Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Bryan wrote:What exactly was Harbaugh winning in spite of? What was preventing Harbaugh from winning games?

... but I don't see how that would qualify as Harbaugh winning in spite of poor drafting.

The mess part was Harbaugh's relationship with everyone in the front office, and the owner being a 32-year old kid unable to exert influence on the situation. It seems like the current "mess" was partly Harbaugh's orchestration. Not sure how Donahue fits in to it.

Sorry, not understanding what you're saying. I literally listed all the talent (that McCloughan is most responsible for) they drafted. I definitely didn't say anything close to Harbaugh "won in spite of poor drafting", since of course I listed all the good drafting McCloughan did (was misses too, but there always is so I left those out.) ... and saying the franchise/organization was a mess doesn't equate to solely the draft, ha. More to an organization than the draft, obviously.

The organization was - or has been depending on how one puts it - a mess since Donahue was dismantling it (starting point is how he fits in to it) ... Harbaugh won in spite of that. "That" being the organization being a mess, which evidently you agree with though you place the/more of the blame on Harbaugh for the organization being a mess. "That" being what I said, nothing about "in spite of draft picks", but in spite of the organization being a mess (we really need a better word than mess.)

I don't know, but are you saying the franchise/organization was stable prior to Harbaugh? Is so, then okay. I would argue that the entire McCloughan situation in early 2010 was a mess, plus that led to the guy (McCloughan) who brought in the main talent that Harbaugh used to get to 3 straight NFC Championships, leaving. There was also essentially an ownership change prior to that, multiple coaching staffs, no winning seasons for nearly a decade and so on. Stability or a mess?

Regardless, prior to Harbaugh there was ownership, Baalke, and all the players i listed and they weren't winning. With Harbaugh, 3 straight NFC Championships. He's the difference from years of losing (with many of the same players) and winning.

Since the draft is apparently the important topic ... I don't know who gets credit for the 2010 draft? I believe Baalke made the picks but I imagine that they were going off McCloughan's draft plan, but that's just a guess. 2011 I think it's fair to give to Baalke since he was de-facto GM during 2010 I'm sure he was in charge of putting together the plan for the draft, and then he got promoted to GM for 2011. In 2011 they got Aldon Smith and they got their eventual starting QB (regardless of how one rates him) so that's post-McCloughan. Then 2012 was a disaster. 2013 and 2014 are probably too recent to judge, though I do like that they picked Keith Reaser last year, ha.

Reaser wrote:What was Alex Smith pre-2011? Who was Bowman pre-2011? Crabtree probably has never lived up to where he was drafted, but his best two seasons, 2011-2012. Even someone like Goldson (UW!), my favorite 49er when he was there, thought he would be great but by the end of 2010 I just figured he's just an average/good starter, then 2011 comes and his best two years, 2011-2012. What about FA's that came in 2011? Whitner was a disappointment in Buffalo, three years in SF with Harbaugh and 2 Pro Bowls. Carlos Rogers going into 2011 I would have said had the worst hands of any DB in football. First year with Harbaugh as coach, first and only pro bowl for Rogers, first and only (2nd-team) all-NFL honors, and 6 ints for a guy who couldn't catch.

I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of this. Guys come into the league as great prospects, and those first few years are crucial to their development. It's so much harder to turn a guy into a Pro Bowl-calibre performer when he's learned a ton of bad habits over his first few years. So you can add "fixing the guys the last coaches had screwed up" to the list of things Harbaugh had to do to "win in spite of."

Reaser wrote:Sorry, not understanding what you're saying.

It was a pretty simple question: What exactly was Harbaugh winning in spite of? What was preventing Harbaugh from winning games? You keep referring back to Terry Donahue...I don't see how he had any influence over Harbaugh winning and losing games. Did Chuck Noll win "in spite of" the Steelers organization, because they had 40 years of futility prior to his arrival? I guess I'm not seeing how Terry Donahue had just as much influence over Harbaugh's performance as the draft. I would say the draft is more important to an organization than "messiness/cleanliness"...at least its more tangible.

Reaser wrote:"That" being the organization being a mess, which evidently you agree with though you place the/more of the blame on Harbaugh for the organization being a mess. "

Just caught this...I see you are back to arguing with yourself again. My guess is that you are going to "win" that "argument" ten times out of ten. Here is what I've said:

Bryan wrote: Harbaugh has proven his coaching worth, but I would also say that he contributed to the organization being a mess.

Bryan wrote:The mess part was Harbaugh's relationship with everyone in the front office, and the owner being a 32-year old kid unable to exert influence on the situation. It seems like the current "mess" was partly Harbaugh's orchestration. Not sure how Donahue fits in to it.

Bryan wrote:I agree that getting rid of Harbaugh will probably be a mistake, especially considering there was no replacement plan, but I don't think there is any question that Harbaugh contributed to the organization being a mess.

Good luck!

Bryan wrote:It was a pretty simple question ...

Okay. I don't know what's going on here, I didn't see any animosity or arguing in anything I said? I was simply having a discussion about football. Also looks like I correctly attributed to you saying Harbaugh and organization being a mess, so I'm not sure what the issue is with that.

Regardless, V_ya and Jeremy got what I said, so evidently it made some sense.

The only thing I'll add is that in terms of an organization being a mess, you can have the wrong people in key roles, but you can also have the right people in key roles who don't get along, and fight with each other for power and control.

I'm not smart enough to know if the 49ers office has the right people (although, a 32 year old in a key role does seem questionable), but the power struggles and whispering behind the coach's back would sure make winning tough.

Veeshik_ya wrote: It's almost impossible for a coach to win when the organization is a mess. Makes one appreciate what Jim Harbaugh did even more.

This comment made me think of Don Coryell in St. Louis.

Reaser wrote:

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Would those 8-8, 7-9 outputs in '95, '96 respectively been playoff berths under the two-time SB-champ hence prolonging his stay in the Pacific Northwest?

I wouldn't say that. Would be disrespectful to the very good football coach that Dennis Erickson is. Plus he's a fellow member of the WA HS QB club, and I went to his OSU football camp 3 straight years. Couldn't have enjoyed more his time working with us QB's and getting to listen to him talk football.

Either way, I always prefer to go on what did happen, as opposed to 'what ifs'.

The Seahawks problems during that era start and end with Ken Behring.

No slight on Erickson intended, more-so a Flores 'what-if' based on the fact that we already seen him win (2 SBs) in the NFL - of course with the argument that Al may or may not have played a hand in it. Was it Tom's subdued persona that makes him 'unfairly' underrated or was Al a part of it being he proved much earlier in his brief early-'60s tenure that he could coach (was he a big help to Madden as well)? Guess we'll never know.

As for Erickson, upon looking him up just now, I see he was QB for Montana State! Been to Bozeman before. A real neat little town nestled in the hills of western Montana. Was there once one summer, could see for miles and miles, really loved the vibe around town and seriously entertained moving there. Born in Everett, WA, I see - home of Patrick Duffy. Not sure what to truly make of his NFL legacy but felt his time at 'the U' was underrated (kind of in the way Seifert was to Walsh). Winning it all in '89, yes, guess you have to say because he 'inherited' Jimmy's team, but winning it in '91 and then making it back to the NC game in '92 as a fave ought to not only give credit where credit's due, but make the 'gap' between he and Jimmy quite smaller than any gap between Walsh and Seifert.

I do remember his good work in Corvallis, making the Beavers contenders, and now seeing that he led WSU in the '80s to their first bowl win since WWI makes me further realize his abilities. I'll take your word. Perhaps a better (not 'perfect', but better) GM situation someplace else may have given him a better opportunity to show what he could do on the NFL level. Taking over a 6-10 squad, just one losing season in four years and almost making the playoffs two of those seasons - and with bad management to boot...yes, the jury's still out. Many coaches (who've been given a pass, mind you) have done much worse. Hey, while on the subject of the Seahawks...when if Pete Carroll never returned to the NFL 5 years ago? What would his legacy be?

74_75_78_79_ wrote:A real neat little town nestled in the hills of western Montana. Was there once one summer, could see for miles and miles, really loved the vibe around town and seriously entertained moving there.

I've been through Montana a few times, seems like there's a lot of nice small towns. My loyalties are to the Great State of Washington, of course. So I'll never move but in another life Montana would be a serious contender for place to live.

One of my good friends, who can afford to travel anywhere in the world, instead chooses to go on vacation every year to Montana. He went there once and that was it, when he leaves WA he doesn't care to go anywhere else.

Erickson had a decent run at ASU also, well it started off good then they were just average (average for the Pac, which is still relatively good) ...

I dock Flores for being GM, too. He was buddies with Behring and that made it worse - for Seattle. Knox is taking the Seahawks to the playoffs, Behring buys team, then brings in Flores to make all the decisions, Seahawks instantly stop going to the playoffs. Behring/Flores alienate Knox, he's out, surprise surprise Flores is in and Seattle instantly has their worst season in franchise history.

To put it another way, short version, Knox wanted Favre, Behring/Flores wanted and picked McGwire.

[quote="74_75_78_79_"
No slight on Erickson intended, more-so a Flores 'what-if' based on the fact that we already seen him win (2 SBs) in the NFL - of course with the argument that Al may or may not have played a hand in it. Was it Tom's subdued persona that makes him 'unfairly' underrated or was Al a part of it being he proved much earlier in his brief early-'60s tenure that he could coach (was he a big help to Madden as well)? Guess we'll never know. As for Erickson, upon looking him up just now, I see he was QB for Montana State! Been to Bozeman before. A real neat little town nestled in the hills of western Montana. Was there once one summer, could see for miles and miles, really loved the vibe around town and seriously entertained moving there. Born in Everett, WA, I see - home of Patrick Duffy. Not sure what to truly make of his NFL legacy but felt his time at 'the U' was underrated (kind of in the way Seifert was to Walsh). Winning it all in '89, yes, guess you have to say because he 'inherited' Jimmy's team, but winning it in '91 and then making it back to the NC game in '92 as a fave ought to not only give credit where credit's due, but make the 'gap' between he and Jimmy quite smaller than any gap between Walsh and Seifert. I do remember his good work in Corvallis, making the Beavers contenders, and now seeing that he led WSU in the '80s to their first bowl win since WWI makes me further realize his abilities. I'll take your word. Perhaps a better (not 'perfect', but better) GM situation someplace else may have given him a better opportunity to show what he could do on the NFL level. Taking over a 6-10 squad, just one losing season in four years and almost making the playoffs two of those seasons - and with bad management to boot...yes, the jury's still out. Many coaches (who've been given a pass, mind you) have done much worse. Hey, while on the subject of the Seahawks...when if Pete Carroll never returned to the NFL 5 years ago? What would his legacy be?[/quote]

I would love to read more of your posts but the lack of paragraph breaks makes it very difficult.