Official 49ers Thread

[Clark Addison]

late to the game, but just saw this and thought it was crazy, then pelado agreed. how would one go about making an argument for McMahon over Young?

Young doubled him in yards passing and TDs. he won 30 more games in his career, and his passer rating was light years better than McMahon. Young had a longer, better career, and his peak was A LOT better than McMahon's peak. seems to me that if you have peak and you have longevity, there really is no argument to be made.

Young 8 seasons with a higher passer rating than McMahon's highest. in my estimation, not only would be it be impossible to make even a slightly intelligent argument that mcmahon was better, but it isn't even remotely close.

Jimmy played for he Bears. Plus he would sometimes hang out in our building on youth night because his wife was in YW.

Advantage: McMahon

[Sizzle]

late to the game, but just saw this and thought it was crazy, then pelado agreed. how would one go about making an argument for McMahon over Young?

Young doubled him in yards passing and TDs. he won 30 more games in his career, and his passer rating was light years better than McMahon. Young had a longer, better career, and his peak was A LOT better than McMahon's peak. seems to me that if you have peak and you have longevity, there really is no argument to be made.

Young 8 seasons with a higher passer rating than McMahon's highest. in my estimation, not only would be it be impossible to make even a slightly intelligent argument that mcmahon was better, but it isn't even remotely close.

You could argue that McMahon's best team (the 1985 Bears) was better than Young's best team (the 1994 49ers) and be right. But no other metrics would point to McMahon over Young, except for swag.

Young has the top 8 seasons by passing yards, Top 7 seasons by passing TDs (by one TD – McMahon's best was 15 TDs, and Young hit 14 Passing TDs starting only 12 games), 11 of the top 13 seasons by passer rating (note: that includes a 4 attempt season by McMahon in 1996 in Green Bay as McMahon's top entry, otherwise Young has the top 8 seasons).

McMahon had a pro bowl selection in 1985, but Young won an MVP, 7 trips to the Pro Bowl, multiple passing titles, etc.

You want to say McMahon was better at BYU? I fully agree with you there. Saying McMahon was better in the pros? Nope.
NFL Films Had Steve Young in their Top 100 NFL Players of All Time (81) - McMahon is not on that list.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5He...%202010%20list

[Pelado]

late to the game, but just saw this and thought it was crazy, then pelado agreed. how would one go about making an argument for McMahon over Young?

Young doubled him in yards passing and TDs. he won 30 more games in his career, and his passer rating was light years better than McMahon. Young had a longer, better career, and his peak was A LOT better than McMahon's peak. seems to me that if you have peak and you have longevity, there really is no argument to be made.

Young 8 seasons with a higher passer rating than McMahon's highest. in my estimation, not only would be it be impossible to make even a slightly intelligent argument that mcmahon was better, but it isn't even remotely close.

First, I'm flattered that my concurrence is what caused you to reconsider your assumptions.

Second, I wasn't saying that McMahon was the better pro, just that an argument could be made to that effect.

I was too young (and/or too far away) to see/remember him or Young playing at BYU. I remember watching the Bears' Super Bowl victory but I don't remember being aware that their QB had been at BYU.

I don't remember my thought process when I first typed in "Agreed". My guess is that I didn't think about it nearly as much as you seem to have considered the issue.

As I think about it now, the argument for McMahon as a better pro could boil down to the good ole' "eye test". Had he not been injured so early in his career, who knows what his career accomplishments could have been.

[Bo Diddley]

As I think about it now, the argument for McMahon as a better pro could boil down to the good ole' "eye test". Had he not been injured so early in his career, who knows what his career accomplishments could have been.

Yep. And as Sizzle pointed out, he was the better QB in college. Durability is a factor in greatness.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You could argue that McMahon's best team (the 1985 Bears) was better than Young's best team (the 1994 49ers) and be right. But no other metrics would point to McMahon over Young, except for swag.

Young has the top 8 seasons by passing yards, Top 7 seasons by passing TDs (by one TD – McMahon's best was 15 TDs, and Young hit 14 Passing TDs starting only 12 games), 11 of the top 13 seasons by passer rating (note: that includes a 4 attempt season by McMahon in 1996 in Green Bay as McMahon's top entry, otherwise Young has the top 8 seasons).

McMahon had a pro bowl selection in 1985, but Young won an MVP, 7 trips to the Pro Bowl, multiple passing titles, etc.

You want to say McMahon was better at BYU? I fully agree with you there. Saying McMahon was better in the pros? Nope.
NFL Films Had Steve Young in their Top 100 NFL Players of All Time (81) - McMahon is not on that list.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5He...%202010%20list

It's funny how McMahon is the only QB to have any real success in Chicago over the past 60 years or so. Jay Cutler had some decent years, but that never translated to postseason success.

I was 8-9 years old during the 85 season. That 85 Bears team was legendary, so many personalities and great players. It was peak 80s and it seems like every other movie took place in Chicago, particularly all of the John Hughes movies. McMahon was a cultural phenomenon in 85-86. It seemed to me as a kid that the Bears in the mid 80s were always a loads better with McMahon vs when he got hurt and they put in Steve Fuller.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Steve Young interviews Brock Purdy.

I think Purdy runs this offense exceptionally well. I actually have more concerns about Shanahan than Purdy. I know that Purdy can't make the plays that you see out of Josh Allen, Mahomes or Stroud. But Shanahan literally only has one win when he goes into the 4th quarter down by 3 points or more. He's 0-38 by going into 4th down by 7 or more points.

[Sizzle]

I think Purdy runs this offense exceptionally well.

There is no question that he does. I don't say this to give credence to the "it's the system and players" argument, because that's not the intent and Purdy is making the right decisions timely more often than not. But the parts that they have sure make it tough to say "we're going to take this away" and then successfully do it. You've got to have the right personnel and execute AND hope you get a few breaks going your way. In games SF lost this year:

• Against Cleveland, weather was a factor and SF was down McCaffrey, Deebo and Trent Williams for most of the second half. And even with that Purdy brought gave them a lead in the 4th quarter, and drove them down with a chance to win the game had Moody not missed the kick.
• Against Minnesota, they had one of the worse defensive play calls I've ever seen to end the first half, were down Deebo and Trent Williams AND Brock Purdy ended up finishing the game with a concussion throwing two INTs
• Against Cincinnati, this was the one game where I feel like SF just got beat. Offensively, no Deebo. No Trent. Turnovers were a killer, if I remember right a bad INT near the goal line trying to throw to Elijah Mitchell and then another late INT when SF was down and tryin got get back into it and HAD to throw
• Baltimore, turnovers again were the difference with four Purdy INTs. The first one was just a bad / late read (and what looked like a receiver who didn't run the right route on the outside to occupy the safety – which, they later scored on the same play from Sam Darnold), another tipped pass INT that was a killer / back breaker when they blitzed both corners and the second blitzing corner happened to be in the right spot to catch a tipped pass. INT number three I think Purdy got hit throwing underneath to McCaffrey

Common thread is multiple injuries (which SF seems to be health now) and turnovers. And I think a lot of the turnovers came in "rushed" situations – meaning, SF was down, had to make a play and forced it.

[QUOTE=Color Me Badd Fan;n2308201I actually have more concerns about Shanahan than Purdy. I know that Purdy can't make the plays that you see out of Josh Allen, Mahomes or Stroud. But Shanahan literally only has one win when he goes into the 4th quarter down by 3 points or more. He's 0-38 by going into 4th down by 7 or more points.[/QUOTE]

To this point, SF is so good playing with the lead and does struggle a bit when t hey have to play from behind. Doesn't mean they can't. But it is not a strength. Is it a flaw in the way they're designed / built? Is it a KS flaw? Is it because they don't get from behind often so they have fewer opportunities (the 0-38 stat likely skewed a bit by some really bad / really injury bitten teams early in the regime) but you'd think some of the more recent teams would still have one or two. Both Minnesota and Cleveland they had a chance to earn a W in those situations – one they should've.

The two places I have questions about SF:
1) The offensive line – RT especially – as it relates to pass protection. Purdy alleviates a lot of this by getting to the right read quickly and getting the ball out fast. But this is a vulnerability IMO
2) The defense – especially tackling – has not been as great this year as it has in years past. I will say this though – we are MUCH better when Armstead plays and is healthy. So getting him back I think will be the biggest boost.

Should be a fun game Saturday.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

There is no question that he does. I don't say this to give credence to the "it's the system and players" argument, because that's not the intent and Purdy is making the right decisions timely more often than not. But the parts that they have sure make it tough to say "we're going to take this away" and then successfully do it. You've got to have the right personnel and execute AND hope you get a few breaks going your way. In games SF lost this year:

• Against Cleveland, weather was a factor and SF was down McCaffrey, Deebo and Trent Williams for most of the second half. And even with that Purdy brought gave them a lead in the 4th quarter, and drove them down with a chance to win the game had Moody not missed the kick.
• Against Minnesota, they had one of the worse defensive play calls I've ever seen to end the first half, were down Deebo and Trent Williams AND Brock Purdy ended up finishing the game with a concussion throwing two INTs
• Against Cincinnati, this was the one game where I feel like SF just got beat. Offensively, no Deebo. No Trent. Turnovers were a killer, if I remember right a bad INT near the goal line trying to throw to Elijah Mitchell and then another late INT when SF was down and tryin got get back into it and HAD to throw
• Baltimore, turnovers again were the difference with four Purdy INTs. The first one was just a bad / late read (and what looked like a receiver who didn't run the right route on the outside to occupy the safety – which, they later scored on the same play from Sam Darnold), another tipped pass INT that was a killer / back breaker when they blitzed both corners and the second blitzing corner happened to be in the right spot to catch a tipped pass. INT number three I think Purdy got hit throwing underneath to McCaffrey

Common thread is multiple injuries (which SF seems to be health now) and turnovers. And I think a lot of the turnovers came in "rushed" situations – meaning, SF was down, had to make a play and forced it.



To this point, SF is so good playing with the lead and does struggle a bit when t hey have to play from behind. Doesn't mean they can't. But it is not a strength. Is it a flaw in the way they're designed / built? Is it a KS flaw? Is it because they don't get from behind often so they have fewer opportunities (the 0-38 stat likely skewed a bit by some really bad / really injury bitten teams early in the regime) but you'd think some of the more recent teams would still have one or two. Both Minnesota and Cleveland they had a chance to earn a W in those situations – one they should've.

The two places I have questions about SF:
1) The offensive line – RT especially – as it relates to pass protection. Purdy alleviates a lot of this by getting to the right read quickly and getting the ball out fast. But this is a vulnerability IMO
2) The defense – especially tackling – has not been as great this year as it has in years past. I will say this though – we are MUCH better when Armstead plays and is healthy. So getting him back I think will be the biggest boost.

Should be a fun game Saturday.

The Niners have a depth problem at DT. They need to likely spend their first draft pick on that. The second priority is OT because Trent Williams isn't going to last forever. He was on the Oklahoma team that BYU beat in Jerry's World. That's a long time ago.

There's a possibility that the 0-38 stat is anomaly because of the mediocre QB play in the 4th quarter since Shanahan came here -- cases in point -- Garappolo in the NFC Championship two years ago against the Rams, and the Super Bowl four years ago for that matter. I am concerned about how the two Super Bowls KS has been involved with went down, but Shanahan's overall record in the playoffs is quite good especially considering not getting much out of Jimmy G over most of that period. There's not enough of sample size with Purdy at this point to determine anything regarding 4th quarter play. He indeed played well enough in the 4th to get the win in Cleveland. There were some fluky plays vs Baltimore, but that's still the game that should really concern Niners fans re Purdy. But we also have to remember he just barely turned 24 a month ago.

But my biggest concern going into the playoffs is the freaking kicker. It was not smart breaking in a rookie kicker this year with the ultimate win now team. I know the second Rams game meant nothing, but that dude is directly responsible for two of the five losses this year. A lot of his extra points and FGs have been nailbiters too.

This may end up looking like a horrible opinion, but the NFC is clearly wide open for the Niners. The problem is the Super Bowl. There are three plausible teams from the AFC and two of them the Niners want no part of. Baltimore, of course, and then KC. This is going back a ways, but they remind me of that 95 Houston Rockets team that would take it easy for awhile and then always win when it mattered. KC has a really good defense and then they also have Mahomes at QB. That defense will keep them in every game and Mahomes will always make plays to whoever they give him at receiver.