Alex Smith play-by-play: The definitive guide
by smileyman on Oct 26, 2009 7:13 PM PDT
118 comments
Since I missed the last half of Sunday's game (due to a family thing), I caught it on NFL Rewind. This is a way cool feature from the NFL. Only $24.99 for the rest of the season and you can watch each NFL game whenever you want from your computer. You can pause, rewind, fast forward, skip, anything you want. It's a great way to really get into the break down.
However, if you don't want to spring for the money you can get recaps and great stat lines from STATS. They've got excellent break downs, and they host stats for more than just football (though I only go there for the football stats).
Alex Smith had 5 drives and scored three touchdowns. Those three touchdowns are more touchdowns than the offense has scored in any previous game. Read that again. Even in our blowout of St. Louis we only scored two offensive touchdowns.
In a word, our offense has been offensive.
Here's the play-by-play
1st drive
1st play--run to the right no room.
2nd play--beautiful pass to crabtree in the middle. Texans had a 5 man rush
3rd play--defensive offsides.
4th play--1st and five. run to the left. One on one blocking (five linemen and the fullback vs four D-linemen and a LB) and Gore is still stuffed for no gain.
5th play--Run to the left again. Gore gets enough for the 1st.
6th play. offsides on defensive. Smith keeps the ball and runs (can't tell if protection broke down or if it was a designed draw).
7th play--pass to VD, for touchdown. (offsides on defense again).
2nd drive
1st play--run to the right--3yards
2nd play--pitch left--1 yard (two tight end set)
3rd play--3rd and 6--delay of game
4th play--3rd and 11--short completion to VD
5th play--punt
3rd drive
1st play--pocket collapse. Smith starts right and then rolls left and runs for a 1st down
2nd play--Gore up the middle (7 yards)
3rd play--direct snap to Gore 1st down
4th play--nice long pass to Crabtree called back because of Morgan's illegal motion play
5th play--quick pass to VD on a 3rd and 15
6th play--short 3 yard pass to Bruce
7th pay--blitz by Texas completion for 1st down to Crabtree
8th play--run to the right--no gain
9th play--pass to the left batted down
10th play--time out called
11th play--long pass to Morgan and 1st down
12th play--strike to Davis for a TD (beautiful, crisp throw)
4th dr
1st play--Play action. Smith throws it away
2nd play--quick throw right side to Morgan for 10 yards and 1st down
3rd play--Delay of game time out (this is a really heads up play I think to not waste a time out)
4th play--pass to VD batted away by the defender
5th play--pass in the middle to VD for 9 yards
6th play--Pass to the right to Crabtree for 1st down
7th play--nice long throw to Josh Morgan in the middle
8th play--Beautiful throw to VD for TD (threaded throw two players in front of VD and the one behind hime)
5th dr
1st play--almost sacked in the end zone. pass to morgan for 1st down
2nd play--nice pump fake to left and then overthrows gore
3rd play--beautiful long pass to Bruce
4th play--spike the ball
5th play--almost sacked again. Had someone hanging on to his jersey as he threw it away (on a freakin' three man rush too)
6th play--pocket collapsed again. evaded the tackle. ran 5 yards out of bounds to stop the clock
7th play--delay of game (Singletary or Smith should've called a time out on this one)
8th play--interception
There are a couple of points I'd like to make after watching this second half. At no point did the Houston defense play anything resembling a "prevent" defense. In fact they barely changed their coverage at all, still relying on their 4-3. Most of the second half their linebackers were crowding the line of scrimmage, almost sitting on top of their defense line. The safeties weren't much further back (mostly within 7 yards of the line of scrimmage). By the third scoring drive the LBs and Safeties were respecting the throw more.
The Houston D also blitzed three or four times during the second half. They were not playing it conservatively hoping to prevent the big strike. If anything they were playing the same coverage they had in the first half.
Shaun Hill was a measly 6 of 11 for 45 yards against the same team and same defense that Smith went 15 of 22 and 206 yards.
I like several things about Smith. I like his calm. At no time did I get any sense of panic. That's really impressive. I liked the deep throws that he made. His long throws all looked very pretty. I also like that he wasn't afraid to throw it in a little bit of traffic--those are the throws that Hill was afraid to make, which is one of the reasons his yardage per game is so bad. I also really like Smith's mobility. There were at least three times in the second half when he was pressured that he should've been sacked. One time he got away and ran for the first down, one was a nice throw out of our own end zone for a first down to Morgan, and one he threw the ball away (with a defender hanging on to his jersey). That's good.
What I didn't like. Game management. Horrible issues throughout the half. Two delay of game penalties--one that was fairly meaningless, and one on that last drive that turned a 4th and 5 to 4th and 10. Lots of personnel confusion. He was maybe too calm during the second to last drive. When you get the ball with 7 minutes left and have to get two scores, you shouldn't take 12 plays for the TD (part of that is the coaches fault and part of it is his for not hurrying the offense faster).
I saw lots of potential out there. Yeah, we've been burned before, and it's only one half of football. I do get that any QB can have a decent half, but I like what I saw from Smith, and I like the kind of calls it allows Raye to run. I look forward to seeing what he can do. If we can 250-300 yards passing and 2-3 tds a game from him we've got a winner as a QB.
I wanted to add an edit. In the comments SpurredOn mentioned that he was in favor of taking that last delay of game on the final drive because if the pass had been complete then we would've had a first down and could've called a time out then to either kick the tying field goal or go for the win. I think that's right. Two screenshots from that last play that I want to share.
This is the opening snap. Notice that they're still playing the basic defense that they were playing all game--the big difference is that the safeties are now actually backed off the line of scrimmage. Previously they were hanging out within 7 yards of the LOS.
This is the interception. The ball looked like it was going to the under guy but I think Smith was trying to get it to the behind guy and just threw it short. (Davis wasn't quite that open--the Houston players were moving up some after the throw.)
Since polls are always fun, here's mine.
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.
5 recs |
118 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
This was great
It’s nice to look back at the drive. Thanks for doing this.
Smith does give us the best chance to win, especially with our weapons we have. Gore also seemed to pick it up in the second half. Maybe because the thought of the deep pass? I hope so. Let’s hope we can steal one in Indy!
Go Niners!
by ZonaBacks10 on Oct 26, 2009 7:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
beautiful pass to crabtree in the middle. Texans had a 5 man rush
7th pay—blitz by Texas completion for 1st down to Crabtree
If anything they were playing the same coverage they had in the first half.
But this can’t be the case! According to all the Hill apologists, Smith was only able to complete passes because the Texans smoked a pound of marijuana at halftime and lacked the energy to rush the passer!
Clearly you didn’t really pay attention to the game!
by Ronaldinho on Oct 26, 2009 9:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For the record
I was/am not so much a “Hill apologist,” as I was a “Hill hasn’t been the worst aspect of our offense, but if Singletary thinks Hill is better than Smith, I’ll believe him. The track record is that Smith turns the ball more over while Hill doesn’t as much. That’s good for our style of play.” The last two games have really showcased Hill’s limitations and their effect on the team’s performance as a whole. The last half showcased Smith’s strengths, and some of his weaknesses. We’ll see how many more of his weaknesses linger and if he (and the coaching staff) can work out the kinks on the delay of game/personnel issues. We’ll see.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey ...
I wanted Smith to win the job in the preseason, but didn’t come close to thinking he did.
As I’ve said before, Smith has gotten a really raw deal – being thrown out there unprepared, no talent around him, etc. I haven’t been convinced that he’s good, but merely that if he was good, we wouldn’t know it yet.
That’s why I wanted to bring him back this year. That’s why I wanted to see him get a chance to succeed. I still don’t really know what he’s capable of, but I’d like to.
by Ronaldinho on Oct 27, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely,
Let Smith play and see what he can do now, as a 25 year old who has been in the league for 5 years. Did he learn enough sitting on the bench the last few years. If yes, great. If no, management needs to know.
by CorneliusJ on Oct 27, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that Smith has gotten a raw deal
But how long are we supposed to give the guy? At some point, you have to start looking elsewhere.
At least from Sing’s comments, it sounds like he always thought Alex would be his guy, but needed to sit back and watch the offense for a little bit. I don’t know how much of that really rings true, but we’ll see if the strategy, deliberate or otherwise, has finally resulted in Smith being a capable NFL QB. If he legitimately couldn’t beat out Shaun Hill for the position, that’s a problem. If the issue was learning the 18th offense since entering the NFL, not quite being ready, and getting a minor injury during a key decision timeline, then maybe these extra weeks to sit back and learn have been good for him.
These next few weeks will be interesting, and I do like the fact that we’ll be able to see how seriously we need to pursue a QB in the draft. Nobody should be kidding themselves into thinking we’re a contender this year. Next year, IF Alex Smith is quality, IF we can improve the line to “mediocre” instead of “gawdawful,” and IF Crabtree & Morgan are as good as they looks so far, we’re going to be really, really good. That’s a lot of ifs, but we’ve got plenty of of cap space and two first round draft picks to work with. One of which comes from a team that just lost AT HOME to a Bills team that had lost 6-3 AT HOME to a Cleveland team that completed two passes all day… needless to say, that should be a pretty early pick.
I’ve always liked Smith, and he certainly has had plenty of uncontrollable issues with personnel, injuries, coaching, etc. To me, he’s been the unfortunate poster child of: “This is why terrible teams should not draft a QB.” I’m happy to see him getting another shot, but this has to be his last one.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL..
The last two games have really showcased Hill’s limitations and their effect on the team’s performance as a whole.
One half of a football game, and Dubs finally realizes this.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 29, 2009 2:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The last two games have really showcased Hill’s limitations
What part of this looks like “one half of football”
Keep trying, you’re getting it.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 29, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I contend that Hills limitations were present but not really handicapping the team in the first four games.
The last two, he didn’t get it done in pretty spectacular fashion. In the first four games, he was there when needed, but didn’t actively hurt the team. My assumption was that he beat out Smith in preseason because he was better than Smith. One half of football suggests otherwise, as do Sing’s comments on Monday (though I suspect that’s a tiger changing his stripes more than anything else).
In the first four games, Hill’s inability to consistently drive the ball down the field resutled in our defense giving up 16, 10, 20, and 0 points. It wasn’t hurting our team. Did he have limitations? Yes, I never contended that he didn’t. I merely pointed out that in those first 4 games, his lack of arm strength, etc. was not clearly putting the defense in bad positions. In the last two games, 45, 21. I don’t really see where you don’t see the difference.
I still see the Atlanta game as a bit of a fluke in that we went from in scoring position and potentially down 1 to down 18 in a span of 3 minutes, but I digress.
As long as the coach was more comfortable with Hill and as long as he was not hurting the team, he was OK by me. He took a serious turn for the worse against Atlanta, and didn’t get anything done against a very suspect Houston defense. As I’ve always said, as long as Smith isn’t turning the ball over, he’s the better option. With our defense, no turnovers is very important… though, we still need a better pass rush.
See? It’s called explaining your reasoning instead of just heckling people. Try it.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 29, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're fooling yourself if you think Hill wasn't hurting the team against STL.
Just because the team won that game handily doesn’t mean that everybody performed well, even the QB.
There’s no question – I don’t think – that Hill performed better in the preseason, but the simple truth is that the gap was small, and he really won it by default: Smith looked bad, and then got hurt, more than Hill demonstrating anything particularly impressive.
Of course, winning by default is still winning. But I think we need to be careful of any revisionist history about the preseason: Hill looked bad. Smith looked worse.
I like Smith (and, honestly, I think he’s done everything anybody could ask of him except the single most important thing: play QB well) and wanted him to win, but I couldn’t see any justification for putting him over Hill at the end of the preseason. It just wasn’t there.
But obviously a lot of us have been hoping that it would click for Smith at some point, that he would get it and become a decent quarterback. I think a lot of people are jumping the gun assuming that’s happened – it may have, but really, I want to see Smith do more. (I don’t have high expectations against Indy – I suspect he’ll do poorly, and some Hill fans will call for his head thinking it means something. I think we’ll know if he’s turned the corner after the CHicago and Tenn games, however).
by Ronaldinho on Oct 29, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've always been a Smith apologist
and I feel the same way you do about him. I also think that while Smith played spectacularly in that second half it doesn’t anoint him the second coming of Steve Young.
As I said earlier if he can improve our offense by 20-25% that’ll be a vast improvement and keep us competitive in most every game. In fact if we had that much improvement over our previous games we’d be at 5-1 now, not 3-3.
I’ve also said elsewhere that I don’t think we can win this game against the Colts. We’re not built that way, but if Alex Smith can keep our offense to within 10 points of the Colts I’ll consider him a success in that game.
by smileyman on Oct 29, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In general
Up to the Atlanta game, I didn’t see too many blatant “OMG, Hill totally screwed that play by himself” plays. Sure, our offense was never spectacular, but it never shot our defense in the foot. Our opponents didn’t seem too able to take advantage of the 3 and outs, the offense wasn’t completely anemic, and we’d kept the games close enough that Hill could put together one drive FTW. In the first 4 games, Hill was not great, but not terrible, but our OLine was worse, and the running game was non-existent. However, against ATL, Hill was terrible. He reacted very poorly to the rush and he made no throws (the pass to VD was more scheme than anything else, and the pass to Josh Morgan should have been a tackle before the 1st down marker, but Josh Morgan made a play). He also started the downfall by holding onto the ball and getting sacked pushing us out of field goal position in a close game. It was a bad game from him.
Previously, he had not been great by any measure, but he’d been OK, he hadn’t turned the ball over, and he hadn’t put our defense in tough positions. Against Atlanta, he didn’t do anything, our defense gave him great field position, and he lost yardage. That’s called shooting your defense in the foot. Not putting points on the board when they give you the ball at the 30.
Against Houston, he was bad, then we got behind, way behind. The Shaun Hill offense, as I’ve always said, is not meant for comebacks. It’s meant for taking care of the ball, putting a few points on the board, and letting your defense do the talking. Given the options of Hill and a slightly worse guy with a better arm who turns the ball overmore, Hill is the better option. However, after falling behind 21-0 at halftime with your offense at a grand total of 1 yard in the first quarter and 49 in the second quarter, you’ve got to do something because you now have to win the game with your offense. Sure, we could have changed up something else, but the LOLine is already scraping the bottom of the barrel, and we’d already upgraded our RB & WRs. And if you need a QB who can lead a passing oriented comeback down 21, Shaun Hill is not your man.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 29, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Not hurt by the 3-and-outs"
I beg to differ here.
We have a good defense, but even the best defenses get worn down if they’re on the field too long. You keep giving the ball to the other team in the first half, you suffer for it in the second half.
I think we also have to acknowledge the possibility (we’ll learn more against Tenn and Chicago) that the running game is so bad because teams don’t fear Hill – the safties are crowding the box, making offensive line reads more challenging and bringing more tacklers into play.
by Ronaldinho on Oct 30, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Against Arizona, Seattle, Minny, and Saint Louis
Our defense was not appreciably hurt. Unless you think they were tired on that last drive from Favre (I think they were a little too passive and Favre got lucky/is Favre). Not counting that last drive (because I’m attributing it to other reasons), the lack of three and outs contributed to 16, 10, 13, and 0 points in the first four games. Those are excellent numbers for a defense, and the Niners D would be hard pressed to improve on those with any QB. By this reasoning, Hill’s 3 & outs did not actively hurt our defense’s performance. Maybe it was a wearing down that showed up in recent weeks, I don’t know. But it didn’t become a serious problem until the last two games.
I think we also have to acknowledge the possibility (we’ll learn more against Tenn and Chicago) that the running game is so bad because teams don’t fear Hill – the safties are crowding the box, making offensive line reads more challenging and bringing more tacklers into play.
Certainly a possibility. But the LOLine has sucked against everybody in every situation. If defenses have to worry about the pass more, it’ll certainly help the run offense, but the LOLine is still terrible.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 30, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cmon, I think that's a little disingenuous
there’s a world of difference between ’it’s too early to judge Alex Smith, due to the nature of the defence played’ and being a Hill apologist.
Debates work a lot better when you don’t put up a straw man
by bobnothing on Oct 27, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
Because clearly my previous post was meant to be taken 100% seriously. No, make that 1000% seriously.
10,000% seriously?
by Ronaldinho on Oct 27, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(Read this as it was delivered in deadpan by Vince Lombardi)
You need to learn something, son. Seriousness (or lack thereof) does not translate to the interwebz. Whatever you write will be read by everybody differently, based on their own opinions, and mood at the time they read it. Sarcasm, especially small little hints, son, does not translate well, and it’s insulting to the internet community when you try to use it. Shame on you.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
People need to remember to change the batteries on their sarcasm detectors
Those darn things run out at the worst possible time, without fail.
Murphy’s law or something.
by Ronaldinho on Oct 27, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hooked mine up to solar.
And it still malfunctions. Plus, Sarcasms-R-Us has terrible customer support.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Methinks this quote might suggest the level of seriousness of the comment
According to all the Hill apologists, Smith was only able to complete passes because the Texans smoked a pound of marijuana at halftime and lacked the energy to rush the passer!
Seriously, did you actually read past “According to all the Hill apologists…” cuz, it doesn’t really seem like you did. Seriously.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we are going label Hill supporters 'Hill apologists'
Than Alex Smith supporters are ‘Smith apologists’. If you want a true definition of ‘Hill apologists’, it’s former ‘Smith apologists’ that just gave up the cause.
I read it as a cheap shot too. I don’t recall one Hill supporter saying Alex passed well because the Texans took the 2nd half off and dropped 30 yards back in coverage. The only one who suggested that absurd idea was the trolling Texan fan.
by bignerd on Oct 27, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cheap shot or not
It was still written with lots of exclamation points by a guy who usually constructs reasonable arguments. It was sarcastic. Don’t take it seriously.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That woudl be so sweet to beat the Colts with Smith as our Qb. He gets like 4 TDs 250 yds and Crabtree gets his 1st TD. Hope to God that something like this happens 28-21 niners
49ers al Grito de Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Oct 26, 2009 10:26 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I want some of what you're smoking
I don’t think we stand a chance in of winning. If we can keep it within 10 points though I’ll be very happy.
by smileyman on Oct 26, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anything can happen...
Hopefully our offense steps up and our special teams doesnt loose us another game.
by june8thjrat on Oct 26, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yo im just drinking the cool aid. I believe we got a small chance to win
49ers al Grito de Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Oct 26, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cool aid
This is becoming a thing for you, isn’t it? Go with what makes you happy, I guess.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup :) I like kool aid
49ers al Grito de Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Oct 27, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
49ers al Grito de Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Oct 28, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This may be a little biased...
But i think we CAN win this… Of course Indy is the better team right now, but hey, if we catch them on a bad day, you never know. Crazier things have happened…
What would be even better… Cards lose to Carolina as well..
Okay, asking for WAY to much.
by ZonaBacks10 on Oct 26, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yee of little faith
This will be one to marvel on (delivering the first loss to the Colts)
"Optimist Prime"
"Child Please" -Ochocinco
by rlott#42 on Oct 27, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to say this has any kind of huge effect on the outcome of a game.....
But I would feel worse about the niners chance of winning if the Colts had already lost a game, just based on the laws of probability, because you can look at that team and it is most likely they will only lose 2-4 games this year (barring fatal injury to Peyton Manning lol)…but since they haven’t lost yet, and it is almost mid-season, the odds of them losing to the Niners increases
by sanfranfanmdk on Oct 27, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to introduce you to my friend the Gambler’s Fallacy.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
by Viliphied on Oct 27, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love the NINERS, but you're in la-la land
I certainly am an optimistic person, but I would be detached from reality to say I believe what your talking.
by eazyazamp on Oct 27, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some more fuel for the fire
Our 3rd down conversion rate is horrid—among the worst in the league.
7-18 vs AZ 39%
5-15 vs Seattle 33%
0-11 vs Minnesota 0%
4-13 vs St. Louis 13%
4-14 vs Atlanta 29%
4-11 vs Houston 36%
However, in the second half we were 2/4 on 3rd down rates, which means Shaun Hill was 2/7 for 3rd down. Smith was 50% which is a 15% improvement over our previous numbers.
I’ll take a 15% improvement in our offense. A 15% improvement in offense would’ve turned our losses at Texas and Minnesota to victories and we’d be at 5-1 instead of 3-3.
Hill’s passing yards have been terrible too. Here are his per game numbers
vs arizona 182
vs Seattle 123
VS Minnesota 188
vs St. Louis 132
Vs Atlanta 179
That’s an average of 160 yards a game passing.
Smith threw more yards in one half than Hill has in any one game. I know we were playing from behind, but we were also playing from behind in Atlanta and Hill still didn’t throw for that many yards. If we can get 250 yards a game out of Smith I’ll be happy.
I know yardage doesn’t equal points but if we get one more score out of each game that we’ve played we’re 5-1 instead of 3-3.
That’s why I like our chances with Smith better than Hill.
by smileyman on Oct 26, 2009 11:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
First of all, it was 3/5.
More importantly, say it with me:
Sam Pull
Psis
5 opportunities is not remotely statistically significant. However, the WAY Smith converted the 3rd downs is significant.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, it's not a big enough sample to mean anything
but it’s an encouraging sign. Like I said, if we can get a 20-25% improvement in our offense it’ll be a huge deal for us and it will make our team much better than it already is.
by smileyman on Oct 27, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
I’ll take 3/5 over 10/100 any day of the week. Just saying, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Nobody converts over 50% of 3rd downs. If Alex Smith can “keep it up,” he’s a shoe in for the HoF… which is my way of saying: He ain’t no Hugh Hefner.
If he can improve the offense at all, even on first down, second down, or fourth down, it’s a good thing.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting...
but check the math, 4 out of 13 (Vs St Louis) is a little over 30% lol, but good points
by sanfranfanmdk on Oct 27, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vernons 2nd TD
If you watch closely on the replay Vernon goes about 10 yards out and fakes to the outside, spins, and then breaks the end zone.
by goatfather on Oct 27, 2009 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the breakdown
And I read that Crabtree wasn’t on the field for VD’s first TD, yet when you look at the replay, not only was VD open but so was the WR on the left sideline (for a TD) and Norris for the 1st down on the right sideline. Why? Because we flooded the field with receivers and the line actually blocked. Now we have a QB that make all those throws.
I also think I’m the only one who agrees with the decision to take the final delay of game and not use the T.O. If Alex isn’t pressured (rusher beat Bass inside) on his final throw, that’s a 1st down twenty yards up the field. We would’ve called the T.O. then. In that situation I’d rather have to make up for 5 yards then possibly 15 seconds (time to run the play, get to the line and spike it).
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Oct 27, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No way
I’ve been a longtime supporter of at least considering taking the 5 yards rather than the timeout.
Its actually a lot worse in basketball, when guys are falling out of bounds they always use a timeout. Neither situation seems to warrant using the valuable timeouts, at least in every instance.
by Stoned Slacker on Oct 27, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was a vet move by Smith
I still say that if Brady or Favre had done that, the announcers would’ve slobbered about how wise it was by a veteran QB to save the T.O. and how five yards don’t mean more than saved time in that situation. That Smith did it when not playing in two years gives me more hope in his having matured as a QB the past few seasons.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Oct 27, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First off
Great DeBartolo line in your postscript. Funny how much he and and Walsh used to talk about kicking ass.
But that play was actually an illegal substitution call on Battle. Just that the refs didn’t annouce it clearly, and the announcers were totally confused.
by Stoned Slacker on Oct 27, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I went and watched that last drive again and I think you're right
I think Smith was trying to throw to the back end guy (I believe it was Crabtree) who was open and just threw it short.
by smileyman on Oct 27, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was Davis
and Smith as he threw it
by goatfather on Oct 27, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
Smith was hit as he threw it
by goatfather on Oct 27, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep - Vernon
And think, he was behind the secondary. He catches that ball and is either tackled inside the Houston 40 yard line or, in a perfect world, breaks the initial hit and gets out of bounds near the 30. Ahh, but for Bass.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Oct 27, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, he's standing at the 35 after slowing down.
He’d have at least caught the ball at the 25… with one DB there to tackle him, or not… you know what happens with “not.”
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A 4 TD game winner?!
How the discussion boards would be different then. One play away. Wow.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Oct 27, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
Again, that would require Smith to make a great throw, VD to make a catch over a DB, and then break a tackle. Also, even a slightly underthrown ball brings another DB into the picture.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I watched the last drive again
and I agree. In fact I’ve taken a screenshot of that last interception and you can see the behind man was open. I think that Smith being hit as he threw caused the ball to go short.
(And how does a four man rush cause pressure on a pass play? We’ve got five men to block four and he’s still getting pressured? Pathetic.)
by smileyman on Oct 27, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can see the behind man was open
You’ll have to show me an endzone view for me to believe that. Once the ball is in the air, the DBs bite to WHERE THE BALL IS GOING rather than running with Crabby. It’s certainly possible that Crabby had a step/momentum on them and was getting behind them, but I’ll wait till I see video evidence to believe that. Once the ball went in the air, the DBs converged on the ball, thus when the ball gets to its destination, the DBs have been moving for a second or two in the opposite direction of Crabtree.
One thing that really sticks out is Bruce (or somebody) wide open about 6 yards downfield because the defense was sitting back at the first down marker. That 5 yard penalty really tightened the defense and cut down on the options. I still say it was a bad decision to forgo the timeout. There’s no use keeping your timeouts if you’re not even going to get there. If it was 3rd down or 2nd down, take the 5 yards. On 4th down, the only thing you should be worried about is getting the 1st.
The media would fawn over and show slo-mo replays of Favre or Brady wiping after a big dump (“See that flick of the wrist? That’s the efficient movement of an experienced folder.”). Just because they’d applaud the move by these two doesn’t make it a good move.
4 man fronts get pressure plenty of the time. All it takes is 1 of 3 guys winning a one-on-one battle. Failing to do that is not ideal, but not exactly pathetic. And… with our LOLine, I’m just happy they kept Alex on his feet long enough to even TRY to make the throw.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was it VD going deep?
My favorite part of the play is the announcers saying “he has time” as he’s getting hit.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, look above
there is a screen shot, thats VD
by goatfather on Oct 27, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Updates are fun!
A deep toss up for VD against a DB is certainly about as good as you’ll get. Too bad he didn’t get it off properly. But, he did have the arm strength to get the ball downfield while getting hit, so that’s a plus ;-).
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, it's VD
And I too thought, you never know if they came off coverage when it’s thrown. But the throw was short and had less zip due to Alex being hit as he threw. I think a clean throw finds Vernon open with only a safety (from what I can tell) back there. All other DBs appear to be focused on the underneath receivers, assuming that Smith would just get the first and they’d make the tackle in bounds.
We disagree on the T.O.
And I also can’t tell who is open short along the sideline. It might’ve been Gore and he would’ve made the first and gotten out of bounds. Of course that was likely his second or third read and he saw his deeper man open. Unfortunately with pressure non of the open options can happen.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Oct 27, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh...
If only Baas had realized that the DL was stunting.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was the outside receiver
And if Alex throws the ball short, the Texans have two defenders at the 1st down marker to come up and make the tackle. They’d have a second to come down while the ball is in the air too. Without a broken tackle, that’s not a first down.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I thought that was ironic
Looked to me like Alex was getting pressured almost immediately and had a defender on him about 2 seconds into it.
by smileyman on Oct 27, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One point
“3rd play — Delay of game time out (this is a really heads up play I think to not waste a time out)”
___________________________________________
At the time I agreed, thought it was fantastic that for once a team gave up 5 yards over a valuable time out, they usually do it instinctively and not sure its always smart.
But anyway, didn’t they figure out that in the end it was actually a 12-man penalty?
by Stoned Slacker on Oct 27, 2009 12:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Called ’em for delay of game.
by smileyman on Oct 27, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just looked it up, it was an illegal substitution
1st and 10 at SF 39 PENALTY on SF-J.Morgan, Illegal Substitution, 5 yards, enforced at SF 39 – No Play.
by Stoned Slacker on Oct 27, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good job with the chronology and the third down conversion stats.
The passing yards comparison was an eye opener also.
by Natural Red on Oct 27, 2009 12:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nit pick
I think when he “overthrows” gore (2nd play of the 5th drive) Smith is actually throwing it away in Gore’s direction, or else Gore is not where he’s supposed to be. Smith gestures to him after Gore gives him “the look”.
Taking an incomplete there isn’t too bad if he thinks Gore is going to get tackled for a minimal game inbounds.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on Oct 27, 2009 2:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
agree
Gore was going to be swallowed by two guys
by goatfather on Oct 27, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Goat
This is Geoff. You know I’ve been saying Smith needed his chance all year, now is his time. Like I said on the phone earlier, i actually feel that this game might be winnable for us. I can see this being a trap game for Indy and I’d love if the 9ers could upset and hand them their first loss of the season. I mean, if Miami can ALMOST beat them, we have a shot at actually winning too.
by return2greatness on Oct 27, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can win
I just put poison in Payton’s bottle of Awesome Juice.
Were good!!
by goatfather on Oct 27, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But...
… we’re not playing the Saints.
by sfgfan on Oct 27, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my bad son
I come from where people don’t name their children Peyton
by goatfather on Oct 28, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the 'overthrow'
agreed—looked to me like he did it on purpose. He knew he was in the pocket so if he didn’t throw it close to Gore it would’ve been intentional grounding. I often wonder why backs will catch passes on botched screens or other passes behind the line when it hurts the team yardage-wise. Gore would’ve gained maybe 4 yards, so the ‘overthrow’ was probably calculated.
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
by grantmp on Oct 27, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I often wonder why backs will catch passes on botched screens or other passes behind the line when it hurts the team yardage-wise.
Because they’re taught to catch the ball, then try to make a play.
I think he was trying to get it to Gore, and I think Gore could have got out of bounds. But maybe that’s just me.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, I understand
but looking at it from the outside, it sometimes seems like a knockdown would just follow from good situational awareness.
And you might be right about the pass—Gore was right on the sideline.
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
by grantmp on Oct 28, 2009 6:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you.
I think that when the clock is ticking and the play is already blown, the likelihood of “making something out of nothing” is extremely rare. Stopping the clock and/or minimizing potential negative plays (i.e. botched catch that gets tipped and picked) should be top priority in those situations.
by sfgfan on Oct 28, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First
Pro level athletes ALWAYS believe in themselves. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have made it to the NFL.
Second, it’s such a rare occurrence that it does not make sense to practice or train players to not catch the ball in those situations. Furthermore, a RB looking back for a screen cannot see the DE bearing down on him. For all he knows, the blocking is there and he can make a 15-20 yard gain as the play was designed. You’re watching on TV, your experience is VASTLY different from the RB’s, who does not have eyes in the back of his head.
It’s the QBs responsibility to throw it at the RB’s feet if he doesn’t want the RB to catch the ball. The QB can see who’s about to tackle the RB.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 28, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Believing...
… in yourself doesn’t equal success. I’m talking about botched plays, not a designed screen where all the blockers are there. The QB is running for his life in these scenarios and even the best QBs will have inaccuracies on the run.
Finally:
Second, it’s such a rare occurrence that it does not make sense to practice or train players to not catch the ball in those situations.
That’s why it’s called, “situational awareness.” You can be taught awareness, but it can also be an inherent property you possess.
by sfgfan on Oct 28, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And how do you deal with this:
a RB looking back for a screen cannot see the DE bearing down on him.
Which is worse?
A – A RB who catches the ball and gets tackled, wasting precious time.
B – A RB who drops the ball, using his “situational awareness,” only to turn around and see wide open field?
I say the latter. Plus, there’s always the chance of a broken tackle.
And on a “botched screen,” how do you determine that the play is botched? On a screen, the QB is supposed to have 3 guys bearing down on him. Only the QB can see that there are 3 guys ready to tackle the RB. That’s why you DO see QBs throw the ball at the feet of RBs occasionally. Again, the RB does not have eyes in the back of his head and cannot see the DE who’s ready to tackle him immediately. Please explain how the RB is supposed to be “aware” of things behind him. Do DBs have a distinct smell? Do they breathe heavily?
Believing in yourself doesn’t equal success, but everyone who’s successful believes in themselves. You read that the wrong way. All NFL players are successful, thus all believe in themselves. If you believe you can break a tackle, juke a LB, then you believe you can make a positive play.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 28, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please explain how the RB is supposed to be "aware" of things behind him.
Do you seriously believe that a WR/TE/RB is looking back at the QB the whole time?
Also, the play was not a botched screen. It was a botched player where Gore was an emergency option. In the situation the 49ers were in (less than two minutes, with a WHOLE FOOTBALL FIELD to go), I’d say option A would be far worse than option B, especially if the WRs were going down field.
by sfgfan on Oct 28, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're talking about the specific play
Then either:
A) The QB made a bad throw and the RB didn’t have to make ANY decision
or
B) The QB made the decision to throw the ball away near Gore to stop the clock, but not near Gore’s hands so the RB wouldn’t mistakenly catch it.
On all else, read what Ronaldinho wrote. The key part being:
a receiver has to be focused on catching the ball. He has to not think about happens AFTER he catches the ball until he catches it.
Duh. Do you seriously think that a WR/TE/RB should NOT be looking at the ball as it’s traveling towards him?
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 28, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
I completely understand watching the ball into your hands (baseball, football, it all applies the same). However, when running the route, the player doesn’t turn for the QB all but a few times, the rest of the time his focus should be on his field ahead of him.
Did you misinterpret what I was asking? Or do you literally think the RB watches the QB the whole time he’s running his route?
by sfgfan on Oct 28, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some jobs require multi-tasknig
Others require intense focus on one thing at a time. Clearly, we disagree on whether a receiver should be multi-tasking.
You can watch the field, and then turn to “watch the ball into your hands” and the ENTIRE field changes in that fraction of a second.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 28, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SFGfan -
Obviously you’re right, it’s better for a guy to have that sort of situational awareness and drop the pass to stop the clock rather than catch it when there will usually be worse field position and more time off the clock.
I think, however, that you’re simply not being fair to the realities of being a player at that high a level. The margins for error are so small that athletes have to be completely focused on the task at hand.
A blocker has to be focused on blocking his man – if he’s trying to remain aware of if the guy next to him needs help, he’ll screw up, often.
A tackler has to be focused on making the tackle. If he’s trying to make the tackle AND watch for the pitch out, he’ll miss a lot of tackles.
And a receiver has to be focused on catching the ball. He has to not think about happens AFTER he catches the ball until he catches it. We’ve all seen what happens when a receiver doesn’t do this: the ball clangs off his hands.
These guys are conditioned time and time again: catch first, figure out what to do with the ball second. If they weren’t conditioned like this, they would drop many more balls.
So while it’s true that in some rare situations, receivers would be well-served by NOT catching the ball, the cost you would pay for this was more drops when you wanted the guy to catch the ball, as he was busy engaging his logical mind (“do I catch this ball or not?”) rather than just staying focused on the task at hand.
RBs, WRs, and TEs in the league are not trained to think. They are trained to make a specific read and then run precisely the route that the QB is expecting them to run, no ifs, ands or buts.
The QB, on the other hand, is trained to think dynamically. Throwing the ball away – even if it means throwing it at the feet of an open player – is part of his job description.
by Ronaldinho on Oct 28, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Call me "Idealistic"...
… but I just don’t think that “not being taught to think” is not a good excuse. Maybe I’m not giving the skill players enough slack in those small situations, but players should always think. Why else do coaches preach being “smart” players? Why the heck does Mark Roman still have a job?
Again, I understand that maybe I’m not cutting them enough slack. I just feel that smarter play could benefit all, even if they’re not “conditioned” to be that way.
by sfgfan on Oct 28, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don't disagree with you ...
… except that I think it comes at a cost: more drops.
You ask the athlete to divide his attention, he’ll do the task he used to do with 100% attention worse.
How many more drops are you willing to put up with for that situational awareness? (Understanding, of course, that “zero” is not a reasonable answer.)
by Ronaldinho on Oct 28, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a very good question.
I really don’t know. Again, I’m guessing my idea was just too idealistic.
by sfgfan on Oct 28, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ideally
Our QB will throw it away or at the RBs feet if he’s just throwing it away too. And that’s far more realistic than asking a RB to knock the ball to the ground or something.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 28, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scouts Inc.
Gives the edge to:
Indy – QB (shocking) WR, RB, OL and DB
49ers – DL, LB, ST and Coach
I guess four out of nine categories isn’t too bad huh?
Especially against a team like Indy. Although I would give us the RB edge and them the DL edge but hey, I ain’t complaining.
by return2greatness on Oct 27, 2009 3:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
I love Gore and I’m ok with Coffee. But Addai is still decent and Brown is quick and tough. He can catch the ball really well in the backfield.
by agchee on Oct 27, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They definitely get the DL edge
Especially once we go into “we’re down by 3 scores and we need to pass” mode and Freeney & Mathis start taking turns bumrushing Barry Sims.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
duno
their DL is really bad against the run.
Like REALLY bad.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
by Viliphied on Oct 27, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like Niners LOLine bad?
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 27, 2009 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha LOL
49ers al Grito de Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Oct 28, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
I’d give us secondary and them DL. But then they have a better pass rush which probably makes their secondary look better than it is, whereas our weaker pass rush makes our secondary look worse than it is.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Oct 27, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alex Smith
I just looked at his game log (link below) in 2007 in his full season and now feeling so much better up the remainder of the season.
Half of his games were great, and half not so great. But supposedly now he is a bit better, more experienced, and more mature.
Plus I think we have a better team now than we did when we finished 7-9 that year.
Those stats are average, with some really good offensive games, but still seems better than what Hill is capable of, and seem like can those stats can only be improved with the weapons we have now.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7177/gamelog;_ylt=AheVatMUnSDK5ZTn3KdTllb.uLYF?year=2006
by fortyniners on Oct 28, 2009 2:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Difference is...
… Norv Turner actually knows how to call an offense. Raye has yet to really show he can.
by sfgfan on Oct 28, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
alex smith
was statistically the worst QB in the NFL in 2007 according to Football outsiders.
Actually, technically Trent Dilfer was worse.
I see maybe a couple games where he was adequate – the win against STL week 2 looks good. Mostly a bunch of sub 200 yard games and very mediocre YPA.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on Oct 28, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That looks familiar
Mostly a bunch of sub 200 yard games and very mediocre YPA
Are you talking about Smith in 2007, or Hill in 2009?
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
by urnext on Oct 28, 2009 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, 2006 was the year he started every game with Norv Turner
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
by urnext on Oct 28, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can they call more screen passes?
It’s the best way to slow down an inevitable crazy pass rush from Indy as well as getting the ball to playmakers Davis and Crabtree quickly. Smith might hurt his shoulder again if they have him taking snaps under center too much because I don’t think the OL can hold up long against Freeney and Mathis.
Smith is actually pretty accurate and has a strong arm, his shortcomings were always not enough time to pass (OL partially to blame) and going through his progressions too slow when compared to Hill. All that can be masked with a spread offense as he will have a little more time to pass and there will be at least 2 receivers either open or only covered man-to-man.
Win the inning.
by Scooter Ellis on Oct 28, 2009 5:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Westcoast Spread Offense sounds good to me
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Oct 28, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hat to say it but, we need to run the ball a lot against indy.
Their pass rush and our Oline. Scary, Run, screen, old “west-coast” style Roger Craig type plays. Anything to avoid sacks and pressures. Keep Smith healthy!
by zacksf on Oct 28, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smileyman. This is a great post.
I really appreciate the play-by-play breakdown and your discussion. Outstanding contribution. Thank you!
by zacksf on Oct 28, 2009 8:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Soooo...
2 weeks ago, Smith was gonna kill the 49ers due to his penchant for INT’s.
One half of football, and all of the sudden, he is Elway reborn.
Jeebus.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 29, 2009 2:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
