BILL POLIAN

[Bretsky]

Thought to be one of the great GM's of the game...offered some analysis on the playoff teams. He thought Denver had little to no chance of winning the SB.

He said he broke down the personnell of every playoff team and he thought they fell in some definitive tiers of talent

TIER ONE

Seattle and San Francisco...........and he felt the next level was a serious dropoff

TIER TWO
New Orlean Saints and Carolina Panthers.......and he again felt there was separation between these two teams and the next tier

TIER THREE

Denver, Green Bay, and Philadelphia

and then based on talent alone..........the rest



THOUGHTS ???

[Bretsky]

He also blirts out a few times that cost effective quarterback means stellar defense. Expensive QB means sacrifice on defense.
to me that seems like the Captain Obvious Statement

[bobblehead]

My thought is that we were fingertips away from beating the tier one team. That team blew out the tier 2 team. APRH we are as talented as anyone.

[call_me_ishmael]

He is right. Bobble you are such a homer. You don't honestly believe we can come close to beating the niners, do you? They have far more talent. It will catch up with them soon, though.

[mraynrand]

You don't honestly believe we can come close to beating the niners, do you?

The answer is yes. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of historical fact.

[pbmax]

Close to Niners and can take the Seachickens.

Stafford costs huge money and the defense is just as expensive in Detroit as the cap casualties can attest. Polian is just dribbling conventional wisdom.

[Bretsky]

The answer is yes. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of historical fact.


History has proven we can come close but can't close the deal and win...even at home.

By that meaure Bill Polian is correct in putting them in a tier clearly above us

[Brandon494]

Until we get a defense he is right.

[call_me_ishmael]

The answer is yes. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of historical fact.

That's one game, though. If they played 10 times, I think they'd go 1-9 at the very best.

[smuggler]

Nah. Even if the 49ers were significantly better, they still wouldnt win 90%.

[mraynrand]

That's one game, though. If they played 10 times, I think they'd go 1-9 at the very best.

two games, really. And the 9-10 thing requires five to ten years. Teams change radically in that time. (But I know what you really mean). Niners were a better team in 2013, but not by as much as 2012, and 2014 is up for grabs.

[run pMc]

SF has better talent on defense, but that is likely to shift as the rosters age and FAs want to get paid.
I'd argue that GB has comparable if not better talent on offense.

The separation between the two teams isn't that far IMO, especially if GB has a healthy squad.

[Zool]

SF has better talent on defense, but that is likely to shift as the rosters age and FAs want to get paid.
I'd argue that GB has comparable if not better talent on offense.

The separation between the two teams isn't that far IMO, especially if GB has a healthy squad.

Agreed. If one were to do it on a rating scale, the Packer O is a 9 and the SF D is a 9. The problem is, the Packer D is a 4 and the SF O is a 6, maybe 7.

[bobblehead]

He is right. Bobble you are such a homer. You don't honestly believe we can come close to beating the niners, do you? They have far more talent. It will catch up with them soon, though.

Um...yes, i do. We were literally 3 inches of verticle away from beating them without Mathews, Jolly, Perry, Neal and Mulumba on one leg. I guess if you are saying we weren't close to beating them 41 days ago, then your argument makes sense, but since you were proven wrong less than 6 weeks ago I would say you are the deluded one and I am the realist...but what do I know, I'm a homer who hammers the LT that everyone seems to think is doing a bang up job.

[bobblehead]

History has proven we can come close but can't close the deal and win...even at home.

By that meaure Bill Polian is correct in putting them in a tier clearly above us

Except he put them TWO tiers above us.

[bobblehead]

That's one game, though. If they played 10 times, I think they'd go 1-9 at the very best.

I am quoting reality, you are quoting what you THINK, and I am the one clouded.

[bobblehead]

Agreed. If one were to do it on a rating scale, the Packer O is a 9 and the SF D is a 9. The problem is, the Packer D is a 4 and the SF O is a 6, maybe 7.

That sounds somewhat accurate, but now take away their starting LT in preseason, take their QB for 8 weeks, take Willis away for the playoffs and get back to me on them being better.

[Guiness]

That sounds somewhat accurate, but now take away their starting LT in preseason, take their QB for 8 weeks, take Willis away for the playoffs and get back to me on them being better.

SF weren't as blessed on the injury front as they were in 2012, but still did well. They lost 39 'starter games', with Crabtree and Ian Williams on that list, but still not near what happened to the Pack (70 games lost).

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20140107-interactive-graphic-where-do-the-dallas-cowboys-rank-among-nfl-teams-in-games-lost-by-starters-due-to-injury.ece

Colts were at the top of the list, seems like they've been up there with the Pack the last 3 seasons!

[call_me_ishmael]

I am quoting reality, you are quoting what you THINK, and I am the one clouded.

Am I? We're 0-4 in the last 4 games. It could be reasoned that we'd go 0-10.

[3irty1]

Polian is really dumping on the Pats! When healthy they at least belong in one of these tiers!

SF is not nearly as good as a random sampling of Packer fans would indicate. Truth is they just never fail to bring it against us. We make Kaepernick look like the Greek god of football. They're a good team but they have plenty of bad weeks and can get absolutely dismantled by much worse teams.

[Pugger]

He is right. Bobble you are such a homer. You don't honestly believe we can come close to beating the niners, do you? They have far more talent. It will catch up with them soon, though.

Why not? We came close in the WC game with our MASH unit of a roster.

[mraynrand]

Am I? We're 0-4 in the last 4 games. It could be reasoned that we'd go 0-10.

Sure, and some Niner Fans might have said the same thing in December of 1998. Except that people watching the games could tell the Niners had started to catch up, much like the Packers have narrowed the gap. You can keep making this argument, but you aren't really presenting anything new that's convincing. Who knows, you might get some new ammo with offseason moves....

[mraynrand]

SF .... can get absolutely dismantled by much worse teams.

I don't recall seeing much of that. They got obliterated at Seattle and Indy in the regular season, but they seemed generally competitive - I think they lost close at NO and Carolina.

[ThunderDan]

Am I? We're 0-4 in the last 4 games. It could be reasoned that we'd go 0-10.

But we were also close in the 2013 season opener and we were starting a rookie LT in that game. People seem to forget that we got the lead in the 4th Q with an Lacy TD. We were up 28-24. That game was in SF.

[Bretsky]

Polian is really dumping on the Pats! When healthy they at least belong in one of these tiers!

SF is not nearly as good as a random sampling of Packer fans would indicate. Truth is they just never fail to bring it against us. We make Kaepernick look like the Greek god of football. They're a good team but they have plenty of bad weeks and can get absolutely dismantled by much worse teams.



I gotta agree with you on NE

For what it's worth he was analyzing the rosters as is (NE was without Wolfork and some other key defensive players)

But come on man; they are still better than Phily !!!

TWO OTHER THINGS COME TO MIND

Polian really thought the NFC way 10x as good as the AFC this year

Polian, and all the NFL network guys regard Hoody as the elite coach in the NFL....with nobody in a close second.

Polian noted he felt Hoody did his best coaching ever this year

[Bretsky]

Sure, and some Niner Fans might have said the same thing in December of 1998. Except that people watching the games could tell the Niners had started to catch up, much like the Packers have narrowed the gap. You can keep making this argument, but you aren't really presenting anything new that's convincing. Who knows, you might get some new ammo with offseason moves....


I'm not buying that the Packers have narrowed the gap. They might have. I'm not sure either way. We lost to them at home in our own climate in weather conditions that favored us against San Fran. I'm not sure the gap is getting closer or further to be honest

[Joemailman]

I'm not buying that the Packers have narrowed the gap. They might have. I'm not sure either way. We lost to them at home in our own climate in weather conditions that favored us against San Fran. I'm not sure the gap is getting closer or further to be honest

I don't buy the notion that the weather conditions favored the Packers. I think the way the 49ers are built makes them quite able to play in cold weather. New Orleans might be a different matter.

To me the 2 losses to the 49ers in 2013 were very different from the 2 losses in 2012. In 2012 I thought the Packers were struggling just to try to stay close to the 49ers. In 2013 they were very close to winning those games. Now it's debatable as to whether the Packers got better or the 49ers got worse, but it sure looked to me like the gap was smaller.

[3irty1]

I don't recall seeing much of that. They got obliterated at Seattle and Indy in the regular season, but they seemed generally competitive - I think they lost close at NO and Carolina.

I'm mainly talking about last year where they had their shit pushed in by the Vikings and Giants. This year they only lost to playoff teams although they did lose decisively like you said.

Actually, by the same logic some in here are using to say we're not on the same level as the 49ers, the 49ers aren't on the same level as the Seahawks. In the last two years they're 1 for 4 with a pair of absolute ass-kickings in there of 3-29 and 13-42.

[3irty1]

Am I? We're 0-4 in the last 4 games. It could be reasoned that we'd go 0-10.

If you extrapolate my last 2 months it could be reasoned that I'll be engaged to 6 women by the end of the year.

[bobblehead]

Am I? We're 0-4 in the last 4 games. It could be reasoned that we'd go 0-10.

It could also be reasoned that we go 6-4. And why am I only remembering 3 games? Probably blocked on out, but by that logic I should block them all out.

[bobblehead]

If you extrapolate my last 2 months it could be reasoned that I'll be engaged to 6 women by the end of the year.

And don't forget when some MLB player is on track for 324 HR's after opening day.

[mraynrand]

I'm mainly talking about last year where they had their shit pushed in by the Vikings and Giants. This year they only lost to playoff teams although they did lose decisively like you said.

Actually, by the same logic some in here are using to say we're not on the same level as the 49ers, the 49ers aren't on the same level as the Seahawks. In the last two years they're 1 for 4 with a pair of absolute ass-kickings in there of 3-29 and 13-42.

And you have to take into consideration the reality of the NFL. The 1996 Packers were dominant, but got their asses kicked at MN, Dal, and KC.

The 1997 Packers were almost beaten by a lousy Bears team, and got beat by a 0-10 Colts team. Look at the last four 49ers-Packers games and it should be obvious that they are much more competitive. They were really never in that 2012 opener.

That doesn't mean anything about next year especially if we can't APRH and the Packers don't improve in the offseason.

[bobblehead]

I am going to assume Navarro Bowman won't be healthy to start next year. If I am wrong, I am going to accuse the SF doctors of doping.

[Joemailman]

I am going to assume Navarro Bowman won't be healthy to start next year. If I am wrong, I am going to accuse the SF doctors of doping.

If he is, Packers need to kidnap their trainers.

[pbmax]

If he is, Packers need to kidnap their trainers.

Probably easier to just pull a Trading Places on Navarro Bowman's X-Ray/MRI results and substitute bogus and unhealed pictures.

We need Clarence Biggs.

[call_me_ishmael]

If you extrapolate my last 2 months it could be reasoned that I'll be engaged to 6 women by the end of the year.

Congrats.

[smuggler]

Bowman will start the year on the PUP, I'm sure. But he should be ready for the heart of their season.

The weather in the playoff game favored San Fran, sadly. :C

[Fritz]

Can the Packers please have a healthy season in 2014? Please? I'd like to see what this team could do with a healthy, or relatively healthy, roster, especially the big dogs.

That way if they lost or had a crummy regular season, we'd at least know they lacked talent. Right now I'm not sure what they lack, except good health. And a safety to pair with Burnett.

[Guiness]

Can the Packers please have a healthy season in 2014? Please? I'd like to see what this team could do with a healthy, or relatively healthy, roster, especially the big dogs.

That way if they lost or had a crummy regular season, we'd at least know they lacked talent. Right now I'm not sure what they lack, except good health. And a safety to pair with Burnett.

+1 I feel the same way, we don't really know what the Pack has because we don't get to see it all together.

[Smeefers]

Can the Packers please have a healthy season in 2014? Please? I'd like to see what this team could do with a healthy, or relatively healthy, roster, especially the big dogs.


That way if they lost or had a crummy regular season, we'd at least know they lacked talent. Right now I'm not sure what they lack, except good health. And a safety to pair with Burnett.

It's nice to know I'm not alone. I have no idea what kind of talent we have. Is perry any good? Is hayward still a stud? Should we be worrying about our o line? How good are our WR's?

[wist43]

Injuries are a valid excuse to some extent - but the Niners are simply more talented, and much, much tougher up and down the roster than the Packers.

We're 0-4 against them the last 4 times out, and the last game was the only one that was even remotely competitive - the other 3 were mismatches, if not blowouts. The scores were closer than the games.

MM's comments regarding getting more involved on the defensive side of the ball may have been reflected in the last Niner game when Capers actually played most of the game with 3 defensive linemen on the field - something that obviously had to pain him a great deal. I'm assuming MM stopped him in the hallway of 1265 and said, "Hey, stupid...", lol...

We played them tougher last time out, but I suspect that is the absolute best we can possibly play against them, it was at home - and we still lost.

We don't play them next year - so it's a moot question at this point. We do play Seattle next year, and we're clearly not on their level anymore. The schedule next year is pretty average though, so we'll have a decent shot at making the playoffs.

[mraynrand]

the other 3 were mismatches, if not blowouts.

This is just untrue. The 2012 opener wasn't close. The 2012 playoff game was close late into the third quarter, with the defense getting blown away at the end, and last year's opener was in doubt until 6 minutes left. It was entirely competitive. You can be Debbie Downer all you want, but you don't get to change facts.

[pbmax]

Capers has played a lot of 3 lineman against the 49ers in each of the games. Not quite the same approach as the fatty-heavy game plan against the Jets in 2010, but he goes more base against them.

[wist43]

This is just untrue. The 2012 opener wasn't close. The 2012 playoff game was close late into the third quarter, with the defense getting blown away at the end, and last year's opener was in doubt until 6 minutes left. It was entirely competitive. You can be Debbie Downer all you want, but you don't get to change facts.

As I said, the scores were closer than the games - SF had their hand on our head the whole time, they were in complete control of the LOS on both sides of the ball. To me, that is where games are won and lost, so even though the score remained somewhat within reach, I never doubted we were going to lose every game.

This last one was closer though, and we were actually fairly tough in the trenches - they were tougher of course, but at least we didn't get completely embarrassed that time out.

Next year will be interesting... we're going to lose a lot of guys - Raji, Neal, Wilson, maybe Pickett, maybe Shields. Hard to imagine we could be worse on defense, but unless Jones, Worthy, Daniels, and Perry step up, we're going to be completely screwed on defense. I do like Mulumba though... hopefully he can take the next step and become an impact player.

Still, Capers is our DC - and he's a disaster, so '14 will be another wasted year. Hopefully he F's up enough to get himself fired - finally!!!

[mraynrand]

As I said, the scores were closer than the games - SF had their hand on our head the whole time, they were in complete control of the LOS on both sides of the ball.

I disagree. Go watch the tape of the Sept. game. Packers D beat the crap out of the Niners run game, but sacrificed some pass defense (90 yards rushing in 34 attempts is crap). Lacy got his yards - Packers had 63 yards in 19 attempts, and Rodgers was protected reasonably well. Both QBs got sacked twice, both teams had 23 first downs; SF had 494-385 yards.

Packers ultimately lost that game due to -2 TO margin.

I'm done here. Believe what you want.

[Fritz]

He will, mraynrand. He will.

[pbmax]

The underrated part of the 49er gap is Rodgers and the offenses inability to solve the San Fran coverage for good plays. Rodgers waits forever back there for something to open, like the 2 deep safeties are a shield against any pass.

[mraynrand]

The underrated part of the 49er gap is Rodgers and the offenses inability to solve the San Fran coverage for good plays. Rodgers waits forever back there for something to open, like the 2 deep safeties are a shield against any pass.

Isn't that mostly on the Pack. From what I gather, the Packer's O looks to go vertical, and then intermediate, then short - that's the progression. With a lot of pressure, you sometimes don't have the time to get to the dump off guy. Seems like sometimes you have to look at that 2- deep stuff and take what they give you. That's where the run game, Cobb and Finley (or whomever they plug in there) have to excel. Niners counter that with simple three or four man pressure and great LBs cover up all that underneath stuff. More often, Rodgers has to throw the ball when his guys are covered and trust his accuracy.

[pbmax]

Isn't that mostly on the Pack. From what I gather, the Packer's O looks to go vertical, and then intermediate, then short - that's the progression. With a lot of pressure, you sometimes don't have the time to get to the dump off guy. Seems like sometimes you have to look at that 2- deep stuff and take what they give you. That's where the run game, Cobb and Finley (or whomever they plug in there) have to excel. Niners counter that with simple three or four man pressure and great LBs cover up all that underneath stuff. More often, Rodgers has to throw the ball when his guys are covered and trust his accuracy.

Its a mixture. Except for the first playoff game early, the 49er pressure usually does not look like the Seattle 1st half. Many times Rodgers is waiting back there and simply does not pull the trigger. Versus that D, you have to take a good shot when you get time.

Every QB has throw preferences and Rodgers seems hesitant to throw into the middle against 2 deep, despite one weakness of the coverage being the deep middle. Part of that was Finley's post-injury uselessness in the deep middle. I also remember one play that had Cobb (I think) and Nelson (certain) both stop routes in the holes in a zone. There was one defender short, so one passing lane had to be open. Rodgers bailed on both throws, made a feeble effort to scramble and was sacked.

Not every play works, but Rodgers seems flummoxed by that 2 deep unless he can beat it outside with Jones or Nelson. The answer might be the Harris we saw in the highlight video in the other thread. He was a threat as a check down guy, someone who could make his coverage miss and still get a first. But they have to do something.

For all of its problems, the Packer D has held up reasonably well to the 49ers who torched them the year before. The offense did them no favors late.

[mraynrand]

. The answer might be the Harris we saw in the highlight video in the other thread. He was a threat as a check down guy, someone who could make his coverage miss and still get a first. But they have to do something.

I think this is the answer (add in Cobb to) - plus running against tendency. Look for that 'dump off' play earlier or first in the progression and it it's there, take it. Either way though, the 49er and Sea Defenses are just good - individual level good - so they are just going to win a lot of match ups. Rodgers played his best ball when he trusted his accuracy and threw the ball even when guys were covered. Signature example is the throw to Jennings on the late third and ten in the final drive of the Superbowl.

Replacing Finley might help more than people think, because it seemed that Rodgers just lost confidence there and rarely threw the ball when Finley was blanketed, even though Fin can make some of those catches. perhaps the new target will inspire more confidence.

[Fritz]

The two-part answer seems to be to invest in a TE that will go deep middle and get after the ball, and to use the short game, be satisfied with the short gains to the backs, and keep from turning the ball over. You do that, control the clock, score when you get in the red zone, and eventually SF will have to show something other than two deep.

But they can wait to do that cuz their linebackers are so good.

[3irty1]

I don't think what you're talking about is a 49er specific problem, its a trend with the offense for a couple of years now. I think part of the problem is lacking a WR in the mold of a 4.40 speedster who can threaten the top of a defense. Jennings is gone and while Jordy has developed into a great all-around receiver I'm not sure he's still got that deceptive long speed because its been a few years since we've seen him catch one over his shoulder. The guys we have typically make their big plays after the catch which is awesome but isn't going to change the way a defense can play us. With the emergence of Lacy you'd think this type of WR would be that much more valuable.

The offense is starting to look like the 2010 Falcons. They can take long methodical drives and play ball control but a lot of things have to go right in order to win a shootout or prevent close games against much worse teams.

[pbmax]

I don't think what you're talking about is a 49er specific problem, its a trend with the offense for a couple of years now. I think part of the problem is lacking a WR in the mold of a 4.40 speedster who can threaten the top of a defense. Jennings is gone and while Jordy has developed into a great all-around receiver I'm not sure he's still got that deceptive long speed because its been a few years since we've seen him catch one over his shoulder. The guys we have typically make their big plays after the catch which is awesome but isn't going to change the way a defense can play us. With the emergence of Lacy you'd think this type of WR would be that much more valuable.

The offense is starting to look like the 2010 Falcons. They can take long methodical drives and play ball control but a lot of things have to go right in order to win a shootout or prevent close games against much worse teams.

I do believe Jennings helps here, though when he came back to the team in 2011 after his injury it didn't immediately solve the problem. Cobb helps, but he runs different routes well, he could develop more variety and provide more relief. But I am not sure it was Jennings speed that was the difference. He could escape man coverage and was willing to play in the middle of the field, those were two important factors. That and Rodgers trusted him.

Not saying I wouldn't enjoy a speedster taking the one of those safeties for a run, but I think ANY effective and trusted outlet in the middle of the field is vital.

[wist43]

I do believe Jennings helps here, though when he came back to the team in 2011 after his injury it didn't immediately solve the problem. Cobb helps, but he runs different routes well, he could develop more variety and provide more relief. But I am not sure it was Jennings speed that was the difference. He could escape man coverage and was willing to play in the middle of the field, those were two important factors. That and Rodgers trusted him.

Not saying I wouldn't enjoy a speedster taking the one of those safeties for a run, but I think ANY effective and trusted outlet in the middle of the field is vital.

Jennings strength was getting in and out of his breaks quickly - very quickly. He'd come off the line, be at top speed within a couple of steps, stop on a dime, take a step or two into his break, the ball would arrive on timing, and Jennings was already turned and putting a move on the DB.

I was skeptical of his pick before I saw him live, but I attended minicamp right after that draft and it took me seeing him run just a few routes to be able to tell that he was a hell of a receiver.

No doubt about it - we miss Jennings.

Now Finley will be gone too... we'll see how the offense responds. We still have Rodgers pulling the trigger, so we'll always have a punchers chance, but unless we shore up that mess of a defense, our chances of being a serious contender aren't good. We're a playoff team, but then again 11 other teams are as well... there's only 1 SB champ. We're not on that SB level.

[bobblehead]

Jennings strength was getting in and out of his breaks quickly - very quickly. He'd come off the line, be at top speed within a couple of steps, stop on a dime, take a step or two into his break, the ball would arrive on timing, and Jennings was already turned and putting a move on the DB.

I was skeptical of his pick before I saw him live, but I attended minicamp right after that draft and it took me seeing him run just a few routes to be able to tell that he was a hell of a receiver.

No doubt about it - we miss Jennings.

Now Finley will be gone too... we'll see how the offense responds. We still have Rodgers pulling the trigger, so we'll always have a punchers chance, but unless we shore up that mess of a defense, our chances of being a serious contender aren't good. We're a playoff team, but then again 11 other teams are as well... there's only 1 SB champ. We're not on that SB level.

So, for the sake of bookmarking a thread so I can bump it later, who are your "superbowl level" teams for next year....because I believe we are on the short list, while SF window has already closed.

[mraynrand]

So, for the sake of bookmarking a thread so I can bump it later, who are your "superbowl level" teams for next year....because I believe we are on the short list, while SF window has already closed.

How about Baltimore? Their running offense will beat helpless defenses unconscious.

[pbmax]

How about Baltimore? Their running offense will beat helpless defenses unconscious.

+1

I would rep this but have to find someone else to rep first.

[ThunderDan]

+1

I would rep this but have to find someone else to rep first.

You rang!

[run pMc]

I think having a combination of a TE who can threaten the middle and feeding Lacy the ball would help soften up a 2 deep. I agree having a speedster outside would help as well. The WRs on the roster have to rely on YAC and downfield blocking, and a good tackling/physical defense like SF or SEA have can limit those gains. I think Cobb is too small to play X; Jordy and Boykin can but neither is a burner. I'm thinking this is the year they draft a WR in R2 or 3.