AustrianNiner Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said: You annoy me................... I mean if the Steelers really take a third for him I'd be kinda fine, but I can't see that. It's weird, there's a top 5 receiver available who wants to be here and yet I really can't be happy with acquiring him though lol. Edited January 25, 2019 by AustrianNiner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 35 minutes ago, NinerNation21 said: At the time of the trade, I was in High School and didn't really understand the intricacies of the NFL (outside of what I could do in Madden) like I do now. At the time, I was primarily mad that T.O. was going to my best friend's team, now, I look back and think what a stupid trade that was. I don't think the Niners had a ton of leverage in the situation because of T.O.'s mouth and personality, but still, that's a trash trade. 13 minutes ago, NinerNation21 said: Please, enlighten us. Okay, so basically the reason we didn't have leverage was because he was going to win his dispute over being considered a FA or not. It was a total mess that was botched by all sides. But before our trade with Philly, Owens was going to be considered a FA and we would have lost him for nothing. But he BADLY wanted to go to a team like Philly and there ended up being a three team trade where everyone (BAL/SF/Philly) ended up getting something. Don't forget, the original trade with the Ravens netted us a 2nd rounder for TO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NcFinest9erFan Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said: Okay, so basically the reason we didn't have leverage was because he was going to win his dispute over being considered a FA or not. It was a total mess that was botched by all sides. But before our trade with Philly, Owens was going to be considered a FA and we would have lost him for nothing. But he BADLY wanted to go to a team like Philly and there ended up being a three team trade where everyone (BAL/SF/Philly) ended up getting something. Don't forget, the original trade with the Ravens netted us a 2nd rounder for TO. How was he going to be a FA? I guess that's the part I never got because he still had a couple of years left on his deal with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinerNation21 Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said: Okay, so basically the reason we didn't have leverage was because he was going to win his dispute over being considered a FA or not. It was a total mess that was botched by all sides. But before our trade with Philly, Owens was going to be considered a FA and we would have lost him for nothing. But he BADLY wanted to go to a team like Philly and there ended up being a three team trade where everyone (BAL/SF/Philly) ended up getting something. Don't forget, the original trade with the Ravens netted us a 2nd rounder for TO. I remember bits and pieces of all of that, but thanks for the big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, NcFinest9erFan said: How was he going to be a FA? I guess that's the part I never got because he still had a couple of years left on his deal with us? Because it was set in his contact that he could have voided the last three years and become a UFA. The entire dispute was from the date the agent was supposed to exercise the clause. Supposedly the deadline was sometime in February I believe, but his agent said it was in March that led to the entire sh^t storm. The NFL originally told us he was still a Niner because he didn't file his paperwork in time and we traded him to the Ravens. Obviously Owens and his agent disputed that and they were going to win their case. Then the Ravens knew they were going to lose him for nothing so all parties agreed on a trade where they would at least get something. Made the best out of a terrible situation. But it's COMPLETELY false to say we were only able to get a 5th rounder because Owens was such a loud mouth trouble maker. No, we actually received a 2nd rounder from the Ravens. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, AustrianNiner said: I mean if the Steelers really take a third for him I'd be kinda fine, but I can't see that. It's weird, there's a top 5 receiver available who wants to be here and yet I really can't be happy with acquiring him though lol. He's a bit of a tool, no doubt. But we need that type of talent on the team, that's for sure. I just feel like we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more behind the likes of the Rams / Chiefs of the world than others, I guess. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NcFinest9erFan Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 28 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said: Because it was set in his contact that he could have voided the last three years and become a UFA. The entire dispute was from the date the agent was supposed to exercise the clause. Supposedly the deadline was sometime in February I believe, but his agent said it was in March that led to the entire sh^t storm. The NFL originally told us he was still a Niner because he didn't file his paperwork in time and we traded him to the Ravens. Obviously Owens and his agent disputed that and they were going to win their case. Then the Ravens knew they were going to lose him for nothing so all parties agreed on a trade where they would at least get something. Made the best out of a terrible situation. But it's COMPLETELY false to say we were only able to get a 5th rounder because Owens was such a loud mouth trouble maker. No, we actually received a 2nd rounder from the Ravens. Wow that's crazy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 https://www.ninersnation.com/2019/1/24/18196478/49ers-coaching-staff-medical-trainer-strength-coach-new-role This makes a lot of sense. I like the reasoning behind this move. I'm sure @J-ALL-DAY is happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 29 minutes ago, N4L said: https://www.ninersnation.com/2019/1/24/18196478/49ers-coaching-staff-medical-trainer-strength-coach-new-role This makes a lot of sense. I like the reasoning behind this move. I'm sure @J-ALL-DAY is happy Time will tell, but good start for sure. A change was necessary. Looks we have signed our new QBs coach: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 14 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said: Time will tell, but good start for sure. A change was necessary. Looks we have signed our new QBs coach: Really not sure how I feel about poaching former Dolphin coaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 32 minutes ago, Forge said: Really not sure how I feel about poaching former Dolphin coaches To me it doesn't even matter when it comes to offense. Shanny will spend his fair share of time with the QBs like he always does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudyZ Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Forge said: Really not sure how I feel about poaching former Dolphin coaches That was my first thought as well, but more in jest than anything else. Good coaches end up on bad teams all the time. Jim Tomsula spent how many years on our team before we had any kind of success? It was definitely not on him. Ironically, perhaps, Shane Day was on our staff during these same years. Who knows how good of a coach he really is. And as @J-ALL-DAY said, Kyle is really the QB coach. I imagine he's there for every QB meetings and he stands behind the QB on every rep in practice. Day is there to share the load of responsibilities, and if we're to lose either or both McDaniels and Lafleur next offseason, he should perhaps get involved in the game planning aspect of things. But no matter what happens, it's Kyle's offense, and he's the one coach we can't afford to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John232 Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Garcon reportedly not going to be a 49er next year. Not a surprise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, John232 said: Garcon reportedly not going to be a 49er next year. Not a surprise. Supposedly it is not true....I mean the reports he won't be 49er next year. Like he won't, but ESPN or someone else took a quote from Shanahan that wasn't accurate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erurtaza Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts