Coaches feel heat, but whose seat is the hottest?

This is my Friday column.

This is a pop quiz. Put away your notes, take out a piece of paper and a pen and answer the following question:

Which are the two most volatile and gut-wrenching coaching positions on any NFL staff?

If your answer includes the head coach, you’re wrong. The head coach might have the least volatile job on the staff. He makes millions of dollars, and his failures during a game typically are small and trivial. Like that timeout he wasted in the third quarter, or the challenge flag he should have thrown but didn’t.

If your answer includes the offensive coordinator or the defensive coordinator, you’re wrong. Those are the stars of the staff, the next in line to become head coaches. If they get fired, worst-case scenario they land on other NFL teams as position coaches and work their way back up the pecking order. Coordinators have a form of job security.

Position coaches don’t. If they fail, they might have to look for a new line of work. Start selling aluminum siding door to door, or become an Uber driver.

The average fan can’t really tell when most position coaches make mistakes. If a defensive line coach or a linebackers coach fails, or their players blow an assignment on a particular play, that blunder is most likely the difference between a 2-yard run and a 5-yard run for the other team. That’s it.

But if a defensive backs coach or one of his players fails, the result could be football’s equivalent to a mushroom cloud – a 75-yard touchdown pass to a completely uncovered wide receiver. It’s a meltdown. In public. Outrage spreads throughout the stadium like a nuclear explosion. Fans would go crazy all because of the defensive backs coach and his cornerback or safety.

So, the defensive backs coach has a miserable job. One other coach lives with the same agony. Offensive line coach.

If an offensive line coach fails, if the defense bursts through the offensive line, the quarterback gets sacked for big yards, an awful look. That’s the best-case scenario. He could break his leg – Joe Theismann comes to mind. The team’s season could end then and there because the offensive line coach makes one critical error. Or even if he doesn’t make an error. The right tackle could have made the error. It’s still on the coach.

How would you like to be an offensive line coach in the coaches’ meeting the night after your players gave up six sacks? All the coaches are staring at you. The room is silent, tense. You wouldn’t want to look at the head coach. You wouldn’t want to read the papers. You’d want to hide under the table. When you got there you’d find the defensive backs coach. Their egos and their jobs are always on the line.

Because you’d be the scapegoat. You’d be the guy holding back the whole team. An offense can’t function with a terrible offensive line, just like a defense can’t work with a dreadful secondary. Those are the units that uphold order. Those players are the security guards of the team. If they fail, it’s chaos.

Fact: If a team starts going down the tubes, the head coach often blames one of those two position coaches privately. Might say something in a coaches’ meeting like, “We’d be winning if not for you and your horrendous unit.”

A good offensive line coach or secondary coach has to put all of that pressure and finger-pointing behind him and act as if the job is manageable, even though he’s privately freaking out. He has to portray poise no matter what. You try it sometime.

Extreme poise was a virtue of 49ers’ all-time great offensive-line coach, Bobb McKittrick. Lawrence Taylor might have exploded through the Niners’ offensive line unblocked, body-slammed Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Montana from behind, but McKittrick’s temperament wouldn’t change.

He’d adjust the protection, his voice calm and even. He never hurried. It’s like he was making minor tweaks to the game plan on a breezy Wednesday afternoon in Santa Clara.

McKittrick never let the fans or the players or the other coaches see him sweat. Everything was under control even when it wasn’t. Even when he was failing spectacularly. And he did fail spectacularly. It was unavoidable.

No position coaches fail more spectacularly then the offensive-line coach or the defensive backs coach. That’s why those two and only those two are the correct answers to today’s pop quiz.

Grant Cohn writes sports columns and the “Inside the 49ers” blog for The Press Democrat’s website. You can reach him at

  1. IMO, Eric Mangini is in the hottest hot seat. He takes over a defense that was top rated the last four years under DC, Vic Fangio. Vic is now the DC for the Chicago Bears and many experts pick that Defense to be bad. We shall see.

    1. Grant, I like this article. Especially during the meeting when the Offensive line coach tried to find a hiding spot under the table, but found the DB coach beat him to it…Hilarious, but true, it’s a tough life.

      1. Shut down Sunday’s in our furture. Chryst will run mostly (Remember Baalke’s Press conference “we’re going to run the football”). Also Chryst hasn’t been a coordinator since 2000, Meanwhile, QB coach Steve Logan’s been out of football, (the intellectual offensiive play calling side longer than Jeff Garcia, but who did the 49ers hire, the guy that learned under and was hired by Bill Walsh, or the other inexperienced guy, who has never run an offensive playbook on the pro level….If Fangio shut down Green Bay while with the 49ers, and Carroll did the same, what are Logan and Chryst going to show the NFL teams that they haven’t seen before?

        1. Chryst will open up the offense and Kap will do plenty of that running from rollout formations. Logan is a brilliant coach and It was Fangio AND Tomsula who covered Harbaugh’s ass with a top quality defense. This team is loaded and motivated. Crow will be served to you “Faithless” on a regular basis.

          1. Are you laying down $1,000 for PSL’s, $ 60.00 for parking, 100.00 for food and beverages to see Logan, Chryst, Tomsula, Mangenius; a prayer that Kaepernick’s pocket development’s advanced, WR’s, RB’s, OL, DL, DB’s and new coaches are in synch, without one home run hitter (Jerry Rice or Roger Craig type) as of yet in the York ownership/Baalke GM era yet…Its 15 years and counting…Enjoy wasting your time, I’ve found better things to aggravate myself over on Sundays.

  2. How about the DL coach? If the opposing QB has all day to throw and the opposing RB’s have gaping holes to run through, the DL coach must be on the hot seat too, right?

    1. Whoa! Didn’t see that coming. Of course, none of us ever do.
      He was one of the best Two Minute Drill QBs of all time. He could see the field (coverage) as well as anybody ever. Ronnie Lott used to say that if a secondary had just one guy just one step out of position that Snake would always notice and exploit it.

    2. Bill Walsh was once asked which QB’s he liked prior to the arrival of The Golden One. Bill’s response was the two that stood out to him were Namath for his footwork, and Ken Stabler for the way he managed the game.

      1. The Snake

        – Superbowl winning Quarterback
        – AP NFL Most Valuable Player
        – AFC player of the year in two different years
        – 4 Pro Bowls
        – 7 consecutive winnings seasons
        – Dang near invented modern high percentage passing
        – Quickest to win 100 games, having done so in 150 games (later surpassed by Joe Montana)
        – Perhaps the best clock/game managing QB in history.

        “Other then Joe, he was the best come from behind quarterback I have ever seen.” (Bill Walsh, Building a Champion, Page 30.)

        Mr. Bamboo Room was high on my list of all time HOF snubs… until I heard about what he did to a PD reporter years ago. Still sorry to hear he’s gone. A great QB. If he played on the east coast as a pro would be one of the gold jacket club.

        1. One point of detail: Bob Padecky worked for the SacBee when he got set up by ‘someone Stabler knew’ (eye roll) down south.

          1. Thanks BT. I was totally unaware of the whole Bob Padecky episode a few years ago… after I wrote a comment that was later referenced in a NY Times “5th Down” piece on HOF snubs.

            Until some of the regulars here in Grants blog clued me in, I was going back and forth with a national football blogger on the NY Times site.

            I really had no idea. I generally don’t follow players post football lives that closely.

  3. I beg to differ. The 2 coaches who I think will get the most scrutiny is Mangini and Logan. Chryst is replacing Roman, so I will cut him a ton of slack and expect the offense to improve just by removing Roman from the mix.
    Mangini is replacing Fangio, who had perennial top 10 defenses, so any dropoff will be magnified ten fold.
    Logan has the task of coaching up Kaep. Any regression, and his seat will be on fire from a flame thrower.

          1. He’s been a DC only one season, dealt with a lot of injuries to key players and roster turnover to start the year, but over the final 8 regular season games of that year ran a D that I believe was top 5 over that period.

            1. What about his overall body of work? The good news is I think Tomsula will be the real DC and Mangini will be implementing the Tomsula system.

              1. Rollotomasi, You’re right, but some fans have swallowed York’s coolaide.
                These people are in it for the money or they would have had M. and K. Shannahan, (remember Holmgren offered to coach 49ers before that farce of a coach search took place, then Gase accepted the job, but turned them down when Baalke tried to force Tomsula on him, not letting him pick his own Coordinators). The 49ers are trying to reinvent the wheel while J. Fisher hired Greg Williams to plug in the boatload of #1 picks on their DL, J. Garcia running 49er/GreenBay Playbook, Caroll with Seattle, And ex 49er coaches Fangio and E. Donatell, (top 5 at position) who shut down GreenBay. We’ll get shutdown/Sundays.

              2. Sure, lets consider his overall body of work.

                – Four years as the secondary coach during some of the Pats best years defensively, while getting to work for two of the best defensive coaches in the game today (Belichick and Crennel).
                – One year as the DC of the Pats which started poorly but by the end of the year had the unit playing like one of the best in the NFL. In my opinion that was an impressive effort given they had to start 23 different players over the course of the season on D. They lost Ty Law in the offseason, only to lose starting CB Tyrone Poole in week 1, his replacement Randall Gay in week 2, and his replacement Duane Starks a few weeks later. They lost Teddy Bruschi for the first half of the season due to a stroke. They lost Rodney Harrison in week 3 and his replacement 2 weeks later. They had some issues to say the least, especially in the secondary.
                – His first year as HC of the Jets he took a 4-12 team to 10-6.
                – His second year as HC of the Jets was a disaster. Struggled to move the ball offensively, and the defense struggled all year to stop the run.
                – His third year as HC of the Jets started well as they went to 8-3, but finished 9-7 as Brett Favre threw a league leading 22 INTs on the season. He was fired at the end of the season.
                – His stint at the Browns was, well, Browns like. Rubbish.

                So, on an overall body of work picture, I think the narrative that he is a terrible coach is off the mark. He has not had much success as a HC, but his stint at the hapless Browns is a big reason for the negative perception of his coaching skills. His time at the Jets was a mixed bag. As a defensive coach at the Pats he earned high praise around the league.

              3. TomD is right. The York’s are all about money. They went on the cheap with the entire coaching staff.

                On the hot seat should be Jed York and Trent Baalke for “fixing” what wasn’t broken.

              4. Good analysis Scooter. So it now raises the question why has mangini been lurking in the lower levels of the niner coaching hierarchy? Why not get a job somewhere else as a DC or HC?

              5. If I had to guess Rollo, I’d say it is because of two things his stint at the Browns led to – it really damaged his reputation, and it really bruised his ego which led to him taking some time away from coaching.

              6. Scooter, way to do your homework. I agree with you. The jets are not much better than the Browns… the fact that he took a 4-12 jets team to 10-6 in one year is remarkable! 2 wining seasons in 3 years with the Jets. Kinda built the foundation ( on Defense at least) for rex ryans success).
                If not for the unrealistic expectations due to NY media and fan base… well as an over the hill pick machine at qb……he might have done well with the Jets given more time.

  4. A little off the subject, but here’s what Rotoworld said about Battle:

    “Rams selected Clemson OT Isaiah Battle with a fifth-round pick in the 2015 supplemental draft. St. Louis is very aware of its offensive-line need. GM Les Snead used four draft picks on linemen in April/May, and has now forfeited a 2016 fifth-round pick for the opportunity to add Battle, on whom many draft prognosticators placed a third-round grade. Battle offers ideal tackle dimensions at 6-foot-6, 312 with 35 3/8-inch arms, though he is a fairly mediocre athlete. We’d bet against Battle making a year-one impact. An intensive evaluation of Battle’s game via Rotoworld prospects guru Josh Norris can be read at the link below.”

    Here’s the Josh Norris link. He was negative re Battle.

  5. I guess the OL and DB theory may be correct. There is no real way of knowing . If a punt or kick coverage team gave up a pair of TDs ill bet the special teams coach would be in the hot seat. Publicly , Roman received quite a bit of scorn the last few seasons. I dare say he felt like he was in the hot seat.

    1. Both O line and DB coaches have had lots of personnel losses, so expectations are not high, but chance for regression is high.
      I agree, whatever position that struggles will be on the hot seat.

  6. Foerster’s seat might be a little warm, but because of his reputation not super hot (at least this year).

    If Logan’s seat is hot, I don’t think he cares. If he got canned he’d crank up the tunes, pour a glass of wine and happily resume his semi-retirement. Maybe do a chalk-talk once in a while at WRAL.

    Chryst is in the hot seat. If he got canned potential employers would blame limitations of CK and disruption on the O-line for most offensive failings. He’d get a new job real fast. Same with Adam Henry, Tony Sparano, Ronald Curry

    Mangini’s seat should be hot, but it isn’t. His reputation (deserved or not) and ability to maneuver within an organization keeps his seat comfy cool.

    Tom Rathman’s seat is so ice cold, you could resolve AGW by throwing his chair into the gulf stream.

  7. I think it depends.
    Last season the 49ers offensive line, quarterback, and tight ends struggled more than other areas of the team. So I think those position coaches, along with Greg Roman and Jim Harbaugh, fretted the most. But it didn’t hurt Geep Chryst or Eric Mangini—they got big promotions to coordinator positions.

    I actually think thick-skinned Jed York is occupying the hottest seat at this moment. He’ll receive most of the blame if the 49ers flounder.
    But he needn’t worry too much, as I see Kaepernick becoming a top-ten quarterback and leading the 49ers to ten wins.

    1. Grant lists as areas Colin [can] Improve this year
      – Anticipation
      – Pre-snap Awareness
      – Finding the Second Receiver
      – Short Throws
      – Knowing When and When Not to Run

      I think the most challenging is anticipation. It involves how his brain is naturally wired, reads, vision, timing, quick release and footwork.

      It also involves managing another weakness… failing to see underneath coverage, especially to his left. Colin’s coaches might actually want Colin to delay his delivery a tick on certain patters until he improves this flaw.

      1. I once saw a high school passing drill. The quarterback threw the same out pattern over and over. The coach yelled “late” or “early” depending on the timing.

        His thinking was alot of “under thrown” passes are actually late passes. He said 70% of passes are a little late, even alot of the completed ones.

      2. Based strictly on the criteria of “realistic” and “effective” improvements, accuracy throwing long is my choice.

        (High YPA)+(Good TD/INT Ratio) = wins

        Logan and Chryst touched on a month ago. Their not looking to convert him to a high percentage passer (though I’m sure improved completion percentage would be welcome). They want him to gouge defenses like it was 2012.

    2. I think that Kaep should not be criticized too harshly for deciding when and when not to escape from the pass rush. The O line was a turnstile last year. He was responsible for staying in the pocket too long or moving into the pass rusher 7 times. 45 other times the O line was at fault, almost 3 times per game.
      Kaep was also very adept at eluding the pass rush, or he would have had almost 100 sacks. His Houdini like plays bought him time, but the WRs were too slow or dropped the ball too many times.
      With this new coaching staff, I expect they incorporate the RB and TE more into the offense with quick passes as a safety valve so there will be less sacks and a higher completion percentage.

  8. Grant is asking the question over the entire NFL, and as so many of his Press Democrat articles are, this one is pure conjecture. He should’ve done some actual reporting and supported his o line and DB coach “thesis” with actual research. He should’ve gone back and found out how many of all types of coach have been fired over the years. If he did that, I’d bet his theory would prove to be pretty leaky.

    1. Well, I haven’t done any such homework, but as I read Grant’s piece I was remembering plenty of times when an OC or DC became the sacrificial lamb that saved a HC’s job. Cameron at Baltimore comes to mind in a mid-season firing. I don’t have any numbers, but my cumulative impression is that co-ordinators get the axe more often, and then the new guy and the HC replace position coaches as they see fit.

    2. Of course it’s “pure conjecture”. Were you looking for a master’s thesis?

      He is just putting out scenarios that elicit commentary. That’s the whole point of a website like this. Or of when you get into a heated discussion with your buddies over a couple of beers. Express a viewpoint and defend it. No one is “right”.


        1. Gnossos,

          Call me crazy, but when a reporter states something as fact, I’d like them to have some evidence to back up their position. Isn’t it part of the job description?

          Especially, when the statement presented is pretty likely to be wrong.

          1. Gnossos,

            Surely you realize there is a different standard for a friend you’re having a beer with and a journalist, right?

            1. This is so clearly an opinion piece. What possible facts could prove him right or wrong?

              He’s just saying that some F-ups are highly visible and they land the responsible coach in hot water. Just an observation – no analytics apply.

              “Facts” vs “Opinions”. Good to know the difference.

  9. Just some food for thought.

    The federal Government which has Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Apache, Blackhawk, Kiowa, and Lakota helicopters and used the code name Geronimo in the attack that killed Bin Laden, officially objects to the name of the Washington Redskins – give me a break, really? They will always be the Redskins in my world and if it offends any of you so be it.

    1. uhm…because “Redskin” is/was a DEROGATORY (that means bad) term for Native Americans. Not sure why that’s a hard concept to differentiate between that and other NON-offensive (to Native Americans) terms like “Tomahawk and Geronimo”

      1. I’m a Native American(registered through the Creek Nation roll#97380) and I don’t find the term offensive. I’ve spoken at length with my entire family whom are all registered Native Americans and none of them give a crap about it. When we went and visited with Creek tribal members in Oklahoma last year the topic came up and one thing became abundantly clear; this whole movement is being generated by a very small minority of Native Americans mostly who are personally motivated. Every time I’ve been in a gathering of actual Native Americans the general consensus is that that majority of Native Americans truly didn’t find the name offensive. All of this public and media attention on the subject is what’s turning the term into a derogatory one by shining the light on the subject that frankly most Native Americans were happy to just leave in the dark.

        Don’t go making general statements saying that the term is derogatory for Native Americans because frankly that’s just not the case. It might be for some but we’ve got to get over the idea that just because a small group finds something offensive that the entire subject is now wrong and needs to be removed or changed.

        1. The data for what Native American individuals think regarding the name “Redskins” (or even for the preference, if any, of Native American over American Indian as an identifier) can be charitably described as sketchy. In fact, scientifically obtained data is all but non-existent.

          The latest survey, which found 67% of Native American’s surveyed found the term ‘redskins’ to be offensive, was conducted by an academic who went to “Pow-Wows” (his usage) and then only polled those people he deemed to be authentic Native Americans. The chance for bias in such a sample is extraordinary as the specific composition of the sample was selected by the individual conducting the survey. Additionally, the person defining the composition of the sample and eliciting the responses seems to have had an a priori assumption of the outcome, as he has been critical of both the results and sample composition of the 2004 poll that found the majority of small sample of those who self identified as Native American did not find the term or name offensive.

          It is the same pattern seen with polls regarding the use of Native American over American Indian. Polls of those who self-select as Native American/American Indian find that the majority prefer the term American Indian. Polls of those who are determined to be “real” or “actual” Native Americans tend to show a preference for Native American. The problem is the same – the people conducting the polls are invariably the same people who determine whether the people responding should be included in the sample.

          Anecdotally, my friends/colleagues who are Native American/American Indian tend to not be offended or only slightly offended by the name “Redskins” for Washington (they mainly feel different about the term as a label for Native Americans, which they would find offensive is applied to them). They also tend to prefer American Indian over Native American. Now, my Native American/American Indian friends tend to be lawyers and tribal judges, so I will not claim their views are representative. However, they do generally match CFC’s statement above.

          1. In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.
            But the Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to strip the “Redskins” trademark from the football team, said the poll neglected to ask some crucial questions.

            “Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?” Harjo asked. Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions, she said.
            Indian support for the name “is really a classic case of internalized oppression,” Harjo said. “People taking on what has been said about them, how they have been described, to such an extent that they don’t even notice.”

            Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

            The people at the heart of the debate, though, are those at the grass-roots level among the more than 500 recognized tribes in the U.S. The MMQB took the temperature of Native Americans from coast to coast—representing 18 tribes in 10 states—and found a complicated and nuanced issue. What we did not find: the “overwhelming majority” that Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have claimed support the name “Redskins.”

            We found opponents of the name in 18 tribes: veterans of the U.S. military, lawyers, college students, cultural center employees, school volunteers and restaurant servers. Their viewpoints align with official statements from dozens of tribes or inter-tribal councils and from the NCAI, which represents more than 250 tribal governments at the Embassy of Tribal Nations. Many of these people wondered how, or if, their voices are being counted.

            By no means is there a consensus.

            Here’s the “pow-wow” guy’s research:

            according to a California professor, they’re all wrong. James Fenelon, Lakota/Dakota from Standing Rock, a sociology professor at California State University, San Bernardino, compiled his own data, and the results show that 67 percent of Native Americans believe that “Redskins” is a racist word.

            there are polls that indicate that most Native Americans don’t care. But I think there is enough evidence to indicate that SOME do care. what percentage I do not know. But where do we draw the line of significance? Personally, I don’t care as I’m not Native American. But I do not like the idea of racist terms being accepted in society…though I don’t think government should force the Redskins to change their name…I’m not sure I agree with the government rescinding their trademark rights if it’s just based on unpopular sentiment.

            1. “Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?”

              And what exactly does any of that have to do with anything? None of those questions would change whether an American Indian thinks of the term as racist or not. The two questions that really strike me as odd are the ones about their nation and tribe, as if being say (for instance) Cheyenne makes one more likely to believe the term is racist or not. It doesn’t work that way.

            2. Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name.

              Why would she decline to show a percentage that could help support what she claims…unless it actually doesn’t.

              1. I’m not going to get into the debate but just want to say with regards to this statement the way it reads is she has declined to make an estimate because she hasn’t got the facts/ done the research to make an estimate that would be anything but an educated guess, not because she is hiding facts that go against her argument. Given she is arguing against the validity of the survey approach used in a study I’d say it was wise on her part not to then make a bold claim that has no valid research to support it.

              2. No evidence, no argument. And throwing a few organizations out there doesn’t exactly suuport her argument because I doubt they speak for the their entire tribe.
                This is nothing more but an attempt to look good while doing nothing about the bigger issues facing the American Indians.

              3. Not going to debate the issue with you. Just pointing out why she would likely decline to show a percentage and that it probably isn’t because it doesn’t support her claim.

              4. Not trying to start one. Just saying that she can’t really make a claim or argument without having evidence to back it up.

              5. She does have evidence and she states it. You may choose to believe that having the support of various stakeholder organisations does or does not show evidence that there are some people that find the term offensive, your call.

              6. I thought we we’re going to bebate this Scooter. ;-)
                An organization isn’t concrete evidence of how many support or oppose the team name. She challenges the findings of a survey but then doesn’t offer anything to dispel it other than saying that it should have asked certain questions.

              7. When I said it was your call as to whether you see it as convincing evidence I meant it literally. Up to you. You do not, and I have no problem with that.

                But as we are discussing it I think having the support of these organisations is evidence there are some people that find it offensive. As to how many I don’t know. Could be lots, could be a handful.

                The question that probably should be asked is does it matter how many find it offensive or oppose the name? Is there a magic cut-off point where we say it doesn’t matter if it offends some people but not others? Is it 50%? One could argue that even if it is only offending a handful of people that is too many.

              8. Then I would suggest they brush up on their history.

                From Wikipedia:
                The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932, under the ownership of George Preston Marshall. At the time the team played in Braves Field, home of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team’s name to the Boston Redskins to suggest a kinship with the Red Sox and to continue utilizing the Braves uniforms. To round out the change, Marshall hired William “Lone Star” Dietz, a part-blood Sioux, as the team’s head coach.[14] However, Boston wasn’t much of a football town at the time and the team had difficulty drawing fans.

                I fail to see how this is offensive.

              9. How does that in any way make it less offensive?

                As to why it is offensive, it is considered a racial slur. It is even defined as such in the dictionary. It doesn’t matter that the team was named during a less PC period, or that they named a part-blood Sioux as the coach at the time, its still a racial slur.

              10. Btw, I don’t find it offensive either. But then why would I? Its not my people the term refers to.

                I can however see why Native American’s may take exception to it, and if they do I think it is a name that should probably be changed. But, thankfully, not my issue to untangle.

              11. It is termed a racial slur simply because of how some ignorant people have used it after its inception. The thing is that it has been used by the American Indians as well.

                From Wikipedia:

                The term appeared in an August 22, 1812, meeting between President James Madison and a delegation of chiefs from western tribes. There, the response of Osage chief “No Ears” (Osage: Tetobasi) to Madison’s speech included the statement “I know the manners of the whites and the red skins,” while the principal chief of the Wahpekute band of Santee Sioux—French Crow—is recorded to have said “I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth, and notwithstanding I came a long way I am content, but wish to return from here.”

                However, while these usages may have been earlier, they may not have been disseminated widely. (For instance, while the 1812 meeting with President Madison was contemporaneously recorded, it was not published until 2004. Goddard suggests that a key usage was in a 20 July 1815 speech by Meskwaki chief Black Thunder at the treaty council at Portage des Sioux, in which he is recorded as stating, “My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.”

                What I also find interesting is that there are school on Indian Reservations that use the term for their teams, including Red Mesa High School (with its 98% American Indian attendance) located in Teec Nos Pos, AZ.

                Again, I struggle to see how it is offensive if some American Indian schools use it today and their ancestors used it in their time.

              12. Regardless of its original meaning, it is used and considered offensive now that matters. Many racial slurs don’t originate as such. They evolve.

                As with many racial related terms, the offensive nature comes from the use of those outside the ethnic group the term refers to. Having schools some American Indian schools use it today does not necessarily make it ok for wider use.

                I get that you don’t find it offensive. That is fine. The issue is if some people find it offensive. And it appears some do.

              13. Having schools some American Indian schools use it today does not necessarily make it ok for wider use.

                That’s more or less saying it’s okay to use only if you’re an American Indian, which is hypocritical. The term is either offensive and shouldn’t be used by anyone, or the term isn’t offensive and is okay to use as long as it isn’t turned into something offensive. Allowing it to be okay for one ethnic group and not the other(s) to use does nothing but increase the misunderstanding and potentially kindle the hate for the former as well.

              14. Fair point, its probably not a great idea to be using the term for the schools if it is a term they don’t want others to use. But I think it is fair to say an insult or slur kind of loses its impact if the person making the insult/ slur is part of the group the insult/ slur is about. Context is important.

                However, that’s getting away from my main point which is that some people do appear to find it offensive, and given it is a term that can and has been used as a racial slur I think it is understandable why some people would feel that way.

              15. But I think it is fair to say an insult or slur kind of loses its impact if the person making the insult/ slur is part of the group the insult/ slur is about. Context is important.

                That’s a very slippery slope though Scooter. Imagine having a scenario where you have two children of different ethnic backgrounds and you tell one that a certain term is offensive to the other child and shouldn’t be used while explaining why it is okay for the latter to use it how they wish. Another example is a meeting of two groups from two separate ethnic backgrounds where you chastise one for using a term deemed offensive yet tell the other group that’s it’s okay for them to use it since they know that it can’t be used in a bad way from their own mouths, even if both groups are using the term in a certain fashion. I can not only guarantee that it won’t go over well in either scenario but that there would be a strong chance of breeding hate and resentment as a result.
                You said this strayed from your main point, but I don’t think it does. I get that some find the team name ‘Redskins’ as offensive, but allowing those same ones to use it how they see fit isn’t right either. There’s only two ways that I can see to solve the problem: accept that the term can be used in a vulgar way by some ignorant people but isn’t the case with the Washington Redskins or eliminate the term completely where no one has the right to use it. Any other way would just make the problem worse than what it is.

              16. MWD,

                Interesting story about the Boston Red Sox and Redskins, but just because a term wasn’t racist at one point, doesn’t mean it isn’t a racist term now.

                For example, how would using the terms “colored” or “negro” be received these days? Not very well, right? At one time, these were preferred terms by African American people. Now, not so much.

                BTW, if the term “Redskin” doesn’t have a racist meaning, why is it that we never (or almost never) hear it used in conversation or see it written in magazines and newspapers? And when it is used, why does it raise eyebrows and make people uncomfortable?

              17. Fair point, but how many words or terms started out meaning something else and became a vulgar reference because of how mankind chose to use them? Just because some fools decide to alter the meaning into something disgusting or as a complete 180 of the original definition doesn’t always mean that the term should not be used. For example, the word ‘red’ was used to describe someone from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The word simply means a color shade, but should it not be used if the Russians decide that even the mention of the word is offensive?
                I think the main reason that some view the NFL team name Redskins as offensive is because they believe the term refers to the bloody scalps of Indians. But if that were true, then why did past Indians use the term in order to differentiate themselves, and why would schools on American Indian Reservations use it for their team names?
                I understand what you are saying Ex, but I feel like this has a bigger issue than what it should be. And not only that, but there are bigger issues facing the American Indians including (but not limited to) a high suicide rate, alcoholism, health problems, crimes committed on reservations that at times aren’t investigated, and a severe lack of assistance from the government. Yet none of those are really ever brought up.

              18. “You said this strayed from your main point, but I don’t think it does. I get that some find the team name ‘Redskins’ as offensive, but allowing those same ones to use it how they see fit isn’t right either.”

                Who says it is the “same ones”? It would seem clear this is an issue that some Native Americans find offensive, but it is equally apparent that not all do.

              19. I actually wasn’t referring to just American Indians there Scooter. I know of some people where I live that say the word is offensive yet use it themselves because they are under the belief that they know how to use it ‘properly’. Don’t ask why they think like that because I even I haven’t figured out how they have come to such a conclusion.

              20. …because even I…

                All I want for Christmas
                Is an edit button Grant
                An edit button Grant
                See an edit button Grant
                Gee if I could have an edit button Grant
                Then my posts wouldn’t look so terrible

              21. Yikes, that’s a worry Mid.

                Anyway, as I said, I think this is straying from my point that some find it offensive or disparaging, and I think there is a valid reason for them to do so.

              22. I think it goes along the lines of the main discussion point, but to each his own.

              23. Yeah, wasn’t trying to infer it was completely off point – it is along the lines of what I’m saying and we are discussing. But I think it is more an argument about how some Native Americans don’t find it offensive, to the point they use the term in their schools. But the crux of my point is that some do find it offensive. I’m not arguing there isn’t also those that don’t find it offensive, or even that its a majority that find it offensive.

              24. Me neither. I just feel like there’s too much focus on this and not on the other areas of concern with the American Indians.

              25. MWD,

                Red is a color, of course it’s a word that’s going to be used. Just as no one is calling for us to stop using the word yellow, even though it’s also used as a racial slur. Besides that, the term “Red” isn’t about someone’s birth, but a political choice.

                Of what use is the word “Redskin” other than as a pejorative term for an American Indian? So why do we need it?

                You’re absolutely right that more attention should be paid to the problems that exist in the American Indian community.

            3. The existing data is all suspect. Self-identification as Native American absent tribal affiliation can lead to a skewed sample as it allows those who may or may not actually have a tribal member as an ancestor to self-identify as Native American. However, use of blood quanta or tribal membership to determine the sample may also skew it as it could exclude individuals with significant native ancestry but who are not members of a tribe. Add to this the underrepresentation of smaller tribal entities within the national organizations, which results in a bias in favor of the larger, more politically active tribes in such organizations, and it is very difficult to determine a percentage of how many Native Americans may or may not be offended by the name.

              The difficulties obtaining good data is also reflective of a political aspect that is separate from the name issue. Certain tribal entities and advocacy groups support a strict blood quantum criterion to determine tribal membership. Conversely, some tribes and advocate groups maintain that a person can claim to be native if that person has a single relative, regardless of degree of separation, who was a tribal member. This political/cultural divide would impact any attempt to obtain a more scientific sample as it would be difficult to obtain agreement on who qualifies as a Native American for the purpose of defining the sample.

              We can add to this the issue that the term Native American as a generic masks the cultural, political and historical differences of over 500 recognized (and many non-recognized) tribal entities in the U.S. As indicated above, many of the smaller tribal entities (especially the non-recognized) are underrepresented or not represented by the national organizations, leading to a small number of large, well known entities purporting to speak for the rest of the entities, even though the smaller entities, in the aggregate, boast a larger population than the larger, more politically active entities. This political divide is compounded by the guilt/ignorance of the non-native public in the U.S. that leads to an illusory homogenization that equates one Native American tribal entity with all others in the minds of the populace at large. Moreover, the populace at large is familiar only with a small percentage of the tribal entities in the U.S., leading them to believe that these groups are representative of all tribal entities and people of Native American descent.

              However, although I find the data regarding offensiveness all suspect, I do not believe that the Court erred in finding the term disparaging. Disparaging is a lower threshold than offensive, and there is plenty of anecdotal and historical data to find disparaging usages of ‘redskins.’ The problem is the Latham Act is vague on how to determine whether a mark is disparaging, allowing ad hoc application.

              Finally, personally I believe the team should consider a name change even if the name is not offensive to a majority of tribal members and people of tribal ancestry. I realize there is a lot of tradition in the name that is separate from the offensiveness of the term, but there could also be a considerable public relations and pecuniary benefits from changing the name.

              1. Well said. I particularly agree that it doesn’t matter if the name is not offensive to a majority of tribal members and people of tribal ancestry. It doesn’t need to be a majority that find it offensive for there to be a benefit in changing the name.

              2. I uderstand all of that, but the question becomes where do you draw the line. In my response to Ex, I asked if we should ban the the word red if the Russians started to believe the word to be an offensive and demeaning reference to former members of the Soviet Union populace. When do we stop accepting a word or term from its original definition and instead to turn the vulgarity that some choose to use the word as?
                If the term Redskins is ruled by our Supreme Court as offensive, then I will abide by it as I should. But I question why Indian American schools are allowed to use it as their team name and nothing is said. If it is indeed offensive, then shouldn’t these schools be required to change their team names and have any merchandise related using the term Redskins removed as well?
                As I have said, I don’t see a middle ground available that won’t result in planting the seeds of hate and resentment. Either the term goes away completely or is accepted witout without prejudice. Accepting it as okay for one and not the rest is a recipe for disaster.

      2. Affp – I guess it means to me brave, fierce, fight to the death, guess my problem is I don’t look at the negative connotations and seeing I don’t ever use skin color as a motivating factor to slur people, it escapes my understanding. Its funny I never thought of it as a slur till the PC crowd brought it to my attention and I still don’t consider it and wont consider it as a demeaning term, that’s for people whose minds is in the gutter. So if it offends you that I say Redskins I would suggest not to read any my post as I wont know when I will use the term. It wont surprise me if the PD chooses on your side and eventual edits it.

        CFC – your heritage is a proud one.

    2. To AFFP’s point, I haven’t heard any ground swell for a change of ‘Chiefs’, ‘Warriors’, or ‘Braves’, perhaps because they’re not pejorative references. Just because a name is familiar doesn’t give it a pass. After all, bigotry is learned, so it seems familiar too.
      Change isn’t all that hard. ; -)
      We learned to wear Seatbelts; that worked.
      (Don’t bring up the Metric System.)

      1. if there were teams named “Tsunamis”, “Samurais”, “Ninjas” or “Katannas”….that’d probably be fine. Kamikazes..maybe not. The Japs, Nips….yellowmen (more of a Chinese insult)…definitely not.

    3. The Eastern Tennessee White Trash would not be okay and no one would attempt to justify it.

      Vikings, Rangers, Volunteers are all fine. Get it.

  10. I believe that special teams coordinators get fired more often than any other coaching positions. Even the ones who are considered the best have short self lifes. I’m not sure why this is but it could be that they serve as easy scape goats or that on many teams they are given little to no sway on roster decisions or possibly their mistakes like DB’s are out there for everyone to see.

  11. Rotoworld on Smelter:

    “The 49ers reportedly believe fourth-round WR DeAndre Smelter (ACL surgery) could be medically cleared before Week 1. Smelter has been widely presumed a “redshirt” pick by the 49ers, but the team must feel good about his recovery. He underwent ACL surgery in December. Smelter is 6-foot-2 and 226 pounds, and averaged 18.9 YPR with 11 TDs on 56 career catches at Georgia Tech. While a rookie-season impact is unlikely for Smelter, the 23-year-old could emerge as Anquan Boldin’s heir apparent.”

    1. That would be great, but I wouldn’t mind if he started the season on NFI due to roster math considerations. (maybe Dockett too)

      Which begs the question… has a team ever been penalized for stashing healthy players on IR/NFI?

      1. Actually, unless we truly need him (ie. UDFAs White and the other guy whose name escapes me at the moment fail miserably), I say let him heal up and keep him on NFI.

    2. Even if he is good to go I wouldn’t be surprised if he starts the year on some form of injured list, unless he gets cleared early in TC and makes a great impression.

    3. Terrible news. Let the kid sit and learn for a year while fully rehabbing that knee. Why rush the kid in and risk re-injury when there is absolutely no reason to do so. We certainly aren’t short receivers at the moment.

      1. Cubus I didn’t mean to repeat what you already said, I’m so bad at reading all the other posts first.

  12. I would guess the position coach who is on the coldest seat this year would be the receivers coach because he has nowhere to go but up. Johnny Morton did not impress me in any way the past few years. It didn’t seem like our young receivers got better. I’m hoping for a lot of improvement out of our receivers this year. And if they improve, the Niners improve.

    1. It’s nice to see Harold working on hand strikes. Learning multiple moves (besides speed edge rush) and developing a good hand punch can prevent Harold from becoming Lemonier 2.0.

      I’m a bit concerned about the goofy looking masks. A quick google shows some love the mask, while others think its BS that can actually degrade a workout by reducing the number of quality reps.

  13. Oh, how I long for the day somewhere in the future where a man is judged by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin.- MLK
    I am not Native American, and I am offended by that term- Redskin.

  14. OT Hardy suspension was reduced to 4 games. I think it is a travesty. Hardy was convicted by a judge, but escaped by paying off the witness. America should not allow a guilty person to buy justice.
    I condemn JJones and the Cowboys and curse them for coddling domestic violators.May they never win a game while Hardy is on their squad.

    1. I agree with you about Hardy but you’ve got your facts mixed up. He was entitled to request a jury trial in the state in which he was charged. That legally negated the trial by judge. The fact that his girl friend then refused to testify is something that’s common in relationships where abuse takes place. If Hardy and his girl friend are still a couple, he didn’t buy justice. Even if they spit up you have no way to know if he paid her not to testify.

        1. Do you know if Hardy’s girl friend is still with him. Rice married his girl friend, and his attack was more physically abusive.

          1. Having the charges dropped does not amount to being innocent. Hardy has never claimed that he is innocent. A black and white view leaves a lot out.

            1. Lets see. Hardy beat her,threatened her life and terrorized her by throwing her on top of an arsenal of weapons. She has every reason to think he would kill her, and her disappearance could just be a sign he killed her. The DA should talk to her before any charges were dropped. period. Stop defending the indefensible, you are digging yourself a deeper hole, and spouting baseless assumptions like she still loves him and has reconciled with a psychopath.

              1. Just a recap of your comments:

                – Hardy “escaped by paying off the witness.”
                – By “buying her silence.”
                – And “her disappearance could just be a sign he killed her.”

                But htwaits is “digging [him]self a deeper hole, and spouting baseless assumptions.”

                Oh sweet, sweet irony…

              2. Irony escapes him Scooter. You can say the sky is blue with solid evidence to back it up and he’d argue that it was maroon until his dying day.

              1. Neither htwaits or I are defending a woman beater. You are simply (and incorrectly) interpreting what is being said that way. Htwaits even started his first response saying he agreed with you on Hardy.

              1. I know you are opposing me just to try and get the upper hand, but one maxim in the Art of War is to choose your battles. Stop trying to even think about letting Hardy off the hook. he should be in jail, and you parsing the law is unctuous and smarmy.

            1. Ht, reading is fundamental. I told you that I just throw their own words in their face, but it seems as though you walked into that one blind. Soon you will get that bludgeoned look on your face like Singletary did when he froze up on the side line.

          2. I really do not care if one was more physically abusive. For you to care if it was more or less just labels you as an enabler.

              1. Physical abuse is physical abuse. There should be no tolerance of any kind to such heinous acts. Letting Hardy to go free is a travesty of justice, and I accuse the arbitrator of being an enabler, too.

    1. First, they are going to need a big bulletin board if they post all the 2015 projections that come to that conclusion.

      Second, it’s interesting to note the teams that are also 40 to 1 odds against winning the Superbowl.

      Atlanta Falcons — 40/1
      Carolina Panthers — 40/1
      Detroit Lions — 40/1
      New Orleans Saints — 40/1
      San Francisco 49ers — 40/1
      St. Louis Rams — 40/1

      1. I like the 49ers chances much better than any of the other teams in that group.

        I love over 7 1/2 wins, as well.

        1. Grant

          in that you were good enough to ask the question, my response would be Coach Logan …until he makes it plain that he needs better better stuff to work with. I believe that the overall coaching staff will discover that we need better QBing and that Gabbert and Dylan Thompson will have to step up. Kaep would have to be cloned with the necessary aspects of the passing game that he does not possess in order to assure 49er success in ’15….It’s only my opinion, but that’s what I think you were asking for…Right?

  15. For those interested, the P.D. Sports page has an article by Bob Padecky regarding Stabler and how he & Stabler have a link. Its an intimate and compassionate view of a larger-than-life character, it is particularly well written, and a worthy attempt to bring closure.

  16. I’m not sure our lengthy discussion about native Americans and political correctness solved anything, but at least it progressed without rancor.
    It did however remind me of one “tale” I read or heard in a classroom. I call it a tale because I don’t know for a fact that it is true. To be brief:
    Native tribes had already seen and met with white folks on the edge of the southern plains when they first encountered black slaves with the whites. After talking it over amongst themselves they decided that The Creator must bake all people before they enter the physical realm.
    Black people are over cooked.
    White people are under cooked.
    American Indians on the other hand, came out just right.
    Seems legit.

  17. Another off-the-wall question: what’s up with drinking in Florida. When I google it, I read that the legal age for drinking is 21 in Florida. But now a second FSU player has been charged with punching a woman in a bar. The banished QB from a week or two ago was a Freshman. Now some running back is also suspended, I’m not sure what year his eligibility is. What are these kids doing in bars in the first place? Bartenders and servers aren’t checking IDs………(wait for it…)……in a COLLEGE TOWN? Even for a (redshirt) freshman? I don’t get it.

    1. I dunno, BroT ..
      back in the day .. we’d hustle a street person
      to “buy-up” for us …
      (they’d most likely do it for a bottle of Red Rooster or something)

      Guess the young-uns ain’t as smart as us old folks ! .. lol

      1. OK, that’s probably a good move for his program, but doesn’t address the larger issue (which isn’t the coach’s problem).
        The California ABC is on enforcement like stink on Lindburger Cheese. They even do Teeny Bopper ‘stings’ employing teens to solicit adults to buy for them outside liquor stores. They do in-tavern ops too, and they can suspend a restaurant’s liquor liscence if a server doesn’t ask to see ID for anyone under 30, even though the legal age is 21.
        My point? What’s up in Third World Florida?

          1. Sorry, my bad.
            Besides, I can’t really criticize Florida football programs since a couple of guys from Santa Rosa JC’s football team just got arrested for: 1/ ADW/ Attempted Murder(handgun); the other to Accessory to Attempted Murder as Gettaway Driver. The shooter hooked up with a hooker and then shot her several times. She has so far survived.

        1. Why not? I am dominating your consciousness so much you have to talk about me. I will give you a bit of advice- Stop trying to engage me. It would be much better for you all to just ignore me. Some others have learned, but I guess my simpering sycophants in the peanut gallery comment just hits too close to the mark, and I make you squirm.

          1. You don’t make me squirm .. I mean ..
            why should I ??

            I see you as someone using your mommie’s
            laptop .. in her basement .. trying to impress
            us with your pseudo intelligence …

            … and the hilarious part is …
            your inflated ego prevents you from seeing ..
            through your own delusions …

            your tact doesn’t work, here … and
            no one is impressed with your dictionary

            1. I do want to calmly and respectfully discuss the Niners with fellow Niner fans who can write intelligent and insightful posts about team strategy and personnel. So far, I seem to bring out the wackos who think they can insult me with no repercussions.
              Dazzle me with your wisdom and acumen. So far, I see a bunch of posters who really write a lot, but say little. I will continue to write my opinion, and either agree or disagree with other posters, but so far, I have been unimpressed.
              However, I have written that the Niners should run the no huddle with quick snaps for a couple seasons, but the peanut gallery cannot bring themselves to actually acknowledge that fact. Yet, Tomsula is doing just that, so I do think my ideas are topical and relevant.
              I have been respectful, and complimented some posts, but the vituperous vicious mean spirited attacks against me have brought out my defensive responses. Again. I do not suffer fools gladly. This is a blog site, and this is not my first rodeo. If you think you can attack me ad hominem, expect some push back.
              I feel like i have something to say, and all I want to do is help the Niners win multiple Lombardis. I have fought against the Niner hating trolls and have left other sites because I got sick of dealing with their imbecilic rants. I firmly believe that some posters are provocateurs who want to stir up trouble and dissension. I also firmly believe that my life does not revolve around a blog site. I did not post all during the 2014 season, until the last game, so I do not think I fit the classical definition of a troll. I do have a life, a wife who loves me and wonderful children who I am extremely proud of.
              I see some posters whose life must suck so badly, they haunt this site. To them, I must be such a threat that they must attack me to make themselves think that what they say makes their life meaningful. Guess what? They are still the same, and what they say does not matter in the least to me. After I post a few more thoughts, I will probably leave this site. I have to laugh. Imagine some posters claiming that my ego is bigger than theirs. They are a legend in their own minds.

              1. “… all I want to do is help the Niners win multiple Lombardis.”

                That’s a lot more than anyone else thinks they can accomplish in this blog. Enjoy.

              2. Ht, you are a glutton for punishment. If you want to be a human punching bag, keep it up. You really should follow BT, an do what he does. He is a smart man.

              3. You won’t ever need to feel guilty about punishing anyone in this blog or, for that matter, any other blog. If you come to understood that you’ll be happier undertaking your quest for more Lombardi trophies.


              4. I’ll start off by apologizing for my inference that you are a troll. When you first showed up on the blog, it appeared that you might have some interesting ideas and thoughts to share with the group.Your five for one trade idea was initially interesting to ponder, but several members, including myself, quickly pointed out the fallacies in the logic and the poor assumptions upon which your idea was based. There are no precedents for such a trade and you seem to ignore the concept of value (i.e you probably believe your house is worth $1.5 million when $500K is what the market will bear). Still there was nothing wrong with proposing the idea. Most responders to your post were initially polite in pointing out how your scenario was illogical and how only an inexperienced Oakland GM/HC would even consider such a trade. However, you quickly became abrasive and defensive. You were insulted that members didn’t find your idea to be brilliant. Instead of listening to others you began to respond with phrases like “you suffer fools” and “simpering sycophants in the peanut gallery”.

                Nevertheless, I personally think you could contribute some interesting ideas for discussion. But you need to be more respectful of responders and limit the name calling. Maybe everyone could agree to start over, but maybe things are already too far along for that.

                There are a fair number of football intelligent and experienced posters on this blog. I do not consider myself one of them, but have learned a fair amount during my 9 months of posting. The knowledge I’ve gained here has helped me refine my thinking and, as a result, occasionally I’m able to pose an interesting idea or two. The blog is for sharing ideas and learning from others. Your attitude is that you are the wise one sitting on the mountaintop and have condescended to share your wisdom with us. You need to understand that that attitude doesn’t work here. Long-time members will challenge your ideas and generally it will initially be in a business-like fashion. Most of the time such challenges lead to a refinement in thinking for not just you but the responder as well and appreciation for different perspectives. If you take that attitude, your blog contributions might be better received.

              5. The thing is that he has had some good posts including one that he shared from a couple years back Cubus. However he has gone from ‘this is what I think’ to ‘real or not, this is the gospel according to me’. He would be better received if he went back to the former and was open to the fact that not everything he posts will be right. That there might be some things he hasn’t considered.

          2. If I put my bare foot into a shoe and discovered, too late, that a banana slug had gotten there first, I would squirm.

            We all know you need attention, but the way you go about getting it causes you to misunderstand most of what you read. If I knew how to help you, I would.

            1. Ht. maybe you think that what you write is so unremarkable that nobody will remember what you wrote 2 days ago, and you could very well be correct, but I have written things that Roman had to issue a clarification about. On another blog, the discussion was so heated that some trolls were pontificating that Roman should not be blamed for the play calling because he was not calling the plays. I, of course, was eviscerating Roman and calling for JH to do what his brother did. Roman actually had to issue a clarification, and he stated that as OC, he called the plays. Roman ended his tenure with the Niners by stating that he was not verbose. I took that as a sure sign that he read the blogs. Who else on this or any other site have you heard of some poster claiming he was verbose?
              In the Art of War, one of the first things written was that war was of vital importance to the state, and should be thoroughly studied and analyzed. If the Niners ignore all the blog sites, they are doing themselves a disservice. Granted, they should ignore 99% of what is written, but there might be a few gems that might help the team win. Go through that list of 10 things JH should do (and Jim Tomsula should study), and then disagree that implementing just a few of those ideas would have helped the Niners win a couple more games. It was written on 1-17-14, over a year and a half ago.
              I rest my case.

              1. Geez Man, just STFU already! No one gives a rat’s a$$ if you like to brag about being verbose. Why do you take pride in such a trait? You’ve managed to call out and insult just about every regular member of this little club and for no reason other than that nobody, not anyone, agreed with your unrealistic, nonsensical trade offer. You say that “after you post a few more thoughts you will probable leave this site”. Please,we all beseech you, don’t waste any more time worrying about a few more thoughts, feel free to leave at once. And take your verbosity with you.

            2. Cubus, i accept your reprimand, and wish to apologize to all offended. I do go over the top sometimes, but I can honestly say that I felt provoked. Sometimes, it takes 2 to tango.
              I will try to tone it down, and be more calm and respectful.
              You have to admit that the 5 player trade was labeled idle speculation during the off season by me, but I felt as though people were insulted just by the thought, and lambasted me way too hard. If people had said that it was a poor idea, I could accept it. Some were calling me stupid for even conceiving the idea. That said, I hope we all move on. TC approaches, and we will have actual player interactions to discuss.
              Or at least I will. I promise to stop engaging Ht and MWD.

              1. Thanks, I’m glad you feel that way. I’ll point out too that some of us, including Mid in his post above, can tell that you have much to contribute to the discussions.

              2. I can’t speak for others, but WRT the 5-for-1 trade I was not trying to provoke you in my responses to it. I was just pointing out where I thought there was faulty logic.

              3. Which was the same thing I was doing in regards to you saying that James and Lattimore were Harbaugh picks and we shouldn’t blame Baalke for them. I don’t doubt that Harbaugh could have liked and even lobbied for them , but Baalke also had to like them in order for them to have been drafted by the 49ers.

          3. am dominating your consciousness so much you have to talk about me.

            This is what we call an ego trip folks.

              1. What I found was What Would Big T Do, and some pictures of T-Shirts.

                “What Would Big T Do? In need of some advice? Just ask Big T. Its a bit like What Would Jesus Do? The only difference being Big T isn’t a cartoon character”

              1. MidWestDynasty and you have called each other Trolls. I think you both are misusing the term Troll.

              2. Actually I do know what it refers to hwaits. The main thing I ask of him is to accept the fact that he posts will not always be sound and can have holes punched through it. And that’s okay because no one on here will always be right, even if we believe are despite the evidence showing otherwise.

              3. I wrote that you misused the term, not that you didn’t know it’s definition. I also understand what you were trying to get across, and I agree with your goal. Mine goal has been similar. Others seem to have been more effective than the two of us.


              4. No complaints from me if the result is a calmer blog and having another mind added to the equation.

  18. Greetings Class-
    Today’s assignment is the term: ‘Megalomania.’
    See if you can find examples of this in your on-line landscape.
    Tomorrow we will discuss: ‘Social Dystony’

  19. Niner play calling.
    Obviously, it will be drastically changed and hopefully improved, but the whole system seems broken. The old way in which the OC sits above and calls down plays was too slow, and I think there were too many ways for them to steal the signals.
    If I were an opposing team, I would hire a lip reader, so the Niners should assume the other team can glean information legally, because they do not use electronic means to intercept the calls. The Niners should take a page out of the Bill Walsh playbook, and script the first 15 plays, but also have contingency plans to switch to a predetermined play when confronted with varying circumstances. If first down, maybe start with the RO so Kaep can choose whether to hand off or pass by reading the defense. If they show blitz, run the play away from the blitzer, or if second and short, go play action bomb. Third and long, maybe bootleg right and throw back left to the RB so he gets the ball in space. The important thing is to have these plays set up ahead of time so the call is automatic. Then change the plays every set of downs to be unpredictable.
    Get away from the practice of sending down plays, and let Kaep be the field general so he can run the hurry up with quick snaps. Ideally, he should try to catch the defense with 12 men on the field because he could gain a free play and a shot way downfield for a TD.The OC should be relegated to assessing the defense, employing strategies and adjusting the tactics. He should allow Kaep call the plays, but also add input to help him find weaknesses in the defense. If plays do have to be transmitted from the side lines, 2 Niners like Gabbert and Bell should make contrasting signals so the defense will have to defend 2 different plays.
    Last year was a disaster. This year gives me hope.
    I promise to not take umbrage for any post.

    1. “I promise to not take umbrage for any post.”

      Good for you.

      Your plan for the offense sounds like you watched Ken Stabler play during the years when he had a good OL. He is gone now.

    2. Nice write-up Seb. However I think the hiring of a lip reader would result in a fine and potentially a forfeiture of picks if found out. Also keep in mind that there were two key holdouts and an end to our luck of avoiding the injury bug that played a big part as to why 2014 was so disastrous. The retirement of Willis appeared to help things in perspective for both Boone and Davis, so I don’t see holdouts being an issue this time. But the injury bug could still derail our season if we’re not careful.

        1. “All arrows up!”
          Seriously guys, if we remember to criticize the thought/pov instead of the author, we should be good.
          Go! F-ing Niners! Hahahahaha, right?

    3. sebnynah:

      I’ve certainly voiced my disgust with the slowness of getting the play in and breaking the huddle many times on this blog. I still can’t fully understand how professional coaches could allow that to happen year after year. The only conclusion that I’ve been able to come to is that is was a result of the system and Harbaugh is a stubborn man. Since breaking the huddle early was a big focus during the minicamps, it’s now obvious that the assistant coaches under Harbaugh’s tenure were also irritated by this.

      I’m not sure I feel comfortable with Kaep calling the plays by himself at this stage in his development. Let’s see how he handles his new technique and reads the defenses after the plays are sent in (especially, now that he will have significantly more time to look over the defense). Unless he shows real aptitude for calling plays during practice, I don’t think I would burden him with this yet.

      You say “If plays do have to be transmitted from the side lines, 2 Niners like Gabbert and Bell should make contrasting signals so the defense will have to defend 2 different plays.” Aren’t plays transmitted by radio into the QB’s helmet? I thought hand signals were only used when the radios in the helmet and/or sideline weren’t functioning correctly.

      1. I guess I think many teams will do anything to gain an advantage. They do have those cones with mics that can pick up what some one is saying. I see them along the side line. After Belichick and the Pats were caught, they are just more subtle about it.
        If you replay the last SB, the Pats were calling for a substitution just before the pick.They inserted the guy who made the interception. Personally, I think they knew what was coming so he jumped the route.

      2. Kaep did run the pistol at Nevada, and I think he decided whether to run or pass after the snap, so he can make split second decisions. However, after last season, I can totally understand your point of view.
        I like what Tomsula told Kaep- Just be yourself. I think they will focus on his strengths to maximize his skills.

        1. Yeah, but I believe Kaep has always had the ability to kill the primary play and audible to the secondary or possibly even tertiary play that was sent in. I would say that is different than actually calling those sets of plays in the huddle. Still, I can’t wait to see the offense break the huddle with 25 or more seconds left on the clock. I’m so glad they finally made this a priority.

        2. Running a two minute drill, which Kaepernick is very good at, is not the same as trying to do it the whole game. It’s also vastly different than doing it in college for the whole game. All QBs called the game from the huddle back in the day. Over all, the NFL has believed that it works better with the coaches doing the play calling for some time now.

          Paul Brown was probably the one who started it by rotating his guards on every play. Payton Manning is calling his own offense now because it’s his and no one is going to tell him what to run. Tom Brady is able to call a lot of his plays in some situation. He is the master of goal line sneaks and catching 12 men on the field.

          Stabler didn’t play his first two years in Oakland, but once he started playing, he picked the plays he liked, and called what he wanted during the game. I’ve seen Kaepernick change plays at the line, and sometimes over value the advantage of single coverage on Crabtree. He may not be ready to handle a full game hurry up offense and calling his own plays yet.

    4. Isn’t a coach holding up the game plan sheet to his face when calling in a play the prevent against lipreading?

      And wasn’t Roman already scripting the initial game plays?

    1. I think that’s a possibility that can’t be ruled out Prime. We have two elder statesman at OT and are planning on having Kaep roll out plus run more. Defenses have said they have figured out how to contain Kaep. This upcoming season will show if that remains to be true.

      1. Was Prime referring to leading the NFL in sacks or sacks allowed? My interpretation was sacks, not sacks allowed.

        To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised to be in the top 5 – 10 of both!

        1. I hear what Prime is saying, but I’m not so sure. One of the complaints about Fangio was that his DL wore down severely as the season progressed because he didn’t substitute enough. It’s likely we will substitute more this upcoming season, but that seems to be a result of bringing in defensive lineman when the play appears to be a passing play. And this is where I have an issue. What constitutes a passing play? Sure, if it’s 3rd and ten or greater, odds would seem very high that a passing play will be called (field position has some influence on this as well). But what if it is 3rd and 5 to 7 yards. We now bring in DL who are good pass rushers (such as Dockett), but maybe not so good at stuffing the run. As the opposing coach I would certainly consider running instead of passing. Wasn’t one of the strengths of Ray and Justin that they could play equally well against the run or pass? Now once we make substitutions like Dockett, it might give the opposing offense an advantage in that gray area where either a run or pass might make sense. Having said that, an advantage is that the DL should remain fresher as the season wears on. Also, it looks like disguising the defense is a priority for Mangini. I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.

          1. Get sacks and causing QB hurries and pressures is what I meant.
            I think Aldon, Lynch, Harold and Brooks are going to be a huge surprise to the NFL this year.

          2. While I’m expecting to see more convention 3-4 looks this year under Mangini, I think you’ll find in nickel and dime (i.e. when the opponent goes 3 or more WRs) they could still look to use a different front and/ or personnel to the base D. I agree it would be smart for teams to run against the nickel D, especially if they go a 4-man front with the two interior DL as Dockett and Tank. Will be interesting to see what Mangini does there. Still very much an unknown at this juncture.

            In terms of disguise, my understanding is Mangini likes to create confusion by showing one thing and doing another – I’m over simplifying it here, but an example would be showing blitz on one side but then having it come from the other, or having alignment shifts pre-snap, or showing one type of coverage pre-snap but running another post-snap. Again, will be interesting to see how he goes about it.

            1. Well said Scooter. Add the fact that depth is a premium for the 49ers up front, we are gonna make life difficult for a lot of QB’s.

            2. Scooter:

              I’ve never given this any thought, but does a team generally wait to send in their nickle or dime package after the opposing offense puts three or more WRs on the field? Is there time to even do that?

              1. Yeah, they usually watch the substitutions of the offense to see what personnel they are using and adjust accordingly.

              2. If the offense huddles up and the defensive team is closely watching the offense, I suppose there would be enough time. But a no-huddle offense might be very challenging to keep up with in terms of substitutions.

              3. Absolutely right cubus, one of the benefits of the no-huddle offense is that it makes it hard on the defense to make substitutions in time before the next play gets off. But at the same time if an offense is playing no huddle but still substituting players between plays you can see the players going off and the players going on between each play – the defensive sideline will have a spotter watching for this. Well drilled defenses have the time to react to this and can get the substitutions in most of the time.

                The real difficulty is when the offense isn’t making substitutions and is sprinting up to the LOS after each play – tired defenders can get caught stuck on the field without enough time to substitute out.

              4. Also, when the offense subs the umpire will stand over the ball and allow the defense time to sub. Huddle or not.

              5. Never noticed that Grimey. Thanks. I’m going to make a point of watching for that during the games.

          3. Cubus,

            That’s an interesting and valid question you pose. What if Mangini substitutes in the pass rush/pass defense guys, believing the offense is going to pass, but the offense decides running against our pass defense package is the way to go? If the run is successful, on say, 3rd and 7 or 8, then more offenses will be tempted to try running against our pass defense, which may result in Mangini keeping our run defense in on what should be a short pass attempt (3rd and 10 or less). Trying to adjust to what the offense is showing may become Mangini’s biggest challenge this season.

            1. I think Mangini’s approach will be to try to make the offense react to what he’s doing, not just react to what they’re doing on offense. Easier said than done, and requires co-ordination and teamwork.

            2. Our defense will be in a lot of trouble if it can’t stop runs short of seven yards on third down with a passing alignment. It’s probably more realistic to ask that question about third and less than five yards.

    1. I like the nod to two of my draft fav’s Fisher and Ryan. Both were my favorites at their position for us to take but c’est la vie. I think Fisher has a longer road to success but i’m confident barring injury that both will have solid NFL careers.

    2. I would have preferred Robbie Havenstein over Jake Fisher. And Jimmie Ward is only 10 pounds lighter than Bethea so I’m pretty sure he could put on the weight needed for the role.

    3. I wish to respectfully disagree. With Cowboy and RM gone and Reaser looking sharp, I still like the Armstead pick, and 5 draft prognosticators agreed with the AA pick.
      I hope JH versus Tomsula does not degenerate into an Alex versus Kaep brouhaha.

      1. Seb, You obviously flunked your Blue Book history exams being too verbose and not remembering paramount events. In this case (within the last few months) Adam Gase rejected 49er overtures when they tried forcing your favorite coach (Tomsula) on him without, customarily, letting Gase hire his own staff…There will be “NO” comparisons because nobody has ever offered Tomsula (in this country) even a defensive coordinators position, whereas Harbaugh has had numerous Collegiate or NFL Head coaching offers. Please humour us an go back to an Adult Educaton center near you. (Retaking some history courses would be a good place to start).

        1. And Seb, remember, your favorite coach may not have been hired had the 49ers accepted Vic Fangio’s offer to be HC, with the caveat that he be allowed to hire Mike Shannahan as offensive coordinator and keep Ed Donatell…Remember it was Donatell who walked in to Denver Iin 2010) taking a 31st ranked pass defense and moving it to #15. The next year he moved it to number 4 (these are close approximations)…You see where this is leading….If you’re spending 80,000 for luxury boxes, 500.00 for a bottle of wine, which coaching staff would you rather see?

              1. Excuse me , the Donatell article misquoted. The Denver Defense Donatell fixed was worse than I thought…It was ranked 32nd and he brought it way up.
                The point is that you don’t get rid of coaches of Harbaugh’s staff’s calliber, hope that C. Kaepernick has progressed as a pocket passer. the defensive positions will be in synch with the new coaches and expect the season ticket holders will shell out thousands for PSL’s..It’s similar to selling an exceptional retail store and buying a mediocre one.

          1. Actually, I originally wanted Fangio, because I thought he would provide continuity. He also was a big reason for the Niner success the past 4 years.
            My opinion without a shred of hard evidence is that Fangio balked on making Tomsula the DC, so they passed on him.
            Have a nice day.

            1. It’s not much of a leap to assume that Fangio wanted to name his own coordinators. I agree that he didn’t want to work for Baalke/York under those circumstances.

              I wanted Fangio too, given the alternative.

              1. It will be interesting to see how he does in Chicago. I bet he is not looking forward to seeing Rodgers, CJohnson, and AP twice this season, with a defense that seems pedestrian.

    4. Grant, thanks for another thought provoking piece.

      Shortly after the draft I thought the 49ers wanted to trade back further than 17. I assumed Baalke thought he could get Armstead much later in round one … but the trade back for the Chargers 17was the only offer.

      I do remember Baalke talking about not wanting to trade farther then 17 for fear of losing Armstead, but he never mentioned refusing specific offers. It sounded like a face saving gesture for Armstead.

      A short time later many here said there were more trade back offers, but Baalke refused them. That made me feel better about the Armstead pick because it meant Baalke really valued him, and he wasn’t just “settling” for Armstead.

      A few weeks ago I asked Maiocco if he knew of any specific offers besides San Diego’s. He said…

      “I don’t know specifically if teams made solid, concrete offers to the 49ers. But I do know that they believe Armstead is such a unique individual who has the ability to play the 5-technique that they did not want to miss out on him. So, therefore, they were reluctant to trade back if it meant losing him even if it meant gaining additional draft picks.”

      If Maiocco’s memory was correct, it seems everyone was (sort of) right . There were no specific offers mentioned by Baalke other than San Diego’s, but he may have refused them anyway. It makes sense knowing how heavily scouted Armstead was. Baalke zeroed in on him well before this offseason.

      But I still have that nagging feeling if a team offered Baalke a 3rd to move into the mid-low 20s… or a 2nd to move back toward the end of the first, he would have jumped on it. Just a hunch.

      Its all moot now. Armstead is a developmental player. A gamble pick that could pay off big when he becomes the next Calais Campbell, or stay an “athlete” that never quite gels into the kind of monster a 17 should become.

      1. I just liked how Ohio state put 2 players in to block him, because he was over whelming the single blocker. If he can occupy 2 blockers, it will allow the Niner LBs stay clean to make tackles.

    5. Basing what they should have done on assumptions is not only foolish, it also gets the file 13 designation for literary pretentiousness….

      1. Ha! Just to prove you wrong, I’m going to let the new guy pack my parachute today. When I come back safe and sound this afternoon…

          1. Height – 99 Percentile
            Vertical Jump – 93 Percentile
            Broad Jump – 98 Percentile

            Seems like the 49ers drafted a giant spring. The longer the spring, the thicker the metal, the tighter the coil, the more the boing.

            Arik’s going to hear “low pad level” about 5,000 times this season.

      2. Seriously, there was a big trade-back contingency among this blog that thought Armstead could possibly fall out of the first if the 49ers skipped him. I wasn’t alone. Mocks (for what they’re worth) had him yo-yoing from 15 to the early 2nd. There was always Malcom Brown and other prospects if he did get taken before the mid 20s.

        The good news for the 49ers is that Baalke doesn’t listen to guys like me. If he did, I’d complain. Speculation season will soon be over. Here is what we do know…

        – Armstead has rare physical gifts. A great combination of length, bend at the waist, hand punch and agility.

        – Baalke heavily scouted, going back to Oregon games for two yeas. His pre-draft visit was lengthy and thorough. Almost an entire day. He even spent significant time with Mark Uyeyama. He was certainly targeted by Baalke.

        – He’s a virtual baby at 21. He’s only focused his conditioning training on football for single season. And his hand punch is already thumping. He should experience a big bump in power from year one to year two under Uyeyama. (Look how Dial’s body changed since his rookie season)

        Can’t wait to see this guy in action.

        1. If you look at the tape against Ohio St., clearly his ankle wasn’t bothering him as much. He was drawing a considerable amount of double teams. Kiper had him projected to the Falcons at pick 8 at one point. I think people will be surprised when he climbs the depth chart through training camp….

        2. Two reasons I didn’t want Armstead at that pick:

          1) I didn’t feel he was worthy of it from what he had shown on the field so far


          2) I don’t think you use a 1st round pick on a 5 Tech.

          He may turn out to be a great fit at that spot but I truly believe that is a position you can fill later in the draft, and unless he becomes a very good pass rusher on top of being able to occupy blockers (something he didn’t show in College) then he’s not worthy of going 17th overall imo.

    6. Grant is out of ideas and I can’t blame him. There is nothing happening right now. TC can’t come soon enough.

  20. There’s an article on PFT where John Elway is defending his 2014 draft picks against critics who complain that they didn’t contribute last year. I think that this is an example of the impatience and short sighted viewpoint we fans and some media types so often succumb to. I think the end of TC in 2016 is when the ’14 picks can start to be measured.

    1. Many fans do not take into consideration the fact that some teams are bad, and need players to fill holes immediately. Other teams who were in the playoffs have a solid line up and can afford to draft developmental players. Those playoff teams also draft later, so in the first round, the blue chip, cant miss players are all taken.

    2. It’s always seemed to me that most fans expect a first round pick to either start or definitely be in a starting rotation. When they are not, then the critics chime in particularly if the team has a less than stellar season.

      If I recall correctly, with Eric Reid and Jimmy Ward, the team had pretty much indicated that they would be starters unless they really bombed out in TC (which was not the case). I’m not sure what the team telegraphed as the expectation for AJ Jenkins. Maybe I’m wrong, but the 49ers seem to be indicating that they do not expect AA to be a starter; however, I’m sure that if he excels he’ll certainly be part of the rotation.

      1. If you’re a good team, you probably don’t want your rookies to start. Let them develop and contribute later in the season.

      2. Agree. I think you mentioned previously that Dockett would be rotated also. I hope they put Dockett only in for third down passing situations, and keep him fresh for the playoffs.
        Personally, I think AA will raise a few eye brows.

        1. I’ll admit I was not a fan of the AA selection with the 17th pick. However, it was made so it is what it is. I was surprised, however, by the reticence shown by Tomsula in discussing AA. Terms like “project”, “raw”, “needs to bulk up” have been thrown around. I guess I’ve always unconsciously believed that 1st round players should be able to start. But Prime makes a good point about good teams not needing to start rookies, whereas you pointed out that bad teams pretty much have no choice.

          1. OT, but thanks again for calming the waters. It takes a big man to admit he is wrong and you started it by saying you were sorry for calling me a troll.
            Again, I apologize to all offended, and really like the new tone set by your example.

      3. Aldon Smith didn’t start in his rookie season, but made a big impact.

        Arik couldn’t attend OTA/Mini-camps, but the 49ers might have given him a conditioning routine to work on.

        I can see it going two ways…
        – Use 2015 as a conditioning/study season
        – Use him in pass rush, filed goal bat-downs, goal line and other special situations… his snap count increasing as the season progresses.

      4. The expectation that rookies, even first round picks, should start or be big contributors to me is nuts. If they are able to that is great, but these guys are meant to be about the future. This is especially true for teams that already have strong rosters.

        If Armstead barely plays this year that is not a sign he is a bust. Just that he wasn’t ready this year. Some guys take longer than others to assimilate, some get stuck behind other really good players.

        1. Your point is taken, Scooter. But surely you can understand how fans of bad teams are desperate to have the future come now rather than later. Like corporations teams do need to take a business-like approach to turning around the team just like one would in turning around a business. In this analogy for fans a first-round pick might be akin to a new product announcement for shareholders. Still, businesses are seldom turned around in a year. What’s important is that there is a good turnaround plan in place and I can see how that applies to NFL teams as well. For fans, it’s an emotional reaction, but then what are fans (and many stockholders for that matter) …..

          1. Any business that is relying on graduates to turn their fortunes around in year 1 is pretty much doomed for failure.

            1. The analogy I was thinking of was not graduates for non-football businesses but product announcements. A lot of businesses rely on new/improved products to turn around the business. But perhaps you feel that an analogy between “1st round draftees” and “products” is not apt.

              1. Depends on the product. The product in the NFL is the product they put out on the field. In that regard you can think of it as similar to a knowledge based industry whose product may be a report or something similar. Expecting a graduate to come in and deliver high quality products isn’t a good business model.

                I think rookies can be seen as similar to graduates.

              2. Well, perhaps, but I don’t think you would find many examples in business of the executive team “selling” the idea to stockholders that graduates will turn around the business. For NFL teams, however, I think many bad teams sell the idea that the selection of that top pick (usually a QB) will turn around the team.

              3. Sure, I agree with that cubus, but to me its an unrealistic expectation. What the team is selling is hope to its fan base. It is also generally understood that rookies should become better players over time, they aren’t the finished product.

                There will be fans that expect a QB taken first overall to turn around a football team right away. Those fans come away disappointed. Most fans of a terrible team I think understand it will take a couple of years to turn the team around completely, and what they are hoping for is gradual improvement. Fans of these teams will also be expecting help through free agency – bringing in experienced players that are better than what the team currently has.

            2. Armstead will contribute to the success of the 49ers as a rookie because he’s in possession of all the physical tools from the 5 Tech shed, he will be playing essentially the same position he did for the Ducks, he’ll be playing alongside talented veterans with the full support of a NFL coaching staff that has a scheme specific role for him to play. I expect he will benefit from the weight training and nutrition, while at the same time annealed by attrition….

              1. Maybe, maybe not. The important thing is that if he doesn’t contribute much in year 1 its not the end of the world.

              2. The coaching staff should have reaction time and awareness drills already set up for him as soon as he gets into camp. Correct those issues and he’ll earn the starters role….

              3. I hope so. That would be a real boon. But as I said, if he spends this year doing not a whole lot that is fine too. He’s very young and not very experienced even for a rookie. If he takes some time to develop then so be it.

              4. Astute analysis. i hope to see him a lot preseason to showcase his talents, or expose his flaws that need improving upon.

          2. One other thing that I’m reminded of is that with the current rookie salary structure, it is significantly more “profitable” to the team if they can get draft picks that are starters or rotational starters because they maximize the yield (four years of starter production) versus the dollars expended.

          3. One of the biggest detriments to building a solid turn around program is the fans need for instant gratification — include the owners in that group too.

  21. All the coaches are on the hot seat – don’t bother differentiating as the one to take the fall or falls may have nothing to do with their aptitude as a coach.

    Rather, it will probably have more to do with who Jed York likes the least or hates the most – that man or those men will take the fall, b.s. will be created, or manipulated from molehills, a PR firm will come in to feed the press with anonymous sources or on the record sources (who most likely will be negotiating a new deal with the 49ers), and a whirlwind of spin will try to convince the unassuming 49er fans that this/these coach(es) are the cause of the poor performance and record.

    The poor performance and record are going to be the result of Jed York’s desire for profits and little to no genuine concern of wins. To that point, Jim was used by Jed to get him his new ballpark. Jed didin’t all of a sudden after 8 years of ineptitude care about wins. Now that he’s got his ballpark, Jim is gone, and the ineptitude will reign supreme in this once Super Bowl town.

    1. Hmmmmmm, me no follow you onto dangerous political ground, Kimosabe. Demons and quicksand out there. Bad medicine.
      Me stay safe here in the land of unfounded subjective sports opinions.
      Happy trails.
      ; >)

      1. Don’t blame you there Brotha. Kasich sports quite the impressive resume for the position, and Trump would be a perfect VP….

    2. What has Kasich ever done to you.

      Oh, I get it. You are a double agent. Oops. I guess I shouldn’t have outed you.

      1. Good cop/Bad cop, btw Trump keeps getting crapped on by business associates while at the same time leading all contenders by 4%. Go fish….

              1. Must be what’s behind him leading in the GOP polls, and his rise in approval among legal Mexican immigrants….

              2. Trump secured 17% support, according to the Suffolk University/USA Today survey. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush garnered 14%, while the rest of the 2016 field remained in single digits….

                Btw, in my community, I see by the thousands people who are here illegally that exploit the lax enforcement of immigration laws, participate in the drug and human trafficking trade, home invasions, wreck havock on the streets with DUI’s, hit and run offenses because they are not insured motorist, weigh down the medical system by using the ER as a triage facility, unwilling to learn English, take advantage of entitlement programs through identity theft and other fraudulent means, disrupt and bog down the public education system, leave litter in public spaces, cut in front of you at the grocery line….

              3. “cut in front of you at the grocery line….”

                Now that’s really a bad one.

                What community would that be?

                I was actually asking about poll numbers that show Trump gaining support from US citizens of Mexican decent who are not now republicans. They seem to be the group republicans should be interested in persuading.

              4. Yea, I was in line with my kids at Cedar Point, temperature near 90 with the sun beating down when these four “individuals” decided to cut in line and it happened to be just a few people ahead of us. Now mind you, these are 2 hour lines. No one said a word. No one that is, except me. I called them out. They talked crap and proceeded to lie to my face. At which point I told them I did not appreciate that. That’s when the others in line started to find their courage and speak up….

              5. That’s a bad experience, but I don’t know why you called it a Super Market line. I don’t want to make light of that experience but you make it sound like you were speaking English so those four individuals didn’t refuse to speak English. I’ve lived two years each in Thailand and Germany and I didn’t refuse to learn the language in either one, but you couldn’t call what I did learn communicating.

                I still wonder about your community having all those serious crime problems in Ohio or Canada due to illegal aliens.

                We live in Palo Alto which is the financial capital of Silicon Valley. The towns surrounding us, Mountain View, Redwood City, and East Palo Alto have large Hispanic populations. Our overall crime rate doesn’t match your description of Doomsday. Near by San Jose has gang activity based on more than one ethnicity, but it’s not so bad that it dominates the news. It’s just a typical big city problem and it’s a lot more complicated that undocumented foreigners.

                Because of the debate about “safe cities” and a murder case, I’ve learned that anyone who hasn’t been deported at least one time isn’t legally an illegal alien. They are just undocumented visitors until they are deported and come back illegally again.

                I don’t know about your locality, but in California undocumented and illegal workers are a big part of the economy.

              6. “In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers… Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.”

                *Robert Rector, MA, Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation, and Jason Richwine, PhD, Senior Policy Analyst for the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation (at the time of the quote) in their May 6, 2013 Heritage Foundation Special Report #133

              7. “How the Heritage Foundation went from the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement to the GOP’s bane—and how it’s hurting the party’s hopes for a turnaround.”


                I’m off to see the first episode of the TV series “Fargo” which extols middle America’s values. If it’s as good as the movie, I’ll love it.

              8. Founder of the American Federation of Labor and San Francisco native Samuel Gompers single-handedly pushed through America’s first immigration restriction laws in the early 1920s. In a letter to Congress at the time, Gompers said that the most hostile force to working people is their corporate employers “who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages.”

                Enjoy your programing!

  22. Hey guys , love all of you but this is a football blog….

    Many places where you can talk politics , but this is not one of them!!!


    1. This IS the off season and time for idle comments. Once TC starts, I bet there will be laser like focus on football.
      I like posters who are multi dimensional with differing interests.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *