The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

adrian522 · 06-06-2015 01:39PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Christ almighty that's brutal, I've never seen anything like that kind of roster turnover before. It has to be an NFL record.

Andy Lee will be out too given we drafted a punter.

Morrison J · 06-06-2015 01:50PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Christ almighty that's brutal, I've never seen anything like that kind of roster turnover before. It has to be an NFL record.

Yep and what makes it even worse is thats the roster they took to the superbowl. If it was the Raiders turning over their roster you could get it, not a roster as talented as that Niners one.

phatkev · 06-06-2015 02:05PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Christ almighty that's brutal, I've never seen anything like that kind of roster turnover before. It has to be an NFL record.

The curse of Santa Clara!!

JaMarcusHustle · 06-06-2015 02:43PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Christ almighty that's brutal, I've never seen anything like that kind of roster turnover before. It has to be an NFL record.

That kind of roster turnover wouldn't be unusual at all, especially in the space of 3 years. The 49ers have lost (coincidentally) 49 players from their final 2012 roster. In comparison, the Patriots have lost 53 players from our own final 2012 roster. And that's not including Chung, Fletcher and Spikes who had all left and returned since then.

What makes the 49ers case look worse is the staff turnover, but again, that wouldn't be unusual for any team that's changed head coach - something we haven't had to worry about.

The big things with the 49ers is that a lot of the turnover - both staff and players - have been notable, well-known names. But numbers-wise, it's not that strange at all.

Son Of A Vidic · 06-06-2015 04:25PM

Morrison J wrote: »

Yep and what makes it even worse is thats the roster they took to the superbowl.

That's the shocking part, to have such talent lost from a team that should have been a dominant force is pretty shocking.

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

But numbers-wise, it's not that strange at all.

Roster changes are one thing, but the early retirements of talented, impact players makes what the 49er's have experienced pretty unprecedented. Losing Borland, Willis, Davis and Smith. Although Smiths retirement wasn't a complete shock, what the 49er's lost in him is not easily replaced. So that's three 1st round draft picks and a 3rd rounder gone from a roster and that's a body blow. Never mind throwing losing a HC into the mix.

Especially for a team team was coming off a recent Superbowl appearance and with a very bright future. I have never seen such a heavy turnover and it's the amount of unexpected early retirements of talented players, that makes it particularly stand out. The 49'ers roster was for me more talented that our 2012 roster. We had a lot of JAGs on that roster and our 2012 AFC title game exposed their limitations.

But to be honest, the bulk of our roster turnovers don't even register with me because Bill being Bill and Brady being Brady, means we are always in contention. So impact wise, I wouldn't compare both rosters turnovers. Because with Bill & Tom around, they'll always ensure it's business as usual.

poldebruin · 06-06-2015 04:29PM

Luckily the front office has stayed pretty intact though.

JCTO · 06-06-2015 06:20PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Christ almighty that's brutal, I've never seen anything like that kind of roster turnover before. It has to be an NFL record.

Thing is though there are many teams like the 49ers since the 2012 season that have lost at least half or more of their 2012 roster.

Even the Patriots have lost over half their roster. Ok not as harsh as the 49ers but not uncommon.

EDIT: Damn you JMH I just did the same thing haha and you get there before me. Of course my phone doesn't load the picture in your post properly

adrian522 · 06-06-2015 07:11PM

adrian522 wrote: »

Andy Lee will be out too given we drafted a punter.

That didn't take too long.

http://www.ninersnation.com/2015/6/6/8740975/andy-lee-trade-49ers-browns-draft-pick-bradley-pinion

Areyouwell · 06-06-2015 07:13PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Roster changes are one thing, but the early retirements of talented, impact players makes what the 49er's have experienced pretty unprecedented. Losing Borland, Willis, Davis and Smith. Although Smiths retirement wasn't a complete shock, what the 49er's lost in him is not easily replaced. So that's three 1st round draft picks and a 3rd rounder gone from a roster and that's a body blow. Never mind throwing losing a HC into the mix.

And for all that to happen to a team that were recent championship contenders team has to be devasting.

adrian522 · 06-06-2015 07:50PM

Doesn't seem to be all that strange. In the NFL 3 years is an eternity. Most teams will draft 21 players (more in the 49ers case), lose players to retirements, Free Agency, trades.

For comparison here is their super bowl opponents comparable chart. Seems to be just as bad.

mikemac1 · 06-06-2015 08:51PM

red zone offense, just throw it up and boom, touchdown Ravens

6'6" - Joe Flacco QB, Darren Waller WR, Crockett Gillmore TE
6'5" - Marlon Brown WR
6'4" - Maxx Williams TE, Dennis Pitta TE

Surely the tallest group of skill positions on offense in the league! It's how Marc Trestman likes it!

raze_them_all_ · 06-06-2015 08:52PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

red zone offense, just throw it up and boom, touchdown Ravens

6'6" - Joe Flacco QB, Darren Waller WR, Crockett Gillmore TE
6'5" - Marlon Brown WR
6'4" - Maxx Williams TE, Dennis Pitta TE

Surely the tallest group of skill positions on offense in the league!

doubt the first will be catching too much in the redzone

and doubt the last will play after he gets tackled this season

mikemac1 · 06-06-2015 08:58PM

Offensive skill player, I stuck the QB in too as he's part of the group. You knew what I meant

Pitta is back training and will see the field in 2015.

raze_them_all_ · 06-06-2015 09:00PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Offensive skill player, I stuck the QB in too as he's part of the group. You knew what I meant

Pitta is back training and will see the field in 2015.

I honestly think pitta's career is over, I reckon the first monster hit will end him

NotYourYear20 · 06-06-2015 09:00PM

adrian522 wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be all that strange.

But it is. It is unprecedented to see 3 key players retire in the prime of their careers from just one team. I've never seen key players walk away from the game like this. Some posters seem to be confusing normal rosters changes with this. Yet they are two different things. The growing awareness of head injuries has played a big part in these players decisions and this is a new phenomena.

adrian522 · 06-06-2015 09:59PM

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

But it is. It is unprecedented to see 3 key players retire in the prime of their careers from just one team. I've never seen key players walk away from the game like this. Some posters seem to be confusing normal rosters changes with this. Yet they are two different things. The growing awareness of head injuries has played a big part in these players decisions and this is a new phenomena.

I was talking about the chart that was posted that showed only 7 starters from the superbowl team and only 12 of that roster. I was pointing out that it's not that uncommon to miss that many players over 3 seasons.

In fact the ravens are in a similar postion.

06-06-2015 10:34PM

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

doubt the first will be catching too much in the redzone

and doubt the last will play after he gets tackled this season

In fairness a tall qb is a massive advantage in the red zone havig to look around all those linemen with so little space available is hard

NotYourYear20 · 07-06-2015 01:32AM

adrian522 wrote: »

I was talking about the chart that was posted that showed only 7 starters from the superbowl team and only 12 of that roster. I was pointing out that it's not that uncommon to miss that many players over 3 seasons.

In fact the ravens are in a similar postion.

And I was talking about the 49er's losing three players to early retirement in the last few months. Players who were in their prime and who retired for concerns over their future health. These are not the run of the mill roster changes teams go through. As other posters have said, these were unprecedented. The last thing the league would want is a growing trend of players retiring early, due to concerns for their future health.

JaMarcusHustle · 07-06-2015 05:36AM

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

And I was talking about the 49er's losing three players to early retirement in the last few months. Players who were in their prime and who retired for concerns over their future health. These are not the run of the mill roster changes teams go through. As other posters have said, these were unprecedented. The last thing the league would want is a growing trend of players retiring early, due to concerns for their future health.

You're putting words in people's mouths. Nobody has challenged the fact that the retirements have been out of the ordinary.

Corvus had commented on the unusual level of roster turnover, and it was pointed out that level of turnover was quite normal.

JCTO · 07-06-2015 05:50AM

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

And I was talking about the 49er's losing three players to early retirement in the last few months. Players who were in their prime and who retired for concerns over their future health. These are not the run of the mill roster changes teams go through. As other posters have said, these were unprecedented. The last thing the league would want is a growing trend of players retiring early, due to concerns for their future health.

3 players in their prime though? And didn't 4 guys retire?

Willis of the 4 was the only one in his prime. He missed most of 2014 with a toe injury and came to the decision he could no longer give the 49ers and the NFL what they expected of him and also growing old with bad feets and leg.

Borland was a rookie and had potential but hard to call him a player in his prime. Thing is with Borland didn't he say he didn't have the heart to play the game anymore touting future injury concerns. Not the first rookie to give up football without notice. Been a few before him.

Justin Smith is 35 and had a great career but it is debatable if he was still in his prime but nothing new for a guy in the league 14 years and retiring in his mid 30's.

Anthony Davis is a weird one. He is retiring but might come back. Says he wants to get his health back up. He could be back.

While nobody expected any of these guys to retire it is good to see guys care about their future health.

But one thing I will hit on why are they not run of the mill roster changes? Players retire all of the time. Just because nobody expected these 4 to retire hardly any different to any guy at the average age of retirement retiring.

Lets face it if Smith and Willis and possibly Borland didn't retire and 3 nobodies did no one would bat an eye lid to it. Jason Worilds retired as soon as the FA opened this year and no one really cared. He actually was one of the top FA out there. What is making this a bigger deal is the fact the 49ers lost 4 guys all together which yes is weird and unlucky.

Son Of A Vidic · 07-06-2015 11:19AM

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Corvus had commented on the unusual level of roster turnover, and it was pointed out that level of turnover was quite normal.

You seem to have missed that it was Clementine Scary String, who was the first to mention never having seen anything like this before.

You posted the Pats roster turnover from 2012, but since we didn't lose 17 members of our coaching staff the way the 49er's have. I'm not sure how the two even compare. The Pats had 16 coaches in 2012, but the 49er's have lost the equivalent of the entire Pats coaching staff since 2012 and then some.

Now I don't spend my time doing final roster counts for 32 teams and maybe I missed something. But for a championship contending team to lose so many players, along with 17 coaches. Then throw in three players retiring early for health/head injury concerns. Yes, I certainly have never seen that before.

JaMarcusHustle · 07-06-2015 11:22AM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

You seem to have missed that it was Clementine Scary String, who was the first to mention never having seen anything like this before.

You posted the Pats roster turnover from 2012, but since we didn't lose 17 members of our coaching staff the way the 49er's have. I'm not sure how the two even compare. The Pats had 16 coaches in 2012, but the 49er's have lost the equivalent of the entire Pats coaching staff since 2012 and then some.

Now I don't spend my time doing final roster counts for 32 teams and maybe I missed something. But for a championship contending team to lose so many players, along with 16 coaches. Then throw in three players retiring early for health/head injury concerns. Yes, I certainly have never seen that before.

You didn't say anything about staff turnover or retirements, you simply said that the 49ers roster turnover must have been a record.

It was pointed out that it wasn't, simple as that.

If you were also referring to staff turnover and the unusual nature of th eretirements, then fair enough. But people can only go by what's posted without reading minds.

Son Of A Vidic · 07-06-2015 11:55AM

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

You didn't say anything about staff turnover or retirements, you simply said that the 49ers roster turnover must have been a record.

This is what I quoted....

Morrison J wrote: »

The entire coaching staff is also included there and I didn't crop it out. So I assumed it was obvious that I was commenting on that entire turnover. If I wanted to only comment on the player turnover only, I would have cropped out the coaching component.

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

If you were also referring to staff turnover and the unusual nature of the retirements, then fair enough. But people can only go by what's posted without reading minds.

I was commenting on the entire changes, so I just looked back at what I said...

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Christ almighty that's brutal, I've never seen anything like that kind of roster turnover before. It has to be an NFL record.

I didn't specify players or coaches in that post because I was talking about both in that commentary. But I can see how the roster comment might have inadvertently thrown you off. So apologies for any confusion caused.

JCTO · 07-06-2015 12:46PM

I get what people are saying if you include coaches it looks bad but it is normal. Look at the Jags roster from 2012:

10 players 2 of which im not sure. Coaches 5 if you include the strength and conditioning guys. 1 of the 5 left and came back.

The Jags show us that high turnover is normal. Some teams more than other.

Putin · 07-06-2015 02:57PM

JCTO wrote: »

I get what people are saying if you include coaches it looks bad but it is normal. Look at the Jags roster from 2012:

10 players 2 of which im not sure. Coaches 5 if you include the strength and conditioning guys. 1 of the 5 left and came back.

The Jags show us that high turnover is normal. Some teams more than other.

In fairness that's the Jags. Unless you go looking for that who would even know it. The 49er's had a strong talented roster and on top of their loses, they had an unusual batch of health related early retirements. That's why is sticks in my mind and probably other posters minds also.

adrian522 · 07-06-2015 03:07PM

But the Ravens won that superbowl and had similar turnover. Losing that many players over 3 years is par for the course I think.

On the coaching staff side of things anytime you change HC a lot of the staff will change.

The only worrying thing for the 49ers has been the 3 retirements of guys who still had a lot of football left to play. Davis says he will be back so I guess we wait and see on that.

Personally I take the reasons for the retirements at face value. Davis missed 4 games with a concussion last season and commented at the time at how scary he thought brain injuries were. Willis obviously had his injury issues also, but decided he wanted to dedicate himself to things outside of football.

Borland, similar to Davis decided that the potential for a serious brain injury was not worth the risk. I accept all of those, its just unfortunate that they all came from one team but I think we will see more of this in the years to come.

JCTO · 07-06-2015 03:55PM

Putin wrote: »

In fairness that's the Jags. Unless you go looking for that who would even know it. The 49er's had a strong talented roster and on top of their loses, they had an unusual batch of health related early retirements. That's why is sticks in my mind and probably other posters minds also.

It doesn't matter whether it is the Jags, 49ers or Patriots the simple fact here is that the reference to the 2012 season to show how bad it was for the 49ers was a bad reference considering it is common for rosters to lose as many players on average.

Every team loses a ton of players so referencing a roster 3 seasons ago really doesn't show anything different to what other teams suffer also.

Simple fact is the 49ers lost players to retirement this off season and many were surprised. But the roster change from 2012 is actually irrelevant to that point as all teams suffer dramatic loses in the 3 seasons. Nature of the beast.

So comparing the talent of the rosters is pointless at best. Someone already showed the Ravens after winning the bowl suffering similar losses.

mikemac1 · 07-06-2015 03:57PM

Apart from Teryl Austin none of the other Ravens coaches are missed

Putin · 07-06-2015 04:35PM

JCTO wrote: »

Simple fact is the 49ers lost players to retirement this off season and many were surprised. But the roster change from 2012 is actually irrelevant to that point as all teams suffer dramatic loses in the 3 seasons. Nature of the beast.

But it's not a simple fact or the nature of the beast. Losing three players who decide to retire early and for a relatively new health concern (head injuries) was a first for the league. I'm not sure why you keep on about normal roster changes, because they aren't. You're banging on about roster changes and others are banging on about this new retirement issue. Wires are clearly crossed imo.

JCTO wrote: »

So comparing the talent of the rosters is pointless at best. Someone already showed the Ravens after winning the bowl suffering similar losses.

I don't think it's pointless. What have the Jags lost? Not much really because the 2012 roster wasn't a very talented team. The 49er's lost a talented roster and could have been championships contenders again.The only thing the Jags were in contention for was a first round draft pick. I don't how you can even compare them. In 2012 the Jags went 2-14 and in 2012 the 49er's went 12-4. So I don't really know how you can say it's pointless.

If Barcelona lose Messi and Granada lose Rico, yes both rosters have lost one player each. But you have to compare the impact of losing Messi to losing Rico and you can't avoid considering talent in the equation. That's why I have to compare the changes on the Jags roster to that on the 49er's roster. And afaic, the impact on the 49er's is much greater.

JCTO · 07-06-2015 05:33PM

I actually knew this would be your response and I think you really need to read the rest of my posts. But here we go.

Simple fact pretty much everyone on here thinks its odd/weird/strange/unexpected/unprecedented that 4 players with something to offer have decided to retire early. There is no denying that. Timing of all 4 is mad.

But someone brought up the Roster from 2012 and there is nothing strange about all of those loses on a 3 season old roster. Every team suffers similar loses. It really doesn't matter how much quality they lose of the who they lose the facts remain the same Roster Turnover is quite high in the NFL especially in 3 seasons.

Putin wrote: »

But it's not a simple fact or the nature of the beast.

Yes it is.

Losing three players who decide to retire early and for a relatively new health concern (head injuries) was a first for the league.

No sh1t sherlock I am not debating that.

I'm not sure why you keep on about normal roster changes, because they aren't.

Oh Really? The fact Morrison J himself with the intial post of the 2012 roster never even gave his opinion on it. He put it up there for all to see and people commented.

The first comment on it was this:

Christ almighty that's brutal, I've never seen anything like that kind of roster turnover before. It has to be an NFL record.

To which sparked the debate over the roster turnover rate.

The point was brought up and some of us chose to debate it. Read the posts. Just because not everyone was discussing it doesn't mean myself and others can't. Corvus made the point above we took at face value and debated it. This is a forum after all.

You're banging on about roster changes and others are banging on about this new retirement issue. Wires are clearly crossed imo.

Just on this it is clear your wires are crossed as if you had read my posts you would see I am clearly talking about the roster turnover in most of them. Check my post above. There were others talking about the roster turnover also. There were 2 debates side by and some like yourself confusing the 2 together. Did you even read any of my posts or did you skim over them?

Putin wrote: »

If Barcelona lose Messi and Granada lose Rico, yes both rosters have lost one player each. But you have to compare the impact of losing Messi to losing Rico and you can't avoid considering talent in the equation. That's why I have to compare the changes on the Jags roster to that on the 49er's roster. And afaic, the impact on the 49er's is much greater.

No idea why you are even telling me this. Yet again I never said it would or wouldn't impact them. I was talking about the trend of roster turnovers.

Again let me say it so you don't come back with what we all already know. The 49ers are quite unlucky this off season with the lose 4 players to retirement 1 of which said he might be back. Their reasons do appear to be valid and that is all we can go by. Did it come as a shock? Yes.

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

Comments