HawkShack.com

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:24 pm

They already sent Davis packing, so I guess they are on a mission to see what they have and what they haven't.
Maybe Kaep is the problem on Offense, and if he is they might as well find out now if they need to draft a QB with their first pick as Gabbert probably isn't the long term answer.

by **jshawaii22** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:44 pm

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/11/02/san-fr ... ta-falcons

Here's a link to a story --

by **obiken** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:57 pm

Well its good for him, the 9ers are done, and his mojo is shattered.

by **Zorn76** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:59 pm

We saw what their OL is about when we played them, and it's been a major issue for them all year (sound familiar, lol).
Still, this was a benching in the making for a little while now.

Kaepernick is fried mentally. What this really amounts to is that his days as a 49er are numbered - even if he resumes starting for SF at some point this season. This gives Gabbert a home game vs the Falcons, followed by their off wek, then a game in Seattle. My guess is that he plays us, too, because they already know what CK is about when facing off against the Seahawks.

It may just be Blaine's job for the remainder of 2015 anyway, and it makes sense to see him play. I also believe this is just preview of what's to come during the off season. They need go ahead and ditch their GM and HC as well, though Tomsula can't be blamed too much considering the hand he was dealt.

They do have some talent on defense, and a franchise RB in Carlos Hyde. But a real house cleaning is in order, IMO, before they can begin to right the ship.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:12 am

Not at all surprising. At 2-6, the Niners have thrown in the towel on 2015 and started the evaluation process in preparation for the offseason. For them, the rest of this season is nothing more than a second set of preseason games. They not only need to evaluate the players left on their roster, they want to showcase those that they may not want in order to make them more valuable in a potential trade.

It makes complete sense to bench Kaepernick, even if they intend on keeping him. They have what could be a valuable commodity on their roster in the form of Blaine Gabbert, a former #1 draft choice who was a lot like Kaepernick, coming out of college the same year and from a spread offense. Gabbert has good legs, ran a sub 4.6 40 at the combine, so maybe he's the player they want to trade to some QB starved team like Chip Kelly's Eagles. Even though I agree with Zorny that the best thing for Kaepernick would be a second start, but even if he wants out, the Niners might not be able to move him due to his contract.

The Niners are what everyone in here, except Futureite, thought they'd be this season, a runaway train heading to a washed out bridge.

by **c_hawkbob** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:31 am

Are the Niners now the worst run program in football?

I think so.

by **Uppercut** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:21 am

I believe the Niners owner daughter is running the show on Instagram and Snapchat!

by **burrrton** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:24 am

Gotta say, I feel a little sorry for the guy. What a brutal and quick turnaround and fall.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:28 am

It also signals to the rest of the league he's available for trade should another team be interested.
If not this year, after the season is over they might be able to get some trade value for him from a team with confidence in their QB coach.
They will also be after the top QB on the board when they draft, I would suspect.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:08 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Are the Niners now the worst run program in football?

I think so.

They have some competition from the Redskins.

by **Hawktawk** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:49 pm

RiverDog wrote:Are the Niners now the worst run program in football?

I think so.]

They have some competition from the Redskins.

I agree to a point about the Skins RD. Snyder has been a hair fire for a couple of decades or so. I will say they at least have a pulse, a coach who was willing to take on the primadonna QB, and maybe just maybe Cousins has the right stuff. He set a couple of Redskins records last week. The 9ers on the other hand had looked like an up and coming franchise the last 5 years but they are trending terribly downward obviously. As for Gabbert I dont see him as the answer. He has probably better measurables than Kap in some ways but the guy lacks courage against an NFL rush. I actually bumped into Missouri's O line coach a couple of years back and asked him what was wrong with Gabbert. He alluded to how bad a franchise Jacksonville was but then added " The guy is a pussy. He was at Missouri and nothing has changed in the NFL".

IMO SF is going from the frying pan to the fire, Couldn't happen to a better franchise.LMAO

by **kalibane** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:38 pm

One bad year doesn't win them the crown. The Redskins are still the gold standard and they have a ways to go until they're the Lions or Browns. They even had the sense to cut Aldon Smith while Jerry Jones is running around calling Greg Hardy a leader.

They are in bad shape but not the worst.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:57 pm

They're heading down that path, though and York Jr. seems to think the team is his personal toy, instead of a real business. Talk about running a going concern into the ground.
He's in over his ego inflated head.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:08 am

kalibane wrote:One bad year doesn't win them the crown. The Redskins are still the gold standard and they have a ways to go until they're the Lions or Browns. They even had the sense to cut Aldon Smith while Jerry Jones is running around calling Greg Hardy a leader.

They are in bad shape but not the worst.

Boy, that deserves a thread of its own. Frigging Jerry Jones walks around with his head between his cheeks, and I don't mean the cheeks between his ears. A player that hasn't even been with the team a full year and was embroiled in a very serious domestic violence situation and was suspended for almost the entire season last year is a team leader? Maybe he out to crown him the "Face of the Franchise" while he's at it. What a stupid thing to say. That guy must think we're all a bunch of mindless idiots if he thinks he's going to get us to believe what comes out of his cake hole.

by **Hawktawk** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:34 am

The things that go on in Jerrys world would make Caligula blush. So it isn't surprising he would have no problem with an abusive roid rage freakazoid as a key player.

by **c_hawkbob** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:36 am

Hawktawk wrote:The things that go on in Jerrys world would make Caligula blush.

by **Hawktawk** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:54 pm

LOL Bob you picked a G rated one. Theres plenty more. Yeah that Jerry is a pillar of virtue and a great family man.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 2:01 pm

Ugh...Gawd, that's nasty. That girl is young enough to be Jones' grand daughter. Talk about a dirty old man.

One of the first things Jones did after buying the Cowboys... after disposing of Tom Landry like he would yesterday's newspapers... was to try to get the Cowboys cheerleaders to wear skimpier uniforms, and I thought "geez, they'd have to be wearing thongs if they were going to wear something skimpier than the shorts they wear.". Not that I'm an old prude, but there's a time and a place for such things, and forcing cheerleaders to look like strippers is definitely crossing the line.

by **kalibane** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 2:48 pm

I'm honestly in favor of just getting rid of cheerleaders. They don't pay them anything and they don't serve any purpose. Pittsburgh has done just fine without them. Yeah I know totally off topic but it's just one of those things that rattles through my mind from time to time.

by **HumanCockroach** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:09 pm

I think that thought rattles through a lot more people's minds than you would think. The only real purpose I can glean is the of field stuff. Appearances, rally's, good will ambassador hype machine. Game day they don't matter in the least.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:34 pm

Yea, I could do without the cheerleaders. For that matter, I can do without the info babes down on the sidelines doing the injury reports and human interest stuff. If I feel like watching something that appeals to my libido, it's not going to be professional football.

by **c_hawkbob** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:10 pm

Not sure I get the need to scrub the gameday experience clean of estrogen, but to each their own.

by **Zorn76** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:48 pm

Meanwhile...

Anybody else considering laying the 7 and betting an entire paycheck on the Falcons?

Think of it as an NFL junk bond:)

by **EmeraldBullet** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:53 pm

Kaep could be a good fit somewhere else I suppose...I never thought he was that good though. Yeah he can run around and has a strong arm but his decision making and mental toughness are extremely lacking to non-existent. Maybe the Texans would like to give him a shot?

by **Hawkstar** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:08 pm

Zorn76 wrote:Meanwhile...

Anybody else considering laying the 7 and betting an entire paycheck on the Falcons?

Think of it as an NFL junk bond:)

This feel about as close to a lock as we'll ever see. At least Kaep had the threat of him taking off to keep Defenses somewhat honest. Gabbert doesnt offer a cause for pause for any D, on any level. Add the fact the 9'ers are down to their 4th string back... Over/Under on Sacks and First Downs might be more compelling. (9 and 2 respectively is my guess...)

by **EmeraldBullet** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:10 pm

Not worth the bet because the moneyline will be like -650 for the falcons.

by **Zorn76** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:07 pm

That's why you skip the ML and lay the points.

by **EmeraldBullet** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:10 am

So it's -300 +250, that's not too bad. Or you give 49ers 7 points and it's a -110. I agree in this case skip the moneyline and dish out the points. Lock it in now because by the time the game rolls around I expect the point spread to increase.

Side Note: Patriots hosting redskins are -1250 favorites!!! WTF?!!! I couldn't even imagine risking $1250 to win $100 if/when you're right.

by **Zorn76** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:55 am

The Patriots are just really tough at home, obviously, and they don't play down to their competition.

Against lesser teams like Washington, they have no trouble destroying them, and I think that will be the case here.

The Redskins are scrappy in one sense, but they haven't won a road game this year, and they ain't about to do it this week (or cover 14.5).

I look for N.E. to blow them out with ease.

Pats, 37-16.

by **Hawktawk** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:47 am

Hawkstar wrote:[

This feel about as close to a lock as we'll ever see. At least Kaep had the threat of him taking off to keep Defenses somewhat honest. Gabbert doesnt offer a cause for pause for any D, on any level. Add the fact the 9'ers are down to their 4th string back... Over/Under on Sacks and First Downs might be more compelling. (9 and 2 respectively is my guess...)

For one thing Gabbert isn't a statue exactly. His athleticism propelled him in the draft and he runs a sub 5 40. For another Kaep has used his legs less and less all the time which has made him one dimensional. The teammates were tired of his attitude and ineffectiveness and will be hungry to help the new QB who was nearly perfect in the preseason..

I am not a Gabbert fan at all nor was I a Kaep fan. But Atlanta is limping as well having lost to Tampa Bay at home and being very ineffective offensively for several weeks now. I would imagine all that being said the Falcons should be favored and should win. But as Schizophrenic as the 9ers in particular and the league in general have been this year I wouldn't ever bet a paycheck on this game.

by **kalibane** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:23 am

Zorn76 wrote:Meanwhile...

Anybody else considering laying the 7 and betting an entire paycheck on the Falcons?

Think of it as an NFL junk bond:)

I wouldn't feel like a friend if I didn't remind you that the Falcons just lost to the Bucs and beat the Zach Mettenberger led Titans 10-7.

by **RiverDog** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:22 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Not sure I get the need to scrub the gameday experience clean of estrogen, but to each their own.

I don't think anyone identified a need to purify the game day experience. It's just something some of us wouldn't miss if they did do away with it. Personally I wouldn't give a rip if they had cheerleaders or sumo wrestlers dancing on the sidelines.

by **kalibane** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:17 pm

Pretty much ... Cheerleading (for pro sports teams) just seems like a relic from a bygone day. Half the reason they exist (if not more) is for the T&A value but it's about as antiseptic as you can get. And from what I've read the restrictions they are placed under combined with the almost complete lack of compensation borders on a human rights violation (yes I'm exaggerating for effect).

I'm not exactly campaigning to get rid of them, just don't know that they serve a purpose for anyone involved at this point.

by **Hawktawk** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:40 pm

Im cool with cheerleaders. I dig chicks. Im alright with the infobabes too. Would you really rather listen to John Clayton?Hes got a face for radio.
Frankly Collinsworth and definitely Aikman and Buck among others irritate me more than any female reporter I can think of.

by **RiverDog** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:52 pm

kalibane wrote:Pretty much ... Cheerleading (for pro sports teams) just seems like a relic from a bygone day. Half the reason they exist (if not more) is for the T&A value but it's about as antiseptic as you can get. And from what I've read the restrictions they are placed under combined with the almost complete lack of compensation borders on a human rights violation (yes I'm exaggerating for effect).

I'm not exactly campaigning to get rid of them, just don't know that they serve a purpose for anyone involved at this point.

Interesting that you should mention that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/sport ... .html?_r=0

by **burrrton** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:05 pm

Yet they have hundreds try out every year for every team (AFAIK).

I have no problem arguing for them to go away, nor do I have any problem arguing they should make a shtload more than they do.

But the prestige and experience of being on these dance/performance squads obviously has some value to them (maybe as a stepping stone to other things, or resume material, or whatever).

by **EmeraldBullet** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:08 pm

No one is forcing them to be cheerleaders. They choose to do it. Either choose to do it or not, but I don't understand choosing to do it and then complain about it. I also agree that many of them do it for reasons other than the money. Most likely they like the attention and it leads to other job possibilities down the road. I know all seahawks cheerleaders are required to have another job to even be considered (not sure about other teams), so maybe the cheerleading gig should be looked at as more of an internship rather than a job.

by **c_hawkbob** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:23 pm

I like cheerleaders, all the way back to HS I've always felt that they were part of the game day experience, and having been in band I know that many of the game's ancillary personnel take their role seriously and it's important to them. Sure many of them are just pretty faces that if they weren't doing this would be putting themselves out in the public eye some other way, but so what? Most of them chose to do it as cheerleaders because they are fans of the game too.

And as fare as sideline reporters, they have just as much right to make their living in the sports arena as anyone else. And having the pretty ones go in the front of the camera is nothing new, for the women or the men.

I like women and I'm glad they're involved in stuff I like.

by **EmeraldBullet** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:48 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:I like cheerleaders, all the way back to HS I've always felt that they were part of the game day experience, and having been in band I know that many of the game's ancillary personnel take their role seriously and it's important to them. Sure many of them are just pretty faces that if they weren't doing this would be putting themselves out in the public eye some other way, but so what? Most of them chose to do it as cheerleaders because they are fans of the game too.

And as fare as sideline reporters, they have just as much right to make their living in the sports arena as anyone else. And having the pretty ones go in the front of the camera is nothing new, for the women or the men.

I like women and I'm glad they're involved in stuff I like.

I agree with everything you said there c_hawkbob. I too was a member of my highschool band and I loved being able to be a part of the game time atmosphere even though I wasn't playing in the game. Also, if the team sucks really bad (as my high school team did) the band and cheerleaders help bring people to the game that otherwise wouldn't have been there (family members and friends of the band and cheerleaders, etc.)

Just a side note: This forum 'subject' really has 3 or so subjects now:

Kaep being benched/ 49ers sucking
Sports betting
Cheerleaders
Jerry Jones being a creeper

by **burrrton** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:57 pm

Just a side note: This forum 'subject' really has 3 or so subjects now

Typical bye week.

HawkShack.com

Who is online