lyion wrote:You admit AJ Smith is bad, but then say he is no worse than Rattay, last years starter for the 9ers who is generally considered to be a decent journeyman QB, which is why Tampa traded for him. That doesn't add up. Rattay gave the 9ers a better chance to win, period. That should not be up for debate.
Actually, I specifically said that Rattay or Garcia would have been better than Smith.
Any quarterback who played in the last decade would have been better than smith. The problem is that neither Rattay nor Garcia were actually NFL-calibre starting quarterbacks. Upgrading from "historically atrocious" to "not good enough to play in the league" isn't going to make a bad team competitive.
Let's examine a bit perhaps why the 49ers were more competitive early. Rattay led the team in TD passes despite only being there really for four games. They had 7 total. He had five of them.
Or, it might have to do with facing St. Louis and Arizona in two of Rattay's four games. You'll note that he threw for a whopping 107 and 126 yards in two of those games, only broke 200 yards once, and was blown out half the time.
They rotated through Rattay, Dorsey, Pickett, and Smith. Despite having no consistency or ANY play from the QB position worth a damn, they still beat the Texans who have a GOOD QB, who played all year.
Yeah, they beat the Texans when Houston honked
another chip shot field goal in their quest for the number one pick. There's a reason it was referred to as the Bush bowl.
Now, our argument has been the 49ers were closer to being a good team, than the Texans. Why? because they have more holes filled. Now, anyone with common sense can look at the revolving door at QB and realize if they had kept ONE guy in there all year they would've been a better team. Still a bottom tier team, but better. Consistency at QB is good, as has been proven over and over.
So, Houston has a better quarterback, better running back, better wide receiver, but the Niners have more holes filled? I'll address the lines in a bit, but I enjoy the random assertion that Quarterback consistency is good. Feel free to supply some of the proof you claim is so prevalent. It's not necessarily consistency, but
good quarterbacking that is desirous. Quarterback changes are often detrimental, but that's usually because you're replacing your starter with an inferior player due to injury.
The Texans HAVE a good QB and he played all year. In your mind, they have a better WR than any of the 9ers, in Johnson. Thus, due to the fact they have the worst record, a fired coach, are going to need to implement an entire new coaching system, and arguably have the worst offensive and defensive lineplay in the league, as can be evidenced by Carr getting sacked more than UAW people this year up until they quit throwing the ball, it's pretty easy to opine they are farther away from success than the 9ers, which is what I've done.
Yeah, Johnson's superiority to any of the Niner's wide receivers is in my mind. Feel free to make a case otherwise. Firing Dom Capers was a Good Thing. Losing a coach isn't always a problem for a team. Witness Norv Turner, Steve Spurrier, Rick Pitino, Pete Carroll... the list could go on for a very long time. I love how you claim that Carr's sack rate is proof of inferior
defensive line play. You do realize that Houston's offensive line graded out
better than San Fran's, right? There are two components to O-Line play: run blocking and pass blocking. Houston actually has decent run blocking, while the Niner's were worst in the league. Houston was, again, the worst in the league at pass blocking, but San Fran was the third-worst. They hardly have those holes filled.
As far as defensive lines go, Houston was dead last against the run, while San Francisco was a more respectable 22nd. Against the pass, Houston checked in 8th, however, while SF slummed in at 28th. If you're content wth being 22nd and 28th out of 32, enjoy the progressive seasons of putridity.
You can believe the 9ers are worse, and I respect that, but the simple facts are based on the situations and what each team did this year it's pretty easy to push forward the Texans as the worst team. Despite a solid QB and a standout WR, they were utter garbage. San Fran, even with their QB by tryout, still was more competitive and more winning.
Easy perhaps, but superficial and wrong. San Francisco was
not more competetive. They got to play some bad teams and beat them occasionally, but they were also blown out by larger margins, more frequently than was Houston.
Read Above. We've established this. You sound like Matt Leinart after the USC loss. I'm sure USC was the better team. *snicker*
Actually, you haven't established anything. You've ignored the fact that the Niners were whipped harder than the Texans and tried to cover it up by pretending that you'd somehow rebutted it.
If you had bothered to watch the game and keep up with the news, you'd know about the severe rain storm, and poor field conditions in San Fran. Field Goals are never give me's, and I'll send you back to all the missed FGs from a variety of people whose names are not Vanderjagt or Vinitieri.
I find it odd that someone who prides themselves on knowledge of NFL players would trot out the household names instead of the kickers who actually had the best performances: Rackers this year, and Akers a year ago. Field goals in general may not be "give me's", but chip shots, in the NFL, are.
Except you haven't proven that at all. You reference vagaries and declare victory. Odd. Again, you have Matt Leinartitis.
On the contrary, I've referenced concrete stats and performances. The only thing you've come up with is the most superficial of all stats, the record, and unsupport claims about the Niner's supposed superiority in line play.
Rattay beat out AJ Smith handily which you'd know if you actually watched the preseason. Once San Fran realized they weren't a playoff team, they did the right thing and traded their journeyman starter and evaluated youth . It is fairly undisputed AJ was a pretty good downgrade from Rattay right now, which you have represented quite well but very strangely used as a defense of your position which is similar to mine, and solely based on opinion.
Of course Rattay beat out Smith. Smith had the
single worst year for a quarterback in the last decade. Luminaries such as Ryan Leaf would have beaten out Smith. This isn't an opinion... it's the result of his on field performance, statistically measured. The problem is that you're placing far too much blame on Smith for the team's struggles. Rattay isn't good enough to keep a starting job in the NFL, and nowhere near good enough to save a team who only had their leading rusher break 100 yeards three times on the season.
Then we'll see next year. I won two pick leagues and was second in two others. It doesn't matter until we play each other. Kind of like how Houston and San Fran played each other. Then, after you lose, you can explain how you really won.
I'm assuming you're being deliberately obtuse. I've never claimed that Houston beat San Francisco, simply that the Texans were a better team over the course of the season. As a true student of the game, you do know that inferior teams can win occasionally in the NFL, right?