49ers - Bengals: Scout's Inc. Preview

by Fooch on Dec 13, 2007 9:54 PM PST in News Comment 12 comments

Well we've been discussing our QB/Coach soap opera so much that it's easy to forget we've got a game this weekend. Furthermore, it's on Saturday in primetime. It's on the NFL Network, but for Bay Area residents, you should also be able to see it on NBC.

In the meantime, I thought I'd roll out what the scouts are saying about this game. Anytime they say, "well there are no other games on, so that makes it worth watching," you really have to get excited, right? Also, sometime on Friday I'll be posting a discussion I had with Josh over at Cincy Jungle.

Matchup to watch
San Francisco CB Nate Clements vs. Cincinnati WR T.J. Houshmandzadeh
Even though WR Chad Johnson leads the team in receiving yards, it has been Houshmandzadeh who has been the more consistent receiving threat. He is a more polished route runner and more consistent catching the football. Clements has been average, but the 49ers had to of expect more after the big money contract they signed him to this offseason.

The Bengals will move Houshmandzadeh all over the field in an attempt to create mismatches. Clements does not gamble very often, but he has struggled to read routes in this new system and has often found himself out of position. Look for QB Carson Palmer to go after Clements on short to intermediate routes before testing him vertically on the outside.

I really was looking forward to this game at the beginning of the season. Now that both teams have gone in the crapper (us more than them), I still see some things worth getting excited about. Clements and Harris vs. Housh and Ocho-Cinco certainly make for interesting matchups. Of course without a pass rush, Carson Palmer will eat the secondary alive.

What will the 49ers try to do defensively to slow down the Bengals' pass offense?
Look for the 49ers to play a lot of combo zone and man coverages this week. They have done a solid job at times with their zone-blitz package, which is something that has given Palmer problems this season. Palmer played poorly versus Pittsburgh and Arizona this season and those are two teams that use the zone blitz effectively. San Francisco must be aggressive this week or Palmer will pick them apart from inside the pocket.

Can San Francisco QB Shaun Hill exploit the Bengals' 25th ranked pass defense?
Hill came off the bench last week and played a better game than Dilfer or Smith has all season. He completed 22 of 27 passes for 181 yards and one touchdown. Hill did not really show the ability to stretch the field, but no QB in the 49ers offense has been able to do that all season because of poor QB play and lack of speed at the WR position. Hill is a smart QB who made solid decisions last week. He did a nice job of taking what the defense gave him and hit the proper read. This week the game plan will be structured for him to do the same. One area the 49ers' coaches will look to exploit this week is trying to get RB Frank Gore matched up against the out-manned Bengals' linebackers. Gore catches the ball out of the backfield well and should be able to make some plays after the catch.

I certainly agree with the majority who figure much of last week's success for Hill came against a prevent-style defense. I'm curious to see how he comes out of the gate. While it'd be nice to get points on that first drive, I think for now, success would be just getting a couple of first downs through the air. I don't expect some revelation from Hill, but I'd like to think he's got the skills to do SOMETHING.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Game

Well I thhink we can actually beat Cincinatti. We dont have a pass rush but they don't have an O-line other than W-Anderson. On D-fence, bring outside pressure all day. As for offence, I don't care who is a quarterback or who we are playing GIVE THE BALL TO FRANK GORE. It's simple. Infact, Frank has only had 3 games of more than 16 carries. And heres a fun fact: THOSES WERE THE THREE THAT WE WON! come on. He is Frank Gore, he'll find a way to get some yardage. 25 touches min. If we do that, we will win plain and simple.

by montasmob69 on Dec 13, 2007 11:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well

There's a bit of a logical fallacy working there. Some truth and some falseness.

There is losing because you don't have balance, and then there is not having balance because you are losing. I think most of the games in which we haven't gotten the ball to Gore, it's been a case of the latter. I can't turn the idea away, though, because there were a few games after the first "approach adjustment" when being aggressive instead of conservative just mean chucking the ball 2 of 3 times.

It's also tough because the first two games we won were so lucky, you might say, and still during the uber conservative run-run-pass-punt philosophy period. I actually think we won both of those games through the air, ultimately, didn't we?

Anyway, just a little devil's advocate here. There have been plenty of times when the offense was just poorly balanced and Frank should have seen more touches if we wanted to stay close in the game, but I think there have been more times when we've just had no choice but to abandon the run because of being behind.

