NFC West

[Crimsoncrew]

Re: the 0-2 comment, I'm skeptical the Lions handle us in the 'Stick in a game starting at 8:20 EST. The GB game is going to be a tough one, but I think we've got a good shot if the D comes out ready to play.

 

[Bemular]

I wasn't going to explain any of it, but you did your classical "not sure what that even means" posts and I responded to it. I wasn't going to explain one part and not the other. Not every poster on this board listens to player's interviews the same amount or way as you or I do. So I'm not going to assume they do. They probably do, but no skin off my back to explain. I use disclaimers all the time and I took no offense to your assumptions. I just explain everything because that's my personality. I know you don't like it, but that's just the way I post. Just because we root for the same team and post on the same board doesn't mean we've got to be friends. I understand that, but I'm not going to change the way I post and I don't expect you to either.

I am a Niner fan first, not a Smith fan first. I just happen to believe he's better than some say (and obviously not as good as some profess) and that he can lead us where we want to go. I admittedly pay more attention to the QB position than others but can appreciate the other positions. I recognize that other positions have been established in this league much farther than Smith. What is there to discuss about Patrick Willis other than being better than Ray Lewis? I'll discuss all of the positions but the QB, even when Smith leaves, will be my main focus.

Look, MHSL82, I get it, you like to explain things, but seriously dude, sometimes your explanations have all the continuity of a sailboat in a hurricane.

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the "no question" part of your post, thus the reason I expressed "I wouldn't know if the "No question" aspect makes me feel better because I'm not sure what you mean by that."

You're comment simply made zero sense to me. I'm talking about this nitwit from Yardbarker claiming that Alex is one of the most underrated QB's in the NFL and you are talking about Alex's propensity to answer interview questions with the phrase, "no question".

Don't take this personally; I'm just trying to show you why I said what I said.

 

[Bemular]

Re: the 0-2 comment, I'm skeptical the Lions handle us in the 'Stick in a game starting at 8:20 EST. The GB game is going to be a tough one, but I think we've got a good shot if the D comes out ready to play.

I see the GB game as a test more of our offense than our defense. GB is going to put up points far greater than what our eventual season average may become, and it will be up to our offense to keep up with that.

 

[MHSL82]

Look, MHSL82, I get it, you like to explain things, but seriously dude, sometimes your explanations have all the continuity of a sailboat in a hurricane.

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the "no question" part of your post, thus the reason I expressed "I wouldn't know if the "No question" aspect makes me feel better because I'm not sure what you mean by that."

You're comment simply made zero sense to me. I'm talking about this nitwit from Yardbarker claiming that Alex is one of the most underrated QB's in the NFL and you are talking about Alex's propensity to answer interview questions with the phrase, "no question".

Don't take this personally; I'm just trying to show you why I said what I said.

The "if that makes you feel better" was more for Crimsoncrew because he said he was done with yardbarker. And I took that as a good humor way of saying "no more of this, you're crazy." And I was saying, no I'm not crazy, I don't agree with the content but posted it for the humor.

I only applied it to you because you didn't get what I said. I know that sometimes I post in convoluted ways, but I can assure you that I am easier to speak with in person. I'm working on being more clear but that increases the words or I have to leave things more ambiguous by not explaining. I don't evaluate things simple-mindedly; I try to develop the thought. It's much easier to do it simply if you cut out thought. If someone else has a different perspective than I do (on what my point is), of course, the things that are different are superfluous to them. Here is where the continuity of a sailboat in a hurricane" comes in.

Emails and message boards can be misinterpretted and annoying because of tone, most of what I say is non-serious - but the length makes it sound like it is. (No, I don't mean tone as in "I don't like your tone, young lady" - I mean tone, as in understanding what the other person's style - sometimes I say something in humor and people take that as literal, you know?) I'm not trying to be annoying and I hope that there will be more interesting and content based interactions in the future.

If someone doesn't understand my rambling, they're free to ask what I mean. Like deep9er does or crimsoncrew does. It's easier and more civil to communicate that way. I enjoy conversing with people like them. I just find it annoying when others ask by saying that I make no sense or tell me that I'm wasting my/their time. Sometimes my novels are shorter than what they could be because I thought I didn't need to explain further. I try to be more clear and that makes it longer.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I see the GB game as a test more of our offense than our defense. GB is going to put up points far greater than what our eventual season average may become, and it will be up to our offense to keep up with that.

I agree. But we need our D to at least slow them down. If they come out like they did in the season opener last year, we don't have a chance. If we can hold them under 30, I think we're very much in it. Much more than that and I think we'll be in trouble. Ds tend to start out a little slower, so I was trying to say that I hope ours starts off a little better than usual this year.

 

[Clayton]

ST. LOUIS RAMS

Left guard: Rokevious Watkins versus Bryan Mattison.

The Rams are counting on offensive line coach Paul Boudreau to coach up the position at right tackle and left guard in particular.

..............

Whatever the case, the Rams will likely be counting on an inexperienced left guard to help protect Sam Bradford and clear running lanes for Steven Jackson. It's important someone rises to the occasion.

Right Tackle is still the big issue. Jason Smith has been awful and Spags would often cater all of the protection around the fact that Smith was awful. Schottenheimer should be used to this coming from the Jets and their RT problems but when you spend the #2 pick on a guy, you have to think that he can get his stance straight at some point in time.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I'd like to discuss how awesome the name Rokevious is. That guy better win the spot.

 

[Bemular]

I agree. But we need our D to at least slow them down. If they come out like they did in the season opener last year, we don't have a chance. If we can hold them under 30, I think we're very much in it. Much more than that and I think we'll be in trouble. Ds tend to start out a little slower, so I was trying to say that I hope ours starts off a little better than usual this year.

I 100% agree! And for what it is worth I do expect our defense to start off near top speed for obvious reasons. Our offense added a lot of new pieces and thus I expect them to be a page or two behind our defense.

That said, I still expect GB's offense to put up enough points to force more than a conservative effort to win. I am honestly thrilled with our opener. I see it as an excellent test to start the season from which the lessons learned will serve only to make us better quicker and throughout the rest of the season.

 

[Bemular]

I'd like to discuss how awesome the name Rokevious is. That guy better win the spot.

RowWTF? Can we begin with the pro-nunc-see-ation please??

 

[Clayton]

I'd like to discuss how awesome the name Rokevious is. That guy better win the spot.

I think he'll win the starting spot. And he still has to beat out Michael Hoomanawanui for best name on the team

 

[Bemular]

The "if that makes you feel better" was more for Crimsoncrew...

Oh, okay, I see now, yeah that makes perfect sense. So did you quote my post in your response by mistake or did you honestly just believe I wouldn't see it?

The hole your digging is becoming your grave. Just stop.

 

[Bemular]

I think he'll win the starting spot. And he still has to beat out Michael Hoomanawanui for best name on the team

Sounds Hawaiian - if it's Hawaiian I gotta go with the Hawaiian.

 

[threelittleturds]

I see the GB game as a test more of our offense than our defense. GB is going to put up points far greater than what our eventual season average may become, and it will be up to our offense to keep up with that.

I disagree. For the 49ers to win that game the defense needs to kick the shit out of them like the Giants did in the Divisional Round. That was a team that averaged 35 ppg and the Giants held them to 20.

If the defense does their job and keeps one of the best offenses in the league to 20 points or less, it'd be a crying shame if Alex and the offense couldn't get it done and score 21+ against the 32nd ranked defense.

To me, it is still more of a test for the defense. If they want to be the best they need to shut down the best. If Rogers keeps it up, along with Brown, Culliver, and Cox all playing better than their previous seasons. The 49ers should smoke the Packers. It mostly hinges on Culliver and Cox, because those are the guys playing the position which Rodgers attacks. If you remember the 2009 and 2010 games in Green Bay, it was Brown and Brock who he mainly went after when they were the 3rd and 4th CBs, and they gave up the big TD passes and tons of yards on chip shots.

 

[Jikkle]

I agree. But we need our D to at least slow them down. If they come out like they did in the season opener last year, we don't have a chance. If we can hold them under 30, I think we're very much in it. Much more than that and I think we'll be in trouble. Ds tend to start out a little slower, so I was trying to say that I hope ours starts off a little better than usual this year.

I think returning all the starters and having a full offseason will help us avoid a slow start on defense to start the year.

But I agree that we'll need to hold them under 30 and I think that's doable because I think our defense would effectively get pressure on Rodgers because I don't see anyone being able to really keep the Smiths under wraps.

I think the game will mainly come down to how improved is the Packers' D vs how improved our O is.

 

[Bemular]

I disagree. For the 49ers to win that game the defense needs to kick the shit out of them like the Giants did in the Divisional Round. That was a team that averaged 35 ppg and the Giants held them to 20.

If the defense does their job and keeps one of the best offenses in the league to 20 points or less, it'd be a crying shame if Alex and the offense couldn't get it done and score 21+ against the 32nd ranked defense.

To me, it is still more of a test for the defense. If they want to be the best they need to shut down the best. If Rogers keeps it up, along with Brown, Culliver, and Cox all playing better than their previous seasons. The 49ers should smoke the Packers. It mostly hinges on Culliver and Cox, because those are the guys playing the position which Rodgers attacks. If you remember the 2009 and 2010 games in Green Bay, it was Brown and Brock who he mainly went after when they were the 3rd and 4th CBs, and they gave up the big TD passes and tons of yards on chip shots.

Couple thoughts, first I could not agree more that GB will be a test for our defense, just as the NO, NE, DET & other games will be as well. But, I'm not counting on the mistakes that helped the NYG's beat GB to be there for us.

I'm not taking anything away from the Giants defense, but if you recall, the Packers offense played uncharacteristically flawed football and in doing so they both left points on the field as well as gave some points away.

To your point however, if we can play lights out on D and force GB to make the kind of mistakes they made against the Giants then the D may be all we need - I'm just not willing to bet that will be the case.

I think it is highly unlikely the Packer offense plays like they did vs. the Giants and I am predicting Smith & Co. will need to play an active as opposed to a passive role in starting the season 1-0.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I agree it's unlikely the Packers' offense struggles the way they did against the Giants. They weren't clicking, and you had to wonder if the death of Joe Philbin's son played a part in that. They left an awful lot of points on the board and Rodgers just didn't look right all game.

 

[Bemular]

I agree it's unlikely the Packers' offense struggles the way they did against the Giants. They weren't clicking, and you had to wonder if the death of Joe Philbin's son played a part in that. They left an awful lot of points on the board and Rodgers just didn't look right all game.

Oh, wow, I had forgot all about that - You may be on to something with that idea.

 

[MHSL82]

Oh, okay, I see now, yeah that makes perfect sense. So did you quote my post in your response by mistake or did you honestly just believe I wouldn't see it?

The hole your digging is becoming your grave. Just stop.

I included your quote because both of you did not like yardbarker and I was telling both of you that I was not posting the article because I agreed with it but rather because of the "no question" part. I was "more for Crimsoncrew" because he mentioned how I posted two yardbarker articles, not just the "no question" one. I was unseriously defending myself for posting two yardbarker articles.

These were things I seriously didn't think I would end up having to explain. I feel that if any other poster did the same thing I did it would have had a different response. If you gave it half a try, you'd understand what I was saying after I explained it (perhaps not before). So my bad for being unclear, but this "grave" I'm digging is the truth and I'm just explaining because you keep misinterpretting my intentions (which I know I have some blame).

 

[Bemular]

I included your quote because both of you did not like yardbarker and I was telling both of you that I was not posting the article because I agreed with it but rather because of the "no question" part. I was "more for Crimsoncrew" because he mentioned how I posted two yardbarker articles, not just the "no question" one. I was unseriously defending myself for posting two yardbarker articles.

These were things I seriously didn't think I would end up having to explain. I feel that if any other poster did the same thing I did it would have had a different response. If you gave it half a try, you'd understand what I was saying after I explained it (perhaps not before). So my bad for being unclear, but this "grave" I'm digging is the truth and I'm just explaining because you keep misinterpretting my intentions (which I know I have some blame).

How could I have misinterpreted your intentions if I never addressed your intentions?

 

[threelittleturds]

I agree it's unlikely the Packers' offense struggles the way they did against the Giants. They weren't clicking, and you had to wonder if the death of Joe Philbin's son played a part in that. They left an awful lot of points on the board and Rodgers just didn't look right all game.

If the problem was not having Philbin focused, then I don't expect them to recover when they won't have Philbin in any capacity.

If you meant that the players were distracted too, I'm not so sure because it wasn't their son. I'm sure they felt bad for Philbin like anyone would when you're that close to a tragic death, but that scenario tends to make the guys play harder and better as they try and win one for Gipper.

Anyway, this could easily turn into a game like the one against the Saints. Where the offense needs to step up and score 30+ points because the Packers Offense is just as explosive as New Orleans and the 49ers have similar breakdowns like the Graham TD and Sproles TD. I think that is more likely, but if that happens it greatly decreases the 49ers chances to win because that isn't their normal style. Their best chance to win is if the defense shows up and plays almost flawless.

I'd be really upset with Smith and Co. if they couldn't move the ball on what was the 32nd ranked defense a year ago. If Smith, Moss, Davis, Crabtree, Manningham and the rest of the guys can't move the ball on the worst secondary in the league (32nd in yards against the pass). They should be ashamed of themselves.