Vikings 27 - 49ers 24: Cutting to the "offensive" chase
by David Fucillo on Sep 28, 2009 8:00 AM PDT
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintNormally this would be the spot where I do a rundown of the Mike Singletary's "Formula for Success" for yesterday's game. However, I think it's safe to say "Finish" is what we would have focused on and I really just don't feel like thinking about that aspect of the game today.
Instead, I thought we should just cut to the offensive chase this morning. As Florida Danny pointed out multiple times yesterday, the so-called "direct" cause of the 49ers loss was Mark Roman's epic fail on that final play. However, much of the discussion in the recap threads centered on one of the more "indirect" causes of yesterday's loss (if you want to refer to it as that): the conservative play-calling of the offense.
I think Sando set it up well yesterday evening as one of his Key Issues in the NFC West:
Are the 49ers far too conservative in their offensive play calling? Did that cost them against the Vikings? Or are they simply establishing their identity while avoiding the mistakes that hurt them so badly last season?
After the jump I've got my own thoughts on aspects of the offense, but I'd like to focus the conversation in here (as opposed to multiple FanPosts). After the game somebody (I think it was Singletary but I'm not positive) said something along the lines of how people wouldn't be complaining about the offensive play-calling if the team had won. It's safe to say that would not be the case. People would certainly be focusing on the positives, but I know at least here at Niners Nation, folks would definitely have still had plenty to say about the offensive negatives.
We'll take a look at some areas on offense that have caused problems, and other areas that could provide solutions.
Rushing Attack
The biggest issue remains the way the offense utilizes running plays. That halfback dive up the middle or off guard is fine, but as many have said, why not mix things up with more stretch and sweep type plays? Given some of the offensive line struggles and the fact that Frank Gore is likely out at least a week, if not more, maybe it's time to mix up the running plays.
This is by far the most frustrating aspect of the offense. It honestly seems like they run one play with some slight variations. Basically, the team lines up in an I-formation and sends Josh Morgan in motion. Morgan stops and faces perpendicular to either the left or right tackle. Have the 49ers ever passed after that kind of motion? I'd be happy to double-check, but I'd bet good money they haven't.
It's perfectly fine to want to force the rushing game and build around that. Even if they know you're going to rush against you, I can see why you want to build that attack. At the same time, wouldn't it be perfectly logical to actually try different rushing plays? At least keep the defense off guard in that sense.
Vernon Davis
One area that most everybody can agree on as being an improvement was the utilization of Vernon Davis. Davis gets a lot of crap for dropping balls and some of his pointless celebrations, but I think it's safe to say he's one tough S.O.B. I state that not just because he had one good game. Rather, he's shown a willingness to go into the proverbial danger zone, over the middle of the field. More importantly, he's shown an ability to go up in traffic and bring down big receptions even with multiple defenders covering him. I really enjoy watching him make the type of catch we saw on his second touchdown. He went up above the two defenders, brought the ball down, and held on even as he was getting popped by both guys.
People will complain about how he should have been doing that all along, but for this thread I'm just going to applaud Vernon for his fantastic efforts. It's entirely possible this game was just an aberration and folks will go back to being frustrated by Davis. At the same time, given the loss of Frank Gore, it's entirely possible Jimmy Raye recognizes Davis' abilities and will work him even further into the game plan. Hey, a man can hope can't he?
Quarterback
Shaun Hill stepped up yet again in the 4th quarter. I've had my questions about Hill, but he seems to have a sense for the moment and an ability to generate big drives. Whether folks call him clutch, or whatever, he has shown a knack for stepping up in the fourth quarter (now if only we could see that in the third quarter).
What I find a bit odd is the way the team has utilized him, or in reality NOT utilized him, after some of these big drives. I understand wanting to run out the clock, but there really has to be a better way than 3 carries, a cloud of dust and a punt. I actually had a random idea that I know would never be used, but I'd just like to throw out there:
Say you've run twice and it's now 3rd and 5 or 6. Given the fact that team's do actually pay scouts and get film of their opponents, other teams are probably getting to the point of abandoning any semblance of a pass defense on those kinds of late drives. The first obvious choice is to mix in play action on that 3rd down play. Of course, Jimmy Raye seems to only be inclined to use play action once a game (the first play of the game I believe), so that's out the window. So why not have Shaun Hill take the snap and drop back and then if nothing is open either run forward and slide or have a running back to dump it off too? Or heck, just take a knee if really want to.
I realize Jimmy Raye's running play could conceivably gain that first down, but it hasn't yet. And when you haven't converted a single third down without the help of a penalty, maybe it's time to try something new. Or maybe Jimmy Raye just thought they were due!
Conclusions
No matter how much of an optimist you are, you have to admit that the offensive woes would appear to be something the team will be contending with for much of the season. Or at the very least, one might argue they'll be dealing with this until they fix the play-calling. Or maybe the optimists would argue the play-calling is fine and things are just slowly developing. I really have no idea.
Either way, as always I think there is some good and bad to be drawn from the offensive woes of yesterday. I really do wonder if Raye will look to the Hill-Davis connection a little more frequently in these next couple of games while Gore is on the shelf. Obviously our beloved OC will be looking to force the rushing attack. However, maybe some adjustment will actually be made to push the ball down field with a little more frequency. For now I'm not gonna hold my breath.
215 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
1 of morgan's catchs was out of that formation
Faked the handoff with coffee going left and rolled out right to hit Morgan in the flat, was a very good play.
If your going to line up in a formation over and over you have to mix it up, but have everything look exactly the same for the first 2 steps.
Instead of keeping them guessing constantly we only do the pass out of that once =/
thanks for the clarification
But you’re right, doing the same thing 99% of the time is probably not the best idea in the world long term.
by David Fucillo on Sep 28, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, they ran that play twice, for 2 catches
Basically using Morgan like a tight end in that formation, very effective, but how many times can you do that anyway?
They did it twice in the game ....
and the play was successful both times. I would have to watch the game on my DVR again to be 100% sure about the specific plays, but I remember while watching the game the two passing plays to Morgan from that formation.
The first was the 3rd possession of the 2nd quarter after the Vikings 52 yards field goal. It went for 13 yards and a first down on first and 10. It was largely forgotten since we went 3 plays and punted after that.
The second time came on our 2nd possession of the third quarter. A nice eight yard gain on first and 10 in the drive where Nedney hit the 37-yard field goal. This play came directly after Coffee had his best run of the game for 13 yards.
These are the type of plays we have to use more of. I am not too sure if they threw out of that formation on any other plays, but for the two plays that they completed to Morgan it was looking pretty good. Lets hope they do more of it in the future.
While
the offense was bland and unimaginative, it’s worth remembering that the Vikings have a very good defense. Yes, better play calling might have helped, but the lack of mistakes kept us in the game. A first down on that last possession would have won the game, as would a defensive stop at the end.
In reality, a win in Minnesota was unlikely. The fact that we almost won shows that this team is better than most of the experts forecast. We’re still leading our division, and there are a lot of positive signs for the rest of the season.
Key to the game: Score More
Do the VIkings have one of the best in the league? i know their run defense is pretty solid, but not sure about the pass… This is the perfect type of game to look back on and learn on, what we coulda done and shoulda done, they’ll probably be having a different game plan for the upcoming games that Gore doesnt play as to not put so much pressure on Coffee and Sheets (if he’s brought up) but i’m very excited for the rest of the season. I haven’t been this pissed off at a niner game in a while, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. Plus i feel they’re getting a bit more respect in the NFL
Singletary needs to yell at Raye.
If they call that play next week I’m jumping off the bridge (Unless it works of course). Great artical.
by japanesezero on Sep 28, 2009 8:54 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
I’m really surprised that so many people think Singletary didn’t endorse the playcalling on that final offensive series. It fits perfectly with the philosophies we’ve been talking about ad nauseum all offseason.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Our philosophy all season and preseason was to pound the rock, andddddd what have we been doing? RUNNING THE BALL, the passing in my mind has been a ton better than last year at this time, more fluid, but yea, passing a few more times would be nice. Although on the final play for the niners on O, we’d be arguing if they screwed up big time if they passed on that 3rd down, such as a sack or interception, rather running the ball is more protecting the ball obviously. Thing is, defense needed to come up big, but Lewis came up with a big catch when he needed to, that’s football
Yeah, when it comes down to that final touchdown catch, the players did everything they possibly could. The four man rush got Favre moving. The coverage was tight everywhere. Favre basically threw a pitch-perfect pass to a guy who made a fairly astounding catch. You can’t do anything about that play.
I wish we had been more aggressive from a playcalling standpoint about putting the Vikings down during the two minute period before that final play. I think the offense did everything it could with three runs up the gut, and playing for a punt there isn’t a terrible decision. You’re pinning the Vikings at the 20 with no timeouts and not a lot of time on the clock. I would have LIKED to see a pass, but the strategy we saw there has its reasons.
What really made me mad was the prevent-style defense after that. If you play for a punt to say “we trust our defense to close this out” you should ALLOW your defense to close the game out! The coaching hamstrung the players there, and – ultimately – we paid for it. Two inches this way or that way on that last play and we wouldn’t have paid for it, but conservative playcalling gave the Vikings a chance to be within throwing distance of the endzone. And even though the players did EVERYTHING right on that last play, leaving Favre in throwing distance of the endzone is always going to be putting your team in a position to possibly lose the game.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
well said
I made a similar but less articulate point below
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
HTS
great point about the cognitive dissonance in trusting your D to win the game, but then handcuffing them when you put them out on the field to win it.
i’d disagree with you, though, about the players doing “EVERYTHING” right on that last play. watch the play again. balmer doesn’t know whether he wants to rush or pass defend. and roman, oh roman! panic-stricken haphazard dart to the right when goldson harmlessly releases lewis into his zone, haphazard dart taking his momentum away from the ball thus giving him no ability to make a play on the ball or the WR trying to catch it. just a total mental breakdown on roman’s part, which is nothing new from him in pass DEF.
incidentally, dungy said last night that the DEF formation on that last play was horrible because it put half the DEF in the middle of the field (w/ 4 of the 5 ten yards in front of the goalline), when the sidelines and goalline were the only things that needed to be defended in that situation. i was struck by this when i saw it because earlier on MIN’s drive, i was wondering to myself, “how the hell are the MIN WRs getting so open on the sidelines? that’s the only thing to defend right now!” so now i know. SF was defending the middle of the field way too much on that last drive. that’s a coaching mistake mos def.
so i agree that the players mostly did everything right given the play that was called, but two players did make individual mistakes, with roman’s mistake (again) costing them the game.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Good thoughts...
though I can see why the middle of the field was being protect as well on the last MIN driver. One man named Percy Harvin… I think the Niners def rationalization also took note of Percy’s ability in speed and making people miss, how trying to ensure that he doesn’t get a chance to get one over the middle and see the field for a line to the endzone.
I do however think that the Niners should have just set 5 back one yard out of the endzone and play the stop score no matter what
yeah...
that’s how the situation is played 99% of the time in the NFL. i have no clue (even if there was a worry about harvin) why they chose not to play it that way. and if you’re right about the harvin worry, it’s probably the case that they didn’t know harvin wasn’t on the field for the final play.
incidentally, dungy’s breakdown also proved to me that the niners weren’t in a “prevent” defense, which is something else people have been railing about since the game ended. prevent would have put 5 guys on the goalline, you know, to “prevent” the TD. so basically, yeah, “prevent” defense only “prevents” winning. it just didn’t prevent winning that game.
oh, one last thing about defending the middle. the guy responsible for 15-yard midfield routes there is patrick willis. i’m pretty confident he could have tackled harvin by himself with the rest of the team guarding the sideline and goalline.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I still think that it was a prevent-style defense (which is what I’ve been trying to call it). I mean, they were rushing four on every play with the safeties back and the corners running the Nolan-patented ten-yard backpedal. Not a traditional, three-man rush, safeties on the goal-line prevent defense, but still very conservative with the aim of giving up yards to prevent the “big play.”
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
you say preven-TAY-to...
i say preven-TAH-to
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Rushing four?
I said it in another post and I’ll say it again here, we lost because of that Prevent style defense on the last drive. I remember seeing 3 man rushes early in that series, and it seemed like the 49ers were playing a soft zone trying to keep everything in front of them. Later, they went back to rushing 4 but that wasn’t until they had already gone 25 yards down field. But it still seemed like they were playing a soft zone. You just can’t do that in this league and especially against a guy like Farve! As almost always, the prevent defense, prevents you from winning! Why change a game plan that worked for most of the 2nd Half? I just think that they should have let the defense played the same way they did the previous series where they stopped the Vikings. But I also realize our offense sure didn’t help our cause on that last drive. I hate to say it but maybe on our last drive we should have tried to use the taser formation, just to give their defense something else to think about, and I am sure that would have eaten up a few more seconds on the clock compared to any of the 3 rushes, (one up the middle, two to the right) I mean wow really, we only used 20 seconds in our last drive. Oh well, here’s to hopping that this makes our team more determined and better, but I fear that this may hurt the mental aspect of our team and that they will start doubting themselves.
I remember seeing them rush four the whole drive, but memory is a funny thing that way so I won’t push it.
I think, except for a few minor points, we basically agree, though.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Balmer wasn't in on the final play
It was Lawson, Smith, McDonald and Harrison. Minnesota even kept the RB in to block so we rushed four against six. Minnesota only had four receivers in the pass pattern so in our zone had seven defenders.
@darknerd below, Harvin was out on the final play (in a twisting bit or irony, Lewis was in for him) since Harvin had consecutive fly patterns and was winded.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Counter-Point
Two thoughts:
One: If you only defend the sideline on the Vikings final drive, what’s to prevent a deep post from ripping your heart out? As I remember it Favre spiked the ball twice to stop the clock during the drive – so they would have had time for big gainer down the middle if we were only covering the sideline.
Two: There may have been two mistakes on the last play – but I think it’s important to remember that the final play was pretty phenomenal. Favre was almost sacked by Smith (he made a nice little Toro move to stay on his feet) and he was crushed about half a second after he released the ball by Lawson. And Lewis was in bounds by about three inches on his front foot and did an amazing job dragging his back foot. It was an incredible catch. Point being – if the niners and vikings lined up and ran that play ten times I think the Vikings score once or twice. Percentage-wise we had the right play called. Miracles happen and disaster does strike. Tip of the cap to the Vikings for making it happen and blame the play calling that preceded the Vikings final drive. They never should have gotten the ball back…But, of course, they did.
The big take away in my book is that we had a chance to win. Under Nolan, we’d have lost this game in the first quarter when Gore went out. The fact that we hung in and played with heart bodes well for this team. Plus, I think it’s a good thing that we’ll be playing angry. Run the table in the conference and we’ll see where we are come January. Go Niners!
Pablo's not fat. He's just got body.
by LeMasterBlaster on Sep 28, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm thinking three centimeters not inches
But you are correct, including your observation about if Nolan wsa coaching us. We also would’ve missed the chance to throw the challenge flag.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I just watched the play
ridiculous play. It’s not like the Niners dominated the game and gave it up at then end… they had a 4 point lead with 4 minutes to play, and ran 6 plays for a total of about 1 yard. Then just just got Farvred
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.
thoughts...
1) want to get this out of the way first because i think it’s important to point out. the 49ers demonstrated all of these OFF “woes” during the first two weeks, and the stats i presented on W and F last week clearly reflected it. 25% of runs go for 0 or negative yards? vs. MIN? check. 2.51 yards per RB carry when removing yards after 10 yards past the line of scrimmage (aka yards due to OL blocking only)? vs. MIN? check. 25th in successful runs on 3rd/4th down & 2 or less? vs. MIN: check. 25th in overall run OFF? vs. MIN? check. down & distance stats suggesting OFF gets a lot of their first downs on 1st down? vs. MIN? check. i’m not bringing this up to brag. rather, what i’m saying here is that i agree 100% with the idea that all of this complaining about the play-calling is — in large part — because the 49ers lost. i recognize that some people complained even during the 2-0 start. to them, i say congrats. to those who were content w/ the play-calling and the OFF overall during the first 2 games, but are now railing against raye after a loss, i say the devil has been in the details all along. you’re a little late to the party.
2) i agree 100% that the 49ers have seemed to put a governor on hill…and without much on-the-field evidence to justify it. i’m not talking specifically about that 3rd down run call at the end because that was the right call from a game theory (probabilistic) perspective. we can’t play the result on that call, which is what i think most people are doing in the postmortem. rather, i’m just talking about the general perception — which i share — that every time hill gets the opportunity to make plays in the passing game, he makes them. and, more importantly, the OFF seems to only function efficiently — outside of 80-yard runs by gore — when raye/singletary removes the governor on hill.
now, i think raye/singletary would say that hill’s successes in the passing game come precisely because they’re so stubborn in the run game. my argument against that kind of thinking is two-fold. first, because SF wants to be a run-oriented team that’s carried by their DEF & ST, using the pass to set up the run seems vastly more important than using the run to set up the pass, which is what the “hill does good because we run it stubbornly” argument basically ends up doing. if the OFF is going to be run-reliant, they should be using the pass to set up the run, not vice versa. singletary should already know this being a “coaching philosophy” disciple of bill walsh.
the second reason that an “establish the run OFF to make hill successful in the pass OFF” argument is hogwash is because it’s a well-known statistical fact that the majority of run yards come after the team has taken a lead via the passing game, not vice versa. IND on SNF last night was a perfect example. they passed the ball around to take the lead, but then started running at the vast majority of the time once they got a descent lead. so when the niners are being run-stubborn with a lead in the 4th quarter, it’s the right thing to do. again, that’s why i don’t fault running on the last 2 drives. however, when they’re being run-stubborn in the 1st quarter, it’s just bad strategy. and i’ll add that it’s esp bad on the road, when getting out to a descent lead early in the game is really important from a “quite the crowd” standpoint (aka removing the home-field advantage). specific to MIN, we have to believe that their DEF prepared for run, run, run from SF’s OFF in the early going. also, there’s that issue of the williams wall. given those circumstances, wouldn’t passing early have been the most effective strategy?
the basic point i’m making here is that, in utilizing the pass OFF during the early part of a game, raye & singletary need to “release the hounds!”
3) i agree 100% that the 49ers need to vary their play-calling within the run OFF. again, going back to the stats i posted last week, almost 60% of their runs are up the middle, they basically never run the ball outside right (not once until coffee’s 6-yard loss on that juggled misdirection pitch), and over 90% of their runs are within the tackle box. the worst part of it all is that, frankly, they’re bottom 10 in the league when it comes to actually gaining yards on up-the-middle runs, but top 10 when it comes to running outside left. if you’re going to run the ball so much, at least run it in directions that you’re good at blocking. likewise, if you’re going to have a bread-and-butter run play, which is what that morgan-in-motion play fooch cited seems to suggest, at least have that play be something that, you know, actually works. and finally, when you’re going up against something called “the williams wall,” don’t keep banging your head against that wall over and over again with up-the-middle runs. i mean, if they sucked running up the middle against ARI and SEA, two teams that don’t have nicknamed DT duos, what the hell made the coaches think they wouldn’t suck even more running up the middle against the only nicknamed DT duo in the NFL. this is just self-defeating stubbornness, and, unfortunately, really reminds me of nolan sticking with that god-awful big nickel package despite getting shredded by it constantly. as someone in the recap thread said, football is about making strategic adjustments for crying out loud! it’s all the more frustrating that singletary has demonstrated his affinity and prowess in re making adjustments (e.g., hill for jto, going to an exclusive 3-4 base DEF, etc.), yet he (and raye by proxy) seem totally unwilling to do so when it comes to their run play-calling.
that’s what i think right now. more later if i think of something else worthwhile.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 9:14 AM PDT reply actions
I agree
I would argue though in regards to the running at the end of the game, that it is in fact the wrong play calling, not in that we’re running, but in that we’re running ineffective plays. I’d rather see us take a chance and throw for the 1st down, rather that run proven ineffective plays.
by mr. instigator on Sep 28, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
To J Ray and M Singletary
How many more does S Hill need to prove you wrong, he is not only a good “game manager” but a very good QB give him the dam opportunity to show you how to put games away by scoring more points, on that last drive r,r,r kick if you just gave him the chance to pass, not a big deep ball but just a screen or a short secure pass to the midle I bet you we could walked away not only with the fist down but also with a 3-0 record the play calling killed this game , every body seems to know what Hill can do except the OC and HC, just give him the dam chance, looks like Gores injury is a good opportunity to do so.
Running the ball...
Coffee is not Gore. If it had been Gore in there we probably would have gotten the 1st down. It is not so much that the play calling was bad…it was that it di dnot change to take into account that our primary running threat was out of the game.
If Sheets is brought in then I expect to see more plays to the edge to take advantage of him.
Our OC seems to be good at coming up with a game plan for a game…it is changing it to take account for injuries that seems to be a weakness.
Either way, we kept it close and were one play short of winning. You cna say it was the last defensive play…or the last offensive play we ran. If either had worked then we woudl be celebrating a win.
WE SHOULD B 3-0
CAN WE PLEASE CUT MARK ROMAN HE SUCKS WHY IN DA HELL HE WAS OUT THERE MAN D THIS SHOWS WE NEED A GUY LIKE TALYOR MAYS OR ERIC BERRY
by BATMAN24559 on Sep 28, 2009 9:18 AM PDT reply actions
Yikes.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I wonder if Terrail lambert would have given up that play!
One corner with 4.3 speed couldn’t make the team for who? Hudson? Niners Brass is wierd!
BKA optimist prime- Got the Semi runnin' on 49er koolaid!!
Blasphemous beings, the NINERS will never forget!!
Eric Berry anyone?
AGREED
HE SHOULDN’T EVEN BE ON THE TEAM! CUT THAT DONKEY IMMEDIATELY!!!! I HATE MARK ROMAN!
Yikes.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
fooch, an edit for you
said something along the lines of how people wouldn’t be complaining about the offensive play-calling if the team had one
won?
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
Yeah, the team does have one playcalling: run.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions
can we lay off Mark Roman
yes, he was the nearest defender when they made the miracle play at the end. But I mean really, the guy got demoted already. He is in there as a nickel or dime back. Favre scrambles around and the pass rush can’t get to him. He chucks it 40 yards downfield to the one spot in the back of the end zone that is not covered and his receiver makes a spectacular catch to get it and keep his feet in bounds. You can’t expect the DBs to cover guys for that long. Give credit to the Vikings and if you want to blame someone blame Raye for the 3 straight runs up the gut and the OL for not getting any push on third down.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
And the coverage wasn’t even BAD on that play. He was inches from having his hand on the ball. It was a perfect throw and a perfect catch.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions
they got their luck
when Harvin returned that kickoff for a TD. Without that play we win as well.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
Blocking a FG is not luck
When you move the pile. Had it been a low kick orbobbled snap, that’s getting lucky. It’s not exactly luck to make a play in the course of the game by being better.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
not so much luck
as not a predictable outcome.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
see my reply to you above...
that coverage WAS bad…he was inches from having his hand on the ball because he put himself out of position. he overran the route despite it being run right at him. all his momentum was going the wrong way so he couldn’t readjust to make a play on the ball. THAT’S why he was “inches from having his hand on the ball.” it was his own bad, not luck.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions
p.s.
MY USE OF ALL CAPS HERE WAS A JOKE
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Is cool. I’ve been using all caps more and more recently for some reason, myself….
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ll definitely take your word for it that the coverage wasn’t very good. For the most part, I just saw Roman at the end of the play, so I only saw how close he was there. It looked like fine coverage the end there, but I believe you when you say it was blown.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
what makes it so frustrating to me...
is that, even with roman having such an epic fail, it definitely took a perfect throw and awesome catch to exploit that fail. i mean, a couple of inches either way on the throw, or lewis not being able to drag his back good, and roman gets away with more of his same garbage pass defending. what i think was more unlucky than the throw/catch, was the fact that the one guy who nobody wants being in coverage on that play was the one that found himself in coverage. you know have the most important play of the game come down to your worst pass defender having to not be your worst pass defender.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I need to see another replay obviously
because I wasn’t able to tease out why the guy was open. I’ll trust you on this. So yeah, Roman can take some blame for that particular play, but I still don’t think we should blame the loss on him.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
and who was Roman covering?
the worst, or least likely, go to receiver on the viks?
no one can be perfect all the time… I could see if he did this multiple times all day long leading to score after score after score for the viks, yes Roman isn’t the best… we all know this, but yeah he didn’t lose the game for us. If we were so good there wouldn’t have even been a chance for MIN to make a finally drive or us worrying about needing to secure a first down to win. don’t get me wrong, I think the Niners are much improved and the best team we have had in nearly 5 or 6 years and we can make the playoffs and win in the playoffs too.
oh, i agree
with your last sentence whole-heartedly. this i definitely the best niner team i’ve seen in 5 or 6 years, and, as my pregame post suggested yesterday, the niers are likely to make the playoffs and/or win the division.
but in re roman, he has, in fact, done this multiple times for the past 3 seasons. if this was a first time event for roman, i’d be more forgiving. the guy is a total liability in pass coverage, and has been for a while. that’s why he lost his just to goldson after all. singletary wants aggressive players so that the DEF creates more turnovers. plus, what also gets my dander up about roman is that the one asset we’ve always heard about him is that he’s the smartest DB out there, so he was the secondary’s QB out there when he was a starter. so, here he is, the supposed smart vet out there in the secondary, and he makes a mental mistake on the biggest play of the game/season so far. it just further makes me wonder, “why is this guy on the roster?” what does he contribute to the pass DEF? seems like everthing about him is a defect (passivity while the ball is in the air, mental mistakes, no turnovers created the past 2 years, etc.). and i’m pretty sure singletary agrees with me because roman was one of the last of “nolan’s guys” (aka bend-but-don’t-breakers acquired when he and mcloughan took over) to still be starting at the end of last season. low and behold, roman lost his job in the offseason.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
lost his job*
not lost his just…haha…oops
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I understand completely
and I would not directly argue on this, though if the team had played better one a few more plays at any point in the game, perhaps Roman wouldn’t have been in such a situation for him to be compromised, which is why we should be in agreement that you win and lose as a team. Roman is not a starter anymore because of his past failures and this is good for the team, but yesterday we got beat because of the team not because of Roman. However we did play excellent overall.
also
there’s another play you could single out as “causing” the loss if you wanted to, Bly’s dropped pick-six.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
SRSLY NINERZ BRASS
GET A NICKLE BACK WITH SUM HANDZ!
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
IKNORITE~|!>!>
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
yes
exactly my point and the stereotype continues… why Bly is on def
I'd like to jump on the blame Mark Roman bandwagon...
If there is room. I don’t know why he was making a play on the ball as it is. He had an angle that prevented a face-guarding PI call, he should have been playing for the force out. His foot was so close to the line (if it wasn’t actually on the line) that if the call had been that Lewis didn’t make it in, it wouldn’t have been reversed. The replays I saw would not have been conclusive enough to overturn that call either. If Roman would have been more concerned with getting him out of bounds than preventing the catch, I think he could have made sure that Lewis comes down out of bounds. That is the smart play when you are that close to a boundary line. Even PI would have been better than that [site decorum].
by SanFranSoldier on Sep 28, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but forcing a receiver out of the endzone is still a touchdown if he catches the ball, isn’t it?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think so...
I thought they did away with the force out rule completetly. Does anybody know for sure?
by SanFranSoldier on Sep 28, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Now that you mention it, I do remember hearing something about a change to that rule, but I don’t remember what it was. I would also like to know for sure.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
You can shove the WR out of bounds. I think the rule changed either this season or last season. It’s much better this way, that force out rule was crap.
Not a very heads up play by Roman. If the WR is near the sideline the play is to shove him out if he leaps, the same goes for the back of the end zone.
force out would have been an incompletion
i’m pretty sure nate did this same exact thing on the sidelines earlier in the game…knew he couldn’t make a play on the ball, so he just stood next to the guy and shoved him out of bounds while he was in the air making the catch. but then again, clements is an aggressive DB, unlike roman, so this was to be expected from clements, and not expected from roman.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
welcome to the bandwagon
i think, the point is that he should have done one (make a play on the ball) or the other (make a play on the WR so he didn’t get both feet in bounds). instead, he did neither. by jumping the route in a panic, his momentum was going away from the ball AND wr, so he couldn’t play either one. also, even if he could have avoided being out of position, i still doubt roman makes either of those plays because he’s so passive when the ball is in the air. as a FS, he was never a hitter, and he was never a ball hawk. he was just an empty uniform out there.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
That is the most important aspect...
but you could have poked Lewis in the chest and he wouldn’t have got his feet in. I think if Roman plays the force out we would have lived to fight another play. To me that just adds to everything you said and makes Roman that much worse. It’s not just that he can’t make the play, he can’t even choose the smartest strategical choice in a pretty straight forward situation. There is no excuse.
by SanFranSoldier on Sep 28, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Just realize
We’re judging a guy in Monday Morning QB style when he’s in the moment, as a DB, seeing a ball come at him in the flash of a second, trying to knock it down which is the number one thing they are taught. If he tries to turn and force him out, he looses the flight of the ball and perhaps the place of the receiver and pushing him high may not stop his lower body from getting his feet in. I’ll also add that is he turns around he could be called for face gaurding. Ho many times do you hear coaches and players say of DBs “turn around and play the ball not the receiver.” It was Roman but that could’ve been any of our DBs.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
A face guarding PI penalty....
Would have been better than what actually happened, and his angle would have made it tough for the ref’s to call that. All he needed was the tiniest of pushes. Hindsight is 20/20 but if he would have played it that way and still failed it would have looked better on him. Football is a game of inches and split seconds. If you can’t make the right call with the game on the line, and know where you are on the field, you don’t deserve to be on the field. That is his job.
by SanFranSoldier on Sep 28, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Disagree
If Roman turns around and gets a face guarding or any kind of PI, people on this board ripping him now would rip him for not turning around and playing the ball. I also woudlnt’t so quickly say it’s preferrable to what happened. First and goal on the one with two seconds left means they could run AP or thrown for one yard to win the game.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Plus
If he got called for PI and the Vikings punched it in, people would be saying it was his fault because the receiver probably wouldn’t have caught it and been in bounds anyway.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
So...
The possibility of a touchdown on the next play is a worse scenario than the guaranteed touchdown? Of course the best case scenario is to cause an incompletion but the next best thing is preventing the touchdown, even if it means giving them a final play from the 1.
As I said before, his angle would have almost guaranteed that a face guarding PI flag wouldn’t have been thrown. As long as your angle allows you to see the ball coming, you are making a play against the ball. It is perfectly legal to defend by force out, you just are not allowed to defend by blocking the receivers vision and using his body language to know when to jump and get in the way of the ball. Of course, with the way the refs were calling the game, who knows. No matter what Roman should not have let it happen. He could have made the play, but he didn’t. That is how I see it. A PI penalty would have still have been an epic fail on Roman’s part but I would have preferred that to what actually occurred
by SanFranSoldier on Sep 28, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Just watched it again...
Couldn’t bring myself to do it until just now. There is no way you call face guarding period. Both receiver and defender are reacting to the ball being thrown. Roman has free rein to do whatever is needed to prevent the incompletion. His only concern should have been making sure that he did not arrive until the ball did. [site decorum] EPIC [site decorum] FAIL! [SITE DECORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
And I am pretty sure his foot is on the line. The refs should have a red flag as well, so on close plays they can throw it instead of making a call.
by SanFranSoldier on Sep 28, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Correction...
prevent the completion.
Roman did a great job of preveventing the incompletion
by SanFranSoldier on Sep 28, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Force out?
If it’s true that a force out is now a legal defense, I’d prefer that to PI.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
by achiappanza on Sep 29, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions
He just sucks period! For a saftey you keep everything in front of u not behind you!!!
by BATMAN24559 on Sep 28, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions
If Lewis had been in front of him the catch would've been easier
He used the back line as he should. Let’s give Lewis some credit with his amazing footwork. This is a WR who had zero catches all season and was just cut by NE.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
He just sucks period!
That’s really gross. And another example of why punctuation is so important. Please remember your commas.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd have lost faith in this site long ago...
if it weren’t for you and wjackalope. You guys keep me going.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
+1
Pablo's not fat. He's just got body.
by LeMasterBlaster on Sep 28, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
He could have shoved the guy outta bounds, so he didn't get two feet in!
BKA optimist prime- Got the Semi runnin' on 49er koolaid!!
Blasphemous beings, the NINERS will never forget!!
Eric Berry anyone?
this
Pablo's not fat. He's just got body.
by LeMasterBlaster on Sep 28, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
The Vikings made many more mistakes than the Niners.
Berrian had three or four dropped balls that would have reulted in first downs. I’m not even talking about the ball that bounced out for the INT. Shiancoe dropped some crucial balls as well and yes Favre throws with velocity, but these were catchable balls. Most of the drops were when the WR was wide open.
If the Vikings special teams could have held up it would have been nice. That was a ten point swing at the end of the half and the ONLY reason the Niners were still in the game. A blocked FG returned for a TD? Special teams have been a sore spot. If the Vikings improve their special teams play than they are SB contenders. Less drops wouldn’t hurt either.
It would have been nice to see Gore play but he wasent rushing for 100yards against the Vikes so… It was as unlucky as the bounce of the FG block was lucky for the Niners.
Hill is good though and I can’t imagine if he had Crabtree at his disposal. I hope the NFC Championship game is between these two, but I guess it is too early for that talk.
Bernard, Percy and AP oh my!
So, you don’t count Harvin’s KO return for a TD?
by www.westcoastbias.com on Sep 28, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
would a naked bootleg have worked?
everyone in the world knew we were going to run up the gut on that last third down. I wonder what would have happened if we faked the handoff and let Hill try to take it around the edge on his own. He’s not exactly fleet of foot but the surprise factor would have been huge. Or maybe at least roll him out with ONE receiver – if you can run for it do it, if not and if he’s wide open throw, and if not the worst that happens is Hill slides and keeps the clock moving.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
Yeah, I was thinking something similar during the game...
it was obvious that they were going to run it and rely on their defense, rather than try to make a 6-yard pass to seal the win, but what would have been the harm in trying? As you pointed out, it would have been pretty easy to tell Hill to slide or take the snap if someone wasn’t wide-open.
It was definitely a case of ‘trying not to lose’ – I hope next time Mike isn’t afraid to go for the win, even if that means a more aggressive play call.
I think if a Garcia type were our QB or (gulp)
Alex Smith, a bootleg would be called. Remember the end of our win in Seattle in ’06? Smith ran a naked boot for a TD when all we were doing was running out the clock. Hill does not have that type of ability and the few times we tried it yesterday, the Viking DE did not overpursue.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I doubt it
You have to run that type of play to the weak side and Jared Allen was in backfield even on run plays. IMO, it would of had a good chance of being huge negative play. Probably another 6 yard loss like the failed pitch to Coffee.
Because it makes me feel better to knock the seahawks...
Was it Seattle or the old Orlando Thunder on the field Sunday?
When Jimmy Raye is fired at the end of the season...
I would like to think that Singletary learns his lesson about hiring coordinators. Having someone who is 100% supportive of your “mentality” and “general philosophy” is nice, but having someone who knows what the hell they’re doing is even better. Because Singletary (and this is not a knock on him) knows so little about offensive football, it is that much more important that he has a coordinator who has a strong identity of his own calling the plays.
Fortunately, Samurai Mike isn’t the kind of guy to raise his nose at his mistakes and show a stubborn inability to change. He’ll have no problem swallowing his pride and moving forward.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
cant fire him
we cant possibly subject our qbs to yet another OC…the “lack of continuity with an OC” is whats being blamed for alex smith’s stunted development (personally, i dont buy it) and if it is in fact a legitimate reason, we wouldnt want to subject Nate Davis to a new OC as well
by Rep the Bay on Sep 28, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
In all likelihood, our starting QB of '11 or '12 is not currently on the roster.
Nate Davis is a great guy to have, but I don’t think that he’s anything close to a sure-fire QBOTF. Shaun Hill isn’t a long term answer, and Alex Smith has really worked himself out of consideration for our starting job. Continuity at OC isn’t really a concern right now.
You can’t keep a horrendous OC on the payroll for no other reason than the fact that you’ve already fired a bunch of guys. If Jimmy Raye does not make huge advances in his play calling ability, then he deserves to be fired.
And he will be fired.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
God
I hope you’re right. I’m not even concerned with having our QBs deal with yet another OC. Hill has proven that he offers about the same thing no matter what OC he’s under, he adapts pretty well, and I certainly think this would be one of those ‘addition by subtraction’ things, where getting rid of Raye would be a benefit by itself. In all honesty, I think there are a number of us on the site that could call better plays than Raye. I had my doubts during the offseason, and I’ve not been happy with his performace through two games. His ineptitude finally caught up with us in the Vikings game.
by mr. instigator on Sep 28, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
I didn't get to watch
this game because I was flying back from England… but I have a suspicion that it’s not just the play calling, but rather the offensive line that really most of the trouble. And while the run blocking is maybe OK (and just has trouble running into 8 man fronts, who wouldn’t), the pass blocking is atrocious. So, it’s not s much that they don’t want to rely on Hill’s arm, but rather that they cannot rely on the o-line keeping him up right.
I can’t really back this opinion up with any real data, but Raye’s play calling is REALLY REALLY straightforward… and I don’t (yet) believe it’s because he’s a total moron. Well, I am inspired to look up his record as coordinator for his previous teams…
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.
Before you go and do a bunch of work looking that up for yourself
I recommend simply looking up the bunch of work that Florida Danny already put into that venture this offseason. It’s much less work for you and, if you’re anything like me, much more comprehensive than anything you’d do yourself.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
this is as far as I got:
Raye (from Wikipedia) was the OC for:
2005 Raiders
2004 Raiders
2001 Redskins
1998-2000 Cheifs
1991 Rams
1990 Patriots (1-15!)
The best teams he coached was the 8-8 Redskins, who had Stephen Davis and the 1999 Chefs who led the league in rushing attempts with a RB-by-comittee approach. Most of the other teams were terrible and not particularly run-happy – only the Redskins had a top 10 rushing offense in either yards or attempts. I further note that (using crude stats, not DVOA or anything) none of these teams had a good offense overall.
So, maybe he is a total moron. It’s clear that he cannot keep an OC job, and cannot even be said to have gotten lucky once.
It’s interesting that of all the bad offenses he coached, the ones with half decent teams ran a lot… but probably that is just the inherent bias in running when you are ahead.
I guess I will hunt down Florida Danny’s analysis…
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.
This is what I don't get...
why does it matter if it is straightforward play calling? it is not necessarily about the play being called.. it is about executing the play called. even if the play callings is KISS, if the team can execute what the play is supposed to do, then all is good. Having fancy, unique, diverse play calling is just as useless if the team isn’t executing the play as it is suppose to work.
+1
this is the stupid part of the play-calling…namely, that they’re objectively not good at what is being called. i don’t think being an effective OFF requires it to be an exotic one. plenty of teams have simplified playbooks, and probably all teams have a handful of bread-and-butter plays that they go to frequently. the niners problem isn’t that they need more reverses, flea-flickers, deep passes, etc. their problem is just finding run plays that are successful, and making THOSE plays they’re bread and butter. it seems they’re doing the opposite now. it’s like run, run, run up the middle for minimal gain, then throw in a reverse to isaac bruce just to change it up a little bit. that’s stupid football. i have faith in singletary to fix it though.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
A run off tackle is hardly a flea-flicker though. That’s all I ask for, something other than “up the gut for -2 – 2 yards”
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
not sure...
if you’re just making a general comment or specifically replying to my comment…
if the latter, i don’t remember equating a flea-flicker to an off tackle run
if the former, i agree with you 100%…just run different basic running plays is all i think we’re asking. incidentally, they’re 7th in the NFL running outside left (at least they were through 2 games).
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
It was more of a general comment, but it did seem like you were equating “change it up” sentiments with running more trick plays.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
hmmm
i was specifically agreeing with danknerd49’s point about not needing “fancy, unique, diverse play calling,” which i took to mean trick plays, the wildcat/taser, reverses to bruce, etc. guess it’s moot since we both agree in principle. just wanted to clarify.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
The bread and butter plays seemed to be the counter plays which were very effective last week against the Tealhawks. But the Vikings interior D-line consistently got off the ball quicker than our O-line (Whether by athleticism or crowd noise – probably both) and got penetration that nullified the pulling O-linemen, thus creating repeated Cluster-lovemakings (Site decorum). Bottom line our run run run mentality didn’t match up very well against the Viking exceptional run defense. That said, I do think off-tackle and edge runs would have loosened up the Viking interior. Oh and passes might have helped.
Pablo's not fat. He's just got body.
by LeMasterBlaster on Sep 28, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
The ball should have been defelcted
There was one covering the receiver and another right behind him and Nate to the right just coming into the picture.There should have been 3 guys in and around that area and that pass should have been deflected.The cover corner did a pretty good job with staying with the receiver.But not good enough because he still caught the ball which resulted in our loss.That ball should have been deflected.HOW MANY TIMES HAS BRET FARVE DONE THIS TO US?AND HE’S STILL DOING IT TO US WITH A WALKING CANE?I’m so sick to my stomach for that last play.
by Smallville49er on Sep 28, 2009 10:06 AM PDT reply actions
Play Calling on the 49ers' Last Offensive Drive
There has been a decent amount of criticism regarding the play calling on the aforementioned drive. For those who have already blocked the game out of their minds (I don’t blame you), the 49ers got the ball at their own 47 yard-line up by 4 points with 1:49 left in the game and Minnesota will all 3 timeouts. The 49ers predictably handed the ball of to Coffee on 3 consecutive plays (including a 3rd and 6) and forced Minnesota to use all three of their timeouts (they received the ball back with 1:29 left in the game after a touchback on the ensuing Andy Lee punt).
In retrospect I wish Raye/Singletary called a different 3rd down play, but the play-calling was absolutely correct.
Although the probability of getting a 1st down via a pass (and in essence ending the game) was greater (in that situation) than a 1st down via a run, it was still extremely unlikely. The 49ers passed on 3rd down 8 times during the game and didn’t convert once. 2 of those 8 passes came on 3rd and less than 5 and 2 came on 3rd and less than 10. Why would this 3rd down be any different (especially given tighter coverage near the line).
In addition, a pass on third down runs risks of both an incomplete pass and a turnover. If the 49ers run a short quick pass (to ensure at a minimum an in-bounds completion), they run the risk of a cornerback jumping the route for an interception (maybe to the house). If they risk a deeper pass, they put tremendous pressure on an offensive line missing two starters and that allowed pressure to reach Hill all game. If the pass rush gets to Hill you run the risk of a fumble (see the opening play of the game), a rushed pass (which could lead to either an interception or an incomplete pass) or a sack (a loss of yards, but at least Minnesota has to use a timeout…).
Further, the importance of a timeout can’t be understated. The Vikings were wasting about 15 seconds on every completion over the middle. Since the consensus is that an average NFL play takes about 6 seconds to run, that means that a timeout saves the Vikings 2.5 plays. I would hate to see the Vikings in that same situation with 3 more plays…
Give the Vikings the ball at their 20 yard line (usually inside their ten as Andy Lee usually puts a backwards bounce on that ball) with 1:30 left and no timeouts and the 49ers will win over 90% of the time. Give the Vikings one last prayer at the 49ers 40 yard line and the 49ers should win over 95% of the time.
Don’t result. Raye made at least one good call during the game: running the ball was the correct play.
by rdub49erfn on Sep 28, 2009 10:12 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree with this pretty strongly.
I really would have liked to see them pass on that play, and I really would have like to see the game come down to Shaun Hill right there, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with playing for a punt in order to 1) protect the ball, 2) burn all 3 Viking time outs, and 3) pin the Vikings at the far end of the field. Those are very, very good reasons to call for the run, and when you factor in the third down conversion rate on the day (and on the season), you almost have to play those odds.
The fan in my wanted to see some “faith” in Hill. But the smart guy in me knows that running the ball there isn’t showing a lack of faith in Hill so much as it is just plain showing a good understanding of the game situation at hand.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with this pretty strongly
(just stealing a lone from Howie)
yes, it was right to call runs to force MIN to use their timeouts. So I have no problem with the idea of calling run plays. It’s the specific plays they called. There has been so little creativity in the design of our runs, and so little done to mask the play or show that it might NOT be a run right up the gut. Try a sweep or a counter, or a draw, or something different.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
Just think… even a delay could have taken an extra second to run… an extra, precious second…
Hypotheticals are for babies, though, so I won’t play that point too hard. I will say, though, that I agree with you as well.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
sure it wasn't...
lone = loan? ;-)
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
I gave him that loan in good faith, too. I really didn’t think he was going to go and just steal the money.
Pay me back already! I needz my kash.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
sorry dude
you are out of luck
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Awww, man. I’ll never get my revenge on Porky is I can’t pay for the chainsaw I so desperately need to execute my elaborate plan.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
A run was the correct call...
in retrospect I would have liked to seen a Taser set endaround option, to try and get a first, or at least take more time off the clock as longer running course play, if it failed it would have given Lee more punting room and perhaps would have gotten his kick to stick at the 5
Well, I disagree with this pretty strongly. I think you’re -
A) Overestimating the chance of an interception
B) Underestimating the chance of a completion
and
C) Overestimating the value of a timeout relative to the potential gain.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
really?
if there’s an incompletion, they get AT MOST 3 extra plays. If you convert, you win, period full stop nothing they can do.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
if you prevent...
(essentially) 4th and goal from the 32-yard line, you also win, full stop.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
i'd like to see
win % with 80 yards to go, 1.5 mins on the clock and 1 timeout vs. 80 yards to go, 1.5 mins on the clock and 0 timeouts. I’d bet there’s not a huge difference.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
yes really
if if if if if
if the niners would have scored on the opening drive then there wouldn’t have been the need to get the first down on their last possession.
Well, Hill had already thrown an interception and fumbled the ball, so there is some risk-aversion to be called for on a play where the rush will likely be more aggressive than at any other time during the game. Plus, the third down conversion rate has been abysmal.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
They were collapsing hard on the run though, a play action would have given Hill enough time for at least a quick slant or out or something.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I don’t disagree specifically, and like I’ve said before I really would have liked to see a pass there, but I honestly don’t think there was any flawed logic at play in calling the run, either, and I do think that – while conservative – it did represent a play that gave us a very high likelihood of winning.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
well
I think any play there gives us a high likelihood of winning. I think of running up the gut there a lot like a sacrifice bunt in most cases. Conventional wisdom says it’s the best play, but when you really go over the possible outcomes, it’s not.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I HATE BUNTS!
Now you’re starting to convince me!
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
can you lay out the possible outcomes of each different play call...
so we can really explore this in more depth than what seems like just stating our own opinions? i’m serious here. not being sarcastic or anything. i think we hould really hash this out.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
hould = should
but not hould = hood
pre-emptive strike there wjack
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
YOU DIDN'T CAPITALIZE THE I IN I'M!!!!!
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
well
advancednflstats.com has some pretty cool stuff with live win probabilities (similar to fangraphs if you like baseball), but I haven’t done enough digging to find something really specific.
Looking at our graph, it looks like a team who gets the ball back with no timeouts and 80 yards to go with 1.5 mins left down by 4 (really 4-6) wins ~ 20% of the time. Seems high, I know, but apparently that’s what the numbers say. Quick passes (5-10 yards) usually are successful ~ 60% of the time, iirc. So if we say 60% chance of success, and 40% chance of incompletion, with success giving a 20% gain in win probability, with failure giving a 20% loss, (which I think is being overly generous), passing comes out on top.
However, these are NOT hard numbers, and I’d have to do some more digging which I don’t really have time for right now to firm them up. I might be able to come up with something a little bit better this evening or tomorrow.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
yeah...
i actually came across a book a few years ago that had kind of like a blackjack cheat sheet for specific NFL situations. wish i could remember the name of it. this is what i’m kind of trying to stimulate here. just literally listing the outcomes that were possible in that situation (not the %’s related to each outcome), so i can try to uncover some stats and make a better argument one way or another than “i think X.”
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
almost positive...
it was kind of like an idiot’s guide to game theory type of book…epic memory fail here.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
well
the possible outcomes are really limited:
pass complete, first down
pass complete, not first down
pass incomplete
interception
sack
fumble
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
ok, that's for a pass play...
now for the run play
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
even easier
first down
fourth down
fumble
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
It’s knowing the odds of each, and how they swing the win probability that’s tricky
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
right...
but before we figure that out…we have to actually list all the possible outcomes…now i can go dig up some probablities that would relate to each outcome…and come up with a definitive answer…perhaps make it a post later this week.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
i'm moving this part of the thread down to the bottom...
because i’m getting sick of having the chat window not wrap text to fit the window as i type
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
SBNATION BRAZZ
FIX THU INTERWEBZ CODE ON UR WEBSIGHT
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
HAHA
FO SHIZZLE IACOZIZZLE!
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
SRSLY
this problem is (relatively) new, it used to work just fine. WTF SBNATION /blames mobile commenting.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
It wasn't always like that, was it?
Only recently do I remember dealing with the frustration of typing out full sentences before being able to see what’s been written.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
It’s very recent, and I have no doubts that they’re working to fix it. They usually get this kind of thing worked out pretty quickly.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
and also this is technically the same matrix for passing
whether the pass is complete or the passer is sacked is somewhat immaterial (although you have to account for the result of these things in the distribution of results).
In general, I do not think one can reduce play calling to an algolrithm – and I am a big fan of statistical an dnumerical analysis in sports.
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.
agreed...
play-calling not an algorithm generally…just want to figure this out once and for all because there’s a lot of conjecture going on in this thread about what is and is not the “right” call, or the one that is the “best decision,” etc.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
correction
figure this specific situation out once and for all…
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd say generally, you're right
however, I think that coaches should look at certain specific situations (like whether it’s better to play in “prevent” defense, or to run the ball on 3rd and 6 with a minute and a half left in the game to make the other team burn their timeouts) where there should be a more algorithmic approach.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
ack
just realized looking at the WP calc they have that it doesn’t account for timeout situation, so the 20% includes all timeout configurations.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I don't think you can assume
Niners vs Vikings 2009 is a situation where the Niners can be said to have an average passing offense.
You also make the horrible assumption that running always fails to get the first down.
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.
but
it will fail the vast majority of the time.
Also, I’d say the niners put up at least an average passing attack that game. The only thing you could possibly point to to show otherwise would be 0-11 on third down, and A) some of those were runs, and B) SSS
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
- 1-10-SF 47 (1:49) 29-G.Coffee right guard to SF 49 for 2 yards (93-K.Williams, 56-E.Henderson).
- 2-8-SF 49 (1:45) 29-G.Coffee up the middle to MIN 49 for 2 yards (94-P.Williams).
- 3-6-MIN 49 (1:41) 29-G.Coffee right end to MIN 47 for 2 yards (56-E.Henderson).
Again, I didn’t get to see the game, so I have to work from archival materials. It was 3rd and 6.
There is a chance – maybe 10-15% that they convert on a 3rd and 6. You can’t neglect that.
Now – where I think the play calling beef is valid is that Raye was clearly not FOOLING the Vikings on calling another run…
But… they had not converted a 3rd down all day. To nit pick on the play calling for the last one – when an incomplete pass allows minny to conserve a time out…
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.
All of this is risk vs reward
Yes a pass could be complete. But also still be short of the 1st. Or go out of bounds. Plus all the issues of sacks, INTs, incompletion. A run up the middle or off tackle eitehr gets the first or not. No clock stoppage, low turnover risk. Seeing as how no pass play all day had gotten us a 1st down, I’m not sure that’s a good risk/reward.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
This is false.
“but the play-calling was absolutely correct.”
What was correct was the concept of keeping the clock moving. The actual play selection was atrocious.
by mr. instigator on Sep 28, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
This is a point that a lot of people seem to be missing.
Critique of the play calling is not specifically run vs pass. Just because running the ball may be the right thing to do does not mean that a particular running play was the correct call.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
nor does it mean that it was the INCORRECT call
I mean, the players still have to execute.
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.
You're right, but...
This was our 3rd game, and Raye should have an understanding of what plays we are executing well and what plays are not working. He’s not making any adjustments.
by mr. instigator on Sep 28, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I actually thought his playcalling
in the seattle game was much better… but he did go conservative with a lead
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.
yes yes a thousand times yes
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Very true.
I’ve tried to be careful to say that “a run” was a good call there, so as not to trap myself into saying that “that run” was the right one.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 28, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I disagree
The 49ers may not have converted on 3rd down with a pass earlier in the game, but I have to believe Minn was selling out to stop the run. While earlier in the game Minn would have know it was very likely to be a pass when it was 3rd and 5+. Given that, VD might have popped open on a play action. Of course their’s no guarantees. And if they don’t convert than everyone’s complaining that SF left Minn with 1 TO. But I still believe SF has to go for the win in that situation. If it works, SF wins. If it doesn’t, Minn still has to go 80+ yards (If Lee had pinned them deeper they might also have won) and they only have 1 xtr TO. The reward is greater then the risk.
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
+1 Thank you for a reasoned analysis
Something I’ve thought of since yesterday (so I can not claim I would’ve done this at the time) is that the field position would’ve made a third down pass a good call. If faced with a parallel situation again (3rd down at or just across midfield, opponent with a T.O. remaining) you keep an extra blocker or two in and call a pass. One WR runs a fly patter, another runs an comeback. One safety is in the box for the run, the other either will also be or will go with one of the WRs.
Tell Hill if neither of his targets are open he drops to the ground for a sack; no incompletions, no INT. The lost sack yardage would not be a field position detriment as the punt will still either go inside the 20 or be a touchback nor would a sack stop the clock. The benefit would be a completed pass that ends the game.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Raye vs Martz
Prior to Martz, we’d always complain that the 49ers have weak play calling and very predictable. So then they hired Martz, who made in much more interesting but does anybody remembered all the backbreaking picks and fumbles (granted most was JTO’s undoing)?
Then here’s Raye, who is less conservative than Hostler but certainly more conservative than Martz. I wish they could find a nice medium but I just don’t think this offense is talented enough to do that – particularly the OL in pass protection. Hill is not a gunslinger, their go to WR is an old man and their most talented wideout is catching passes from a retired Dilfer.
I’m not one for moral victories but watching them grind it out yesterday without Gore shows this offense is successfully built based on their gameplan and philosophy, instead of relying on one talented running back to do it all. As you recall, Gore wasn’t that big of a factor in the AZ win as well.
Win the inning.
im reading The Blind Side right now
and as painful as it is to read about the beast that is Michael Oher, the book gave me a refresher course about Bill Walsh’s genius and the West Coast Offense
My point is this team is PERFECT for the west coast offense…an efficient, mistake-free qb without the greatest physical tools, more than capable TEs, possession WRs, and RBs that can pass-protect and pass catch…why not go 60/40 passing/rushing and move the ball via quick passes to set up 2nd/3rd and short where you can either pass or run?
I view the videos on 49ers.com and the question about opening the playbook was presented to Raye
He responded that he wants Hil to grasp the offense, I know it doesn’t seem complex, he’s adding things a little at a time. We are all aware of the FACT that our OL is not GREAT and Raye has to be aware. Staley struggled with Allen, so let’s drop him back more often? He calls plays that is efficient with what he has to work with. Staley was solid as a RT and I can’t say the same about LT. We are in a position to win 3 weeks in a row and the offense didn’t lose the game. 0-11 on 3rd down is awful, and running on first down is irritating when opposing teams know it’s coming, but I like winning and we had that game won in MINNESOTA’s dome!
BKA optimist prime- Got the Semi runnin' on 49er koolaid!!
Blasphemous beings, the NINERS will never forget!!
Eric Berry anyone?
from everything I've read
it seems like Staley is the least of our concerns on the OL. Of course it’s hard to judge because I don’t DVR the games and it’s hard to pay attention to specific OL players while watching
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
He remains the best on our line, IMO I just think he hasn't been as solid than he was at RT as a rookie!
BKA optimist prime- Got the Semi runnin' on 49er koolaid!!
Blasphemous beings, the NINERS will never forget!!
Eric Berry anyone?
probably true
I imagine LT being a harder position factors into that
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Did he really struggle with Allen?
Other than the opening sack (where a Minnesota LB was offsides) I don’t recall Allen making a play during pass rush. I could be wrong but just wondering if that’s an accurate way to describe Staley’s day.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
how about
naked boot, stay inbounds w/pass-run option? seems very safe, certainly unexpected and has the possibility of converting the third down. it’s all mmqb-ing, but that’s why we’re here, right?
that's what she said
and by “she” I mean “he” and by “he” I mean “I”
as seen here
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
no worries
just means we were thinking along the same lines
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
well
if it was a naked boot, there would be no pass option. That’s what the “naked” part means.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
no pass option on the naked boot
that’s what she said
sorry, it was teed up.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
ok, so here are the possible outcomes...
situation is 3rd and 6 at MIN 49 up by 4 with 1:41 left. MIN has 1 TO left.
here’s the list
run
convert 1st
run for 1st down
run for TD
don’t convert 1st
run ends short
fumble lost
penalty negates 1st
pass
convert 1st
pass completed for 1st down
pass completed for TD
don’t convert 1st
pass completed short
fumble lost
penalty negates 1st
INT
incomplete
sack
and then, for each of these outcomes, the play either ends in bounds or out of bounds
i miss anything?
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:46 AM PDT reply actions
defensive penalties?
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
good call...
except we’ll only included post-snap penalties…cause obviously there weren’t any penalties prior to the snap in question, and none of the usual presnap defensive penalties would have given the niners a first down
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
The number of possible outcomes does not overrule the likelihood of each outcome.
Converting for a first down (best case scenario, minus a score) is much more likely to happen on a passing play than it is on the running play.
Really, the most important factors to take into account are:
A) the improved chance of converting via pass
vs
B) the reduced chance of clock stoppage (to nearly zero) via run.
It’s a risk assessment that I think Jimmy Raye is incapable of making.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
yes, i'm aware
that it’s not the number of outcomes that matters.
the point of the list is to ID the possible outcomes so i can go find out the likelihood of each outcome based on historical data.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions
and then translate those likelihoods
into the question you pose
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
It may also be relevant to note that some "negative" outcomes have minimal impact.
For example, a sack (or, in an extreme case, a fumble recovered by the offense – even if a loss of yards is the result) really doesn’t put us in any worse of a position than we were already in. If anything, it’s like willingly taking a delay of game penalty to put your punter into a better position to place the ball inside the 20.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
yeah...
definitely…i’m on it
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
first post since the game...
3 REASONS we lost…
1) Not mixing it up on offense especially in the 3rd quarter..but the last drive(s)..fault offensive coordinator
2) On the last punting situation…I DO NOT KNOW WHY IN THE WORLD WITH AN ELITE PUNTER IN THE LEAGUE WE ARE NOT PUNTING THE BALL OUT OF BOUNDS WITHIN THE 10 YARD YARD LINE…THERE WERE MULTIPLE SITUATIONS IN THE GAME WHERE WE COULD HAVE PUNTED OUT OF BOUNDS (OR AT LEAST COFFIN CORNER) AND HELD THE VIKES BACK FURTHER MAKING THEM TAKE MORE TIME. Instead we punt down the middle of the field?! In the endzone?! Fault special teams coach/ head coaching decision. BTW giving up a touchdown on ST is a great example of this decision making….you PUNT or KICK away from the best return guy!!!! only on kickoffs is it a penalty if it goes out of bounds but we didnt even try kicking away from opponents or angled corner kicks..
3) The defense was porous the last drive..by design..keeping them in bounds could have been done much more effectively…putting pressure on favre ( a timely lb blitz) had resulted in turnovers and stops previously…coaches went with traditional NFL football crap philosophy of SOFT, PREVENT style…MORESOVER, the vikes had just spiked the ball WHY IN THE WORLD…DID SINGLETARY NOT CALL A TIMEOUT?! His whole defense was gassed, there was minimal pressure the last 3 plays and the clearly did not look ready for THE MOST IMPORTANT PLAY OF THE GAME.. I agree with Tony’s D’s assessment that danny has already posted, that their defensive selection was Responsible..this of course goes to Defensive Coordinator and Head Coach…
So friends lay off the offensive blah or blandness as the main culprit of this gaffe..it was and is clearly the result of poor coaching decisions at Key points at the end of the game that needed to made but inexplicably and unexcusably were not.
you make an interesting point
about the punting. Lee is clearly an excellent punter, he’s been to the pro bowl, etc, but he never seems to angle his kicks in an attempt to drop them on the sideline inside the ten. I guess he must be better at dropping it inside the 20 and getting it to bounce straight up then he is at aiming for the sideline – but who knows. It would be nice to see him use the sideline to his advantage – it seems like (without looking this up) he had a bunch of punts go for touchbacks yesterday.
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
touchbacks
He punted nine times and had 2 touchbacks.
by David Fucillo on Sep 28, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
and how many did he drop inside the 20?
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
looks like 2 also
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
ok I looked it up
Lee punted 4 times from beyond the Niners’ own 30 yard line:
1. punted from the SF 31, downed on the MIN 12
2. punted from the SF 44, touchback
3. punted from the SF 40, caught at the 6 and returned to the 14
4. punted from the MIN 47, touchback
so when he was closer to the endzone he had a harder time keeping it out, but overall he was 2/4 pinning them inside the 20. I still think he should try punting to the sideline. And wasn’t the punt that was downed at the 12 a lucky roll? I think it hit at like the 23 and rolled all the way to the 12, so he wasn’t trying to kick it short.
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
isn't it awesome...
that we’re actually discussing ROBOPUNTER being only 2 of 4 on inside-the-20 opportunities as a potential contributor to the loss?
i mean, just a year ago w/ nolan as HC we’d come in here after the game and talk about all the major, fundamental, JV-teams-can-get-this-stuff-right problems w/ the team on both sides of the ball? definitely a sign of progress that we’re forced to nitpick now rather than being like, “why can’t they line up in the right formaton for chrisakes!”
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't really say
that this contributed much to the loss, but… maybe. The last punt was from the MIN 47, and he put it in the endzone. Maybe if he pins them inside the 10 they never get that shot at the end.
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
The final punt being downed inside the 20 would certainly change the outcome
But in Lee’s defense, they’re doing a full block rush so his main priority is to get it out and not shank it.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
the punt team should also be in full protect..
the point is I think Lee had plenty of leg (the man can straight punt with less hang time 70-75 yards) angle one to the sideline WITHIN the 20..thereby pinning them FURTHER back..costing them a valuable play or two and valuable TIME. It is also a momentum shifter..It’s not that he couldn’t do this, or that he couldn’t be protected to do it. Its that it wasn’t called..Why I don’t know—when its the last and most important drive of the game this neglected chance is inexcusable by the COACHING staff.
I’ll just repeat my earlier assertion, the niners lost due to fundamental coaching lapses in three specific areas that if done would have probably sealed our win. We still have to learn how to finish and our coaches need to use good strategy.
That the coaches don't cal it
Tells me that maybe Lee is not comfortable doing it. It’s not like the coaches don’t know what works.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
uhhh right
like coaches don’t know what works…see jimmy rayes offensive play calls and you’ll see coaches not seeing what works..
there’s no evidence he’s not comfortable doing it, I think the coaches don’t know as someone put it “how to put the nails in the coffin”. This is evidenced by their playcalling (offense, df, and special teams) lacking creativity and boldness.
I wouldn't equate what punt is called
as being related to putting nails in the coffin. I’m sure Lee gets to punt in that situation how he’s most comfortable. He had put 2 of the previous 3 inside the 20 and did the same at the end of the AZ game. I’ll trust that Lee knows what he’s doing and just got a few yards too many on this one.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
i specifically remember...
…someone — think his name was Florida Manny or something — making the following point on the game thread before it even got to 4th down on the niners’ last drive.
directional punt out of bounds here if they don’t convert
man, whoever made that point in advance of the punt is a pretty smart guy. ;-)
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
what a genius
too bad the NINERZ COACHEZ didn’t listen
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
ZAMURAI MIK
NEEDZ TO CHU OUT EVEREZT FOR DAT SHIZZ!!!!
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe the 49ers were already out of timeouts.
Also agree with the other comments that Andy Lee doesn’t have a history of angling punts.
Yes, the 49ers were in pseudo prevent defense but not a very smart one on the final drive. The defense is suppose to protect the sidelines and let the dump passes over the middle eat the clock. The defensive play call on the last play was abysmal. Any completed pass in bounds would have won game, the defense just needed to protect the sidelines and end zone the 49ers did not do either. 4th and goal with 32 yards to go was an extremely favorable situation for defense to win the game.
yeah florida danny
he does, everest needs to have his teams PREPARED..that’s his JOB..the niners did have a timeout remaining..they could have used that before the point to set up the special teams punt and their defensive strategy…THEY DIDNT
Angling punts is not difficult for an NFL probowler, its actually pretty simple. The reason he didn’t do it was because special teams have play calls. The call specifies a type of formation and a side, and a level of protection. Until the niners coaches get their heads out of their you know whats and get some intelligent playcalling in, were going to leave alot of these games to other teams to beat us, not us taking initiative and taking it to other teams..
It's not the play calling
There has been a lot rancor the last few weeks about the lack of variety in the play calling. The culprit for this is not Jimmy Raye’s imagination or stubbornness, it’s the result of a poor offensive line. The play book has not opened up because the offensive line hasn’t played well enough to open it up.
Why don’t they call a bootleg?
They did call a bootleg against the Vikings. Shaun Hill committed an grounding penalty avoiding the unblocked defensive end. They called another bootleg during the Cardinal game. My memory is fading but I think it resulted in a sack.
What about a draw play?
They called a draw play once during the Cardinal game and our RB was dropped the instant after tacking the hand off for a 5 yard loss.
How about play action?
The called a play action pass just before the half of the Cardinals game and it resulted in a 10 yard sack pushing them outside of field goal range. They went to it a few times against the Vikings with limited success, at least no negative plays.
Running to the outside?
It’s been tried with a number of different plays. The tackles, especially Synder, is getting blown up consistently (even on inside run plays) and they account for a majority of our negative yardage plays. A sweep, don’t even think about it . . . the line has been embarrassed enough.
Running right at the tackle?
Well, this is how Gore scored those 2 TD’s against the Seahawks. They try this type of run more often than you think. Again Synder is getting blown off his block forcing the RB back inside or these are the plays that Chilo has whiffed on his block or Baas gets overpowered. In fact it would greatly help the running game if these three decide to miss their block on the same play instead of alternating plays.
Screens?
Well, mild success if you count yards instead of effectiveness. You can pin this one Jimmy Raye. He hasn’t been very good at catching the defense as the right time for a screen.
Let’s just pass it!
This is where things are interesting. Shaun Hill has been effective and the line has held up well enough for the team to move the ball. Aren’t they suppose to be a better running blocking line than pass protecting line? Well, if you haven’t noticed our RB’s have done a good job picking up the blocker that has either broken through or the line missed giving Hill time to execute the play. Without a RB in protection, we haven’t been very good in pass protection . . . see all the plays above.
One element missing from the passing game is go to play on short yardage. I don’t think the 49ers have the personnel. Bruce is really only suited for short out patterns (not a staple play you want). I haven’t seen Morgan push his way around the interior of the defense to merit the consideration.
I think the 49ers need to get Jason Hill off the bench. His strong suit is the possession WR game. He out bodies the DB for positions and his bread and butter play is jumping up to catch the ball in traffic. I think the 49ers need to exploit that play in short yardage passing situations. With success it will force the opposing teams DE from running straight up field each play. Right now if it’s run they have a chance to blow up anything going outside or slow developing. If it’s a pass play than the DE already has the jump off the line. However, if the DB cannot defend the 5 yard inside pass the DE is forced to drop back into the pass line to defend the play. A honest DE would open up the playbook.
In the meantime, the offense is stuck running those 3 yard and cloud of dust plays to the inside until the offensive line can clean up their act. You could resurrect Bill Walsh and he wouldn’t do any better given this line’s performance. The good news is the offense has been putting points on the board by playing well in spurts and completing drives. 17 points in Minnesota is pretty good production. They had 2 touchdown drives without the aid of a turnover from the defense.
i think...
you’re onto something here…
the stats i posted on friday back you up about this:
it’s the result of a poor offensive line
the niners’ OL is ranked 31st in ALY at 2.51 RB yards per carry.
if by
Running right at the tackleyou mean running behind RT than the stats support this:
They try this type of run more often than you think.
they run behind RT 21.6% of the time. the NFL avg is 14%, which means SF has the 6th highest % of runs behind RT in the league.
and if you mean run right at the opponents’ defensive tackles, as in, running up the middle, then the stats also support what you said about how often they run there…namely, 58.8% of the time when the league avg is 49%. that also ranks them 6th.
and then there’s raye’s comment to the media that rlott#42 cited up above in the thread about easing hill and the offense into the playbook, which kind of gives creedence to this:
The play book has not opened up because the offensive line hasn’t played well enough to open it up.
so all in all, you might be right that it’s an OL thing coupled with raye/singletary’s evaluation of whether or not the OFF can handle a wider variety of plays.
by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Sep 28, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Some excellent points and observations
I would say that if we could resurrect Bill Walsh (or some other HOF play caller: Shanahan, Holmgren, etc) I think the extra unique imagination of play design and brilliance with the timing of setting up and calling certain plays (such as screens) would certainly earn us a few extra yards and first downs per game. At this point that would help but now I’m talking about ideals not reality. Also, those guys all preferred the passing game so they would trust Hill more which may be the way to go especially with Gore out the next two game. The only way our run game is going to get where we want it to is to make teams expect and fear the pass more often.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
To be fair
I think the offensive has gotten slightly better each week. Hill started to finding his WR in Week #2 and against Vikings they started to complete those passes. The offensive line had less mishaps this week. If Coffee had better chemistry with Norris I think the 49ers might have really gashed the Vikings defense in that 3rd quarter. They have gotten slightly better each week like Singletary promised, lets see if they can continue the trend.
Let's watch for it
I know this week is the Rams but how we play is more important than who we play. This is still a new offense to all these guys. Yet on the road yesterday we gave up only 1 sack even with Snyder and Pashos sharing a spot, Staley knocked out for Sims (yikes!) and a rookie RB having to help pick up the blitz. If they do continue to show improvement (play execution and play calling by Raye) we’ll be in great shape after the bye week, which just happens to be our next road game.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Ok,
But you cann’t continue running it straight up the middle. Everyone knows what’s coming. By the way, thoses 2 TDs can by the Pass. Now that Gore is out for a couple of weeks, let’s put the Game on Hills’ Back. He has keep us in the games when we needed a TD !!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Niners Nation
Related FanShots on Niners Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- All reports positive after Peyton Manning’s first OTA in Denver
- Ryan Tannehill won’t start right away, according to Dolphins’ owner
- Lions WR Titus Young barred from practice after starting fight with teammate
- Winslow move could be a costly one for Bucs in the short term
- Matthew Stafford spends $15,000 to win auction package, then gives it to a young fan’s family
