Is Trent Baalke Andy Reid 2.0

[NinerSickness]

That is a good post. In this era, no team is a lock for the SB. The best you can shoot for is...
1) Win your division
2) Win HFA
3) Remain somewhat healthy.
4) Have luck on your side.

Those 4 ingredients add tremendously to a teams chances of winning. Once a team makes the playoffs, reel off a few wins and it's Badda Bing Badda BOOM!

We had this discussion about a decade ago on the BSPN forum; and we were asking if it's better to have a GM who makes vanilla personnel moves to make the team consistently good but rarely in a position to win the big one, or is it better to have a GM who is willing to screw future caps a bit for the sake of ramming through a potential Super Bowl window-of-opportunity. Either one could win or lose based on the last 2 factors you mentioned, but which one is better?

I noticed Trent Baalke has been unwilling to make moves in FA to put the team over the top the last few years. He's fielded great talent, but I think he's almost-irresponsibly neglected certain holes on the team when he had the opportunity to fill 'em (by sacrificing long-term success). He had the opportunity to go after guys like Steve Smith in 2011 (on the trading block) or Mike Wallace in 2012 (sacrificing the pick that became AJ Jenkins) or sign a FA to address the dire need for depth on the DL the last couple of years. But he chose to be conservative. I'm not saying the team would've won any of those years' Super Bowls if he did make those moves, but I was very frustrated that he didn't.

 

[supreme_clientele81]

We had this discussion about a decade ago on the BSPN forum; and we were asking if it's better to have a GM who makes vanilla personnel moves to make the team consistently good but rarely in a position to win the big one, or is it better to have a GM who is willing to screw future caps a bit for the sake of ramming through a potential Super Bowl window-of-opportunity. Either one could win or lose based on the last 2 factors you mentioned, but which one is better?

I noticed Trent Baalke has been unwilling to make moves in FA to put the team over the top the last few years. He's fielded great talent, but I think he's almost-irresponsibly neglected certain holes on the team when he had the opportunity to fill 'em (by sacrificing long-term success). He had the opportunity to go after guys like Steve Smith in 2011 (on the trading block) or Mike Wallace in 2012 (sacrificing the pick that became AJ Jenkins) or sign a FA to address the dire need for depth on the DL the last couple of years. But he chose to be conservative. I'm not saying the team would've won any of those years' Super Bowls if he did make those moves, but I was very frustrated that he didn't.

But isn't that the rub though? If we make those moves you wanted and still don't win the 49ers could be in a very bad position now. Are window was just opening in 11 and it was our HC 1st year and GM 2nd year with the team to ask Baalke to go in full out win now mode and sacrifice years 4-5 would have been irresponsible IMO. We aren't the Broncos or Pats where the core of our team is old. So to kill cap and not be able to sign the young core we do have on a chance to win the Superbowl doesn't make since to me.

Also other then 2011 a big time FA wouldn't have put us over the top. We needed a WR in 11 but we didn't lose the SB because of lack of offense in 12 we lost because of bad secondary play and injuries in the front 7.

 

[optimist4720]

We were in the position personnel wise the last 2 years...it came down to one play both years. No matter who we have personnel wise you still have to execute and make the play happen. We fell short on finishing both years...and mainly that was due to the defense not finishing. Against the Ravens the D didn't even show up in the fist half ...against the Seahawks..the D didn't show up in the second half. Sure ift would have been easier if we had a few more players but the fact is we didn't execute on the last 2 plays both years..and that what it came down to ..execution in clutch time.

 

[NinerSickness]

Also other then 2011 a big time FA wouldn't have put us over the top. We needed a WR in 11 but we didn't lose the SB because of lack of offense in 12 we lost because of bad secondary play and injuries in the front 7.

Oh I don't agree with that at all. The secondary played great in 2011. Aside from QB play against the Giants, the single biggest problem was that there was Crabtree and a bunch of scrubs who didn't belong in the NFL at WR.

 

[supreme_clientele81]

Also other then 2011 a big time FA wouldn't have put us over the top. We needed a WR in 11 but we didn't lose the SB because of lack of offense in 12 we lost because of bad secondary play and injuries in the front 7.

Oh I don't agree with that at all. The secondary played great in 2011. Aside from QB play against the Giants, the single biggest problem was that there was Crabtree and a bunch of scrubs who didn't belong in the NFL at WR.

I think you do agree.

 

[NinerSickness]

I think you do agree.

This is the part with which I disagree:

We needed a WR in 11 but we didn't lose the SB because of lack of offense in 12 we lost because of bad secondary play and injuries in the front 7.

 

[MHSL82]

We had this discussion about a decade ago on the BSPN forum; and we were asking if it's better to have a GM who makes vanilla personnel moves to make the team consistently good but rarely in a position to win the big one, or is it better to have a GM who is willing to screw future caps a bit for the sake of ramming through a potential Super Bowl window-of-opportunity. Either one could win or lose based on the last 2 factors you mentioned, but which one is better?

I noticed Trent Baalke has been unwilling to make moves in FA to put the team over the top the last few years. He's fielded great talent, but I think he's almost-irresponsibly neglected certain holes on the team when he had the opportunity to fill 'em (by sacrificing long-term success). He had the opportunity to go after guys like Steve Smith in 2011 (on the trading block) or Mike Wallace in 2012 (sacrificing the pick that became AJ Jenkins) or sign a FA to address the dire need for depth on the DL the last couple of years. But he chose to be conservative. I'm not saying the team would've won any of those years' Super Bowls if he did make those moves, but I was very frustrated that he didn't.

You made the comparison to Reid. But once he got the personnel say, didn't he try to win through big free agency moves? It was the dream team, for him to try to win it all in his window. Of course, we have a different because we have a GM, QB, and head coach of different qualities.

 

[NinerSickness]

You made the comparison to Reid. But once he got the personnel say, didn't he try to win through big free agency moves?

Eventually he did. I guess I'm talking about his strategy back when the Eagles were good. And I'm pretty sure he had final say on personnel moves very early into his Eagles' career.

 

[BOB11]

I love what Baalke has done for us in most part. My one pet peeve though is our passing offense. We have ranked around the bottom of the league under him as GM. It has come back to bite us against teams like Seattle and such.

 

[yossarian]

Oh I don't agree with that at all. The secondary played great in 2011. Aside from QB play against the Giants, the single biggest problem was that there was Crabtree and a bunch of scrubs who didn't belong in the NFL at WR.

But in the Superbowl against the Ravens the secondary got boatraced. As much as Kaepernick may nor may not have had the opportunity to win and didn't seal -- the secondary actively played the biggest part in our losing the game. NFC title game against Seattle, same thing, the secondary and the d line had their thumb up their collective asses while Russell Wilson had 34 minutes to throw the fucking ball and then threw a 45 yd td pass. On fourth down! That still just kills me.

One more thing about not getting Mike Wallace or whoever with the pick that was AJ Jenkins --- Wallace would have commanded a lot of money and we might have lost even more people than our safety to free agency or being cut. I just don't think the decision is as simple as that.

 

[darken65]

But in the Superbowl against the Ravens the secondary got boatraced. As much as Kaepernick may nor may not have had the opportunity to win and didn't seal -- the secondary actively played the biggest part in our losing the game. NFC title game against Seattle, same thing, the secondary and the d line had their thumb up their collective asses while Russell Wilson had 34 minutes to throw the fucking ball and then threw a 45 yd td pass. On fourth down! That still just kills me.

One more thing about not getting Mike Wallace or whoever with the pick that was AJ Jenkins --- Wallace would have commanded a lot of money and we might have lost even more people than our safety to free agency or being cut. I just don't think the decision is as simple as that.

Collective fuck-ups...I agree. Those games would have been better to deal with if it had not come down to the 9ers not being able to score in the redzone at that last minute.

 

[NinerSickness]

But in the Superbowl against the Ravens the secondary got boatraced.

We're talking about 2 different years. The WR comment was when the Niners lost to Eli & the VaGiants. In the SB loss year, depth on the DL was the biggest problem IMO.

 

[MHSL82]

But in the Superbowl against the Ravens the secondary got boatraced. As much as Kaepernick may nor may not have had the opportunity to win and didn't seal -- the secondary actively played the biggest part in our losing the game. NFC title game against Seattle, same thing, the secondary and the d line had their thumb up their collective asses while Russell Wilson had 34 minutes to throw the fucking ball and then threw a 45 yd td pass. On fourth down! That still just kills me.

One more thing about not getting Mike Wallace or whoever with the pick that was AJ Jenkins --- Wallace would have commanded a lot of money and we might have lost even more people than our safety to free agency or being cut. I just don't think the decision is as simple as that.

The Niners scored six points in the first half of the Super Bowl. That had as much to do with that loss, too. I believe the whole team lost it. Just because we came back and we had defensive problems, doesn't mean that that was the main culprit. The third-quarter score was a kickoff return and the fourth-quarter had two field goals. That's pretty good defense. I think both the offense and the defense played their part in that come back. Both played their part in getting us the deficit. I believe not starting off well on offense as well as good defense in the second half removes it from being a one side blame.

Having said all that, I don't think the offense gets the whole blame because we had a possession at the end where we didn't score. Just like how Kyle Williams wasn't the only reason we lost the 2011 game. Just like how the last possession of the Seattle game wasn't the whole blame. This is what makes football so hard and why I like the game. It's a team game.

As far as the Seattle game does, I don't see how one can shift it one way or another. Yes, the defense had problems. But there were three turnovers on the last three possessions and the defense limited the last two possessions to one field goal. While people try to make to 2011 a quarterback and receiver loss, there were two possessions taken away plus the opportunity to run the clock out more. Plus, we had Manning's touchdown at the end before Gore lead us to the game-tying field-goal. The last three NFCC losses were team games. The winds were sent to the offense in the Saints and Packers games. The Atlanta game was offense and defense, IMO, depending on what point of the game was. The Carolina game was defense.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I think Baalke has been pretty good over-all but has a blind spot in regards to drafting wide receivers. We'll see this year if he can change that trend.

I would also like to see them dump Greg Roman and go in another direction.

Agree with Patterson above that the jury is out on the last draft, because Tank Carradine and Lattimore could be very good.

It's really tough to say who bears more blame for the WR position, Baalke or the coaches. Jenkins seems like a miss, but we have gotten nothing from the WR position other than a top-10 pick and two established vets (I'll give Manningham pre-injury some credit). Granted we haven't thrown a lot of picks at the position, but the inability to create production at the position is a huge indictment of the coaching staff IMO.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

We had this discussion about a decade ago on the BSPN forum; and we were asking if it's better to have a GM who makes vanilla personnel moves to make the team consistently good but rarely in a position to win the big one, or is it better to have a GM who is willing to screw future caps a bit for the sake of ramming through a potential Super Bowl window-of-opportunity. Either one could win or lose based on the last 2 factors you mentioned, but which one is better?

I noticed Trent Baalke has been unwilling to make moves in FA to put the team over the top the last few years. He's fielded great talent, but I think he's almost-irresponsibly neglected certain holes on the team when he had the opportunity to fill 'em (by sacrificing long-term success). He had the opportunity to go after guys like Steve Smith in 2011 (on the trading block) or Mike Wallace in 2012 (sacrificing the pick that became AJ Jenkins) or sign a FA to address the dire need for depth on the DL the last couple of years. But he chose to be conservative. I'm not saying the team would've won any of those years' Super Bowls if he did make those moves, but I was very frustrated that he didn't.

Here's the problem with comparing Reid and Baalke: Reid was also the HC. We have been in position to win the big one the last three years. In the playoffs, it falls on the coaching. We have fallen short for a variety of reasons, but IMO, talent clearly isn't one of them. This team has easily been among the top-5 in terms of talent and depth for the last three years. No team is without its holes. Baalke has done a far better job than most of plugging those holes.

And saying we should have traded a first round pick for Wallace is just dumb, Sick. It's easy to sit back and say, "It was only AJ Jenkins." We didn't know that at the time, and Wallace hasn't exactly been lighting the league on fire the past two years.

 

[NinerSickness]

And saying we should have traded a first round pick for Wallace is just dumb, Sick. It's easy to sit back and say, "It was only AJ Jenkins." We didn't know that at the time, and Wallace hasn't exactly been lighting the league on fire the past two years.

If they traded a first rounder for Mike Wallace they would've won the Super Bowl. Mike Wallace instead of a washed-up Randy Moss or a craptastic Kyle Williams? That team would've been unstoppable.

And that's what I mean about Baalke's strategy. He'll field an extremely talented team, but he seems to live by the school of thought that it's better to consistently be good over a long period of time than add a few pieces in FA to field one absolutely stacked team in a Super Bowl run.

I'm not saying it's always a bad thing; you can win a SB either way (depending on luck & injuries). But I really would've preferred to have screwed future caps a little in order to have solved the WR & D-line depth problems over the last 3 years. And those weren't just problems people could see in hindsight; I was talking about these problems & potential short-term fixes beforehand.

 

[yossarian]

I agree they are team losses, I was trying to point out that for all the talk about the offense you could make at least an equal or greater case for the defense. As for Wallace, Alex Smith couldn't get Crabtree the ball effectively, Why would he have been able to get Wallace the ball?

 

[NinerSickness]

As for Wallace, Alex Smith couldn't get Crabtree the ball effectively, Why would he have been able to get Wallace the ball?

It's all relative. Would the passing game be the Denver Broncos? No. Would Mike Wallace be able to get the ball a lot more than Kyle suckbag Williams (whom EVERYONE except me fiercely defended by the way; I'm looking at you Clyde)? Yes.

The Niners barely lost that game. A difference that huge at one position could have easily been the difference in the game.

Plus Alex Smith was actually really accurate on go routes when he could lob it up there & didn't need much velocity.

 

[badazzk9]

It's all relative. Would the passing game be the Denver Broncos? No. Would Mike Wallace be able to get the ball a lot more than Kyle suckbag Williams (whom EVERYONE except me fiercely defended by the way; I'm looking at you Clyde)? Yes.

The Niners barely lost that game. A difference that huge at one position could have easily been the difference in the game.

Plus Alex Smith was actually really accurate on go routes when he could lob it up there & didn't need much velocity.

[YOUTUBE]J0mJZB2v-og[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Badger8843]

All his completions over 20 yards in a 3 min video