Time to just call it a season and get ready for next year?

midswat said:

I'd say 10-6 is a smart bet to get us in. I've looked at a number of teams schedules and all the teams in the playoff race end up playing each other (sometimes even twice) in the final weeks of the season.

Click to expand...

Here's a sickening thing...if we lose to the Eagles, we're likely rooting for them to beat the Seahawks in Week 15.

I think it's clear we want the Vikings, Saints to win out. Lions, Packers & Panthers to lose out.

We need a lot of help.

pdom said:

We need a lot of help.

Click to expand...

Relax. He's on it...

pdom said:

Here's a sickening thing...if we lose to the Eagles, we're likely rooting for them to beat the Seahawks in Week 15.

I think it's clear we want the Vikings, Saints to win out. Lions, Packers & Panthers to lose out.

We need a lot of help.

Click to expand...

No need to even think that far ahead.

If we lose to the Eagles, the season is over and there will be no need for you to worry about either how other NFC teams finish or having to root for the Eagles.

Texas Ace said:

No need to even think that far ahead.

If we lose to the Eagles, the season is over and there will be no need for you to worry about either how other NFC teams finish or having to root for the Eagles.

Click to expand...

That's not true but it will mean the loss to the Falcons has really put us behind the 8-ball.

It sure would be better if we had lost to the Chiefs but beaten the Falcons.

midswat said:

I'd say 10-6 is a smart bet to get us in. I've looked at a number of teams schedules and all the teams in the playoff race end up playing each other (sometimes even twice) in the final weeks of the season.

Click to expand...

So you think we can go 5-2 over the final 7?

mschmidt64 said:

That's not true but it will mean the loss to the Falcons has really put us behind the 8-ball.

It sure would be better if we had lost to the Chiefs but beaten the Falcons.

Click to expand...

It's not true mathematically, but do you really think this team without Zeke, Lee, and possibly even Tyron are going to be able to go 5-1 after the Eagles game?

Chocolate Lab said:

I honestly think Tyron and Lee are bigger losses than Elliott.

Click to expand...

Because we have been unable to build even adequate OT depth since Parnell and have a seriously overrated DC.

If you put in a useless player at LT of course it's going to feel like the normal starter is even more important than he should be.

Green being such a disaster totally overshadowed the RBs inability to do a thing.

Elliott is a difference-maker who gives us a big edge. The other guys are Joseph Randles. They might flash a big run or two (or when they are carried), but they are average.

The biggest problem is the DC.

We have talent on defense, but we over-scheme to the point we rely on Lee to make up the difference when we guess wrong. Lebeau could get by without Polamalu though it took him some games. You get the feeling Marinelli is incapable of getting by without Lee.

Its a process. Guys are trying hard.

The sad truth is that Garrett will bear no blame because of the injuries. It will be status quo around here.

Isn’t it weird how some of his biggest loyalists have always claimed the “what’s being built” here.

7+ years and one or two injuries and we’re a horrible football team.

Is Lee and Tyron good? Most definitely. Should losing them make us as inept as it does? Fuck no.

For that to happen means we have zero depth. So what again was “being built” all this time?

midswat said:

Isn’t it weird how some of his biggest loyalists have always claimed the “what’s being built” here.

7+ years and one or two injuries and we’re a horrible football team.

Is Lee and Tyron good? Most definitely. Should losing them make us as inept as it does? Fuck no.

For that to happen means we have zero depth. So what again was “being built” all this time?

Click to expand...

Not sure who you are talking about but that's not really my argument. That being said you take away three of the best players from a lot of teams and they will lose more than they win.

midswat said:

Isn’t it weird how some of his biggest loyalists have always claimed the “what’s being built” here.

7+ years and one or two injuries and we’re a horrible football team.

Is Lee and Tyron good? Most definitely. Should losing them make us as inept as it does? Fuck no.

For that to happen means we have zero depth. So what again was “being built” all this time?

Click to expand...

I used to enjoy hearing Parcells talk about contingencies.

If everything's not golden here, there is no fallback option. The "next man up" joke that Garrett likes to bring up is mostly false hope. I can't think of one part of the team that has reliable depth, and the coaches seem to be too inept to coach them up.

UncleMilti said:

Its a process. Guys are trying hard.

Click to expand...

Funny how Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco immediately took a 49ers team to 3 consecutive NFCC's.

A 49ers team that had been a loser for 8 straight seasons and were considered to be one of the worst teams in football going into his first season.

Did I mention that he did this with Alex Smith and Colin Kaepernick as his QBs?

Or what about Sean McVay who is going to win the NFC West in what is not even his 2nd full season as coach? He's doing this with a Rams team that many pegged as one of the 3 or 4 worst in all of football, and with a QB who people were already calling a bust.

Weird how it doesn't take truly good coaches years and year and years to "process" anything.

Garrett just sucks.

Texas Ace said:

Funny how Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco immediately took a 49ers team to 3 consecutive NFCC's.

A 49ers team that had been a loser for 8 straight seasons and were considered to be one of the worst teams in football going into his first season.

Did I mention that he did this with Alex Smith and Colin Kaepernick as his QBs?

Or what about Sean McVay who is going to win the NFC West with in not even his 2nd full season as coach? He's doing this with a Rams team that many pegged as one of the 3 or 4 worst in all of football, and with a QB who people were already calling a bust.

Weird how it doesn't take truly good coaches years and year and years to "process" anything.

Garrett just sucks.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but weird how you also leave out that this team has gone 12-4 and 13-3 (with a rookie 4th round QB, by the way).

Why is there no credit for that, but you are giving McVay credit for winning a watered down NFC West with the first overall pick at QB?

You pick and choose what you call impressive with no consistency.

We go 13-3 with a rookie fourth rounder. Bah, the rookie was an all-timer. No coaching was necessary. McVay has an impressive half season with last year's first overall pick (and much better defensive talent than we have)? GENIUS!

Listen, McVay may very well be better than Garrett. But you act like there is nothing redeemable, like there is no good coaching happening here. That none of the bad decisions here wouldn't also happen if McVay were here, under Jerry.

False, false, and false.

mschmidt64 said:

Yeah, but weird how you also leave out that this team has gone 12-4 and 13-3 (with a rookie 4th round QB, by the way).

Why is there no credit for that, but you are giving McVay credit for winning a watered down NFC West with the first overall pick at QB?

You pick and choose what you call impressive with no consistency.

We go 13-3 with a rookie fourth rounder. Bah, the rookie was an all-timer. No coaching was necessary. McVay has an impressive half season with last year's first overall pick (and much better defensive talent than we have)? GENIUS!

Listen, McVay may very well be better than Garrett. But you act like there is nothing redeemable, like there is no good coaching happening here. That none of the bad decisions here wouldn't also happen if McVay were here, under Jerry.

False, false, and false.

Click to expand...

12-4 with Romo playing the best football of his life, and a DeMarco Murray who was arguably the best RB in football that year? Yea I remember that.

What changed to me that year was that Scott Linehan brought a brain to the offense and got this bright idea to actually run the ball with consistency.

That's what happened that season.

Garrett would've bungled that situation just as he does all the others.

As for last year, does he deserve some credit for getting the team to respond with a rookie QB at the helm? Sure.....I'll give him that.

But it's not like he did it with just any old 4th round rookie. It took arguably the greatest rookie season by a QB ever in order for Garrett to accomplish that.

We've seen time and time again what Garrett does when his QB isn't at least pro bowl caliber.

And then the guy can't even put together consecutive winning seasons.

The guy just flatout sucks, but you just can't help yourself, can you? You just have to defend him at every cost.

mschmidt64 said:

Listen, McVay may very well be better than Garrett.

Click to expand...

*May* be better than Garrett?

Chocolate Lab said:

*May* be better than Garrett?

Click to expand...

Exactly.

This guy really just can't help but show his bias when he falls for a guy.

McDaniels was terrible in Denver and completely alienated the locker room, but Schmitty would hire him for Dallas in an instant.

Garrett has proven time and time again how awful he is, but since Schmitty has an affinity for him, he defends him at every turn and isn't ever willing to concede that someone other than a HOF-caliber coach would be an upgrade.

McVay "may" be better than Garrett.



Rrrrrrriiiiiiight.

Chocolate Lab said:

*May* be better than Garrett?

Click to expand...

I ’d at that too.

I'm still fairly new here, but Schmitty strikes me as one of those guys overly impressed with Garrett's education, appearance, demeanor, etc. Things that might look good on the surface but are basically meaningless when it comes to coaching football.

So much spin.

- Linehan is the only one responsible for changes. Zero credit given to the improved line. Zero credit given to Garrett desiring those changes himself (even though he hired the guy who made the changes. That guy, who was pass happy himself in his last 2 stops, must be doing it in spite of Garrett's wishes). None of those things could POSSIBLY have had any effect on the balance that was implemented after a period of time in which we had the worst OL in the league.

- Garrett bungles "all" situations (patently false).

- Yeah... he went 13-3 with a rookie QB, but it was a great rookie QB (yep, this is the same hypocrisy that I mentioned. No asterisk for McVay doing it with the first overall pick).

- Garrett can't put together consecutive winning seasons without Pro Bowl QB (interesting take given that the chance we had to see him without it, was a year when it wasn't just average QB play, but worst QB play in the league, and also no starting caliber RB and missing his number one WR for half the year).

You have no objectivity whatsoever.

I concede he's not great. You refuse to look at the situation with even the smallest amount of realism. That's why we always, and will continue to always, fight about this.