Niner News Thread
- Thread starter Chree
- Start date
Elephant in the stadium: the Raiders
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/10/SPK91DSI17.DTL
As Comrade Knapp has the "How do the 49ers pay their chunk?" piece nailed down, let us spend this brief interlude discussing another likely hole in the plan: The Raiders.
Everyone seems to agree that a shared stadium makes the best sense, which is why we tend to apply the "Oh yeah?" standard and suggest that therein lies the reason why it probably will fail. And that reason is the Raiders' essentially unstable situation.
Finding a place to put the stadium won't be that much of a problem because, one presumes, the Raiders' lawyers will find a way for Al Davis to be richly compensated for inconveniencing his fan base's wallets, while maintaining an even split with the 49ers in whatever equity arrangement the stadium provides. In short, he won't have to deliver as much of the financing.
But the spanner in the spokes comes when one asks the next question, which is, "Will Al sign a long-term anything with anyone after his perceived crummy experiences in Oakland and then Los Angeles?" That's harder to imagine, given that Al has learned the dangers of being boxed in by anyone. Getting him to agree to anything long term is going to be much harder than it looks.
And then, there is the indelicate series of follow-ups, namely, "What if control should pass from Al to his son, Mark, or some other designated heir or heirs?" Would they want to commit to a stadium that locks them into second-tenant status for the next quarter-century or so? Would they want to resist the temptation of some billion-dollar (give or take) purchase offer from someone who wants to go to L.A.?
You see, there's a good idea, and then there's a good idea for some but not for others, and then there's a good idea until you're the one left holding the bag.
That's why the 49ers, fresh off their overwhelming mandate (23 percent of the registered voters of Santa Clara love them) and at such a low price ($360 per "Yes" vote, give or take a Tootsie Roll Pop), have to be leery of taking on the Raiders as partners and leery of not having them as partners. In short, getting the 11,023 votes was the easy part. Playing with Al will be something else entirely.
And if dealing with Al isn't the time when Jed the Boy King becomes a full-on adult businessman, it will never happen for him.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/10/SPK91DSI17.DTL
As Comrade Knapp has the "How do the 49ers pay their chunk?" piece nailed down, let us spend this brief interlude discussing another likely hole in the plan: The Raiders.
Everyone seems to agree that a shared stadium makes the best sense, which is why we tend to apply the "Oh yeah?" standard and suggest that therein lies the reason why it probably will fail. And that reason is the Raiders' essentially unstable situation.
Finding a place to put the stadium won't be that much of a problem because, one presumes, the Raiders' lawyers will find a way for Al Davis to be richly compensated for inconveniencing his fan base's wallets, while maintaining an even split with the 49ers in whatever equity arrangement the stadium provides. In short, he won't have to deliver as much of the financing.
But the spanner in the spokes comes when one asks the next question, which is, "Will Al sign a long-term anything with anyone after his perceived crummy experiences in Oakland and then Los Angeles?" That's harder to imagine, given that Al has learned the dangers of being boxed in by anyone. Getting him to agree to anything long term is going to be much harder than it looks.
And then, there is the indelicate series of follow-ups, namely, "What if control should pass from Al to his son, Mark, or some other designated heir or heirs?" Would they want to commit to a stadium that locks them into second-tenant status for the next quarter-century or so? Would they want to resist the temptation of some billion-dollar (give or take) purchase offer from someone who wants to go to L.A.?
You see, there's a good idea, and then there's a good idea for some but not for others, and then there's a good idea until you're the one left holding the bag.
That's why the 49ers, fresh off their overwhelming mandate (23 percent of the registered voters of Santa Clara love them) and at such a low price ($360 per "Yes" vote, give or take a Tootsie Roll Pop), have to be leery of taking on the Raiders as partners and leery of not having them as partners. In short, getting the 11,023 votes was the easy part. Playing with Al will be something else entirely.
And if dealing with Al isn't the time when Jed the Boy King becomes a full-on adult businessman, it will never happen for him.
Dude we've covered this, there is prolly more people in the zip code i grew up in then the back water Canadian outpost of a town you grew up in WA, and I have used this point to illustrate that you, comin from a remote overly isolated vanilla section of North America has caused you to have false perceptions of reality because of your lack of interaction with the real, so I feel inclined to check ya chin. Its also really easy and when im on this site im keyed off somethin and that bitch ass blue bird by your name is always muggin me.
What are you going on about? I was talking football, now you're totally sidetracking it with where I'm from. You're a waste of time.
First of all, that wasn't directed towards you, it was for TRAJIK1. Secondly, I wasn't yappin for my team, because there isn't much to yapp about that hasn't already been yapped about already. I'm not going to put my homer glasses on super tight, and say that my team is going to win the division each and every season. I'm not like that, that's how most of you 9er fans are, not all, just most. And it's just funny to me to see that type of shit, and then I call it out, and you get all butt hurt about it. Calm down killer, it's only the off-season.
First of all, that wasn't directed towards you, it was for TRAJIK1. Secondly, I wasn't yappin for my team, because there isn't much to yapp about that hasn't already been yapped about already. I'm not going to put my homer glasses on super tight, and say that my team is going to win the division each and every season. I'm not like that, that's how most of you 9er fans are, not all, just most. And it's just funny to me to see that type of shit, and then I call it out, and you get all butt hurt about it. Calm down killer, it's only the off-season.
Damn, its been kinda dead lately
Who was the most surprising 49er last season? Think a minute. Vernon Davis and Dashon Goldson certainly turned important corners, but both had been recognized as having the talent. Michael Crabtree may have exceeded expectations considering how late he got into the game. Aubrayo Franklin?
It's hard to believe any of them raised more eyebrows that outside linebacker Ahmad Brooks. He had an OK rookie year in Cincinnati in 2006, then tore his groin and missed 14 games the next season. The Bengals waived him in 2008. He didn't play a snap while with the 49ers that year. Last season, he was sack-less by the Week 6 bye. But he became a key pass-rush specialist over the second half of the season and finished with six sacks, including three against the Cardinals in Week 14.
Did he surprise some people in the building?
"I think so," Brooks told me today. "I was a high talent coming out of college. I guess the first couple years in the NFL I didn't really prove myself to be one of those elite guys. But I think I opened up some eyes last year. And from how I'm working now and everything I've done from March until now, I think they have more confidence in me going out there and making something happen."
And yes, Brooks has plenty of confidence in himself. Enough to talk sack numbers.
"Yeah, there's always a personal goal," he said. "I want to be the sack leader. That's just me. I tell myself I'm gonna get 20. I might not, you know what I mean? But I might end up with like 17 or something, but I always shoot my goals high."
You can bet the 49ers would be thrilled with 17 sacks, which falls just below the official team record of 17½ set by Fred Dean in 1983, and the unofficial record of 18 by Cedrick Hardman in 1971.
Brooks said 2009 was a new experience for him because he had never spent so much time rushing the passer. Apparently, he's pretty good at it, and he notes that his pass-rushing technique has improved along the way. That's part of what seems to be his general maturation as a player.
"Yeah. I study a lot more. I always watch film," Brooks said. "I think I'm a lot more serious about my conditioning. I'm eating right, I'm going to bed early, I'm one of the first guys here sometimes. I'm just a lot more serious about my nutrition right now."
Brooks has one more thing in his favor. Manny Lawson is skipping all voluntary workouts, giving other outside linebackers here precious opportunities. Players are usually loathe to comment on their comrades' business decisions, but Brooks admitted that Lawson's absence could be shifting the balance of power in San Francisco.
"Right now they have Manny and Parys (Haralson) considered as No. 1, and I'm considered as No. 2," he said. "But by Manny not being here, that gives me more repetitions out there to run with the ones."
Make no mistake. Brooks' emergence in 2009 is one of the factors limiting Lawson's leverage in 2010.
http://blog.pressdemocrat.com/49ers/2010/06/brooks-would-be-happy-with-a-mere-17-sacks.html
I'm glad he took a step up last year but honestly some of those sacks were against some sub-par teams. Hopefully he can step up his game this year since it doesn't look like Manny will be around...just my opinion based on his draft status and performance plus Lawson will want an undeserving contract. I guess if Brooks doesn't pan out, we'll just have to draft a pass rusher next year.
Who was the most surprising 49er last season? Think a minute. Vernon Davis and Dashon Goldson certainly turned important corners, but both had been recognized as having the talent. Michael Crabtree may have exceeded expectations considering how late he got into the game. Aubrayo Franklin?
It's hard to believe any of them raised more eyebrows that outside linebacker Ahmad Brooks. He had an OK rookie year in Cincinnati in 2006, then tore his groin and missed 14 games the next season. The Bengals waived him in 2008. He didn't play a snap while with the 49ers that year. Last season, he was sack-less by the Week 6 bye. But he became a key pass-rush specialist over the second half of the season and finished with six sacks, including three against the Cardinals in Week 14.
Did he surprise some people in the building?
"I think so," Brooks told me today. "I was a high talent coming out of college. I guess the first couple years in the NFL I didn't really prove myself to be one of those elite guys. But I think I opened up some eyes last year. And from how I'm working now and everything I've done from March until now, I think they have more confidence in me going out there and making something happen."
And yes, Brooks has plenty of confidence in himself. Enough to talk sack numbers.
"Yeah, there's always a personal goal," he said. "I want to be the sack leader. That's just me. I tell myself I'm gonna get 20. I might not, you know what I mean? But I might end up with like 17 or something, but I always shoot my goals high."
You can bet the 49ers would be thrilled with 17 sacks, which falls just below the official team record of 17½ set by Fred Dean in 1983, and the unofficial record of 18 by Cedrick Hardman in 1971.
Brooks said 2009 was a new experience for him because he had never spent so much time rushing the passer. Apparently, he's pretty good at it, and he notes that his pass-rushing technique has improved along the way. That's part of what seems to be his general maturation as a player.
"Yeah. I study a lot more. I always watch film," Brooks said. "I think I'm a lot more serious about my conditioning. I'm eating right, I'm going to bed early, I'm one of the first guys here sometimes. I'm just a lot more serious about my nutrition right now."
Brooks has one more thing in his favor. Manny Lawson is skipping all voluntary workouts, giving other outside linebackers here precious opportunities. Players are usually loathe to comment on their comrades' business decisions, but Brooks admitted that Lawson's absence could be shifting the balance of power in San Francisco.
"Right now they have Manny and Parys (Haralson) considered as No. 1, and I'm considered as No. 2," he said. "But by Manny not being here, that gives me more repetitions out there to run with the ones."
Make no mistake. Brooks' emergence in 2009 is one of the factors limiting Lawson's leverage in 2010.
http://blog.pressdemocrat.com/49ers/2010/06/brooks-would-be-happy-with-a-mere-17-sacks.html
I'm glad he took a step up last year but honestly some of those sacks were against some sub-par teams. Hopefully he can step up his game this year since it doesn't look like Manny will be around...just my opinion based on his draft status and performance plus Lawson will want an undeserving contract. I guess if Brooks doesn't pan out, we'll just have to draft a pass rusher next year.
Ok im sure by now you and I going at it with the I Pokemon Uno on the side has gotten old for everyone, so im going to break it down like a cardboard box for ya
If you want to have an actually discussion on comparing our players vs your players at every single position, we can have that discussion. The 49ers are the more talented team on offense and defense. Its not that the seahawks dont have talent, but our D by the numbers is better, our backfield is superior, our WRs can challenge yours if not surpass and if we dont seperate TE, we have the best TE in the game. I feel like this is common knowledge to all.
From there I move to the mentality that you mentioned of the majority of 9er fans expecting to win the West every year.
This is a HUGE point, you dont seem to appreciate the history and tradition that creates this type of mentality. You have to be a 80's or 70's baby so i dont need to go on. Our history is there which creates such high expectations.
So with having better talent and one of the most dominant legacies in the NFL I hear Seattle fans running their mouths and its frustrating because disliking seattle has only become relevant since 2002 and the end of Rice, TO, and Garcia trying to keep the momentum going from the team that should of won the superbowl in 1999. We had to rebuild, I love my team, even in the dark times, and during those dark times you guys have become our rivals instead of GB, or Dallas, or other real heavyweights of football. I remember as a little kid hating Dallas and emmit smith, hating GB, but deep down liking Brett Farve and the catch 2.0 with Young to TO in the playoff game and then TO crying like little bitch on national TV is one of my favorite moments of my life. I didnt even know where Seattle was, much less that a seahawk is a seagull thats angry cuz its doesnt have a dad.
So since you cant fall in line and learn your role in the game, i try to break down where I think your psychology comes from to the public because Ive done work up and down the coast for a minute and I know the scenery.
Im SF to the fullest and your comments about SF being snobby is from a limited perspective of SF, it would be like going to seattle and only seeing those snobby folks on colombia or those other streets downtown and not chillin in south seattle. My city is full of folks that arent from here, more every day, so I take the 9ers reel reel serious.
Plus Ive takin my shots at Seattle youve takin yours at SF,stop being a bitch mr 7,000 post man
Hmmmm.....I don't know about that. I agree, the 49ers do have more talent at some positions, but not all, as you've previously stated.
QB:
Seahawks - Matt Hasselbeck, Charlie Whitehurst, and J.P. Losman & even Isaiah Stanback
49ers - Alex Smith, Nate Davis, and David Carr
RB:
Seahawks - Julius Jones, Justin Forsett, Leon Washington, Owen Schmitt(FB)
49ers - Frank Gore, Glen Coffee, Moran Norris(FB)
WR:
Seahawks - T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Deion Branch, Deon Butler, Ben Obomanu, Golden Tate, Mike Williams, and even Isaiah Stanback
49ers - Michael Crabtree, Ted Ginn Jr, Brandon Jones, Josh Morgan, Dominique Zeigler
TE:
Seahawks - John Carlson, Chris Baker, Anthony McCoy (McCoy was considered one of the top tight end prospects for the 2010 NFL Draft)
49ers - Vernon Davis, Tony Curtis, Delanie Walker
OL:
Seahawks - Russell Okung, Ben Hamilton, Max Unger, Chris Spencer, and Sean Locklear
49ers - Joe Staley, Mike Iupati, Eric Heitmann, Chilo Rachal, Anthony Davis
DL:
Seahawks - Lawrence Jackson, Brandon Mebane, Colin Cole, Chris Clemons.
49ers - Isaac Sopoaga, Aubrayo Franklin, Justin Smith
LB:
Seahawks - Leroy Hill, Lofa Tatupu, Aaron Curry
49ers - Manny Lawson, Takeo Spikes, Patrick Willis, Parys Haralson
CB:
Seahawks - Marcus Trufant, Josh Wilson, Kelly Jennings, Walter Thurmond
49ers - Nate Clements, Shawntae Spencer, Karl Paymah, Tarrell Brown
S:
Seahawks - Jordan Babineaux, Earl Thomas, Lawyer Milloy, Kam Chancellor
49ers - Michael Lewis, Dashon Goldson, Taylor Mays, Curtis Taylor
Just to name a few...
______________________________________________________
Ok, the 49ers were established in 1946, and made it to the promise land in 1981, that's 35 years it took them to get there. The Seahawks were established in 1976, and made it in 2005, that's 29 years, and were robb'd. Our history is there, too. And what makes you think I don't appreciate the history of the 49ers? Because I do. Joe Montana and Jerry Rice were some of my fav's.
So wait a second, you acutally hate Seattle just because of a football team? Wow is all I can say.
You didn't know where Seattle was? The biggest city in WA? Did you flunk geography?
lol wut
Yes, I've only takin shots at SF only after you took shots at Seattle first. I'm just here to talk football, and you try to bring the city of Seattle into discussion, which confuses me. Also, what I've stated about SF were facts, I looked them up. And what you've stated about Seattle is just pure ignorance, and quite childish, if you ask me.
QB:
Seahawks - Matt Hasselbeck, Charlie Whitehurst, and J.P. Losman & even Isaiah Stanback
49ers - Alex Smith, Nate Davis, and David Carr
RB:
Seahawks - Julius Jones, Justin Forsett, Leon Washington, Owen Schmitt(FB)
49ers - Frank Gore, Glen Coffee, Moran Norris(FB)
WR:
Seahawks - T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Deion Branch, Deon Butler, Ben Obomanu, Golden Tate, Mike Williams, and even Isaiah Stanback
49ers - Michael Crabtree, Ted Ginn Jr, Brandon Jones, Josh Morgan, Dominique Zeigler
TE:
Seahawks - John Carlson, Chris Baker, Anthony McCoy (McCoy was considered one of the top tight end prospects for the 2010 NFL Draft)
49ers - Vernon Davis, Tony Curtis, Delanie Walker
OL:
Seahawks - Russell Okung, Ben Hamilton, Max Unger, Chris Spencer, and Sean Locklear
49ers - Joe Staley, Mike Iupati, Eric Heitmann, Chilo Rachal, Anthony Davis
DL:
Seahawks - Lawrence Jackson, Brandon Mebane, Colin Cole, Chris Clemons.
49ers - Isaac Sopoaga, Aubrayo Franklin, Justin Smith
LB:
Seahawks - Leroy Hill, Lofa Tatupu, Aaron Curry
49ers - Manny Lawson, Takeo Spikes, Patrick Willis, Parys Haralson
CB:
Seahawks - Marcus Trufant, Josh Wilson, Kelly Jennings, Walter Thurmond
49ers - Nate Clements, Shawntae Spencer, Karl Paymah, Tarrell Brown
S:
Seahawks - Jordan Babineaux, Earl Thomas, Lawyer Milloy, Kam Chancellor
49ers - Michael Lewis, Dashon Goldson, Taylor Mays, Curtis Taylor
Just to name a few...
______________________________________________________
Ok, the 49ers were established in 1946, and made it to the promise land in 1981, that's 35 years it took them to get there. The Seahawks were established in 1976, and made it in 2005, that's 29 years, and were robb'd. Our history is there, too. And what makes you think I don't appreciate the history of the 49ers? Because I do. Joe Montana and Jerry Rice were some of my fav's.
So wait a second, you acutally hate Seattle just because of a football team? Wow is all I can say.
You didn't know where Seattle was? The biggest city in WA? Did you flunk geography?
lol wut
Yes, I've only takin shots at SF only after you took shots at Seattle first. I'm just here to talk football, and you try to bring the city of Seattle into discussion, which confuses me. Also, what I've stated about SF were facts, I looked them up. And what you've stated about Seattle is just pure ignorance, and quite childish, if you ask me.
