Silence of the Rams (Opponent?) – Yapping of the Front Office

This team is in swirly mode. Shanny remarked about Fred Warner:

“Everyone knows we gave Fred a new contract and he’s learned every single bit of it. I think Fred can play at a higher level. I think he agrees with that also. Everyone on our defense can and everyone on our offense can. Everyone sees our record, what it is. We need coaches, players, everybody to play to the best of their ability.” 

John Lynch went out of his way to criticize Fred Warner’s play in the AZ game, and to say Warner is:

“. . . not having the season so far that he expects or we expect. You know, sometimes, I think you get a big contract and you have a lot going on in your mind. You probably try and do a little too much. He probably needs to try and zero in and just focus on his job.”

Ouch. If it is this bad to the media and fans, what are they saying INSIDE the building? Bad as it was, this is on the whole defense. The front office for drafting guys like Jalen Hurd, and Joe Williams, and Reuben Foster, and Solly Thomas, and countless other 1-3 round flops. Lynch needs to answer to his own failings before throwing his players under the bus.

Shanahan at least mentioned himself and his inept play calling. Not to mention his lousy clock management skills, and his complete whiff on the red flag issue. Shades of Teflon Mike Nolan. Warner can’t be everywhere all the time, and as I’ve said a thousand times, missing Greenlaw is REALLY hurting this defense, but we are what we are. A sub-.500 team that can’t finish a game to save our season. Finishing games is on the coaching staff. They are not putting the players in a position to succeed.

And yay, we get a pass rusher Charles Omenihu from the Texans at the trade deadline. And he sits. Why did we get him? To push Armstead into playing better? To keep the bench warm?

Gee, I wonder if ODB plays for the Rams on Monday night. Or Von Miller. Fuck me sideways.

About unca_chuck

Lifelong SF 49ers, SF Giants, and Golden State Warriors fan
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Silence of the Rams (Opponent?) – Yapping of the Front Office

  1. unca_chuck says:

    This will be a great game to see if the team has any fucking balls. They were humiliated last week. By a bunch of scrubs.

    The hope is Warner steps up to take the leadership role and gets these guys playing together. No one else is doing anything.

  2. Irish Kevin says:

    From Niner nation

    The 49ers roster construction under the John Lynch and Kyle Shanahan regime has always revolved around the defensive line being the priority for allocating resources. Both Lynch and Shanahan have made it no secret that they feel like this is the most prudent way to construct a winning football team.

    You go back to when we first built this thing, Kyle and I came together, one of the things that we really believed in is that that’s an equalizer in a football league where everything’s set up for offenses to be successful,” Lynch said. “One of the ways you can equalize the equation is to get after and knock down the passer.”
    While that line of thinking makes sense on paper, its practicality in the modern NFL is diminishing by the season. The uptick in roughing the passer penalties, as well as the reluctance to call offensive holding, has drastically reduced the value of having a dominant defensive line.
    “You look at the best defenses of all time that I can remember,” Shanahan said “the Baltimore defense, they had a pass rush. You go to the Tampa Bay defense with Simeon Rice and Warren Sapp. They had a pass rush.”
    The underlying problem with using these teams as a template is that it doesn’t account for the league’s evolution over the last two decades since the teams as mentioned above rode their dominant defensive fronts to super bowl titles in the early 2000s.

    Accounting for rule changes as well as the influx of dual-threat quarterbacks with plus mobility, and the effectiveness of a strong defensive line is arguably at the lowest point it ever has been.
    The production has not matched the investment for as much emphasis as the 49ers have placed on pressuring opposing quarterbacks. The 49ers as a team have recorded 126 pressures this season, which would rank them 26th out of the 32 teams in the NFL.
    They have only registered 30 QB hits, which ranks 30th in the entire league. These numbers on their own are troublesome, but even more so when you consider the number of resources that the 49ers have diverted into the defensive line.
    Now I think it is important to note that there has been success under this regime, with the 49ers defensive line being the team’s focal point. The 2019 season was driven by the defense’s work in the trenches, but ultimately it’s a model we saw was not sustainable as it appeared to falter in the most crucial game of the season.

    Collectively as a unit, the defensive line appeared to run out of gas towards the end of Super Bowl 54, being unable to generate an effective level of pressure capable of slowing down the surging Kansas City Chiefs as they completed a comeback after trailing by double digits in the fourth quarter.
    In regards to the future construction of this roster, a much more pragmatic approach needs to be taken moving forward. I believe the 49ers will be forced to make this decision even if they are reluctant to do so on their own accord.
    The catalyst for this change is their investment in rookie quarterback Trey Lance, which will ultimately necessitate the transition towards being a team that prioritizes its physically gifted quarterback rather than stubbornly continuing to pump its most valuable resources into the defensive line.

  3. Winder says:

    I stopped listening to the live interviews a couple of weeks back. Glad i didn’t hear Lynch go on about Warner. Poor coaching, lousy drafting which left us with no backups worth a shit is the problem. I am waiting for some of the players to start talking. We are back to where FA’s probably don’t want to come here. If it were not for all the shit going on in politics and the world I probably would be ranting more about the Niners but in reality they are down on the importance scale at the moment.

  4. unca_chuck says:

    I know this is long, but it COULD bring down the Yorks. Oh happy day. From the Chron

    49ers’ Meetings Scrutinized

    As Santa Clara officials maneuvered to defend the city in multiple legal disputes with the 49ers this year over operation of Levi’s Stadium, five of seven City Council members took the unusual step of regularly meeting with team executives behind closed doors, public records show.

    In a span of eight-plus months, from late January through the end of September, 49ers officials held 57 meetings — about one every four days — with council members who have supported the team’s position on city-related issues, according to public records.

    That includes Sudhanshu “Suds” Jain, Anthony Becker and Kevin Park, who were elected last year with the help of nearly $3 million in political contributions from 49ers CEO Jed York.

    Jain met most often with team officials — 32 times in all, including five times during one week in March, according to a Chronicle review of council members’ calendars, which are filed with the city. The meetings began Jan. 26, the records show, when Jain, Becker and Park, each of whom took office that month, met with 49ers public affairs chief Rahul Chandhok.

    Six days earlier, then-Santa Clara City Attorney Brian Doyle had updated the council on the legal tussles with the 49ers. The morning after that confidential closed session, Jain sent a text message to Chandhok seeking a meeting, records show.

    “Hi Rahul, yesterday new Councilmembers got the city’s side of all our lawsuits,” Jain wrote. “I know (49ers executive) Larry McNeill (sic) gave me a pretty good briefing but now I would like to meet again to reconcile the different stories. This is my city issued cellphone. Suds.”

    Public officials are barred from disclosing confidential information learned in a closed legislative session, according to state law and three experts on municipal government.

    Jain acknowledged the meeting, saying it allowed him to get the 49ers’ “side of the story” regarding the lawsuits. He denied discussing what he had just learned about the litigation in closed session.

    “No, I don’t reveal,” he said in a phone interview last week. “I didn’t say, ‘This is what the city told me.’ I told them, ‘You tell me about police services (one of many issues at play in the lawsuits).’ I don’t reveal stuff from closed sessions with the city.”

    Jain said he meets with the team “every week, on Mondays.” Asked whether his meetings could undercut the city’s legal position in the lawsuits, he said, “I don’t believe so.”

    In September, Jain was among five council members who voted to fire Doyle. “Suds values the opinion of the 49ers over the staff ’s expert opinions regarding protecting our city’s interest,” Council Member Kathy Watanabe asserted.

    Park also acknowledged the Jan. 26 meeting, describing how the council members “discussed the issues brought to us by city staff ” with team officials.

    “We tried to corroborate and ask questions where things were unclear or different,” Park said. “We never discuss information we’re not supposed to … including with the 49ers. We have no special relationship with the 49ers. They are another business entity.”

    But critics of the 49ers, who believe the franchise has mismanaged the stadium and failed to properly share revenue from games and other events, say the communications suggest city officials are not focused on protecting the interests of their constituents over the team’s financial interests.

    “I have asked these council members to disclose any information they share with the 49ers in their multiple meetings, or any deals they’re making in these meetings, and they’ve refused to do so,” said Mayor Lisa Gillmor, a frequent 49ers critic. “I am highly disappointed these elected officials have breached the trust of our community, and are putting special interests before the public and our taxpayers.”

    Doyle had expressed similar concerns before the council, fueled by the votes of the five members who regularly meet with the 49ers, fired him Sept. 1. Doyle said he feared team executives were seeking to gain leverage in the lawsuits over the stadium.

    Doyle confronted 49ers Vice President Jim Mercurio and two other team executives about the private meetings in April, two days after Jain revealed in a public meeting that the 49ers wanted the city attorney “gone.” Doyle accused the team of interfering in city affairs.

    In a Zoom meeting, Doyle charged that the team hoped to install a “marshmallow” city attorney “who will hand you a sweetheart settlement” of the team’s lawsuits.

    “No doubt the voting public would find it odd that elected officials would consult with the people who are suing the city over millions of dollars about who the city attorney should be,” Doyle said.

    UC Hastings law professor Dave Owen, an expert in local government not involved in the dispute in Santa Clara, said the episode raised “the question of whether most constituents would want their City Council members to have private meetings with corporations with interests opposed to those of the city, and then follow up those meetings by trying to advance the corporation’s interests.”

    The disputes have mushroomed since the 2014 opening of $1.3 billion Levi’s Stadium, which was supposed to produce robust revenue streams shared by the city and 49ers. Instead, the relationship has devolved into back-and-forth allegations of misconduct and broken promises.

    The city’s Stadium Authority owns Levi’s but leases the facility to the 49ers, who run it through their Forty Niners Stadium Management Co. That company makes financial reports to the city so they can split profits, which the city deploys to pay off bonds used to build the stadium.

    Now the Stadium Authority is seeking to terminate the 49ers’ management contract and install professional managers to run the facility. The team sued to stop the move, and the case is awaiting trial.

    Jain was not the only council member to routinely attend meetings with 49ers executives outside of public view, records show. Becker attended meetings 19 times, followed by Karen Hardy (18), Park (15) and Raj Chahal (13). All five members who met with the team voted to oust Doyle; Gillmor and Watanabe voted to keep him.

    Chandhok, the 49ers’ executive vice president of public affairs and strategic communications, was present at 54 of the 57 meetings. Larry MacNeil, compliance manager for Levi’s Stadium and formerly the team’s chief financial officer, attended 37 times.

    “Any assertion that council members shared confidential closed session information with the 49ers is a lie, and the accusation that they violated their oath of office is insulting to the council and Santa Clarans who elected the most diverse council in the City’s history,” Chandhok said in a statement emailed to The Chronicle.

    “The stadium is one of the city’s largest assets, and members of the City Council meet regularly with the 49ers to discuss upcoming events, operational issues, and resolving petty political disputes.”

    Doyle briefed council members about the city’s litigation with the 49ers on Jan. 19. There are 10 different cases, including the lawsuit challenging the city’s move to terminate the team’s management of Levi’s Stadium.

    For the new council members elected with 49ers backing — Jain, Becker and Park — this was their first inside look at the city’s legal strategy. The council meeting ended about 9 p.m. Jain sent his text to Chandhok seeking to “reconcile the different stories” the next day at 10:02 a.m.

    Six days later, on Jan. 26, Jain met with Chandhok to discuss what the council member called “stadium operations,” according to a calendar he filed with the city. Becker and Park also attended the meeting.

    If Jain told Chandhok what he learned in the closed council meeting, he broke the law and committed “a serious violation of the public trust,” said Quentin Kopp, a former San Francisco supervisor, state senator and judge. As a senator, Kopp coauthored a 1992 overhaul of the Brown Act, the state open-meetings law that also imposes confidentiality upon closed legislative sessions.

    Kopp said the confidentiality law was intended to protect the “litigation strategy” of a public agency involved in a lawsuit. Apprising the 49ers of the city’s legal strategy, he said, “would subvert the position in court of the city of Santa Clara.”

    Bruce Budner, a veteran trial lawyer who teaches legal ethics at Berkeley Law, called Jain’s text “seriously problematic.” Jessica Levinson, director of the Public Service Institute at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, described the scenario as “stunning.”

    “Why would you put it in a text?” Levinson said. “People are rarely this flagrant.”

    According to state law, a public official found to have made such disclosures can be ordered by a court not to continue to do so in the future, can be referred to a grand jury proceeding and can face possible removal from office.

    Jain, a retired electrical engineer and former commissioner and chair of the Santa Clara Planning Commission, won the District Five council election in November 2020, after losing his bid for the same seat four years earlier. His exchange with Chandhok was included in public records posted Sept. 27 on the city’s website.

    Chandok and Jas Sajjan, his assistant, usually attended the meetings with City Council members. MacNeil and 49ers Vice President of Finance Jeff Fong also were present sometimes, records show.

    The meetings never included more than three council members. If a quorum of four were present, state law would have required the meetings to be held in public. On several occasions, Chandhok and other 49ers executives met with Hardy and Chahal at 3:30 p.m. Then the same team officials met with Jain, Becker and Park at 5 p.m.

    In calendar entries, council members often characterized their meetings with the 49ers as being about “stadium operations,” with no detail.

    Some calendar entries, though, offered slightly more detail, suggesting Jain, Becker and Park at times met with Chandhok and other 49ers executives to discuss subjects central to the city’s legal conflicts with the team.

    On March 16, the council met in closed session for more than two hours to confer with the city’s lawyers on four legal disputes with the 49ers, including the lawsuit concerning the city’s move to terminate the 49ers from managing operations at Levi’s Stadium.

    Six days later, the three council members met with 49ers officials, including Chandhok. Jain reported that meeting topics included “Nex wage theft issue” and “Levi’s signage.”

    NEx Systems is a flooring company that the 49ers paid $644,000 for work at the stadium. The city has accused the 49ers of violating state prevailing wage laws by underpaying workers on the project, and cited the issue as a reason for terminating the management contract. The 49ers denied wrongdoing.

    “Levi’s signage” may refer to another sticking point in the lawsuit: The city has accused the 49ers of wrongly diverting $800,000 in revenue from the Redbox Bowl college football games played at Levi’s Stadium in 2018 and 2019. The 49ers denied wrongdoing, saying the team was entitled to the money to pay for “signage” at Levi’s Stadium promoting the game.

    Four other meetings in July and September addressed the costs of police services at games. The 49ers have taken the city to arbitration on the issue, claiming the city has underpaid public safety costs by $1.7 million.

    On Sept. 27, Jain reported that he and Becker met with the 49ers on topics including “buffet costs.” In another dispute that is in arbitration, the team claims the city should be required to pay $4 million for gourmet buffet service for season-ticket holders.

    Also in September, Council Member Hardy reported that she and Council Member Chahal met with the 49ers to discuss “points of agreement and disagreement.”

    • Winder says:

      Not a lawyer but it sounds like the Niners are stiffing the city. I think the most they can realistically do is make the Niners pay up and oversee the functions better.

      • Winder says:

        Also, buying counsel members sounds like Jed’s got a little Trumpism in him. I guess that’s what big money does.

  5. unca_chuck says:

    Josh Norman vs OBJ.Iff Norman is ever that close, I’ll be surprised.

  6. NJ49ER says:

    Funny to hear Lynch calling out Warner for getting paid and being lazy.
    Captain Obvious should be seeing his own decision making authority to balance the scale.
    Santa Clara appears to be a curse in more ways than one.
    They can’t handle their politics either.
    Dysfunction Junction….

  7. NJ49ER says:

    Your Santa Clara 49ers.
    Leaderless and rudderless, drifting in any direction the wind blows.
    SB contender?
    I think not.

Playoffs? Playoffs?!? PLAYOFFS???

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.