emunney wrote:It sounds like Harbaugh wants to fight Clay. Put it on PPV and I'll pay all the money.
He can't even be gracious in victory, it's disgusting.
Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation
emunney wrote:It sounds like Harbaugh wants to fight Clay. Put it on PPV and I'll pay all the money.
Turk Nowitzki wrote:emunney wrote:It sounds like Harbaugh wants to fight Clay. Put it on PPV and I'll pay all the money.
He can't even be gracious in victory, it's disgusting.
Coach/angry person Jim Harbaugh is still talking about an incident in yesterday's Niners-Packers game where Clay Matthews took some slaps at the head of Joe Staley during a scrum. "Come with some knuckles," Harbaugh said. He would know.
Before Matthews takes punching advice from Jim Harbaugh, he might want to read up on a 1997 incident where Harbaugh, then the Colts QB, took a swing at quarterback-turned-broadcaster Jim Kelly and ended up breaking a bone in his own hand, putting him out—without pay—for a month.
During NBC's pregame show on Oct. 20, analyst Jim Kelly questioned Harbaugh's propensity for injury, calling him a "baby" who "overdramatized" his injuries.
Harbaugh heard about it, and what do you know—Kelly and NBC were in San Diego for Indianapolis's next game. The Saturday before the game, Kelly was at the Colts' hotel for a production meeting. Harbaugh reportedly poked his head into the room and told Kelly he wanted to talk. The two went into another room and exchanged punches, in a scuffle that lasted about 30 seconds, according to the Daily News.
Kelly was fine. Harbaugh broke a bone, and was placed on the non-football injury list, meaning he'd have to forfeit his salary ($147,000 a week) until he was healthy. He returned on Nov. 23.
"I consider this something personal between Jim Kelly and I," Harbaugh told the AP, wearing a protective wrap on his hand. "We settled things."
Did he regret anything?
"I regret that I have a crack in one of my bones in my hand."
Harbaugh would later tell ESPN News that "I felt I had to do something since my toughness was being questioned."
Curiously, a few days later, Kelly would deny the entire incident, saying no punches were thrown and he had no idea how Harbaugh got hurt. That didn't fly, since Harbaugh had already copped to it and witnesses had confirmed the punches.
So, keep slapping, Clay Matthews. Even if the other guy's not wearing a helmet, it's for your own safety.
Turk Nowitzki wrote:emunney wrote:It sounds like Harbaugh wants to fight Clay. Put it on PPV and I'll pay all the money.
He can't even be gracious in victory, it's disgusting.
Newz wrote:
I dunno, when I look at it I feel like the defense gave up what in my mind amounted to 27 points. The other 7 came from the turnover in the red zone which puts your defense at a terrible disadvantage. The offense basically gifted them that TD.
So on top of that, the 49ers were starting with good field position most of the day and they put up 27 legitimate points on our defense.
Given those things, I honestly think that was a solid defensive effort against the 49ers. Without that Lacy fumble and the Finley drop/INT I feel like we win that game. We don't give them 7 and there is a good chance that we at least put up 3 on the drive where Finley dropped the ball.
Kerb Hohl wrote: but you can't say that his scheme didn't at least divert the danger to a much less likely scenario of getting beaten.
ReasonablySober wrote:MickeyDavis wrote:With all the talk by the Packers and the media the past 8 months about the read option am I the only one not the least bit surpsied that SF didn't really use it?
Of course not. It was the most predictable thing about yesterday's game.
paulpressey25 wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote: but you can't say that his scheme didn't at least divert the danger to a much less likely scenario of getting beaten.
That''s sort of where I'm at. Until the D started to get a bit winded in the fourth perhaps due to being on the field so long and the heat, they completely stuffed the SF run game and Kap's option plays. They physically held the ground, which they really didn't do in both games last season.
I think Larivee or Ellerson mentioned on the postgame that the gameplan was to see if Kap could be a great pocket passer. Well, he was. That and the fact our secondary guys were either two steps slow or lost much of the game is the reason we lost. Give us Hayward and Burnett and I think we win that game.
paulpressey25 wrote:I think the freak out is because the secondary was so downright awful and save for some needed health which we might not get (Hayward and Burnett) we know that secondary may bite us all year.
The board and fans here are pretty sophisticated. Most comments are made from the viewpoint that we know what a Super Bowl champion needs. So even if we go 11-5 and have by all accounts a nice year, we understand the fine points that could make it tough to win it all. And we saw one of those fine point weaknesses yesterday with the personnel in the secondary.
Washington will be the good barometer game to put the SF game in better perspective.
emunney wrote:A Super Bowl champion requires a confluence of things that we don't know about yet. Broadly speaking they need a lot of talent, and the NFL is flat enough that probably 12 teams can breach this threshhold, and then they need some fortunate bounces and timely plays. We can talk about what we have or don't have, but what did we say after we let Chad Henne beat us in 2010? Or the previous week when we gave up 357 yds passing to a dying Donovan McNabb in another loss? Probably not "This team has what a SB champion needs."
We just don't know what the landscape is going to look like. We do know that we could have very easily taken this game from the 9ers in SF.
paulpressey25 wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote: but you can't say that his scheme didn't at least divert the danger to a much less likely scenario of getting beaten.
That''s sort of where I'm at. Until the D started to get a bit winded in the fourth perhaps due to being on the field so long and the heat, they completely stuffed the SF run game and Kap's option plays. They physically held the ground, which they really didn't do in both games last season.
I think Larivee or Ellerson mentioned on the postgame that the gameplan was to see if Kap could be a great pocket passer. Well, he was. That and the fact our secondary guys were either two steps slow or lost much of the game is the reason we lost. Give us Hayward and Burnett and I think we win that game.
emunney wrote:A Super Bowl champion requires a confluence of things that we don't know about yet. Broadly speaking they need a lot of talent, and the NFL is flat enough that probably 12 teams can breach this threshhold, and then they need some fortunate bounces and timely plays. We can talk about what we have or don't have, but what did we say after we let Chad Henne beat us in 2010? Or the previous week when we gave up 357 yds passing to a dying Donovan McNabb in another loss? Probably not "This team has what a SB champion needs."
We just don't know what the landscape is going to look like. We do know that we could have very easily taken this game from the 9ers in SF.
emunney wrote:Boldin doesn't come up with one or two legitimately great catches and we win the game. It's a razor's edge. Everybody's freaking out. This is how it works: they played better than us at home, and the game was very close. What is alarming about that?