StupidNation

You forgot to mention 3 INTs. That wasn't intentional was it? Naaaahhhhhh...

Good routes and hands by Josh Reed; ran the ball well in the 2nd half. 2 things we did well. Still, we needed to throw some screens to stop the blitz and pressure and then this pathetic O-line could hold up to see if Trent was really the problem as many seem to indicate he was. I don't remember people saying that last week when there was less pressure on him.

Do football fans have 1 week memories? Kolb was horrible last week and if you check Trent's stats he had 4 TDs on the Chiefs last year (2 in the air and 2 rushing). Not saying Trent was good this week, but Kolb has shown less than Trent.

You didn't read my post then friend. My #1 problem is pass protection. I said pass coverage by accident, and I was referring to the O-line and meant to say pass protection. I also agree that there is more to the problem, but I put it in proper perspective.

You know Bill called you out for being a Losman man and you took offense, but here's the proof he was looking for. Losman sucks and can't get an NFL job. What does that tell you? Anything? Anything?

Then you didn't watch the game. It was Trent 20% of the time and by the time in the 4th it was Trent 60% of the time. He got it in his head he was going to be pressured and went mental. He outplayed Brees in the 1st half. Greggo put in the pressure and the O-line couldn't do anything to give the QB time. Do you really think Brees had less time? I think Trent would have put up respectable #s with the amount of time Brees had. QBs can't play good with a lot of pressure. E.g. Brady SB against Giants, Brees first half, Brady last weekend, and any other time you see a QB with D in his face in 2 seconds. I would put more blame on the O-coordinator not running screens to take away the blitz. We did that in N.E and it worked.

In every game we have been terrible in pass protection. We don't pick up blitzes and we don't have the personnel to play a real NFL line. I said so after game one when everyone was gushing about the O-line. We can run block, fine, but we cannot play conventional football with this O-line. Fine, I get it, but... what we did in game 1 to mask this problem is play screens. Where did they go? When Gregg was blitzing us like crazy here was a perfect opportunity to dictate the terms of the play of the D to containing vs. pinning their ears back. Did AVP go through a mental block or amnesia? We don't have a NFL quality O-line. Now to the WRs... seriously, is this really a problem? Lee Evans, in both plays they panned out showed him blanketed one-on-one and was not that impressive and really isn't all that impressive when all you just play north and south and hope he gets open with speed. T.O is great at getting open, but he had a few drops and the slant which led to an INT he didn't run very hard on. Maybe he's frustrated, and I understand that. But you cannot play to your WRs unless you have more than 3 seconds to pass. Oh, and if WRs are an indication of getting open and having good hands lets give Josh Reed an applause for a great game. Onto the QB. Trent, you need to play more thoughtful. When you are flushed out of the pocket you don't have to check-down to the TE at the line of scrimmage, you can actually throw down-field. It's not a secret. Also, he did play decently but I think the O-line is in his head from bad snaps to collapsing pockets with few blitz pick-ups. He either needs to overcome this or try Fitzpatrick and see if he can operate with little time and pressure. If he can then we have a winner. I still think the idea of giving up on his development is way too premature and he will be a good Hasselback type QB which will never wow you but will be decent for his position. I do find the obsession with the QB, as if he snaps the ball, and catches it, funny. Trent played great the first few quarters and yes he looks below-average with pressure and no time. So did Drew Brees, and no I'm not comparing him to Brees, but he did better than Brees with less time and plays in the 1st half. I'm still sold on him for the entire season, but I can never imagine him being a great QB, just a really consistent one who plays "good". Great QBs are rare and he's our best option for this season and definitely not worth replacing with a 1st rounder unless he just goes mental and cannot play at all.

Maybe, just maybe, this proves what everyone knows... the D-line is more important than CBs.

Never go by 40 speed, go by playing speed. Whitner runs a 4.4 and plays slower, T.O ran a 4.6-4.7 in the 40 and plays fast, Boldin for the Cards was at 4.78 and plays very fast. Roscoe clocked in at 4.3 and plays slower in a straight line (but laterally amazing) and gets caught from behind... the 40 is not your measurement but your eyes and how fast they run next to other NFL players. Watch T.O fly with the ball in his prime, and yet his 40 time was not great. Same with Jerry Rice. Harris plays with good speed and would prefer him to Ellison in coverage.

He's better in coverage than Whitner. That's why. Not saying Byrd is great, but Whitner isn't great.

I agree with everything you said. I still think he played pretty good last game, and not because of the INT, but because of his tackles. He hasn't shown me enough to justify his presence on the field as a starter, but a starter by default. It is also funny how there were match-ups in NE where Whitner wasn't even on the field and it was Byrd and Scott.

Do you lack reading comprehension? The guy was saying Jackson's play isn't miles behind Thurmal's and that's a fair statement. Thurmal is a HoFer because he played for so many years at a high level. Jackson won't ever make the HOF for lack of years of great #s. The guy's point is if you put in Jackson over Thurmal the #s wouldn't plummet, but would be slightly off, and I think that's fair. I don't know if he could bring as much mental toughness (minus one SB) and dedication year in and out as Thurmal. That's what made him a HoFer, not the strict paint by the numbers.

One of the best threads in a long time. Thanks for the homework and the good reasoning. Not a big homer, but we can play well with any team on any day as long as our offense is working to some degree. Our D is getting to the point where I cannot see a 40 point game without a lot of turn-overs on O or ST.

After reading most every response people think TO is the #2 receiver? Really? Evans is clearly the #2 and cannot be a game changing #1 receiver. TO is a #1 guy and if he leaves we have to replace him. That's why I would have thrown our #2 pick to AZ for Boldin with Evans salary.

Did it ever occur to you that Lee isn't that great and that's hard to open up things for him when he struggles getting open and fighting for balls?

Who's afraid of them? Are you really that stupid? Some people are willing to acknowledge what every sane person knew before and that they are crazy and no one wants to hang out with them because of it. I wish they would grow up and become men and start acting like them. What used to be a psychotic anomaly is now phrased in an argument of fear.

When a team losses it's somehow the QB that won or lost, and when they win it's a team victory. This is the typical mantra of typical idiot who is always looking for the next big thing without realizing what they have. They would have hamstrung Matt Hasselback in Seattle because of the W's without realizing he's a good QB.

Well let's see... the most vicious and evil people of the last century killed more than all other centuries combined and they were godless seculars who ascribed to evolutionary beliefs in the perfect society. Yeah, it was those crazy religious people. Secondly, the other false premise is that you lump all religions together as if you can lump all secularists together (see I did that above using your faulty premise and it sucks doesn't it?). So should I lump all secularists as Hitlers and Stalins with a little Pol Pot on the side? You my friend are a dumbass. Give me a Catholic like Mother Teresa over all you guys and the world would be a better place. Rather have one true Christian who really practices the faith than a bunch of morons all about themselves and can only think of how to bash others rather than understand what is best or good. Hell give me a guy like Aristotle over you idiots.

I almost wonder if you are serious. You play the best team you have. You don't go by their draft position, or their salary but the best team. That's why you had Anthony Thomas playing over Fred Jackson, and dare I say McKelvin over Corner. Those are the guys that we paid more and drafted higher and it should make any difference. I want to see Jackson over Thomas if he's better and Ellis over Maybin if he's better. But go ahead, pretend we wanted the highest rated 1st rounders to always play instead of performance. Maybin isn't strong enough yet to play DE. He looks horrible and not so quick. He's easily pushed out of a play and has shown nothing of substance to show he should be in the starting line-up. If Ellis is playing better you play Ellis. Why not make the argument for Ellis last year? Oh, that's right he's not a 1st round pick so he's a nobody. Give me the best guys.

Give me a B+ for performance. Had 2 drops that would have made it a true B+, but in reality from what happened he deserves a C+ because he was horrible in the 3rd quarter. If Lee fights for a ball once every year that was his for the taking. Good WRs get that ball. The ball to Owens was gorgeous and how he dropped it I don't know. If he didn't play so much in a funk he get a better grade.

If anyone wants proof why he is not a great WR watch the TD he would have caught if he was a great WR. Watching Lee Evans fight for passes is as rare as DJ showing emotion. If we wanted a one-dimensional burner get a guy like Devery Henderson from the Saints who is field faster than Lee with worse hands. Henderson costs about 3-4 million while Lee robbed the bank. I would have invested that money in a better TE than Schouman or Fine.

The INT was nice but it was of a bad pass than a play on the ball. I've knocked Donte a lot but he played extremely well today.

I think you're the one with the bias. I've watched them both. Are you about to tell me Lynch is better in pass protection and as a receiver? Are you about to tell me that Jackson isn't more of a threat in this offense? If so you have bias, not I. Lynch's biggest problem is not that he can't do the same things as Jackson, but he isn't as mentally capable as Jackson. Jackson will look for a block and follow it, Lynch runs into defender frequently. Lynch has a bunch of runs that were negative and 0 gains. Watch the games last year and the year before. He runs sideways and gets caught with no forward momentum and can't do "beast mode". Beast Mode is only when he goes forward, not those long side steps. I have no bias, but Jackson has better vision, blocking and receiving skills. Marshawn is better at getting extra yards when going forward. I'll make it easier for you to understand... if it was 3rd and 3 I would take Jackson all day long. He'll look for 1st down on the run instead of a long gain and if he gets it he will and he is a bigger threat on a screen. He just has more dimensions. If you can't see that you have the bias amigo

None of that matters. Production is what counts, not the resume. Want to give me the resumes of Rockefeller and Gates before they become a force economically? One was an 8th grade drop-out and the other a college drop-out. Maybe those guys with PhDs should do better right? Production counts, Jackson is producing. After this game though I'm changing my view of Jackson as our #1 back though. He should only get at most 15-18 carries with Lynch getting the rest. He is better, but I can't see him taking that thrashing for 16 games. Oh, and to say Lynch is better is a dumbass statement. Jackson must be accounted for on every play. Not so much with Lynch.