Kaepernick & Lockette

[RolandDeschain]

You strike me as the type of person who uses players being voted to the pro bowl as some sort of indication of how good they are. Having awesome regular season numbers is the same vanity crap that Tony Romo apologists cling to every year.

You are way off the mark, here. I hate Pro Bowl voting. I think it should be Associated Press style only. No players voting, and no fans voting. I think All Pro nominations are worth approximately 162 times as much as Pro Bowl nominations. Also, part of the point of tracking a PLAYER'S stats is it can tell you more about the player than how the team does overall. For instance, the Patriots lose Brady, but still go 11-5 with Cassel. The Colts lose Peyton, and they go 2-14. Now, they tanked some games to get Luck, but regardless; I would say that for at least 3/4ths of the seasons the Patriots and Colts have had Brady and Peyton respectively, the Patriots have been a more talented overall team, in my opinion.

Hate on individual stats all you want. They're not worthless, but just like any other stat INCLUDING wins/losses and playoff records, you have to take everything else that matters into account; like surrounding talent, coaching talent, etc.

Let me reiterate, though. I HATE PRO BOWL VOTING. Despise it. I think it's cheap pandering BS that fans get to vote, and all it does is favor the "flavor of the year" media darling franchises. Look at Jeff Saturday, he got voted to the Pro Bowl last year, but he was BENCHED by Green Bay for sucking during the regular season. I hate that kind of crap.

 

[757Niner]

Roland is actually one of the better posters I've encouter here, for the record...

But why are you worried about how the media potrays any player, right or wrong? That doesn't affect wins or losses. And its not like the media is saying RW is some lazy slug, who doesnt put the work in. CK has no control over what beat writers and national coverage guys focus on. He actually has a certain disdain for the media. He just wants to play football. He's doesnt fit the image of what the traditional franchise QB looks like and that's all they focused on when he became the starter. And he didnt appreciate them focusing on that, instead of his work on the field and he's come to resent them because of it. Part of is JH too, because he's disdain for the the prying eyes of the media is well documented and I'm sure he takes some of that from his coach but its not like he's seeking out the media, in a Chad Johnson/Terrell Owens fashion. He's just putting in work and letting the chips fall where they may.

As far as 42-13, it happened, we got our ass handed to us, but its still one reg season game. It didn't slow us down nor hamper our momentum heading into the playoffs. It might have actually helped players understand that they weren't as good as their press-clippings suggest. What I find amusing is how Hawks fans conviently forget that was their first win in 4 tries against us. Hawks fans are going to spin it in a fashion that best suits them. Niner fans are going to do the same. NFL Fandom Rule #2 in full effect.

Outsiders tempted to brand Kaepernick -- after 10 NFL starts -- as a one-read quarterback or a read-option quarterback aren't seeing what coordinator Greg Roman is seeing.

"He doesn't look at things in a rote fashion," Roman said. "He can see big picture. He understands the trickle-down. Say you give him a play, he is going to look at it in his mind versus all different coverages. All those little acetates are going to fall down at once in his mind, and then he understands the impact and 'hey, maybe we should put this guy in this spot, let him run this and let what's-his-name do this.' He is very interactive."

The 49ers still plan to use two backs frequently and lean hard on the running game, but it's not so much because a young quarterback is limiting their options. The collaborative aspect Roman referenced is telling in that regard.

"Last year, I started to bounce things off him because I started to really trust him," Roman said. "I liked what I was hearing and seeing. Now, he has a hand in the pot, too. That is what you want. He is the quarterback. You can evolve with him, and he'll be part of that evolution process. I just love getting him thinking, because he is great."

