As long as we are all ranting at least let me say that I have been asking for a top safety in the draft for 2 years now. I wanted Harrison Smith (you can check the archives) and I wanted one this year. I was told because we didn't address the need in the draft it is because they didn't see it as a problem. Well guess what they were completely wrong twice. Our safeties need help big time. We may never find another Nick Collins, but we cannot go from his level of talent to what we have now and expect another Super Bowl.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla 

Based on these numbers, add the two sacks (I counted 3, but I guess they called it a tuck and run for a loss), there were 41 drop backs, of which there were 7 pressures and 2 sacks. So, Kaepernick was under pressure 22% of his pass plays, instead of the 0% (all day) many have intimated.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

My bigger point is much more comprehensive. Very few conclusions can be drawn off of one game, especially Week 1. The 49'ers offensive line is unquestionably better in my opinion, and Aaron Rodgers has basically never had a very good one. There's a reason he was the most sacked QB last season. True, some of those are his fault, but a lot of the success the Packers have had is attributable to those same qualities that Rodgers has that leads to some sacks. I would trade offensive lines in a heart beat with the 49'er's if I could. You seem to be very interested in drilling down to the details of a single game. That's fine, but it ultimately doesn't mean much, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions can't even be drawn from Kapernick's entire sample size, to date, but it's much better than a single game.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a fact that Aaron Rodgers is very often under very quick pressure, more so than most quarterbacks in the NFL, especially the good teams, and definitely more than Kaepernick. It seems to be even worse in critical situations. Many of the organizations moves reflect that sentiment too. Aaron Rodgers could be much more effective if he had a better offensive line, such as what Tom Brady has enjoyed for much of his career.

Also, I'm confident that Rodgers would play much better against the Packers defense than he would against the 49'ers, despite any knowledge of the schemes. If Rodgers could play behind the 49'ers offensive line AND against the Packers defense, I would be betting some cash on the outcome of that game, and I don't think I need to explain why. Ultimately, this is why direct comparisons are futile and somewhat silly, although they do seem to sell and draw ratings, so the talking heads love it. It's very fair to compare teams, and the 49'ers are a much better team than the Packers from top to bottom, imo. I think if both teams played their best ball, the 49'ers would win the majority of the games, probably something like 70-80%. However, things change fast so that statement could change within a season or so.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Someone said it before and I am too lazy to go back and find out who (sorry) but I think a major difference between Rodgers and Kaepernick in this game were Boldin and to a lesser extent Davis. These guys were wide open all game long and when you have wide open receivers it is going to be much easier to throw the ball. I don't recall seeing any Packers receivers as wide open as regularly as these two guys were. I guess that means our secondary made CK look better than he may be.

Going into the game I was convinced that CK was a runner that would be and average QB if this was taken away from him. I have changed my mind a bit on that. I'd still like him to show what he can do against a team that doesn't leave guys wide open all the time.

The stats for Rodgers and Kaepernick were not that much different. If it weren't for the INT, which wasn't Rodgers fault, I'd dare say they were pretty much equal. The 49ers outplayed us in pretty much every other aspect of play and that is why we lost. This game was not won or lost by either team based on the play of the QBs.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Would I take their OL? Probably.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

If you actually have to think about that one, it tells me everything I need to know. No need to continue.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Well, now what is that? Seems like you are just pissed that Rodgers wasn't actually running for his life like you and steveishere had intimated.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

What you do would be like me saying that you are trying to argue that Kaepernick is a 10x better qb than Rodgers is and then calling you an idiot for thinking that. It's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

My bigger point is much more comprehensive. Very few conclusions can be drawn off of one game, especially Week 1. The 49'ers offensive line is unquestionably better in my opinion, and Aaron Rodgers has basically never had a very good one. There's a reason he was the most sacked QB last season. True, some of those are his fault, but a lot of the success the Packers have had is attributable to those same qualities that Rodgers has that leads to some sacks. I would trade offensive lines in a heart beat with the 49'er's if I could. You seem to be very interested in drilling down to the details of a single game. That's fine, but it ultimately doesn't mean much, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions can't even be drawn from Kapernick's entire sample size, to date, but it's much better than a single game.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a fact that Aaron Rodgers is very often under very quick pressure, more so than most quarterbacks in the NFL, especially the good teams, and definitely more than Kaepernick. It seems to be even worse in critical situations. Many of the organizations moves reflect that sentiment too. Aaron Rodgers could be much more effective if he had a better offensive line, such as what Tom Brady has enjoyed for much of his career.

Also, I'm confident that Rodgers would play much better against the Packers defense than he would against the 49'ers, despite any knowledge of the schemes. If Rodgers could play behind the 49'ers offensive line AND against the Packers defense, I would be betting some cash on the outcome of that game, and I don't think I need to explain why. Ultimately, this is why direct comparisons are futile and somewhat silly, although they do seem to sell and draw ratings, so the talking heads love it. It's very fair to compare teams, and the 49'ers are a much better team than the Packers from top to bottom, imo. I think if both teams played their best ball, the 49'ers would win the majority of the games, probably something like 70-80%. However, things change fast so that statement could change within a season or so.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower