Dodub wrote:Pattersonca65 wrote:CrimsonCrew wrote:
I used to not like Grant Cohn much at all. He redeemed himself a bit over the past few years as he was clearly putting time and effort into possessing a deeper understanding of the game, actually watching film, etc. Still, I don't think he ever played the game, and certainly not at a high level. He's actually appeared to backslide a bit during the pandemic, though. I'm not a fan of a lot of his youtube stuff, where he appears to just be spending hours talking to Joe Normals about their perceptions of the Niners, the draft, etc.
I agree that one of the appeals of Cohn is that he definitely doesn't just toe the party line in terms of echoing what the team says without giving it a good, critical thought. Part of that is because he's contentious and arrogant, but as much as I like Maiocco and Barrows, I'd like to get some more critical stuff from them sometimes - not necessarily in terms of negatives, but just more incisive stuff.
In terms of Lance and his accuracy issues, there's a number of things going on here. First and foremost, the media has observed one practice in which Lance threw something like 24 passes total (at least outside of individual/position drills), and I think six in 11 on 11s (it may have even just been six drop-backs). So we're all talking and getting excited or worried about a tiny sample size from a guy who is still very young, is back in his first "live" action (to the extent we can call OTAs that) in almost a year, is digesting a very complicated offensive system, and acclimating to the speed of the NFL game. Drawing too many conclusions - drawing any conclusions, really - is a stretch at this point.
And in some ways, I'm sympathetic to a guy like Cohn, who is trying to create a week of content based on an hour of watching players and a few days of interviews. Hell, he had an article and video calling Jauan Jennings the surprise of OTAs, or something to that effect, based on literally a single route. It's the definition of knee-jerk reactions, but there's really nothing else to report on, so you run with what you've got, I guess.
Having said all of that, based on what I saw of his two pro days (all of one, maybe 7 or 8 passes of the other), Lance has not fixed his accuracy issues. He appears to have tightened up a lot of his mechanics, which will hopefully lead to less variance in his throws and thus more accuracy with greater repetitions (I think the 10,000 number you're referencing is the idea that you need to practice something 10,000 hours to become an expert, which is a Malcolm Gladwell idea; that would be mastering all the nuances of the QB position, a truly repetitive motion like throwing could presumably be mastered in less time, though longer for different ranges, types of throws, etc.). But he needed a lot of work, and it's at least a little concerning that Shanahan would give an answer which amounts to, "We're not working on his throwing motion with him."
I have tremendous respect for Shanahan as an offensive mind, but his track record with developing QBs isn't great, especially since joining the Niners. And he is arrogant and at times unyielding. As much as people breathed a sigh of relief and claimed he'd changed when he passed on Jones, taking Lance actually raises some Beathard-like red flags. A big part of what Shanahan liked about Beathard was that he came from an offense that had a lot of NFL concepts. The same is true of Lance relative to Fields and Jones (and Lawrence and Wilson, for that matter). I'm not comparing Lance and Beathard. Lance has much more physical talent, is probably smarter, and he's supposed to be just a dynamic, engaging personality. But the evaluation process raises some questions for me. And if Shanahan isn't committed to developing Lance's glaring weakness, it could prevent Lance from ever reaching the heights that would justify the trade/pick. Like it or not, he's going to be linked to Fields and Jones for his career, and we gave up a hell of a lot to get him specifically.
You are not going to get critical stuff from Maiocco. He has always been a reporter and not a commentator. For me, Maiocco is the person you turn to get an idea what is going on in the organization and what people inside are thinking. I think when Maiocco does put forward criticism of a player he is getting it from the organization and not a personal opinion.
Isn't that what you want from the news though? When I watch news I’m only looking for the facts. I can form my own opinions and certainly don’t want to hear opinions from folks who lack credibility like Cohn, who believed that Rosen should be our starting QB this season.
But what if he expresses those thoughts in a very uncomfortable (for the viewer, anyway) Brooklyn-Jewish accent?
On a serious note, though, I want at least some sports reporters to do more than just relate facts. I'm all about accurate, well-sourced reporting on the team, but I also want some opinions on how these guys look when I can't see them. I see the team for an hour of game time 16 times a year (plus some preseason and maybe playoffs). I like hearing who is looking good when I can't be there to see for myself. You just have to take those reports with a grain of salt.
For instance, hearing Maiocco report that Lance went 20 of 24, or whatever he was, is one thing. But I think it's helpful to have Cohn weigh in that when he missed, he was missing high. It adds something to the picture of the practice. It's one thing to say a guy caught X number of balls, and another to describe that he was moving well, showed wiggle, was getting open out of his breaks, had explosiveness after the catch, etc.