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... co-49ers-2

I think CK is right on schedule from my orginal prediction that his 3rd year would be the year he could lead a NFL team. Last year afforded him some much needed on-the-job training. He still needs work in a lot ways but he is in a great to position to build on last year. I'm not big on stats defining QB play becasue so many factors go into a QB success that is totally out of his control. I would never say CK is better than RW, reagrdless if the stats suggested so, and vice versa. Because more goes into playing the position than the end result of each play. But if you watch and analyze the game, its easy to determine how important a QB is to the overall success of a offense. And both players will be instrumental in the success/failure of both franchises going forward. I never compared Montana and Elway. Why? They were both great and did it in different ways. Different attributes, different approaches to the game but in the end, they both won and went down in history as two of the best to ever do it. That's how I look at the RW/Kaep/RG3/Luck comparisons. I think they'll all be good/great in their own way, respectively.

 

[RolandDeschain]

757, you might say I have a pet peeve about undeserving praise. Not just for NFL players, but anybody, period. Watching someone get smoke blown up their arse just annoys me; and that's largely what fan voting is, too.

Good post, I mostly agree with what you've said. They're definitely not the same player, (RW and Kaep) but I would say it's just human nature to compare different things in the same category against each other. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges, quarterbacks to quarterbacks.

 

[kearly]

"5 rings" is a lot, lot dumber. If I was a 49ers fan, I would never use it. It has zilch to do with the rivalry. That plus, it was a very long time ago. It's not like you hear the Packers talking about their championships from the 1960s. Talking about rings from a generation ago only highlights what they haven't done lately.

At least "42-13" directly relates to the rivalry.

The best rivalry centric argument 49ers fans can use is Harbaugh's record against Pete, IMO.

 

[Sports Hernia]

"5 rings" is a lot, lot dumber. If I was a 49ers fan, I would never use it. It has zilch to do with the rivalry. That plus, it was a very long time ago. It's not like you hear the Packers talking about their championships from the 1960s. Talking about rings from a generation ago only highlights what they haven't done lately.

At least "42-13" directly relates to the rivalry.

The best rivalry centric argument 49ers fans can use is Harbaugh's record against Pete, IMO.

BINGO! :th2thumbs:

 

[HawkMeat]

"5 rings" is a lot, lot dumber. If I was a 49ers fan, I would never use it. It has zilch to do with the rivalry. That plus, it was a very long time ago. It's not like you hear the Packers talking about their championships from the 1960s. Talking about rings from a generation ago only highlights what they haven't done lately.

At least "42-13" directly relates to the rivalry.

The best rivalry centric argument 49ers fans can use is Harbaugh's record against Pete, IMO.

Agreed! :thirishdrinkers:

 

[757Niner]

"5 rings" is a lot, lot dumber. If I was a 49ers fan, I would never use it. It has zilch to do with the rivalry. That plus, it was a very long time ago. It's not like you hear the Packers talking about their championships from the 1960s. Talking about rings from a generation ago only highlights what they haven't done lately.

At least "42-13" directly relates to the rivalry.

The best rivalry centric argument 49ers fans can use is Harbaugh's record against Pete, IMO.

Its not a rivalry though...YET. That's the thing I don't think most Hawks fans realize. The Rams are more our rival than either you guys or the Cards. The Hawks have been in the NFC less than 20 years if memory serves me correct. There isn't enough history between the two teams to say its a rivalry. Being in same division doesnt necessarily make your rivals, in the true sense of the word. The Cowboys and Giants are more our rivals than anyone in our division. Maybe even the Packers too. There is significant histroy there. Epic battles with SB berths and playoff wins at stake. Those are significant and monumental battles well documented in football lore. I have much more disdain for the G-Men and Cowboys than I do the Hawks and most Niner fans I know feel excatly the same. It can't be a rivalry if one team is playing for SBs and the other team is picking in the top 10 in the draft and that was the case for pretty much from 2002-2010. Then when we started to rise, you guys slid. The Lakers/Celtics rivalry is just that because they were two GREAT teams competing for world titles. And that's why this year, 2013 is the start. Both franchises at peaking at the same time, playing not only for divisional aspirations but SB berths as well. That's when its significant. That's when the general public, not just Hawks and Niners fans take notice. And that's when you know its real. I totally understand the point your making though.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Its not a rivalry though...YET.

Well, maybe you'll consider it one when we win the division 3 years in a row starting now.

 

[HawksFTW]

The Hawks have been in the NFC less than 20 years if memory serves me correct.

So, let's get this straight...you don't know how long the Seahawks have been in the NFC West? How old are you, exactly, and when did you start watching football?

 

[757Niner]

Its not a rivalry though...YET.

Well, maybe you'll consider it one when we win the division 3 years in a row starting now.

touche...

 

[757Niner]

The Hawks have been in the NFC less than 20 years if memory serves me correct.

So, let's get this straight...you don't know how long the Seahawks have been in the NFC West? How old are you, exactly, and when did you start watching football?

Why is my businesss to know Hawks business? How long you've been my divison is irrelevant to me and has no significance whatsoever because, as I alluded to, I never viewed you guys as our rivalry. Nor the Cards and I can't tell you how long they've been in the NFC West either. As far as my football acumen, me knowing the answer some random football triva question has no barring on the later. My posts speak for themselves.

 

[HawksFTW]

The Hawks have been in the NFC less than 20 years if memory serves me correct.

So, let's get this straight...you don't know how long the Seahawks have been in the NFC West? How old are you, exactly, and when did you start watching football?

Why is my businesss to know Hawks business? How long you've been my divison is irrelevant to me and has no significance whatsoever because, as I alluded to, I never viewed you guys as our rivalry. Nor the Cards and I can't tell you how long they've been in the NFC West either. As far as my football acumen, me knowing the answer some random football triva question has no barring on the later. My posts speak for themselves.

They say more than I think you intend.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

The Seahawks aren't the Niners' main rivals? Tell that to the people posting at NinersNation and 49ersWebZone. :lol:

Personally, I have always hated the Niners even as a little kid, so transferring some of my Raiders/Broncos hate to the Niners was no problem for me.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I love how this guy calls a franchise that hasn't had a winning season in 9 years his team's main rival. I know you 49ers fans are stuck in the past where your glory years reside, but you have to balance history with what's actually happening in modern times.

 

[SmokinHawk]

I love how this guy calls a franchise that hasn't had a winning season in 9 years his team's main rival. I know you 49ers fans are stuck in the past where your glory years reside, but you have to balance history with what's actually happening in modern times.

I think it's the loss and tie versus them last season which fuels their vitriol.

 

[Shaz]

The Seahawks have owned the NFC West since they got there in 2002

 

[Manbearpig99]

I've been a Niners fan since way before the Seahawks were in the NFC West(although I wasn't born when they first played in the same conference). I have never thought of the Seahawks as a rival. This year feels different, but I will wait and see. I honestly don't care if the Niners win the division, as long as they make the playoffs. I would love the #1 seed, but the #6 seed is alright by me. Although I want the Niners to win week 2, it is much more of a must win for the Seahawks. JMO.

Chris

 

[757Niner]

I love how this guy calls a franchise that hasn't had a winning season in 9 years his team's main rival. I know you 49ers fans are stuck in the past where your glory years reside, but you have to balance history with what's actually happening in modern times.

To have a rivarly, there has to be history of significant games. I didn't say the Rams are out main rival. I said they are viewed probably as our main rival in the division based on past history. We're the two teams that have been in the NFC West the longest. Just because as Hawks fans view us as your rival, doesnt mean the Niner fanbase feels the same. You poll any Niner message board, and I guaranteed, they'll say the Cowboys and Giants are viewed as our main rivals. Hawks might be 4th on the list. That's only talking about past history of the two teams, not how it will be viewed going forward.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

I think the Niners fans hate the 'Boys more than us still, but just look at a typical Niners fan board this offseason. They weren't reporting breathlessly upon, and then pooh-poohing out of hand, the FA/trade moves of the Giants or Rams.

 

[TheRealDTM]

this thread is about the homoerotic nature of the Kaepernick Lockette relationship, GET THIS THREAD BACK ON TRCK