HawkShack.com

by **RiverDog** » Mon May 25, 2015 5:35 am

There's some discussion about a possible realignment relating to what is an increasingly stronger possibility of LA securing both the Chargers and Raiders in the same stadium. The article points out that if they share the same venue, one of the two franchises would have to change conferences due to the existing TV contract the NFL has with the networks. In addition, considering that the Raider fan base is one of the most thuggish in the league, they'd be well advised to split them up as opposed to having two games a season in the same building with a divisional rival.

Seattle and St. Louis make more logistical sense than Arizona.

St. Louis is closer to Kansas City and Denver than Arizona. Their only long distance travel would be to Los Angeles, a 1800 mile travel. Arizona would travel 863 miles to Denver, and 1200 miles to Kansas City, and rack up more miles annually than a lot of other teams.

Then you have Seattle. Seattle makes the most sense, primarily because they were once a part of the AFC West, albeit 13 years ago. Not only would they return to their first division, the NFC West would finally have a chance to breathe from their oppressive rule.

http://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2015/5 ... or-arizona

IMO since the league forced us to change conferences during the last realignment, they will yield to the Hawks desire if the relocation of the Chargers and Raiders forces a realignment of teams.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon May 25, 2015 8:00 am

"Not only would they return to their first division, the NFC West would finally have a chance to breathe from their oppressive rule."

Our first division was the NFC West, so we would be returning to our second division.
We're the only team that has moved divisions twice, so I hope we don't move again.

by **RiverDog** » Mon May 25, 2015 8:11 am

NorthHawk wrote:"Not only would they return to their first division, the NFC West would finally have a chance to breathe from their oppressive rule."

Our first division was the NFC West, so we would be returning to our second division.
We're the only team that has moved divisions twice, so I hope we don't move again.

I would love to return to the AFC West. Both the Broncos and Chief's have passionate fan bases, and sharing a division with an LA team would still give us a California team to hate. The Cards and Rams don't offer much in terms of excitement.

by **obiken** » Mon May 25, 2015 11:11 am

I wouldn't, We have done WAY better in the NFC west than the Afc west. Sorry I am tired of moving leave us alone.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon May 25, 2015 11:56 am

RD, you don't think the Rams and Cards are at this point quality opponents the caliber if KC, Oakland and or SD? Seriously? I grew up watching Seattle in AFC West, but have no desire to return to the "lesser" competition if the AFC West or AFC conference. Seattle shouldn't want, nor desire to increase travel, lower competition, nor dissolve the NFL's current best rivalry.

by **RiverDog** » Mon May 25, 2015 12:27 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:RD, you don't think the Rams and Cards are at this point quality opponents the caliber if KC, Oakland and or SD? Seriously? I grew up watching Seattle in AFC West, but have no desire to return to the "lesser" competition if the AFC West or AFC conference. Seattle shouldn't want, nor desire to increase travel, lower competition, nor dissolve the NFL's current best rivalry.

You seriously need to re-read my post. I wasn't talking about the quality of the teams, I was comparing their fan bases.

Besides, we shouldn't be making long term decisions based on the short term, cyclical fluctuations of the quality of opponents. And as far as the NFL's current best rivalry goes, it's well on it's way to hibernation as the Niners are under a new head coach and would appear to be heading into a major rebuild. But I get your point. They are geographically the closest team to us and have a large, passionate fan base, so that's got to count for something.

by **Seahawks4Ever** » Mon May 25, 2015 3:33 pm

I remember when we were moved back to the NFC West the AFC West teams said "that's ok, the Seahawks were the only team in our division that had not been to the Super Bowl". Well, now we have been to 3 and won it once so if we return to the AFC West we could say that SD would be the only team in our division that has not WON a SB, EVER!!!

So, bring it on! We would dominate the AFC West just as we dominate the NFC West so what would be the difference??

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon May 25, 2015 3:49 pm

I just love that they feel oppressed by us ... who would want to change that?

by **RiverDog** » Mon May 25, 2015 4:02 pm

I'm not necessarily advocating that we change, just that I'd be a lot more willing to change than when they kicked us out of the AFC West 15 years or so ago.

Actually I'm hoping that San Diego and Oakland stay put and that the Rams move to LA. Then there would be no need for a realignment and we would gain a west coast rival. I enjoy 'hating' California teams more so than teams from Missouri or Arizona. But it seems like St. Louis is further along in their quest for a new stadium than either San Diego or Oakland.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon May 25, 2015 7:34 pm

Sorry RD, I misunderstood, you said much in the way of excitement. For me that has to do with quality of the opponents, not in anyway the fan base. To each his own, the fan base for me means little, I care about the games far more. My mistake.

by **RiverDog** » Mon May 25, 2015 7:45 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Sorry RD, I misunderstood, you said much in the way of excitement. For me that has to do with quality of the opponents, not in anyway the fan base. To each his own, the fan base for me means little, I care about the games far more. My mistake.

Thanks, HC. I see what you were thinking.

I like the gamesmanship in the week(s) prior to the game. I made a lot of mileage with a number of friends of mine following our win over the Packers in the NFCCG last year, and it's because those guys are so dedicated to their team. I have yet to find a true Cardinals or Rams fan. That's why wins over the Niners were so satisfying. I bought a table of Broncos fans a sympathy drink last year when I was in Vegas. It was great! They were really good sports about it.

That's why the fan base means a lot to me.

by **Oly** » Tue May 26, 2015 4:48 am

I care about rivalries first, travel close second. I think the Hawks-49ers rivalry is one of the best in the NFL (would be THE best if the 49ers weren't starting to slide), but those old AFC rivalries could be rekindled.

But if moving to the AFC dramatically cut travel distances (I'd need to see the final configuration), I would be for it.

by **Uppercut** » Tue May 26, 2015 9:38 am

As long as we are making changes I would make a westcoast division consisting of SEA, SF, OAK, and LA Rams also less travel

by **obiken** » Tue May 26, 2015 2:11 pm

SF will tank this year, the Cards and the Rams lack QB power. I think the AFC West as a whole will get better than the NFC West.

by **Vegaseahawk** » Wed May 27, 2015 10:08 am

Uppercut wrote:As long as we are making changes I would make a westcoast division consisting of SEA, SF, OAK, and LA Rams also less travel

This^. I would have many more options to attend road games.

by **obiken** » Fri May 29, 2015 12:04 am

Uppercut wrote:
As long as we are making changes I would make a west-coast division consisting of SEA, SF, OAK, and LA Rams also less travel

Not now that would make sense.

by **RiverDog** » Fri May 29, 2015 1:03 am

In a perfect world, a division with Seattle and the California teams makes a whole lot of sense: Shorter travel, same time zone, better rivalries. But the reality is that the NFL is going to do as much as they can to keep the old AFL teams together. That's why we were the odd man out of the AFC West the last time we had a realignment. They are also going to want to take advantage of a San Francisco-LA rivalry.

Bottom line is that due to our remote location and relatively shallow history, we can expect to be bounced around like a 10 pin when it comes to realignment.

by **Futureite** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:45 pm

obiken wrote:SF will tank this year, the Cards and the Rams lack QB power. I think the AFC West as a whole will get better than the NFC West.

I love reading the rebuild talk. Keep it coming!

Justin left, but Dockett came aboard..
McDonald left, but Dorsey and Ian Williams are back.
Willis retired, but Bowman is back.
Culliver left, but Brock and Ward are back.

For every piece but Anthony Davis (and possibly Gore), there is a proven comperable replacement. Not to mention the Tank Carradines, Aaron Lynch's etc who at the very least have already shown flashes. The talent is stacked and it's a shame that even within our own division people do not know the roster. Not sure how that happens.

Seahawks are of course the team to beat and have added a major weapon on O. There are a few less pressing question marks - such as the health of your secondary and I line - but one could probably still logically pencil them in for 12 wins.

That said, we ain't close to done. We're a young, hungry team. And, the longer a team goes in consecutive postseason the more it wears on them. Takes a lot of energy to do what the Hawks did last yr, coming from 6-4 to go back to back.

We shall see how this all plays out!

by **Futureite** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:49 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:I just love that they feel oppressed by us ... who would want to change that?

Hahaha. 2 straight yrs winning the division and now we're all "opressed". I always know when I am in Hawk territory.

Bring on 2015!

.

by **jshawaii22** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 pm

Future,

Every team has 30+ players that CAN be good replacements. But saying that all those backups and over-the-hill FA's can come in and replace, what, 5 or 6 all pros and the best young LB who retired? You forgot Iupati, who was probably your best interior lineman, too. Good luck. Throw out names. Every team has them.
We learned that lesson in the Super Bowl. You just can't replace talent at the same level.

Talk to us come December when you're 5-9 and looking up at last place.

js

by **RiverDog** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:51 pm

Futureite wrote:Hahaha. 2 straight yrs winning the division and now we're all "opressed". I always know when I am in Hawk territory.

Bring on 2015! .

What the heck do you mean "2 straight years"? You talk as if we're some Johnny Come Lately. Your memory is shorter than your manhood, my friend.

Since realignment in 2002, the Seahawks have won 7 (and counting) divisional titles, the 49'ers have won but 3, the Cards 2, and the Rams 1. Put it all together and the Hawks have won more divisional titles than the other three teams COMBINED! So yea, you ought to feel oppressed :lol:

.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:19 pm

Didn't you know RD Niners fans only include the 80's and since their most recent success the DECADES of futility surrounding those periods don't count, so as Seattle, Arizona, and even the Rams were slapping them around for the majority of that 13 year period, it doesn't count.

I told you Future it was a short term loan of SEATTLES division, and I was once again spot on. Seattle has I believe the second most division titles since re alignment, trailing only NE, anyone who thinks that isn't "owning" ones division is lost.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:35 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Didn't you know RD Niners fans only include the 80's and since their most recent success the DECADES of futility surrounding those periods don't count, so as Seattle, Arizona, and even the Rams were slapping them around for the majority of that 13 year period, it doesn't count.

I told you Future it was a short term loan of SEATTLES division, and I was once again spot on. Seattle has I believe the second most division titles since re alignment, trailing only NE, anyone who thinks that isn't "owning" ones division is lost.

The Pats do, indeed, lead in divsion crowns since realignment in 2002 with 11, followed by the Colts with 9 AFC South titles and the Packers with 8 NFC Nortrh crowns.

But it doesn't diminish the point about our domination over our NFC West foes, though.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:02 pm

My bad, second most in conference division titles, or maybe I'm confusing it with second most playoff appearances. Regardless Seattle has owned this division, and pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:33 am

HumanCockroach wrote: Regardless Seattle has owned this division, and pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

Yea, I'm a little surprised that our friend Futureite would come in here with that garbage. Him trying to sneak his 2 year new money comment past some of us diehards 12's was like trying to sneak the sun past a rooster.

by **Seahawks4Ever** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:41 pm

One thing we know for sure, if a team wants to move to a different city there is nothing the NFL can do to stop them from moving. The owner of the Rams IS building a new stadium in Southern California and I am sure he isn't building it for another team he doesn't own so St. Louis can build a new stadium if they want but they will just have to lure a different team after the Rams leave. I guess they are being proactive.

The negotiations between the Chargers and the city of San Diego recently collapsed but they do not have a viable venue in the L.A. metro area to move to at the present time. It would be a terrible blow to the city of San Diego to lose the Chargers, but the fans are just not supporting this franchise.

Oakland has needed a new stadium forever, but the city just does not have the money to build a new one. What happened to Roger Goodell saying that the NFL would help a city like Oakland to build a new stadium??? What about the A's?? Again, the fans of the A's just don't support their franchise. They can't even sell out when they are in the play offs. The fans of the Raiders have supported their football team where the fans of the A's have not. The fans of the Raiders do not deserve to lose their team again to the L.A. area.

This is where St. Louis comes in if they do go ahead of building a new stadium yet the Rams leave anyway. The Chargers could be the team that moves to St. Louis (even though they originally played their first few seasons in L.A.). If Mr. Davis is serious about moving the Raiders to San Antonio he could just as well move it to St. Louis. The Chargers could move to San Antonio if they don't get the Raiders.

I know the NFL desperately wants at least one team in L.A. and would prefer two. BUT! If I remember correctly neither the Rams nor the Raiders drew very well when they were both in the L.A. area. Can any NFL team draw enough fans to justify having one team let alone two???

As for realignment, if the rams are heading back to So. Cal. I would hate to see our Seahawks to be moved back to the AFC West just when they wouldn't have to travel back to St. Louis for a divisional game. Oh, and have a trip to St. Louis replaced with a trip to K.C., a change of just a few hundred miles.

Besides, if only 1 team relocates to the L.A. area then the NFL doesn't have to realign.

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:54 pm

If the Lambs and the Chargers move to LA they wouldn't have to realign.

by **Futureite** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:26 pm

jshawaii22 wrote:Future,

Every team has 30+ players that CAN be good replacements. But saying that all those backups and over-the-hill FA's can come in and replace, what, 5 or 6 all pros and the best young LB who retired? You forgot Iupati, who was probably your best interior lineman, too. Good luck. Throw out names. Every team has them.
We learned that lesson in the Super Bowl. You just can't replace talent at the same level.

Talk to us come December when you're 5-9 and looking up at last place.

js

Hahaha. So Aldon Smith - whom we didn't have for the first 9 games, and Novorro Bowman - who we had for 0 games is just me throwing names out? And Glen Dorsey, who anchored our Dline for all of 2013 and barely played last yr is wishful thinking? Or Brock, who was our best corner and played only 1/2 the yr...? Sure, every team has a pass rusher who sacked the QB at a historical pace. OK.

These are two defensive minded teams, and your own D was ranked about 18th before it got back ONE middle linebacker and played 6 straight games V some of the worst Os in the league. So, things can change in a hurry.

We have a ton of talented players. People talk about us losing Willis, Boreland, Smith but no one talks about how many talented players did not even see the field last yr. There is no way Darnel Dockett is a step down from what Justin brought last yr. I could continue but as stated, even here people obviously do not know the roster.

Yes, Iupati and Davis could be a problem. I fail to see how in the world our Olinemen is in worse shape than the Seahawks. At least our FO has planned for these departures for yrs with highly touted prospects in Marcus Martin, Brandon Thomas etc. Who exactly have the Seahawks brought in other than late Rd picks or guys off the street?

I give you respect as division Champs and a very talented back to back SB team. LOL but 5-9? OK dude. We will in fact see. Would surprise me none if we won the Div.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:06 pm

Seahawks4Ever wrote:One thing we know for sure, if a team wants to move to a different city there is nothing the NFL can do to stop them from moving. The owner of the Rams IS building a new stadium in Southern California and I am sure he isn't building it for another team he doesn't own so St. Louis can build a new stadium if they want but they will just have to lure a different team after the Rams leave. I guess they are being proactive.

The negotiations between the Chargers and the city of San Diego recently collapsed but they do not have a viable venue in the L.A. metro area to move to at the present time. It would be a terrible blow to the city of San Diego to lose the Chargers, but the fans are just not supporting this franchise.

Oakland has needed a new stadium forever, but the city just does not have the money to build a new one. What happened to Roger Goodell saying that the NFL would help a city like Oakland to build a new stadium??? What about the A's?? Again, the fans of the A's just don't support their franchise. They can't even sell out when they are in the play offs. The fans of the Raiders have supported their football team where the fans of the A's have not. The fans of the Raiders do not deserve to lose their team again to the L.A. area.

This is where St. Louis comes in if they do go ahead of building a new stadium yet the Rams leave anyway. The Chargers could be the team that moves to St. Louis (even though they originally played their first few seasons in L.A.). If Mr. Davis is serious about moving the Raiders to San Antonio he could just as well move it to St. Louis. The Chargers could move to San Antonio if they don't get the Raiders.

I know the NFL desperately wants at least one team in L.A. and would prefer two. BUT! If I remember correctly neither the Rams nor the Raiders drew very well when they were both in the L.A. area. Can any NFL team draw enough fans to justify having one team let alone two???

As for realignment, if the rams are heading back to So. Cal. I would hate to see our Seahawks to be moved back to the AFC West just when they wouldn't have to travel back to St. Louis for a divisional game. Oh, and have a trip to St. Louis replaced with a trip to K.C., a change of just a few hundred miles.

Besides, if only 1 team relocates to the L.A. area then the NFL doesn't have to realign.

No one's moving w/o league approval. The league helps with financing new stadium construction and lately has been offering a nice plum in the form of a Super Bowl. None of that happens if they leave against the wishes of the league. The current ownership group is as tight as it's ever been. None of those owners in question is 'blessed' with the maverick style Al Davis possessed.

It's the Rams or nothing for St. Louis. Unless the Rams sign a binding 20 year lease, the stadium won't get built. St. Louis is well ahead of Oakland and San Diego with their stadium plan.

If the Rams move to LA, there will be no realignment. The league would love to have another interstate, interdivision rivalry. Realignment would only happen if both the Raiders and Chargers move to LA. Under that scenario, it's possible that the Hawks could move back to the AFC West, but my guess is that it would be our option as we were the only team that was forced out in the last realignment.

Who ever moves to LA will have no trouble drawing fans. A lot has changed since the Raiders and Rams left.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:25 pm

Futureite wrote:Hahaha. So Aldon Smith - whom we didn't have for the first 9 games, and Novorro Bowman - who we had for 0 games is just me throwing names out? And Glen Dorsey, who anchored our Dline for all of 2013 and barely played last yr is wishful thinking? Or Brock, who was our best corner and played only 1/2 the yr...? Sure, every team has a pass rusher who sacked the QB at a historical pace. OK.

These are two defensive minded teams, and your own D was ranked about 18th before it got back ONE middle linebacker and played 6 straight games V some of the worst Os in the league. So, things can change in a hurry.

We have a ton of talented players. People talk about us losing Willis, Boreland, Smith but no one talks about how many talented players did not even see the field last yr. There is no way Darnel Dockett is a step down from what Justin brought last yr. I could continue but as stated, even here people obviously do not know the roster.

Yes, Iupati and Davis could be a problem. I fail to see how in the world our Olinemen is in worse shape than the Seahawks. At least our FO has planned for these departures for yrs with highly touted prospects in Marcus Martin, Brandon Thomas etc. Who exactly have the Seahawks brought in other than late Rd picks or guys off the street?

I give you respect as division Champs and a very talented back to back SB team. LOL but 5-9? OK dude. We will in fact see. Would surprise me none if we won the Div.

Aldon Smith wasn't a lot of help during the last half of your season. You were sub .500 in games he played in. And I wouldn't be using our OL as a yardstick to measure the effectiveness of yours. We're used to having Swiss cheese up front. You're not.

Predictions of a 49'er train wreck in 2016 is not something that's isolated to a few Niner haters in the PNW. A lot of talking heads from around the country have been forecasting rough times ahead for the maroon and gold. You lost 4-5 All Pros and your head coach plus you're playing one of the toughest schedules in the league. I admire your optimism but it strikes me more as wishful thinking than anything else.

by **jshawaii22** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:19 am

Yeah Future... what River said! My only add-in is your OLine was one of the best up to 2 years ago, and is one big reason that your team was rocking up to two years ago. Last year, the OLine regressed to Seahawk Level (yes, we accept that) and now 2 more of your best gone and it's not a little bit of a deal?

And... we have Russell Wilson, you don't. Kap? How is his school going this summer? Who's going to run for you after Gore left? Who's going to catch the passes? One new over-the-hill FA and a serviceable Bolden is no better then what the Hawks have. How are you going to score? No running game and Kap. And we have Russell.

Don't go down the road you can't win.

by **HumanCockroach** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:23 pm

Would surprise me none if we won the Div.

That would make one person in the world.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:59 pm

It wouldn't stop the world from spinning if the Niners won the division. This is the NFL, where parity is king. Heck, Oakland could win the AFC West and Buffalo the AFC East. But all signs point to the Niners window having closed, at least for the next couple of years. A 5-9 season is a lot more plausible for them than it is for us.

by **Futureite** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:56 pm

RiverDog wrote:It wouldn't stop the world from spinning if the Niners won the division. This is the NFL, where parity is king. Heck, Oakland could win the AFC West and Buffalo the AFC East. But all signs point to the Niners window having closed, at least for the next couple of years. A 5-9 season is a lot more plausible for them than it is for us.

Hope it was noted that I did give Seattle respect in my initial post based upon past history and current roster.

That said, cmon, Aldon Smith is one of the top 2 or 3 pass rushers in the entire NFL, he is 26 yrs old and missing 9 games obviously hurt him. No different than 2013 when he missed half the season and did not get rolling into the playoffs, literally.

Again, you can quote the guys who left, or you can take the opposing view and say Aldon, Bowman, Ian Williams and Dorsey return and Dockett has been added. It's clearly at the very least as good a D as last yrs, and that is without even considering several young players who could become elite.

You line up Graham, Baldwin (not sure who other starter will be), Lynch, Wilson. We line up V. Davis, Torrey Smith, Boldin, Hyde, Kap. For the sake of argument, we'll call O line a push. Objectively speaking, do you really see an advantage there?

What it comes back to again are 2 D minded teams that run the ball. We definitely have the horses on D. We'll see on O. The perceived advantages are all based upon past history and not the men who will suit up.

It's not a Homer opinion. It's an opinion based upon knowing the bare bones basics of the roster. Most people who are dissing the Niners don't even know that.

by **Futureite** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:17 pm

jshawaii22 wrote:Yeah Future... what River said! My only add-in is your OLine was one of the best up to 2 years ago, and is one big reason that your team was rocking up to two years ago. Last year, the OLine regressed to Seahawk Level (yes, we accept that) and now 2 more of your best gone and it's not a little bit of a deal?

And... we have Russell Wilson, you don't. Kap? How is his school going this summer? Who's going to run for you after Gore left? Who's going to catch the passes? One new over-the-hill FA and a serviceable Bolden is no better then what the Hawks have. How are you going to score? No running game and Kap. And we have Russell.

Don't go down the road you can't win.

LOL okay. Dissing a WR who's averaged 1,200 yds per season here. And who do the Seahawks have that supposedly creates a big advantage for you?

And Russel throwing 5 picks and generally looking list in the last 2 games should have humbled you, but instead you're dissing our QB for actually working his ass off and adressing his flaws? Seems like your QB should be doing the same thing instead of playing baseball. And you actually made this a point of emphasis.

I adressed the Oline. Yes, it's a big question mark. At least we adressed this in prior drafts and we're not rolling out Alex Boone from a holdout and Jonathon Martin on the other side this yr like we did last yr. Again, you have to know the roster and who actually played last yr to make these criticisms hold weight. Where is the Seahawks advantage or equatable prospects to Brandon Thomas and Marcus Martin?

Some of what you posted was legit. Most of the rest of it was the same NFL.Com headline click stuff.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:24 am

Futureite wrote:Hope it was noted that I did give Seattle respect in my initial post based upon past history and current roster.

That said, cmon, Aldon Smith is one of the top 2 or 3 pass rushers in the entire NFL, he is 26 yrs old and missing 9 games obviously hurt him. No different than 2013 when he missed half the season and did not get rolling into the playoffs, literally.

Again, you can quote the guys who left, or you can take the opposing view and say Aldon, Bowman, Ian Williams and Dorsey return and Dockett has been added. It's clearly at the very least as good a D as last yrs, and that is without even considering several young players who could become elite.

You line up Graham, Baldwin (not sure who other starter will be), Lynch, Wilson. We line up V. Davis, Tor. rey Smith, Boldin, Hyde, Kap. For the sake of argument, we'll call O line a push. Objectively speaking, do you really see an advantage there?

What it comes back to again are 2 D minded teams that run the ball. We definitely have the horses on D. We'll see on O. The perceived advantages are all based upon past history and not the men who will suit up.

It's not a Homer opinion. It's an opinion based upon knowing the bare bones basics of the roster. Most people who are dissing the Niners don't even know that.

I don't see A. Smith as being an impact player that can affect a 3 or 4 game swing. J.J Watt is undeniably the best defensive player in the league yet the Texans sunk to one of the worst records in the league. Without The Cowboy to take the pressure off him, Aldon is minus his fig leaf. He can't defeat a double team.

As far as your fantasy football lineup, ie Wilson vs Kaep, Davis vs. Graham, Baldwin/Kearse vs. Smith/Bolden, and Beast/Whoever, yea, I'll take those matchups every day of the week and twice on Sundays providing that you factor in our defense. We have the best defense in football and only lack one starter, Maxwell.

So yea, I think your post is very homerish. There aren't too many pundits that are talking a divisional title for the Niners.

by **jshawaii22** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:07 am

Future's stance also would have you consider that Kap as a passer is as good as Joe Flacco, but we know that's not gonna cut it. Tory Smith was a great receiver, but will now only be a good receiver, and like Bolden, would be better with a better QB back east and certainly not facing the Seahawks and the Card's twice a year.

I'll stick to my prediction for this year. New Coach, lots of new players... last place is a good bet.

by **NorthHawk** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:11 am

On paper it looks like the 49ers might have a tough time reaching a winning record, however Football is played on turf.
They have some real good talent, but the wild card in all this is their new coach, Jim Tomsula.
Not many of us know much about him, so he could be a real find for SF, or he just might end up being a tool of upper mgmt which is what some of us seem to think when we look at how the Harbaugh firing went down and the comments from the owner.
It just might be that the turmoil that was created by JH limited their success as a team and Tomsula could calm the waters.

As mentioned in previous posts, there is parity in the NFL and changes like the HC who the players already know might be what they need to progress as a team.
It's one of the reasons we watch the games.
That and the satisfaction of kicking 49er azz.

by **mykc14** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:28 am

Futureite wrote:
And Russel throwing 5 picks and generally looking list in the last 2 games should have humbled you, but instead you're dissing our QB for actually working his ass off and adressing his flaws? Seems like your QB should be doing the same thing instead of playing baseball. And you actually made this a point of emphasis.

LOL Really? RW had a 110 Quarterback rating and 90 QBR in the SB. If you want to use that as a negative be my guest, but it just makes you looks stupid. Good on Kaep for FINALLY realizing what he needed to work on, although over the past few offseason you continually told us how hard he had been working. I still remember how impressed you were that he was working out with the lineman, LOL, that really helped him out in the past. We'll see if he has the mental capability to actually improve on the areas he needs to. He supposedly worked on all that stuff last offseason and it didn't seem to help. It was a good choice to work with Warner, we'll see if he actually can play that way. Nobody here has any concern over the amount of work RW is putting in the offseason. He continually works on his flaws, he is miles ahead of Kaep in that regard. LOL same old future.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:39 am

mykc14 wrote:And Russel throwing 5 picks and generally looking list in the last 2 games should have humbled you, but instead you're dissing our QB for actually working his ass off and adressing his flaws? Seems like your QB should be doing the same thing instead of playing baseball. And you actually made this a point of emphasis.

LOL Really? RW had a 110 Quarterback rating and 90 QBR in the SB. If you want to use that as a negative be my guest, but it just makes you looks stupid. Good on Kaep for FINALLY realizing what he needed to work on, although over the past few offseason you continually told us how hard he had been working. I still remember how impressed you were that he was working out with the lineman, LOL, that really helped him out in the past. We'll see if he has the mental capability to actually improve on the areas he needs to. He supposedly worked on all that stuff last offseason and it didn't seem to help. It was a good choice to work with Warner, we'll see if he actually can play that way. Nobody here has any concern over the amount of work RW is putting in the offseason. He continually works on his flaws, he is miles ahead of Kaep in that regard. LOL same old future.

Yea, that's Futureite for you. Russell's baseball adventure doesn't take anymore time away from his football preparedness than does a couple of weeks vacationing in Hawaii. As a matter of fact, one could argue that his baseball workouts as a second baseman compliments his football skills as a quarterback as they both involve intricate footwork and a quick release throwing motion. If he were a pitcher, I might be a tad bit concerned as pitching involves a different throwing motion, but not as a middle infielder.

Off the field there's no one that works harder at improving his game than Russell, and to suggest otherwise is just plain ignorant.

HawkShack.com

Who is online