I agree, though, I'd LOVE to see the Niners in a position to give Frank 25 carries this week. It would be a beautiful thing.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2007 12:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One correction

And by win both of those games through the air I obvious meant "won one of those games because the passing game was the key to a winning drive."

In other news... just pretend I didn't say it to begin with!

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2007 12:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Gore has a shot a getting 1,000 yds. I had not even realized that. Guess it was lost in the misery of the seaon, at least to me it was.

Gore seems to be a real emotional player. That and he does let things get into his head. Now, I wouldn't say Gore has a fumbling problem. This year, he has only fumbled in 2 or 3 games. However when he drops the ball the first time, he usually follows up with another one. That could be him thinking about it too much or the defense smelling blood in the water and attacking.

I think an interesting matchup this week will be The Disease versus the Bengal's linebackers. I am not real familiar with the Bengals. But I do know they had a depleted linebacking corp early in the season. Maybe they have recovered maybe not.

What that hell is The Disease's problem-- false starts, illegal motion (Gore too). Last week, The Disease jumped offside on the first play. I think that he was probably the first option on the pass play, but he was too ansty.

And another thing with The Disease. Why when he is being tackled doesn't he just go down already?
(Now, if he was going down too easy, I would probably be on him for that, too. But nevermind that.) If The Disease wants to break a tackle, great. But he hasn't really broken any tackles this year, not that I remember. So just go down already!

I am goin' down with the ship...

by jfainsf49 on Dec 14, 2007 7:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Davis

I think part of Davis' mistakes, false starts and holding, are due to just plain ol' lack of experience. He gets pretty amped out there, and is probably just really excited. The false starts are perhaps on plays where he IS INDEED the first read, and he knows it, so he gets wayy over anxious. In any case, those mistakes should reduce and disappear over time, he just wants to help his team so badly.

As for his going down (or lack thereof), I'm fine with it, most of the time. There is a time and place for fighting for extra yards. Most of the time, you should be able to. He made ONE mistake earlier this season where he kept fighting late in the 4th quarter during a "comeback" attempt. In normal situations, though, I have no problem with him fighting for those yards. It makes people think twice about trying to stick it to him hard.

Remember the Green Bay game last year when Charles Woodson (I think it was) and a safety didn't want to lay an pads on him? Fighting for yards is how he'll continue to build that reputation.

by sfgfan on Dec 14, 2007 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Disease

is a beast and of course I want him to try hard. But if a guy has his legs wrapped up and another guy draped on his back, that's leaving him wide open for another defender to strip the ball. I am amazed he hasn't fumbled yet. That probably has to do with the few touches that he gets.

I am goin' down with the ship...

by jfainsf49 on Dec 14, 2007 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ball protection and running hard

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. While I'm sure some of it is luck and small sample size, it is also very possible he knows how to protect the ball. He's probably the physically strongest TE there is in the league.

by sfgfan on Dec 14, 2007 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No denying that...

You are right. And come to think of it he does a good job of wrapping up the ball. So if the guy wants to prove his strength by standing up 3 or 4 guys then so be it, just hang on to the ball.

I am goin' down with the ship...

by jfainsf49 on Dec 14, 2007 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah...

Hill is going to get crushed. He managed only seven points against a cush defense. And before Hill went in the Niners couldn't capitalize on great field position, twice, that is lousy but it certainly isn't a surprise at this point.

I am goin' down with the ship...

by jfainsf49 on Dec 14, 2007 8:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Clements

Clements has been "average"? What are these guys basing that opinion from? Interceptions? He's been a VERY solid CB all season, and he's done very well against #1 receivers all year.

by sfgfan on Dec 14, 2007 9:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Word...

Did you see SI's All Disappointment Team?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/12/12/all.disappointments/index.html

Alex Smith AND Nate Clements? Come on, it's hard to be a top tier defense if you're on the field 45 minutes of the game.

I needed the Niners to be good to make up for the fact that the Giants just sucked!

by Drunken Miller on Dec 14, 2007 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don Banks

Don Banks is, was, and will probably forever be, a tool. In addition to my agreement with your point on Clements, it's also wrong to throw Alex Smith up as the most disappointing QB, considering the circumstances and all.

by sfgfan on Dec 14, 2007 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs