Gagnon: Conventional Naivete
Conventional NaiveteBy Matthew Gagnon
49ersnews.com Staff Writer
Yesterday I was at work when somebody walked up to me and asked me for ten dollars. When I inquired why he wanted it, he informed me that he was doing a football pool, and wanted me to join up. Loving football speculation as I do, I quickly reached into my pocket and handed over the ten dollars. He then handed over my pick sheet, and I grabbed a pencil and went to work.
When I had finished, I handed it over and we talked about our picks. In my experience, if you want to win a football pool, you generally have to 'go out on a limb' in at least a couple games. If it were simply a result of 'conventional wisdom' then all you'd have to do to win is pick who everyone expects to win.
In any event, we got down to the San Francisco game (vs. St. Louis), and I told him I picked the 49ers. He laughed. He continued to laugh. He actually doubled over and looked to be in pain from laughing so hard.
Full Story...
He then informed me that I was the only person who had taken them - and then quickly returned to his jovial amusement with my pick. I looked at him in the eye and told him that was basically the entire reason I took the 49ers. I knew no one else would, and knowing the team as I do, I think they have a very legitimate chance of winning the game.
At this point, he looked offended. 'Oh yeah - and just who do the 49ers have?' he asked me, 'The Rams are going to slaughter them' I spent the next 15 minutes arguing with him about the woes of the 2004 season, just how much talent the 49ers really did have, the performance of key players like Rattay, Lloyd, Battle, and the starting defense, the return of all the injured players (Peterson, Newberry, Plummer, etc), and so on. At one point I had mentioned that the 49ers linebacking corps was extremely strong. 'Oh yeah - who do they have?' he asked, again sounding offended.
When I answered names like Ulbrich, Winborn, Smith and Peterson, he simply said 'exactly', then began laughing again. It didn't matter what I said to him, he was convinced that the 49ers were a black hole of talent and motivation, and that they would basically be losing every game this year (I suspect he thought the same about the Chargers last year).
Putting aside the fact that solid blue collar linebackers who don't get much attention (like those the 49ers possess} are the basis for the Patriots Super Bowl winning defense (just who really knew about, gave attention to or cared about guys like Teddy Bruschi until the Patriots won some Super Bowls? As a resident of New England, I can tell you - not a single person), my conversation with him betrayed one of the most irritating and disappointing things about human beings - they repeat and believe what they hear from 'experts', without actually learning things for themselves and formulating their own opinion. When something is regurgitated in the media enough, people begin to repeat it themselves, and in the absence of their own evaluation, believe it. In this case, that the San Francisco 49ers are the worst team in football.
In 1980, Ted Turner established the Cable News Network, or CNN. Over the next 25 years, CNN has revolutionized news in America and the world, moving it beyond the short 1 hour recap of the days events that previously marked 'news', into the realm of the 24 hour news cycle. CNN has since sparked a revolution in news, where we no longer have to wait until the dinner hour to find out what has happened in the world. Instead, at any point in the day we can tune the channel to a news network and hear a constant recap of the day's events. But the 24 hour news cycle has moved beyond just that, into all aspects of our life - and with the advent of ESPN and many local sports networks, sports has also shared in this 24 hour news cycle revolution.
Constantly rerunning the same news time and time again however is clearly quite dull, and will quickly lose viewers. This has given rise to the op-ed journalist - a person who takes the days news, and attempts to put his or her own 'spin' on it, putting it into perspective for the viewer. This takes the shape of commentary, opinion, argument and several other forms used to convey the journalist's own personal feelings on a subject.
Recently, we have seen less actual news, and more pundits telling us what to think about the news. In sports, we have seen this to the nth degree, with seemingly anyone and everyone given a microphone to tell us what is on their mind. One only needs turn to any of the many sports channels on a cable or satellite network, and there is a good chance you will be hearing somebody give an opinion on something.
And as I said before, when talking about football, they all seem to have one thing in common - the belief that the 49ers are the worst team in the NFL.
What this opinion proves is that analysts and journalists in our modern vanilla news era are not really thinking about the NFL and its teams, and are instead just relying on 'conventional wisdom' - in this case, what happened last year being an indication as to what will happen this year.
Sports journalists today are the essence of the old adage, 'jack of all trades - master of none'. They devote so much of their attention to so many different aspects of sport, they fail to truly understand and fully analyze any one small part.
No more was their lack of attention to analysis and understanding more apparent than during the 2004 NFL campaign. The previous year, the San Diego Chargers were football's worst team. If you were to ask nearly any sports pundit before the 2004 season started, they would look you square in the eye and state with absolute certainty that the Chargers were football's worst team. Indeed, the #1 pick of the draft Eli Manning was so frightened of going to the 'sinking ship' of San Diego that he forced a trade to ensure he wouldn't be there (and in one of life's delicious ironies, ended up with a much worse team). Of course, you all know how this story ended up - the Chargers went 12-4 and won their division.
These pundits saw what happened the year before, didn't see the Chargers make any big time noise in the off season, and said to themselves, 'they must still be the worst team in football'. They weren’t. Not even close.
Enter the 2005 San Francisco 49ers - the worst team in the NFL in 2004. To a person, ever pundit covering sports will tell you (and probably believe) that the 49ers are the worst team in football entering this season - a dysfunctional bunch of rag tags with no playmaking talent, no quality wide receivers, no quarterback able to start in the NFL and a questionable coaching staff.
They will be proven lazy and uniformed again this year - the 49ers are not even close to the worst team in football. If they bothered to research the 32 teams in the NFL, they would know that.
And just for the record, being a 49er fan myself has nothing to do with this assessment - if they were indeed the worst team in football, the words of this article would never have been typed. I have no problem saying my team is terrible if it indeed is. This is as honest and realistic an assessment as you will hear, so pay close attention. If I'm wrong about this, I will fully admit it one year from today, and make a complete fool of myself with my own words - so make sure to keep reading.
But let us examine just why the pundits really are being lazy, and have no idea just how good or bad the 2005 49ers are going to be. Let us start with the 2004 campaign and what exactly went wrong. In short, the quarterback position was inconsistent and hampered by too much pressure. A terrible offensive line and a lack of any visible desire lead to an embarrassing rushing attack from Kevan Barlow. The defense, that has a large amount of talent, was decimated by injuries. Basically the mantra of the 2004 season can be summed up in a well known cliché: 'whatever can go wrong, will go wrong'.
To really understand just how bad it was, you have to start at the top, and quarterback Tim Rattay. In 2003 Rattay stepped in for a wounded Jeff Garcia, and performed brilliantly, showing the 49ers a quality pocket passer who could make all the throws, make good decisions and lead the team to some victories. The Tim Rattay we got in 2004 was a much different story, and that was largely due to his string of injuries, which no doubt hampered his play, and lead to his inconsistent results. All year, the 49ers ended up playing musical chairs with quarterbacks, leading to a rash of inconsistency, no 'gelling' of the offensive unit, and no linear development of offensive players (particularly young players - especially in the receiving corps).
Ah, but it wasn't just at the quarterback position that the 49ers felt the pain of the injury bug. The rock of the offensive line, Jeremy Newberry was not present all year. That loss and the offensive line shuffle it induced lead to some of the worst play from an offensive line in recent memory, giving up over 50 sacks. Hard for any 49ers quarterback, no matter whom he is, to throw the ball with that much pressure on him. This year, Newberry is back (and his presence can be visibly seen in the 4th preseason game of the year), a key free-agent signing in Jonas Jennings was made, and a more experienced batch of linemen is ready. Expect a great deal of improvement here. Better play from the line will result in a more 2003 like Tim Rattay, and hopefully a more 2003 like Kevan Barlow (over 1000 yards as a backup).
It wasn't just on offense that players were dropping like flies. It was especially evident (and destructive) on defense, with key starters like Julian Peterson and Ahmed Plummer going down with injuries. Indeed, injuries seemed to be the rule rather than the exception, which exposed a lack of depth, and an extremely young team in the interim. This year, everyone is healthy, the defense is shifting to a 3-4, and save a few areas (corner for example) the defense looks poised to be a great strength.
But injuries were not the only problem for the 49ers, lets talk a minute about coaching. Setting aside my own personal biases about converted college coaches, Dennis Erickson and his staff were not the right fit for the team. The 2004 49ers were a group of kids, not veterans, and Erickson is a notorious 'veteran' coach. He puts little emphasis on discipline, letting players govern themselves (which is a quality philosophy for veteran players). Young players, however, need to be controlled and disciplined as they learn and develop. Erickson wasn't the one to do that. Add to that his departure from anything resembling a west coast offense, his questionable playcalling (especially late), and a general aura around him of resignation, and it was clear he was the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
In one of the more brilliant usurpations of coaching talent (with little to no fanfare from the media – furthering my opinion of media stupidity) I can think of was the hiring of Mike Nolan. An obviously intelligent, no nonsense coach – he is concerned with fostering a winning attitude, keeping his players under control, and disciplined in their approach. Its clear he is an ideal coach for a young team, full of talent, but previously unable to direct that talent.
But what about the actual games they played? Let's evaluate just how badly they were beaten. Upon examining things a bit further, we will notice that the 49ers played tough the entire year. Lost to Atlanta by 2, the Saints by 3, the Jets by 8, the and the Dolphins by 7. On top of that, they played many teams tough for much of the game before being beaten (such as New England - the world champs). Yes, they had their share of big losses, but the team had legitimate chances to win 6-8 games, but were unable to hang on and close games out.
The signature of the 2004 season was 4th quarter self destruction. Judging by the play just in the preseason, the 2005 49ers are hungry in the 4th quarter, and desperately try to win. Mike Nolan has these guys performing well, and it is obvious how much more discipline the new regime has brought with it. Expect much better play in the late parts of games this year.
I could write another 10 pages on just what went wrong with the 2004 season, but I won't. Suffice it to say in 2005 you can expect the offensive line to perform much better, Rattay to look a lot more like the Rattay of 2 years ago, Kevan Barlow to actually look like a running back, much better and more competent coaching, the defense to be much improved and injuries to play no where near the part they did in 2005.
If you add to that some of the new additions to the team, such as Frank Gore, David Baas and Rasheed Marshall, I think you have an exciting team that is capable of winning between 6 and 8 games this year. And if I'm right, they are going to surprise everyone and at least play even with the Rams this week – personally I am banking on them winning. Even if they don’t, you can expect a much improved team this year, and some other team in the NFL to be 'the worst'. Then, next year, THAT team will be called the worst team in the league all summer leading up to the season (and probably won’t be) and the nonsense the media calls 'analysis' will continue.
Post a Comment