Minor Niner News Thread

[Forge]

Not going to lie...makes me a little sad

[y2lamanaki]

10 minutes ago, Forge said:

Not going to lie...makes me a little sad

To be honest, as much as I loved Bowman, he really only gave us 3 great seasons, and then one injury-hampered one. The others, he was injured or cut. I don't mind the 53 given out again. The 97 is the one that hurt. I think 21, 52, 74, and 97 should be off limits (74 obviously once Staley retires). I think 94 is a tough one to retire, because I can't say which of the two you would retire it for. Hopefully there's a third added to that list, as I still have hopes for Thomas to be a great now that he seems to fully be moved inside where he belongs. 

[Forge]

3 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

To be honest, as much as I loved Bowman, he really only gave us 3 great seasons, and then one injury-hampered one. The others, he was injured or cut. I don't mind the 53 given out again. The 97 is the one that hurt. I think 21, 52, 74, and 97 should be off limits (74 obviously once Staley retires). I think 94 is a tough one to retire, because I can't say which of the two you would retire it for. Hopefully there's a third added to that list, as I still have hopes for Thomas to be a great now that he seems to fully be moved inside where he belongs. 

Sure, it was largely 4 seasons, but man, they were great seasons. 4 time first team all pro (though the last one was sort of meh...that may have been name more than anything) . But the thing that really hurts about it, to be honest, is I love the guy. Hard worker, leader...I mean, completely shredded his knee in that conference championship and held on to the ball. I will revere him always and forever just for that play lol, even if the refs suck. 

[rudyZ]

I'm not really affected by #53 being used again. Even though Bowman was a great player for us, I never felt he had reached the next step, I don't know, the "iconic" stage. He made a few iconic plays, but as great as he was, I always felt he was a step below Pat Willis. Whenever people would liken the two to each other, pretty much considering them equals in our defenses, I would always see Pat do things on the field that no one else in the NFL did, not even Navorro. Maybe his career would have looked more iconic if he hadn't had to be on the field with Pat for most of it. So, personally, I was never really as invested in Bowman as I was in Willis, Justin Smith, and even Aldon, before he defecated on his career. 

And I'm not all that emotional about numbers anyway. I know there won't be another 52, but if there was one, I wouldn't shed a tear for Patrick. I just wouldn't care, honestly. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

Bowman at one point was absolutely on par with the guys you listed. His 2013 season was phenomenal and he should have won DPOY. The injury is obviously what killed everything and seemingly a potential HOF career that he was heading towards. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, rudyZ said:

I'm not really affected by #53 being used again. Even though Bowman was a great player for us, I never felt he had reached the next step, I don't know, the "iconic" stage. He made a few iconic plays, but as great as he was, I always felt he was a step below Pat Willis. Whenever people would liken the two to each other, pretty much considering them equals in our defenses, I would always see Pat do things on the field that no one else in the NFL did, not even Navorro. Maybe his career would have looked more iconic if he hadn't had to be on the field with Pat for most of it. So, personally, I was never really as invested in Bowman as I was in Willis, Justin Smith, and even Aldon, before he defecated on his career. 

And I'm not all that emotional about numbers anyway. I know there won't be another 52, but if there was one, I wouldn't shed a tear for Patrick. I just wouldn't care, honestly. 

Interesting. The problem is that their careers didn't overlap as much, but I thought Willis was slightly better in 2011, but after that, I thought Bowman in 12 and 13 was much better than Willis. Now, Willis had the better prime, but I Thought once they lined up against one another, Bowman was the superior backer in 2 out of the three. 

[y2lamanaki]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

Sure, it was largely 4 seasons, but man, they were great seasons. 4 time first team all pro (though the last one was sort of meh...that may have been name more than anything) . But the thing that really hurts about it, to be honest, is I love the guy. Hard worker, leader...I mean, completely shredded his knee in that conference championship and held on to the ball. I will revere him always and forever just for that play lol, even if the refs suck. 

Oh I agree with everything you said. The first-team all-pros (and like you, I sorta ignore the 2015 designation) proved he was phenomenal. But I don't have that reverence for him like I did other players simply because of the lack of longevity. 

[N4L]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

Interesting. The problem is that their careers didn't overlap as much, but I thought Willis was slightly better in 2011, but after that, I thought Bowman in 12 and 13 was much better than Willis. Now, Willis had the better prime, but I Thought once they lined up against one another, Bowman was the superior backer in 2 out of the three. 

2012 I think they were pretty even. They asked Willis to do a lot more dirty work and he was also utilized more in deep zone coverage while Bowman was kept free to roam and make plays. 2013 I don't think there was any question Bowman was the superior player but I think that was the beginning of Willis' injury that eventually forced his retirement. 

IMO Willis was the best LB to ever do it. He was a fundamental player who also had elite athletic ability. It's a damn shame guys like Gore and Willis never got a ring. 

[rudyZ]

1 hour ago, N4L said:

2012 I think they were pretty even. They asked Willis to do a lot more dirty work and he was also utilized more in deep zone coverage while Bowman was kept free to roam and make plays. 2013 I don't think there was any question Bowman was the superior player but I think that was the beginning of Willis' injury that eventually forced his retirement. 

IMO Willis was the best LB to ever do it. He was a fundamental player who also had elite athletic ability. It's a damn shame guys like Gore and Willis never got a ring. 

Yeah, I feel like Willis did more of the dirty work, and did all the underrated things, while at that point, Bowman was just superior physically. Pat had some wear and tear, but Bowman was a physical specimen in his own right. He was a more powerful athlete than Pat, and a better blitzer. He was always in the middle of the action, while Pat was kind of his safety. I've never seen a LB sniff out plays like Patrick did. Sometimes, on screen plays, I feel like he was holding back just enough to bait the QB into executing it, as if it was going to work, and then a fraction of a second later, Pat would just snipe the RB. He was on a different level as far as reading the play, and he happened to have that insane speed and tackling ability to complement it all. I feel there has been LBs who have had great instincts to compensate for limited athleticism. But Pat was the whole package. Bowman had the flashier assignments, because of blitzing ability and his physicality, in my opinion. I think he was a great LB, but still a notch below Willis. 

[oldman9er]

Neither could hold a candle to Derek Smith though. That stud was awesome at dragging down RBs in the 2nd level. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

3 hours ago, Forge said:

Interesting. The problem is that their careers didn't overlap as much, but I thought Willis was slightly better in 2011, but after that, I thought Bowman in 12 and 13 was much better than Willis. Now, Willis had the better prime, but I Thought once they lined up against one another, Bowman was the superior backer in 2 out of the three. 

Much better? Don't agree with that. I thought Bowman was better in 13, but they were about the same in 12.

[Gravity]

I like how Willis is Bowman's daughter's godfather. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

9 hours ago, y2lamanaki said:

To be honest, as much as I loved Bowman, he really only gave us 3 great seasons, and then one injury-hampered one. The others, he was injured or cut. I don't mind the 53 given out again. The 97 is the one that hurt. I think 21, 52, 74, and 97 should be off limits (74 obviously once Staley retires). I think 94 is a tough one to retire, because I can't say which of the two you would retire it for. Hopefully there's a third added to that list, as I still have hopes for Thomas to be a great now that he seems to fully be moved inside where he belongs. 

I don't understand #97 being reissued. #94 I could see since Haley, and Smith weren't with the 49ers that long.

Interesting that Fred Dean is a HOF player, but his number is now Staley's, after it was Steve Wallace's number. Wallace was a good tackle that played 11 years for the 49ers, most of them as a starter. I feel due to the age we live in, Staley will be remembered more though.

Edited March 19, 2018 by PapaShogun

[y2lamanaki]

9 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

I don't understand #97 being reissued. #94 I could see since Haley, and Smith weren't with the 49ers that long.

Interesting that Fred Dean is a HOF player, but his number is now Staley's, after it was Steve Wallace's number. Wallace was a good tackle that played 11 years for the 49ers, most of them as a starter. I feel due to the age we live in, Staley will be remembered more though.

It's near impossible to forget Wallace and his concussion shell. But he also wasn't quite the player Staley is. And Dean was great, but played less than 5 seasons with the team.

[DirtyJersey9er]

9 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

I don't understand #97 being reissued. #94 I could see since Haley, and Smith weren't with the 49ers that long.

Interesting that Fred Dean is a HOF player, but his number is now Staley's, after it was Steve Wallace's number. Wallace was a good tackle that played 11 years for the 49ers, most of them as a starter. I feel due to the age we live in, Staley will be remembered more though.

Dave Fiore had 74 as well.