What happened to the pressure in the second half?

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 26, 2009 2:02 AM PDT Comment 20 comments

In the first half, we saw the usual "Shaun Hill drops back and has to immediately start running for his life" peppered in there with the constant pressure they get on him every play anyways. Yet, in the second half, Smith had no such problems. Why?

A few hypotheses:

1. Houston was playing vanilla D protecting a lead

Unlikely, especially once we got close.

2. Our line started blocking better.

Even more unlikely, or they would have done so earlier.

3. Houston was afraid of Smith

Not likely, as he's never been known to be particularly dangerous.

4. Something we were doing differently made it harder for Houston to put pressure on the QB.

We spread the field out with 3+ guys split out wide. This forces the defense to put a hat on a hat and take guys out of the box. If there are fewer defenders in the box, there are fewer ways for Chilo & co. to screw up their blocking assignments. They can fire off the snap instead of pausing to figure out who they should block (while that guy runs by them).

Is the spread sustainably better than the offense that we've seen the rest of the season? I don't see any reason it can't be. The question is: "Who's better for this type of offense?"

Smith was such a successful spread offense QB in college that he became the 1st overall draft pick. Hill has been successful when the Niners have decided to air it out, but pretty useless otherwise. If he keeps the turnovers down, it should be Smith, but whoever is the QB going forward, I think the spread is what really helped the line get their stuff together, and it should be used more often. How many sacks in the second half? Zero, exactly.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Seriously?

I’ve witnessed the 49ers use 3 WR sets in every game, it just happened to work the entire 2nd half. It worked late in games against the Cards and Vikings too in case anyone forgot. It didn’t work against the Falcons. Come on people, do you really think the game of professional football is as easy as changing the offensive formation?

My bigger pet peeve, since when did the QB lining up in shotgun formation with 3 WR become the spread offense? That’s been around the NFL a long time and the term spread offense just bubbled up a few years ago. I thought the spread offense was technically the old Run n’ Shoot with the college twist of having the QB also double as a running back. This is making me sound old and grumpy.

by bignerd on Oct 26, 2009 4:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not grumpy. You are spot on

And I agree, 3-wide is a pretty basic staple. Shanahan ran that a great deal during his three years as OC here, way back when. I also hate “West Coast” offense since it’s not unique to a region of the country. It’s the Bill Walsh offense. I think the man deserves that much from the media.

You gotta bring ass to get ass.

by SpurredOn on Oct 26, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We have a winner

been arguing for at least Walsh Coast for years

by rcleverly on Oct 26, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I think a more proper term

Is a “spread out” offensive formation. Something that makes it so the defense can’t cram everyone into the box. Something that looks like an obvious passing formation. Niners fans just haven’t seen anything like it all year, so we’re not sure WHAT to call it. For a little bit there I thought Mike Martz had kneecapped Jimmy Raye and hijacked his headset.

Don't worry about me Thurgood, I'll be fine. The robbery is what's important now.

by the guy on Oct 26, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"spread out" offensive formation

Yeah, this is more what I was referring to. Given our personnel:

1. Bad line
2. Half decent receivers
3. Good running back

We should be playing to our relative strengths, not our weaknesses. This means putting less pressure on our line and more on our receivers. My main point was: Our line sucks, especially at the mental “who do I need to block?!?!?!” aspects. Going 3 wide, sending the RB wide, and having the TE go downfield instead of stay in and block means that there are 5 guys (at most) to block (Assuming the defense keeps back a safety and puts a man on a man). That makes blocking assignments MUCH easier than looking at 8 in the box and not knowing who’s rushing and who’s dropping into coverage. Which subsequently makes blocking much better because there’s no hesitation.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 26, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry Dubs

Wasn’t so much a shot at you for calling it the spread offense cause I know the announcers said it a few times yesterday. I just remember the days (3 years ago) where it would have been called a passing formation.

by bignerd on Oct 26, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I was trying to refer to was the way we'd spread everybody out

Including often using an empty backfield with 3 WR & a RB wide and a TE running a route. This makes blocking assignments much, much easier.

I have problems with stupid nomenclature. If I know it’s stupid, I get exasperated. If I don’t know it’s stupid, I’ll use the terminology like it sounds like it should be used. That being said, a “3 yards and a cloud of dust” team can throw out 4 WR every now and then and still be considered a “3 yards and a cloud of dust” team. However, if they start using 4WR almost exclusively, it is a shift in offensive philosophy.

In the second half, we used a TON of these formations.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 26, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Texans played vanilla d in 2nd half.

You are banned from Music City Miracles.
Happy Now Tits?
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.

by CFHTim on Oct 26, 2009 4:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

For those claiming it was vanilla D

That’s like us saying we were shutout in the first half because we had a vanilla offense. Oh wait, we did didn’t we? That’s a coach covering his butt, since the performance from one half to the next was so different. It would be to truthful yet uncoachlike for him to admit, “we didn’t respect the ability of the first QB and dared him to prove himself down field, regardless of formation. When the other guy came in and started completing passes, he put us back on our heals. Then we got scared at 21-14 that we might blow a 21 point lead and I’d lose my job for sure at the end of the season, so we went with zone hoping to not lose. It didn’t help that the few times we blitzed Smith he completed those passes. We also assumed that he had no receiving talent, and then Smith came in. We knew at that point if we blitzed him, they would comeback even more quickly and beat us for sure since our secondary can’t defend that many playmakers. You see how poorly we covered their TE. I’m just grateful we hung on and don’t play them again.”

You gotta bring ass to get ass.

by SpurredOn on Oct 26, 2009 9:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What you are not understanding is this.

The Texans (AND ALL NFL TEAMS) gameplan around who will be playing.

So they create packages designed around who is in the game.

For instance, if the defense sees Hill + 2TE and 2 WR, they may call a certain scheme.

When you change the qb to someone that the defense hasn’t studied and start lining up in formation the defense has not game planned for then it has an affect.

I am not saying that Smith only played well for that reason.

I am merely pointing out that the defense had to revert to some basic schemes and not run plays designed based on the film they had watched.

What that means is that while Smith PLAYED VERY WELL, we need to see him in a full game against some teams that have been watching his film and preparing for those formations before we know if he really has this thing figured out.

I don’t know why that is so offensive to Niners fans. It is common sense to anyone who watches football and in no way detracts from the fact that Smith played a great half of football.

"An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and unguarded."

The ROSENFAIL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKAKE-uq-8&feature=related

by TexansForever on Oct 26, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the most part

Beating the Niners has been about dominating the line of scrimmage. In the first half, you guys did that on D, and you got enough protection for Schaub to get the ball to his playmakers. In the second half, you guys did NOT control the line of scrimmage on one side of the ball.

What that means is that while Smith PLAYED VERY WELL, we need to see him in a full game against some teams that have been watching his film and preparing for those formations before we know if he really has this thing figured out.

I think it’ll be more: We have to see what he can do when he’s got something to lose. He came into this game with nothing to lose. If he played poorly, he goes back to the clipboard. If he plays well, he has a shot at the starting spot. He had nothing to lose and was thus likely able to stay loose.

There is certainly something to the “no gameplan for this guy” theory, but you think the Niners O had much practice with the “Alex Smith” gameplan? Ummm, nope. It goes both ways. I’ll certainly admit that it’s easier for the offense to adapt.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 26, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easier for the offense to adapt?

Do you really think that? I ask honestly, not to be snarky. I would think it’s harder since offense is all about timing, both on route running, QB cadence, and adjusting to the velocity of the passes. That one of the WRs is a rookie who had limited route options and everyone knew we’d be calling pass plays, that should play into the hands of the defense. We were in a pretty predictable situation, on the road dealing with crowd noice and backup linemen playing. Houston had the option to blitz or play zone, whichever they were most comfortable doing. IMO, the defense has less to adjust to unless the backup is a runner like Vince Young or Vick.

You gotta bring ass to get ass.

by SpurredOn on Oct 26, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying it's easy to adapt

Just that it’s harder for a defense to adapt because they don’t know where the offense is going to try to hurt them. For the offensive players, it’s a simple step: “What’s my new route.” For the defense, it’s “What’s his new route and how do I stop it.” If they’ve been practicing one thing all week (The QB doesn’t have that great an arm, and doesn’t take risks, so protect the shorter passes, and show your face to make him go elsewhere), switching gears like that is not easy. Technique changes, mindset changes. Whereas the difference for the receivers is not that big. OK, I’ll run a 7 this time. A 9? OK. You don’t really change technique, you just do different things the same way you’ve been taught/practicing.

Maybe the Texans staff should have thought “Wait a second, if we get a lead, they’re going to have to make some throws downfield, maybe we should plan for success.” But without that planning, it’s tough to adjust.

As a receiver, your job is to run the route (whatever route is called) and catch the ball if it’s coming. You’re too far to hear much of the cadence, and you usually go on the visual snap of the ball. Adjusting to the velocity shouldn’t be that much of an issue. Not a non-issue, but not much of one.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 26, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting perspective. I think of it more as timing and adustments

Being where I’m supposed to be at the right time only now with a QB I’ve never practiced with or not since August. And for a QB, my receivers making route adjustments but we better both be on the same page otherwise it’s an INT. And linemen knowing my cadence and where I drop within the pocket. I think of Steve Young (biased to be sure, as a QB) saying offense is beautiful, all about the timing and movement and precision. Whereas defense is all about blowing up a beautifully crafted play. DBs can be out of position but a lineman gets his hand up and knocks down a beautfiul pass. If WRs aren’t where they’re supposed to be, it causes serious problems.

You gotta bring ass to get ass.

by SpurredOn on Oct 26, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was at the stadium

I saw what happened.

You are banned from Music City Miracles.
Happy Now Tits?
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.

by CFHTim on Oct 26, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We spread the field out with 3+ guys split out wide. This forces the defense to put a hat on a hat and take guys out of the box. If there are fewer defenders in the box, there are fewer ways for Chilo & co. to screw up their blocking assignments. They can fire off the snap instead of pausing to figure out who they should block (while that guy runs by them).

This is true. A lot of fans underestimate the mental aspect of being an offensive lineman. If your opponent has to respect the pass, and therefore can’t stack the box, then the mental part of the game should be easier.

And it appears that some of Chilo’s mistakes this year have been mental.

That being said, I think that a big part of the reason why they had to unstack the box was that Smith demonstrated an ability to hurt them going down the field, not that they went into cruise-control mode.

by Ronaldinho on Oct 26, 2009 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

They had to unstack the box because we had 3-4 guys lined out wide and they knew VD would be running out too. They weren’t going to leave their DBs with no over the top help because they wanted to protect their lead. With 5 guys to match up with in pattern, and two over the top helpers, that leaves 4 rushers. If they left somebody unmarked, it’d be an easy 5-10 yard completion. The formation and situation mandated the unstacking and lack of blitzing. The fact that Smith could actually complete a 15 yard pass certainly kept the offense on the field, but the lack of rush was more because of formation than the QB, IMO.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 26, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs