Passing game: what is the biggest weakness?

[Crimsoncrew]

You're right, it is not your natural fallback because, at least as far as my entire experience with you is concerned, it is your natural state. Trying to disguise your insults, your exaggerations and prevarications with fluff changes neither the content nor the intent.

So, if you want civil exchanges - Done! Most posters on this board are unaware of the BS you spew because of the way you spew it; I, however, am acutely aware of every word of it and I will always call you on it; however, in the future, I will be more civil about it when I do.

Fair?

As I've said before, you give our fellow posters far too little credit. They see through your BS, and they see through mine if and when I spew it. And I hate to break it to you, but anyone who is still subjecting themselves to this thread will realize that you just claimed you were smarter than them.

I have made incorrect statements, dubious assertions, and outright wrongheaded claims in my decade on this bard and ESPN. You've pointed out a handful of those, and I have acknowledged when I was wrong. There's a lesson in that you might learn from. Whether you do or not, though, I don't think the aggressiveness and vitriol that we have both demonstrated in the past is productive. I will remain civil as long as you do, and probably a bit longer. We'll see how long it lasts....

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

You guys have a funny little war.......its all acidic insults and venom, delivered in the most even and almost passive tones. Its very high-class shit talking.

 

[grayghost668]

What is the weakest link in the pass game? Protection, receivers, game plan, or QB?

I would say it is the protection. While all facets are weak, this one will kill any team. Any QB under constant pressure is not going to have a good game. I have seen Tom Brady look bad under serious pressure. When protection has been good, Alex and the receivers have shown they can be productive and efficient. Not dynamic or explosive, but enough to get the job done while the D holds down the other team.

Second, I would say it is the receivers. There is just almost no ability to make special plays, explosive plays. They just about never do it. Other than Williams taking that little pass and going 56 yards in the previous game I cannot remember the last time a receiver did anything like that. The cardinals won yesterday because they did it 3 times.

3rd I would say play calling. With the limited field view available on TV it is hard to say but it seems like most of our pass patterns are very short and therefore we put little pressure on the defense. Contrast that with Green Bay who seems to have everyone out on 20-30-40 yard passes routes every play that opens up big holes in the defense. I think we ought to at least sling a few deep ones down the field early in each game to open up the defense.

Finally, Alex is only average or so. Combine that with all the above you get what we have: a weak pass attack that scares no one.

The lesson to take I think is that you have to fix the first three before you worry about QB. yes we need another one, a better one, but we can take our time to find and groom one while getting the other pieces in place. Alex can be the guy or another couple of years.

sounds like you have a lot of problems,

the 49ers have had a good season and have played reasonably well with the players they have,

no team is perfict,see you monday night

 

[MW49ers5]

As I've said before, you give our fellow posters far too little credit. They see through your BS, and they see through mine if and when I spew it. And I hate to break it to you, but anyone who is still subjecting themselves to this thread will realize that you just claimed you were smarter than them.

I have made incorrect statements, dubious assertions, and outright wrongheaded claims in my decade on this bard and ESPN. You've pointed out a handful of those, and I have acknowledged when I was wrong.

There's a lesson in that you might learn from. Whether you do or not, though, I don't think the aggressiveness and vitriol that we have both demonstrated in the past is productive. I will remain civil as long as you do, and probably a bit longer. We'll see how long it lasts....

Crimson,

I certainly apologize if my comment left your intelligence feeling threatened; I assure you there is no such subtext in my comment. However, allow me to further explain my comment to clear up your confusion.

Not long ago, you asserted that I claimed certain of our receivers were better than Michael Crabtree. That was an outright fabrication; and, when I called you on it, instead of just owning it, you decided to take a statement I had made two months prior from a completely different discussion, thoroughly out of context.

You knew precisely what the context of my statement was, as well as the subsequent discussion and exactly what I said. Yet, despite this you chose to use my statement as support for your false claim anyway. Furthermore, that was just one of six outright fabrications you told during those discussions.

You proceeded then to dress-up the whole prevarication to look as if I owed you an explanation for something I never said; further suggesting that other posters on the board were tired of me not answering for what I never said.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Now, you wrote in this thread the following:

"I have made incorrect statements, dubious assertions, and outright wrongheaded claims.... You've pointed out a handful of those, and I have acknowledged when I was wrong."

I appreciate the candor of the first part of your comment and hope the second part becomes basis of all our future discussions.

Thanks.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson,

I certainly apologize if my comment left your intelligence feeling threatened; I assure you there is no such subtext in my comment. However, allow me to further explain my comment to clear up your confusion.

Not long ago, you asserted that I claimed certain of our receivers were better than Michael Crabtree. That was an outright fabrication; and, when I called you on it, instead of just owning it, you decided to take a statement I had made two months prior from a completely different discussion, thoroughly out of context.

You knew precisely what the context of my statement was, as well as the subsequent discussion and exactly what I said. Yet, despite this you chose to use my statement as support for your false claim anyway. Furthermore, that was just one of six outright fabrications you told during those discussions.

You proceeded then to dress-up the whole prevarication to look as if I owed you an explanation for something I never said; further suggesting that other posters on the board were tired of me not answering for what I never said.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Now, you wrote in this thread the following:

"I have made incorrect statements, dubious assertions, and outright wrongheaded claims.... You've pointed out a handful of those, and I have acknowledged when I was wrong."

I appreciate the candor of the first part of your comment and hope the second part becomes basis of all our future discussions.

Thanks.

Why would my intelligence be threatened? I'm the only one you didn't insinuate was stupid in your last post.

As for the Crabtree conversation, we can revisit it if you really want to, though I doubt it will help our civility agreement. First, it wasn't a fabrication. As you admit above, at worst I took you out of context. Except I didn't even do that. I fairly and accurately attributed a statement to you. Your baseless claim that it was taken out of context notwithstanding. Hell, I'm still waiting for you to clarify how I took it out of context. But please, explain it to me now. Here's the conversation:

Me: Of course, the Niners were missing their top two receivers.

You: We were missing only Edwards, thus we were missing only one of our top receivers. If you are referring to Crabtree, he is not one of our 'top two receivers'. I would place each of, Walker, Davis, Ginn, Williams and Morgan on a level equal to or above that of Crabtree.

Clearly no one on this board is as smart as you, so walk us through it slowly. When you said Walker, Ginn, Williams and Morgan were "on a level equal to or above that of Crabtree," how exactly did that not mean that they are as good or better than him? What context am I removing or obscuring?

 

[Ray_Dogg]

You don't think a QB has any effect on a TE's numbers? I think it is a big factor. I think Davis is right behind Gates and probably as good or better than the other two.
How many tiers below Brady, Brees and Rivers is Alex Smith?

Sorry but Graham and Gronk are light years better than Davis. I sense some mad homerism on your part. Davis is really limited by his lack of agility and not so great hands. He jump catches everything and is fast in a straight line.

 

[deep9er]

Sorry but Graham and Gronk are light years better than Davis. I sense some mad homerism on your part. Davis is really limited by his lack of agility and not so great hands. He jump catches everything and is fast in a straight line.

yep, for Davis' RECEIVING skills, he isn't elite even though some here still believe it. 'skills' doesn't refer to just catching the ball, which we already know isn't elite. it includes route running, ball awareness, and all the other things receivers do to make them elite.

if Davis was an elite receiver, there's no doubt Harbaugh would be using him more. 'more' meaning almost as much as Witten is used, how Gonsalez is used.

but lets not go to the other extreme either, this isn't saying he's a totally lousy pass catcher.