is next level but his passing game design is archaic and doesn't match the current landscape of modern football. He's not the first person I heard say something similar so I don't really see what all the uproar is for.

Well, I guess I'll have to watch the video now.  

I think if we are going to use a 6th blocker on a play, and it's not kittle, let's get a 285 lb specialist out there.

Before watching, I feel like saying Shanahan does things to put his qb's in peril seems fair.  Conversely, the passing game has been productive throughout most of  his time here.  Being able to operate the offense is more important than bringing variety.  

[Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420]

1 hour ago, oldman9er said:

I have been listening to guys like Krueger, Cohns, , Matts, and Lombardi plenty over the last few? months now. 

I was liking the Grant pods so-so, but it's been more of an eye roll lately, imho. 

the few things I get mildly annoyed at: 

consistent obsession of anti-Kyle 

HIS admitted desire to pump up young QBs simply due to skin color, which leads to his obsession over Lance, while ignoring the Sunk Cost Fallacy, at this point.

his desire to harp on the possible negatives vs given positives.. in a clear effort to generate drama for clicks...

Again, just my observations.. no one forces us to click into these trivial things.

 

 

I've found d Lombardi's greatest skill as a journalist is knowing exactly when I have a couple of extra hours for 9ers news.  Maiocco is conservative(term is used non-politically), but I still like his podcasts.

 

Also, does anyone know a word that is exactly like the term conservative, before it was applied to politics.  A new term for liberal would help too.  I just dint know if I should apply a lot if sunscreen, or if u should apply it politically.  

Anyway, what were we talking about?

 

Yeah, I think Lance needs reps.  I also don't think this 49ers team has reps available until Shanahan year 10. I think they have a really long term plan for Lance. 

Either he or Darnold will get a 4 game trial run, may the better player win!  I think Darnold's experience gives him the inside track, but Lance has knowledge of the system.  I also think they're both fighting for the 2 spot. 

[oldman9er]

1 hour ago, Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420 said:

Also, does anyone know a word that is exactly like the term conservative, before it was applied to politics.

lol, within this context, i would go with modest, mild-mannered, guarded... maybe even sober. Fits Lombardi well. 

Think: Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood from the 60's and 70's in direct comparison with Maiocco. Bet he's an awesome father to his girls. 

I won't even TOUCH the liberal part, not here, NO WAY. I won't even follow it up with a MEME or emoticon on my mind for such. NOT HERE. 

[Forge]

20 hours ago, 757-NINER said:

Basically said Shanny puts his QBs in harm's way from flawed play designs/schemes. Broke down each one of the plays on which Lance, Jimmy, Brock and Josh Johnson were all injured and how flawed the play design was.

Also said the drop-back passing game is redundant and hasn't evolved since his dad's days in Denver. 

He made some valid points and do respect JT's view on offensive football.

He feels like Shanny's run design is next level but his passing game design is archaic and doesn't match the current landscape of modern football. He's not the first person I heard say something similar so I don't really see what all the uproar is for.

I like JTO, but definitely some things to poke at here with the idea that Shanny's passing game is archaic. Greg Roman's passing offense is archaic and unimaginative. I get why people may think that Shanny's passing offense is uninspired given that he relies so much on simple route concepts and the like that are pretty standard and simple (We run a ton of in breakers and the like, for example), but Shanny also knows that they consistently work. There's no reason to fix what isn't broken, so what Shanny does is add his creativity pre snap in getting the matchups he wants and the position / route combinations that stress a specific defender. Both of these things put them out of position.  It's really hard to argue with what Shanny does given the results. He's basically fielded one of the most efficient passing offenses in the league with a lot of just okay starting QBs. Like, the last two years he's generating a higher dropback EPA than a team like Cincinnati who has one of the best QBs in the league along with one of the best 1-2 receiver punches in the NFL. They've been a top 5 passing offense over the last 4 years (by epa) and their best QB has been Jimmy. That's impressive. 

I do think that there's something to be said about the QB injuries and what's going on there, but given that they are so different in their happening, I'm not sure what can be gleaned from them. The UCLs are about as freakish as you can get all things considered, but after that the injuries are pretty random. Jimmy and RG3 popped knees on plays that were pretty harmless, and other injuries just have a lot to do with how QBs are just brought down. Schaub got driven into the ground on a sack which popped his shoulder (similar to Jimmy's injury in NE). Jimmy hurt his shoulder falling awkwardly while trying to protect his thumb against Dallas.  Jimmy's had multiple ankle injuries. The one against Miami (most recent) Jerome Baker's knee basically trapped Jimmy's ankle against the turf and snap. We see that injury often enough especially when get dragged down from behind (similar to the Tony Pollard injury, tbh, though it resulted in a broken leg and high ankle sprain). Jimmy's ankle sprain against the Jets was a big nothing burger in terms of scope of the play. He was in the pocket and got gobbled up the same field that took out 4 people that game - two to knees and two to ankles. The ones you can probably hang on him the most are the Lance injuries, and I definitely don't feel confident putting that second one on him (The cardinals one was bad though, imo...just no reason to run him that much while ignoring the running backs lol). 

If there's one thing that I do agree with Rob Guerrera on regarding Shanny though, is that he seems to be content with 'good enough'. Like, Shanny's offense is good enough so he doesn't need to change anything. Shanny's QBs have been good enough, so there's no reason to try Trey Lance when you know Purdy is "good enough". You don't need to go for those 4th and shorts because you know your offense is "good enough" even when he is as conservative as he is. There's a lot of arrogance and smugness with Kyle for sure. 

[Forge]

4 hours ago, John232 said:

Say what you want about Cohn, but I appreciate him holding shanny, lynch accountable. 
 

if the Lance thing doesn’t workout and Darnold is truly the #2 it’s hard to say this isn’t one of the worst trade ups in nfl history, behind only the saints.  I’m not sure I agree with Grant that the FO feels completely out on Lance, but if Paxton Lynch ends up getting more runway to become a starter than Lance did, then it’s nothing but an abject failure. Striking good on Purdy (which they had no idea he’d be that good) does not undo  the god awful handling of Trey Lance.

agree with Cohn on a lot of his takes on this situation, no 100%, but a lot of it. And it’s stuff we’ve been calling out on this board long before he/pundits called out. 

Going to disagree with the bolded - the result of their handling of Trey Lance is god awful, but that is  the result of a series of decisions and occurrences and not just a single one. That is where guys like Rob and Cohn lose the plot. Their handling at each point was fine with minimal issues from people. 

Lance got a case of Lemony Snicket, that's all. But taken as it's own decision, at the time,  there's nothing wrong with how they handled Trey Lance, and I say that as one of the most staunch advocates for wanting to play Lance right out of the chute. There was never a major uproar about rolling with Jimmy for that first year given how Lance raw was. I wanted to play Lance, but I felt that there was no wrong decision there either. I could certainly understand either choice. They knew Jimmy wasn't the long term answer, but there also wasn't a real reason to just move to Lance. So starting Jimmy? That's fine, whatever. 

Season 2...they move on with Trey. They gave him the job at that point. He didn't have to compete for it or anything. For as underwhelmed as they may have been by Trey at that point (just based on all the talk that came out last off season), they still gave him the keys because they knew Jimmy wasn't the long term answer. He had some NFL action and more practices, etc. The plan was going great and nobody was super upset by it. Okay, yes, they ultimately brought Jimmy back, and I hated that because I felt like they were possibly undermining Trey by not letting him go through the ups and downs. But objectively this was a fine move (he instantly became the best backup QB in the league for a good price), and now we have no idea now how that would have played out. That will always be an unanswerable question. Did the decision to bring him back undermine Lance? Ultimately no. Would it have? I have no idea. Would they have pulled Lance if he had started 2-4 or something? I can't say, so it's hard for me to hold a hypothetical against the decision. That was my main issue with it to start - that by bringing him back they may not have let Trey go through his development. 

During season 2, he gets hurt, Brock eventually comes in and plays well. He played good enough. He just did. I've made my feelings on Brock known in the past...I'm not sure I want him past his rookie deal or that he could keep this up without the roster he currently has...but that's an issue for three years from now. If he's going to play as he did, he's going to keep you competitive. If he's Jimmy at an 800K cap hit, it's one of the most valuable contracts in the league for the next 2-3 years. Trey couldn't play...they didn't bench him or anything. Brock's successful play after the fact has nothing to do with Trey and I think a lot of people (not you specifically) feel like it does. Brock just played well, I don't know what else to say. 

Year 3, Brock announced as the leader in the clubhouse. Here's the thing - the difference between he and Jimmy is that the team knew that Jimmy wasn't a longer term answer. They had hitched themselves to this plan of a rookie contract QB surrounded by talent. Brock, can be the long term answer. He has 3 years left on his deal and yes, I'm going to consider that "long term" (too much changes in the league over a 3 year period).  That's the main difference here - Jimmy was never the long term guy beyond his deal. Brock can be the guy over the rest of Lance's contract. So those acting like giving him the job over Jimmy in year 2 and not giving him the job over Brock in year three is inconsistent are simply incorrect in my opinion. These are two very separate decisions that have very different factors in play. 

I want to see Lance get a real shot, but the truth is that he's no longer needed in this regard (at least outside of being a back up or being contingency plan). Brock is "good enough" and he's also on the cheap deal. I think you can argue that the rookie deal is probably the most important thing here...that they don't really care who the QB is because they had this planned around the rookie deal regardless. Despite how much I would like to see Lance play and develop, it's really hard for me to say that they should fail Lance first before going back to a guy that they already feel pretty good about and has a bigger sample that is largely successful. Starting off slow can cost you that 1 seed and home field advantage, so I don't think the team wants to continue starting off slow. I do think that they should keep Brock on something of a leash while this plays itself out in the regular season given we don't know the consequences of his surgery, but I get the logic that they are going to make Brock fail before they give Trey the chance to fail. 

[Forge]

2 hours ago, Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420 said:

I've found d Lombardi's greatest skill as a journalist is knowing exactly when I have a couple of extra hours for 9ers news.  Maiocco is conservative(term is used non-politically), but I still like his podcasts.

 

Also, does anyone know a word that is exactly like the term conservative, before it was applied to politics.  A new term for liberal would help too.  I just dint know if I should apply a lot if sunscreen, or if u should apply it politically.  

Anyway, what were we talking about?

 

Yeah, I think Lance needs reps.  I also don't think this 49ers team has reps available until Shanahan year 10. I think they have a really long term plan for Lance. 

Either he or Darnold will get a 4 game trial run, may the better player win!  I think Darnold's experience gives him the inside track, but Lance has knowledge of the system.  I also think they're both fighting for the 2 spot. 

Neither word is restricted to politics. If you use either in a sentence or thought or what have you, that has nothing to do with politics, I would hope that someone would not infer their political application. 

[Forge]

"modest", "mild mannered", "guarded" are not adjectives I would have ever thought to hear used to describe David Lombardi

[John232]

30 minutes ago, Forge said:

Going to disagree with the bolded - the result of their handling of Trey Lance is god awful, but that is  the result of a series of decisions and occurrences and not just a single one. That is where guys like Rob and Cohn lose the plot. Their handling at each point was fine with minimal issues from people. 

Lance got a case of Lemony Snicket, that's all. But taken as it's own decision, at the time,  there's nothing wrong with how they handled Trey Lance, and I say that as one of the most staunch advocates for wanting to play Lance right out of the chute. There was never a major uproar about rolling with Jimmy for that first year given how Lance raw was. I wanted to play Lance, but I felt that there was no wrong decision there either. I could certainly understand either choice. They knew Jimmy wasn't the long term answer, but there also wasn't a real reason to just move to Lance. So starting Jimmy? That's fine, whatever. 

Season 2...they move on with Trey. They gave him the job at that point. He didn't have to compete for it or anything. For as underwhelmed as they may have been by Trey at that point (just based on all the talk that came out last off season), they still gave him the keys because they knew Jimmy wasn't the long term answer. He had some NFL action and more practices, etc. The plan was going great and nobody was super upset by it. Okay, yes, they ultimately brought Jimmy back, and I hated that because I felt like they were possibly undermining Trey by not letting him go through the ups and downs. But objectively this was a fine move (he instantly became the best backup QB in the league for a good price), and now we have no idea now how that would have played out. That will always be an unanswerable question. Did the decision to bring him back undermine Lance? Ultimately no. Would it have? I have no idea. Would they have pulled Lance if he had started 2-4 or something? I can't say, so it's hard for me to hold a hypothetical against the decision. That was my main issue with it to start - that by bringing him back they may not have let Trey go through his development. 

During season 2, he gets hurt, Brock eventually comes in and plays well. He played good enough. He just did. I've made my feelings on Brock known in the past...I'm not sure I want him past his rookie deal or that he could keep this up without the roster he currently has...but that's an issue for three years from now. If he's going to play as he did, he's going to keep you competitive. If he's Jimmy at an 800K cap hit, it's one of the most valuable contracts in the league for the next 2-3 years. Trey couldn't play...they didn't bench him or anything. Brock's successful play after the fact has nothing to do with Trey and I think a lot of people (not you specifically) feel like it does. Brock just played well, I don't know what else to say. 

Year 3, Brock announced as the leader in the clubhouse. Here's the thing - the difference between he and Jimmy is that the team knew that Jimmy wasn't a longer term answer. They had hitched themselves to this plan of a rookie contract QB surrounded by talent. Brock, can be the long term answer. He has 3 years left on his deal and yes, I'm going to consider that "long term" (too much changes in the league over a 3 year period).  That's the main difference here - Jimmy was never the long term guy beyond his deal. Brock can be the guy over the rest of Lance's contract. So those acting like giving him the job over Jimmy in year 2 and not giving him the job over Brock in year three is inconsistent are simply incorrect in my opinion. These are two very separate decisions that have very different factors in play. 

I want to see Lance get a real shot, but the truth is that he's no longer needed in this regard (at least outside of being a back up or being contingency plan). Brock is "good enough" and he's also on the cheap deal. I think you can argue that the rookie deal is probably the most important thing here...that they don't really care who the QB is because they had this planned around the rookie deal regardless. Despite how much I would like to see Lance play and develop, it's really hard for me to say that they should fail Lance first before going back to a guy that they already feel pretty good about and has a bigger sample that is largely successful. Starting off slow can cost you that 1 seed and home field advantage, so I don't think the team wants to continue starting off slow. I do think that they should keep Brock on something of a leash while this plays itself out in the regular season given we don't know the consequences of his surgery, but I get the logic that they are going to make Brock fail before they give Trey the chance to fail. 

I just ripped a massive bowl, but I want to respond back 

[Forge]

35 minutes ago, John232 said:

I just ripped a massive bowl, but I want to respond back 

😂