How funny would it be

[rlkats]

How about DeBartolo being a corrupt POS? ...[really off-topic stuff about the salary cap] ol' Eddie DeBartolo narrowly escaped prison for his business dealings.

:lol:

DeBartolo never almost went to prison. He was charged with failure to report extortion, and like many others who had failed to report being extorted by the Governor of LA, he was charged with failure to report as means of making him testify.

If he had been out bribing people and being charged with real crimes he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, man.

He paid $400k under the table for a casino gambling license and got caught when the governor in Louisiana was nailed, I doubt he batted an eye at the request for funds. "Part of the biz, shrug." Believe what you will, it's expected that you'd believe the best of the guy that bought your team five rings.

Haha bought 5 rings. It still took coaching and players to win the games. But I guess those games were fixed also.

Man how bad it must feel to be at the the top of the salary cap in money used and still not have more than one super bowl win.

Were at the bottom of the cap and suck so I feel whatever. Lol

 

[Popeyejones]

He paid $400k under the table for a casino gambling license and got caught when the governor in Louisiana was nailed, I doubt he batted an eye at the request for funds.

Yeah, The Governor of LA (Edwin Edwards) and his son were found guilty on 35 counts of extortion and racketeering. If you wanted to build a hospital, a prison, a casino, etc. in LA the Governor would extort you, which is why he spent over a decade in prison.

If you think ANYBODY in business doesn't bat at an eye at paying a 400K extortion, I don't know what to tell you.

Believe what you will, it's expected that you'd believe the best of the guy that bought your team five rings.

You keep on saying this, and it's just bizarre. So without salary caps no wins are ever legitimate? It's just bizarre. By that logic:

No World Series victory has ever been legitimate, because MLB doesn't have a salary cap.
No Presidential election in the United States has ever been legitimate, because there's not a cap on campaign spending.
No Best Picture Win at the Oscars has ever been legitimate, because there's not a cap on promo spending for the award.

Also, here more stuff you don't know :

Unlike soccer, the NFL shows an extremely weak correlation between spending and winning: There’s no formula, and the best talent has been hard to pay for. Increasing team payroll by 10 percent yields just a quarter of a win. Spending it on offense nets only 7.9 extra points per season; on defense, it nets 2.2 fewer points allowed.

Throw your money at quarterbacks or cornerbacks, linebackers or left tackles. It doesn’t much matter. Wharton found that dedicating more payroll at any one position proved statistically insignificant to winning. And salary isn’t indicative of performance. Rams QB Sam Bradford made $26.8 million last season, including bonuses; Giants QB Eli Manning made $9 million. Manning and his team were just slightly better.

Vikings GM Rick Spielman says he isn’t shocked by those results. In the other sports, especially baseball, star pitchers or power hitters can dominate individual matchups. Football relies more on coordinating the efforts of everyone on the field. “All 11 guys have to work together as one on every snap,” Spielman says.

Plus, more than in any other sport, the frequency and randomness of injuries can destroy even the best-built teams and throw off any slight relationship between salary and success. Put another way, when you’re down to your backup QB, that’s a problem no amount of money can solve.

http://www.espn.com/blog/playbook/dolla ... -more-wins

 

[Hawks46]

Not relevant at all. No one said it was a distraction.

It's plenty relevant... and plenty obvious he's going to take the job.

Why I have no idea... as someone else said he'll be fired in 3 years.

What did your boy Pete Carroll say about Gus Bradley?

"He took the wrong job."

Same thing here. Stay with Atlanta another year and get your pick of jobs next season... but no... he'll take the worst job in the NFL and he sure as hell won't have Matt Ryan at QB.

Big mistake Kyle.

I honestly can't believe you're still in disbelief about Shanahan taking the 9ers job. Yeah, the ownership's recent track record is piss poor, but the chance to build your own legacy with one of the most "prestigious" or "accomplished" organizations in the entire league is waaaaay too big to pass up.

Take off the rose-tinted glasses and actually think about it. Kyle has been with you guys for two years, it hasn't been his life's work and it hasn't even been his longest stint with a team. To think that he should be SO DEDICATED to your Falcons and stop himself from taking the biggest promotion of his life is actually pretty laughable.

You're serious ? How much does being a "prestigious" or "accomplished" franchise help you with no QB or personnel ? How much does having rings from the 80's help you with a dumbass owner that will fire you or the GM, or hell both on a whim ?

The only thing I can think would be good about the Niners job is that you'll get a good 3 years of job security because Jed York won't want to have 4 coaches on the payroll while looking for a 5th. And in exchange for that, you get a d-bag owner that is always in your business and holds his own press conferences. You know, a Jerry Jones wanna be.

Look at Quinn. He took the Falcons job. No prestige, no history etc. What he did have was a very good offensive roster and a franchise QB. They needed help on the defensive side, which was his forte.

You go after jobs needing your strengths, not just because it's a job opening. The Rams job is actually a better job. You have a patient owner and very good defensive personnel.

 

[FalconsFanNW]

The only thing I can think would be good about the Niners job is that you'll get a good 3 years of job security because Jed York won't want to have 4 coaches on the payroll while looking for a 5th. And in exchange for that, you get a d-bag owner that is always in your business and holds his own press conferences. You know, a Jerry Jones wanna be.

LOL... THAT'S what I've been trying to say!

 

[adeltaY]

Best case scenario for the Seahawks would be if Shanahan takes the niners job. I doubt he would whip them into competitive shape within one season and it would at least remove him from ATL and slightly lessen them as an NFC threat. Who would the Falcons promote or hire to replace him if he did leave? If they can keep the system consistent, they should be able to remain an elite offense.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Haha bought 5 rings. It still took coaching and players to win the games. But I guess those games were fixed also.

Nope, games weren't fixed, just the nature of the league favoring the richest owners and/or teams in large markets.

Man how bad it must feel to be at the the top of the salary cap in money used and still not have more than one super bowl win.

Huh? Top of the salary cap in money used? We're fine with our cap space, thanks: http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

You keep on saying this, and it's just bizarre. So without salary caps no wins are ever legitimate? It's just bizarre.

I never said they're completely illegitimate. It's pretending that no salary cap made no difference that I have a problem with.

By that logic:

No World Series victory has ever been legitimate, because MLB doesn't have a salary cap.

Not AS legitimate is not the same at ALL as "not legitimate." Also, everyone and their mother agrees that the Yankees have been buying championships for years. Except you, apparently, because it'd run counter to your point about the 49ers. When someone says you can buy your championships they don't mean you can LITERALLY walk into Wal-Mart and buy the damn thing. It means you can buy yourself a competitive edge that few opponents can match. A little common sense goes a long way, here.

No Presidential election in the United States has ever been legitimate, because there's not a cap on campaign spending.
No Best Picture Win at the Oscars has ever been legitimate, because there's not a cap on promo spending for the award.

Way to go off the deep end, here. What's next? THAR IS KNOW BEST INSECTICIDE BECUZ NO SALARY CAPP ON PESSTISYDE MANUFATORYING?

Jesus. Let's go further away from comparable analogies. Your turn.

Also, here more stuff you don't know :

Unlike soccer, the NFL shows an extremely weak correlation between spending and winning: There’s no formula, and the best talent has been hard to pay for. Increasing team payroll by 10 percent yields just a quarter of a win. Spending it on offense nets only 7.9 extra points per season; on defense, it nets 2.2 fewer points allowed.

Throw your money at quarterbacks or cornerbacks, linebackers or left tackles. It doesn’t much matter. Wharton found that dedicating more payroll at any one position proved statistically insignificant to winning. And salary isn’t indicative of performance. Rams QB Sam Bradford made $26.8 million last season, including bonuses; Giants QB Eli Manning made $9 million. Manning and his team were just slightly better.

Vikings GM Rick Spielman says he isn’t shocked by those results. In the other sports, especially baseball, star pitchers or power hitters can dominate individual matchups. Football relies more on coordinating the efforts of everyone on the field. “All 11 guys have to work together as one on every snap,” Spielman says.

Plus, more than in any other sport, the frequency and randomness of injuries can destroy even the best-built teams and throw off any slight relationship between salary and success. Put another way, when you’re down to your backup QB, that’s a problem no amount of money can solve.

http://www.espn.com/blog/playbook/dolla ... -more-wins

Make more assumptions about what you think I don't know; that's based on the salary cap era in the NFL. Also, I completely agree with the premise that because the NFL is such a team game, spending heavily on one position is not as effective compared to other sports.

Admit that the 49ers could not have gotten five rings in the same span in the post-salary cap era and that no cap gave them an edge. If you can't, then you're just too emotionally in love with your team to admit the truth.

 

[chris98251]

Whoa Roland going Bruce Lee on the whole 49er fan base, hope you have your Nunchucks.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Whoa Roland going Bruce Lee on the whole 49er fan base, hope you have your Nunchucks.

Sometimes iRo gotta slap a dude right smack across the face, know what I'm sayin'?

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Whoa Roland going Bruce Lee on the whole 49er fan base, hope you have your Nunchucks.

Sometimes iRo gotta slap a dude right smack across the face, know what I'm sayin'?

Not that it's applicable at all, but I just had to add this. Ro would have kicked this guy's ass.

 

[xgeoff]

The only thing I can think would be good about the Niners job is that you'll get a good 3 years of job security because Jed York won't want to have 4 coaches on the payroll while looking for a 5th. And in exchange for that, you get a d-bag owner that is always in your business and holds his own press conferences. You know, a Jerry Jones wanna be.

LOL... THAT'S what I've been trying to say!

Yeah, too much focus in the discussion on QB and roster strength. The big issue is ownership. York is a d-bag and a toxic presence to the team. I just don't see the 9ers having success until a change in ownership happens.

 

[rlkats]

Whoa Roland going Bruce Lee on the whole 49er fan base, hope you have your Nunchucks.

Sometimes iRo gotta slap a dude right smack across the face, know what I'm sayin'?

Did I ever say they could win like that in today's salary cap era?
Did I ever say they did not pay a shit ton for great players?
Did I ever say no salary cap did not make a difference?

Cmon Ro don't let you blind hate and great ability to twist things up get in the way of common judgement.

 

[NorCal]

Roland isn't smacking anyone with his incorrect takes. If he actually looked at the 49ers' salary spending through the 80s he'd see that they didn't spend inordinately more than other teams. It was everywhere else that they definitely spent $$ on player amenities (flights, food, hotels, etc.). That is why you hear ex-9er players say it was first class all the way. And that type of spending is still permitted.

He likes to trot out the Deion signing as proof of Eddie "buying" championships. I will definitely concede that the Deion signing was a rental for one year to help get over the top. Nobody denies this. What some forget though, was that Deion was taking offers from a bunch of teams, including Dallas. He was finishing up his baseball season and looking at the best offers to get to a Super Bowl. Plus, this has nothing to do with the 4 SB wins in the 80s.

I think free agency had more of an impact. And once the salary cap got instituted, the 9ers did continue to spend to try to keep winning and that bill came due at the end of the 90s and into the 2000s. But, salary caps and free agency are double edge swords. Yes, you might not be able to keep all of your players and will lose some, but so will other teams. Its not like you will lose all your good players with nothing out there to replace them with.

I absolutely think the 9ers would have had the same or very similar success if the salary cap was around in the 80s. They built those teams and, oh by the way, had probably the greatest offensive mind as their coach.

 

[Largent80]

Dude is weasel like in appearance. Will be easy to hate and meme.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

All it means is Shanahan can name his salary and have total control over staff and GM.

I like Shanahan, he's a helluva offensive innovator.............but no way in hell he's ready to overhaul an entire organization from the ground up. He needs an experienced GM and staff, so I think he's already set up to fail if he's going to have total control.

 

[rlkats]

All it means is Shanahan can name his salary and have total control over staff and GM.

I like Shanahan, he's a helluva offensive innovator.............but no way in hell he's ready to overhaul an entire organization from the ground up. He needs an experienced GM and staff, so I think he's already set up to fail if he's going to have total control.

I'm must say Sgt. I agree and if the staff is not experienced and he doesn't get help it will be a rough few years. I agree he is not ready for a complete rebuild. but hopefully his dad and a few more aged vets help him.

 

[Marvin49]

Haha bought 5 rings. It still took coaching and players to win the games. But I guess those games were fixed also.

Nope, games weren't fixed, just the nature of the league favoring the richest owners and/or teams in large markets.

Man how bad it must feel to be at the the top of the salary cap in money used and still not have more than one super bowl win.

Huh? Top of the salary cap in money used? We're fine with our cap space, thanks: http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

You keep on saying this, and it's just bizarre. So without salary caps no wins are ever legitimate? It's just bizarre.

I never said they're completely illegitimate. It's pretending that no salary cap made no difference that I have a problem with.

By that logic:

No World Series victory has ever been legitimate, because MLB doesn't have a salary cap.

Not AS legitimate is not the same at ALL as "not legitimate." Also, everyone and their mother agrees that the Yankees have been buying championships for years. Except you, apparently, because it'd run counter to your point about the 49ers. When someone says you can buy your championships they don't mean you can LITERALLY walk into Wal-Mart and buy the damn thing. It means you can buy yourself a competitive edge that few opponents can match. A little common sense goes a long way, here.

No Presidential election in the United States has ever been legitimate, because there's not a cap on campaign spending.
No Best Picture Win at the Oscars has ever been legitimate, because there's not a cap on promo spending for the award.

Way to go off the deep end, here. What's next? THAR IS KNOW BEST INSECTICIDE BECUZ NO SALARY CAPP ON PESSTISYDE MANUFATORYING?

Jesus. Let's go further away from comparable analogies. Your turn.

Also, here more stuff you don't know :

Unlike soccer, the NFL shows an extremely weak correlation between spending and winning: There’s no formula, and the best talent has been hard to pay for. Increasing team payroll by 10 percent yields just a quarter of a win. Spending it on offense nets only 7.9 extra points per season; on defense, it nets 2.2 fewer points allowed.

Throw your money at quarterbacks or cornerbacks, linebackers or left tackles. It doesn’t much matter. Wharton found that dedicating more payroll at any one position proved statistically insignificant to winning. And salary isn’t indicative of performance. Rams QB Sam Bradford made $26.8 million last season, including bonuses; Giants QB Eli Manning made $9 million. Manning and his team were just slightly better.

Vikings GM Rick Spielman says he isn’t shocked by those results. In the other sports, especially baseball, star pitchers or power hitters can dominate individual matchups. Football relies more on coordinating the efforts of everyone on the field. “All 11 guys have to work together as one on every snap,” Spielman says.

Plus, more than in any other sport, the frequency and randomness of injuries can destroy even the best-built teams and throw off any slight relationship between salary and success. Put another way, when you’re down to your backup QB, that’s a problem no amount of money can solve.

http://www.espn.com/blog/playbook/dolla ... -more-wins

Make more assumptions about what you think I don't know; that's based on the salary cap era in the NFL. Also, I completely agree with the premise that because the NFL is such a team game, spending heavily on one position is not as effective compared to other sports.

Admit that the 49ers could not have gotten five rings in the same span in the post-salary cap era and that no cap gave them an edge. If you can't, then you're just too emotionally in love with your team to admit the truth.

This is one thing I'll never quite understand.

Why do people tend to think that winning before the Salary Cap somehow makes those wins less valuable? Eddie paid his team well and there was no salary cap...

...but there was also no free agency. There were no big name players leaving for wads of cash. You had to draft and trade well because no matter how much money you had, there were no free agents to pick through.

Sure, you didn't have to worry about players leaving which makes dynasties easier once you've reached the mountaintop, but $$$$ spent was almost meaningless because there were no teams to outbid. If you spent 50 mil or 10 mil, you still had to draft or trade for all of your players.

The draft was also 12-16 rounds long so you can't even make a point about Undrafted Free Agents.

Does no cap invalidate the Steelers of the 70s? The Packers of the 60s? Just different eras. Why compare things that are incomparable?

Kaepernick has a higher QB rating than MANY HOF QBs. Does that means he's better? Not a chance. Different Era. Salary Cap is same deal.

 

[RolandDeschain]

If he actually looked at the 49ers' salary spending through the 80s he'd see that they didn't spend inordinately more than other teams.

Can you link where I might find this info? What I'm finding is not exactly backing your assertions.

I see plenty of articles that mention the 49ers spending the most on salaries in the NFL from back then, however:

http://www.espn.com/premium/nfl/columns ... 42004.html

"His attitude was, 'Don't fool around. Go get the best guys,' " Vinny Cerrato, a former 49ers executive who is now the Redskins director of player personnel, said recently.

That's how it always worked for the 49ers under DeBartolo. At least that's how it worked until the salary cap kicked in. That changed everything.

In the end, the thing that made DeBartolo the NFL's biggest winner, his willingness to spend whatever it took to stay on top, proved to be the undoing of his dynasty.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/08/magaz ... wanted=all

When the N.F.L. salary cap went into effect last year, most football observers thought the 49ers, who had the largest payroll in the N.F.L., would have to dismantle the team to get down to the spending limit. Instead, they compiled the best record in the league, gained home field advantage throughout the playoffs and are the odds-on favorite to win their fifth Super Bowl in the last 14 years. They also have a payroll that's more than $20 million lighter than last year's $58.6 million.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... ry-in-1990

Here are the five highest team salaries from 1990 (The salary cap wasn't instituted until 1994 when the league had a $34.6 million cap. The 2014 salary cap is $133 million)

1. 49ers: $26.8 million
2. Jets: $22.5 million
3. Raiders: $21.5 million
4. Redskins: $21.5 million
5. Browns: $20.8 million

Here are the five highest paid players in the NFL in 1990 by average salary
1. 49ers QB Joe Montana: $3.25 million
2. Bills QB Jim Kelly: $2.6 million
3. Eagles QB Randall Cunningham: $2.56 million
4. Colts RB Eric Dickerson: $2.51 million
5. Browns QB Bernie Kosar: $2.33 million

So, yeah. I'm standing by waiting for this evidence that the 49ers didn't "spend inordinately more than other teams." They spent 20% more than the 2nd-highest salaried team in the NFL back in 1990. That's a SUBSTANTIAL difference.

This is one thing I'll never quite understand.

Why do people tend to think that winning before the Salary Cap somehow makes those wins less valuable? Eddie paid his team well and there was no salary cap...

You don't want to understand it. Relax, it's not a personal insult; most people think that way. The 49ers are your football baby, and people want to think the best of the things they love. It's human nature, though people can overcome that tendency if they want to. I don't blame any NFL team for spending a ton of cash in the pre-salary cap era. I do, however, blame fans that pretend it made no difference, like every 49ers fan ever. Jesus. Do you think a private school that spends 20% more on teacher salaries has a competitive edge against a public school that has 20% less cash flow? You're damn right they do. If you even try to argue against this, I'll be very curious to see how you attempt to justify said argument.

...but there was also no free agency. There were no big name players leaving for wads of cash. You had to draft and trade well because no matter how much money you had, there were no free agents to pick through.

No, but there were ways to entice players to demand that they be traded. Top-notch facilities, knowledge of more pay if said trade occurred, etc. In a way, it was almost a rich man's limited free agency, in a way.

Sure, you didn't have to worry about players leaving which makes dynasties easier once you've reached the mountaintop, but $$$$ spent was almost meaningless because there were no teams to outbid. If you spent 50 mil or 10 mil, you still had to draft or trade for all of your players.

Again. Plenty of ways to game the system back then; for example, if you didn't care about money on your own team, you could structure salaries of players in ways that made them a great value to trade the following year, so poorer teams would be tempted to pay for someone that was good enough to the point where they couldn't normally afford him, but just barely can now, for example.

Does no cap invalidate the Steelers of the 70s? The Packers of the 60s? Just different eras. Why compare things that are incomparable?

Nobody is saying the trophies are invalidated, or null and void, or that they never happened. I just get annoyed when fans pretend that you couldn't gain a competitive edge if your owner was rich enough in the pre-salary cap era. It's hogwash to even try and argue against it, though as you and every other 49ers fan points out, that doesn't stop you from trying.

Kaepernick has a higher QB rating than MANY HOF QBs. Does that means he's better? Not a chance. Different Era. Salary Cap is same deal.

Hardly a comparable analogy. Plus, if you want to go down that path, I'll make the claim that Steve Largent was a better WR than Jerry Rice. First couple years in the league for Largent were before the big changes that made it a passing-friendly league, and he never had one HoF QB tossing him the pigskin, much less two in a flippin' row along with a team spending huge sums of money to get the best players everywhere they could. (Who do you think had all the receiving records before Rice eventually broke them?) But let me guess, having Montana then Young for Jerry Rice doesn't mean Rice benefited from that and there's no way to argue that Largent may have had better career stats than Rice if he'd had a comparable QB and team scenario, right?

This is fun. Keep arguing with me. Hey, if I'm a business owner and can afford to spend 20% more on employee salaries than 95% of my competitors, that won't help me succeed more at all, will it?

This logic is fantabulous and without flaw!

 

[Marvin49]

If he actually looked at the 49ers' salary spending through the 80s he'd see that they didn't spend inordinately more than other teams.

Can you link where I might find this info? What I'm finding is not exactly backing your assertions.

I see plenty of articles that mention the 49ers spending the most on salaries in the NFL from back then, however:

http://www.espn.com/premium/nfl/columns ... 42004.html

"His attitude was, 'Don't fool around. Go get the best guys,' " Vinny Cerrato, a former 49ers executive who is now the Redskins director of player personnel, said recently.

That's how it always worked for the 49ers under DeBartolo. At least that's how it worked until the salary cap kicked in. That changed everything.

In the end, the thing that made DeBartolo the NFL's biggest winner, his willingness to spend whatever it took to stay on top, proved to be the undoing of his dynasty.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/08/magaz ... wanted=all

When the N.F.L. salary cap went into effect last year, most football observers thought the 49ers, who had the largest payroll in the N.F.L., would have to dismantle the team to get down to the spending limit. Instead, they compiled the best record in the league, gained home field advantage throughout the playoffs and are the odds-on favorite to win their fifth Super Bowl in the last 14 years. They also have a payroll that's more than $20 million lighter than last year's $58.6 million.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... ry-in-1990

Here are the five highest team salaries from 1990 (The salary cap wasn't instituted until 1994 when the league had a $34.6 million cap. The 2014 salary cap is $133 million)

1. 49ers: $26.8 million
2. Jets: $22.5 million
3. Raiders: $21.5 million
4. Redskins: $21.5 million
5. Browns: $20.8 million

Here are the five highest paid players in the NFL in 1990 by average salary
1. 49ers QB Joe Montana: $3.25 million
2. Bills QB Jim Kelly: $2.6 million
3. Eagles QB Randall Cunningham: $2.56 million
4. Colts RB Eric Dickerson: $2.51 million
5. Browns QB Bernie Kosar: $2.33 million

So, yeah. I'm standing by waiting for this evidence that the 49ers didn't "spend inordinately more than other teams." They spent 20% more than the 2nd-highest salaried team in the NFL back in 1990. That's a SUBSTANTIAL difference.

This is one thing I'll never quite understand.

Why do people tend to think that winning before the Salary Cap somehow makes those wins less valuable? Eddie paid his team well and there was no salary cap...

You don't want to understand it. Relax, it's not a personal insult; most people think that way. The 49ers are your football baby, and people want to think the best of the things they love. It's human nature, though people can overcome that tendency if they want to. I don't blame any NFL team for spending a ton of cash in the pre-salary cap era. I do, however, blame fans that pretend it made no difference, like every 49ers fan ever. Jesus. Do you think a private school that spends 20% more on teacher salaries has a competitive edge against a public school that has 20% less cash flow? You're damn right they do. If you even try to argue against this, I'll be very curious to see how you attempt to justify said argument.

...but there was also no free agency. There were no big name players leaving for wads of cash. You had to draft and trade well because no matter how much money you had, there were no free agents to pick through.

No, but there were ways to entice players to demand that they be traded. Top-notch facilities, knowledge of more pay if said trade occurred, etc. In a way, it was almost a rich man's limited free agency, in a way.

Sure, you didn't have to worry about players leaving which makes dynasties easier once you've reached the mountaintop, but $$$$ spent was almost meaningless because there were no teams to outbid. If you spent 50 mil or 10 mil, you still had to draft or trade for all of your players.

Again. Plenty of ways to game the system back then; for example, if you didn't care about money on your own team, you could structure salaries of players in ways that made them a great value to trade the following year, so poorer teams would be tempted to pay for someone that was good enough to the point where they couldn't normally afford him, but just barely can now, for example.

Does no cap invalidate the Steelers of the 70s? The Packers of the 60s? Just different eras. Why compare things that are incomparable?

Nobody is saying the trophies are invalidated, or null and void, or that they never happened. I just get annoyed when fans pretend that you couldn't gain a competitive edge if your owner was rich enough in the pre-salary cap era. It's hogwash to even try and argue against it, though as you and every other 49ers fan points out, that doesn't stop you from trying.

Kaepernick has a higher QB rating than MANY HOF QBs. Does that means he's better? Not a chance. Different Era. Salary Cap is same deal.

Hardly a comparable analogy. Plus, if you want to go down that path, I'll make the claim that Steve Largent was a better WR than Jerry Rice. First couple years in the league for Largent were before the big changes that made it a passing-friendly league, and he never had one HoF QB tossing him the pigskin, much less two in a flippin' row along with a team spending huge sums of money to get the best players everywhere they could. (Who do you think had all the receiving records before Rice eventually broke them?) But let me guess, having Montana then Young for Jerry Rice doesn't mean Rice benefited from that and there's no way to argue that Largent may have had better career stats than Rice if he'd had a comparable QB and team scenario, right?

This is fun. Keep arguing with me. Hey, if I'm a business owner and can afford to spend 20% more on employee salaries than 95% of my competitors, that won't help me succeed more at all, will it?

This logic is fantabulous and without flaw!

Please give me an example of a player the 49ers traded for who demanded to go to the 49ers.

Better yet, please give me the name of ANY player the 49ers traded for in the 80's period. Give me one that made a difference.

They picked up players like Brent Jones who was cut as a rookie by Pittsburg and later Matt Millen and Jim Burt when they were cut by their teams, but please give me the example of a trade that was made where the player insisted on going to SF. Steve Young was a pretty big trade but after 2 years he had 11 TDs and 21 INTs in TB. He was thought to be a bust and the Bucs moved him because they were drafting another QB (Vinny Testeverde). Steve wasn't in position to demand ANYTHING. The only other one I can think of them making for a player was for Tim Harris which had minimal impact.

Now I will say that the team had a rep to treat its player very, very well so they certainly had an advantage with players that had been cut by their previous teams...but those guys were cut by those teams and other than Jones who was a nobody at the time of his acquisition they were long past their prime.

If you want to look at trades that had an effect though, its just as easy to find trades that HURT them, not help them (trading Charles Haley to Dallas stands out like a sore thumb).

Your annoyance seems to be that 49er fans don't recognize that having a free spending owner was an advantage. It was. Thats fair...just as having a competent one now is helpful.

What I'm saying though is while the 49ers spent freely, the lions share of players who were on those first 4 championship rosters were Drafted and Coached within the system. Montana, Rice, Lott, Haley, Taylor, Craig, Rathman, Clark, Barton, Paris, Wright, Carter, etc, etc.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Please give me an example of a player the 49ers traded for who demanded to go to the 49ers.

Better yet, please give me the name of ANY player the 49ers traded for in the 80's period. Give me one that made a difference.

I think you misunderstood my bit about trading. I meant that a favorable team and working environment can entice players; look at a corollary to this that happened earlier this year, the Patriots traded LB Jamie Collins to the BROWNS for not following his assignments on the field, lol. If a team threatens to send a misbehaving player to a crappy franchise, it stands to reason that a team may help send a good player to a good franchise if they can't afford to keep him, or simply need to trade for better talent on another area of the team, don't you think? Furthermore, trading players for players is not the same as trading players for picks.

Your annoyance seems to be that 49er fans don't recognize that having a free spending owner was an advantage. It was. Thats fair...just as having a competent one now is helpful.

Well, you've mostly admitted it now, that's good. Yes, that's the nature of my annoyance. No salary cap unfairly helped franchises with rich owners that were willing to spend, and no franchise benefited more from this than the 49ers that I can think of.

What I'm saying though is while the 49ers spent freely, the lions share of players who were on those first 4 championship rosters were Drafted and Coached within the system. Montana, Rice, Lott, Haley, Taylor, Craig, Rathman, Clark, Barton, Paris, Wright, Carter, etc, etc.

You guys drafted very well for a long time, I'm not arguing that. Being able to KEEP your best draft picks around for a long time is the nature of this, not trading.

P.S., I'm glad one of you guys finally replied to me...I was going to bump the thread with a picture of some crickets.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Lets revisit this one shall we?? What if the team says upon further review adding to that wonderful game yesterday, we humbly retract our offer as we see there are some character flaws we did not previously recognize. Instead we are looking for someone else.


Anyone else wanna be a head coach of the NINAHS????