Like It Or Not Redskins Two Years Away

[Elephant]

And yet Alex Smith gets sacked 8.1% of the time he drops back to pass. Last year when the 49ers suddenly got good overnight Smith was sacked 9% of the time.

Griffin, who supposedly gets hit every time he drops back, is at 7.5%.

Like I said earlier in the thread, our line play isn't great but it's not going to keep us from winning. Plenty of successful teams cover for bad line play.

Smith is a slow QB who sits in the pocket too long and lacks the quick release that great QB's have. Can you imagine if Griff was behind that line?

 

[Fear The Spear]

I hear a college coach is campaigning to be the next coach of the Skins, and he's going around saying, "Do you want 2 more years of this ?"

 

[Henry]

Smith is a slow QB who sits in the pocket too long and lacks the quick release that great QB's have. Can you imagine if Griff was behind that line?

Of course. They invested three first rounders on their line. We invested three on our QB. They have the 27th ranked passing offense in the league. We have the 10th.

That's my point. There's more than one way to get where you want to go.

The 49ers win because after years of patient drafting they can play great defense and can run the ball. Not because they invested in an awesome line that is carrying the team or something.

 

[Elephant]

Right, so they are more successful having built their lines on both sides of the ball. We are not because we spent 3 first round picks on a QB. I'll take what they have everyday!

Edit: OK, I just did what I hate to see others do when arguing their point. Of course we are not bad because we spent 3 1st round draft picks on a QB, we are bad because of the atmosphere of mediocrity that has been here for years. I will say this though, I think Shanahan may have been the wrong answer to that problem, not that we were too dysfunctional.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Jarvis Jenkins has been less than advertised so far at DE/DT

Can you elaborate on this? Jenkins is playing excellent ball, IMO. Making plays against the run and pass, and more than adequately filling in for Carriker. In fact, I don't have the numbers, but I think our rushing defense totals have gone down since Jenkins took over for him.

 

[Henry]

El, I think we need to address our line. Sooner rather than later.

All I'm saying is the 49ers didn't become good overnight. They spent years building through the draft. As far back as 2005, when they drafted their QB and RB. We just started. We are in year two. We are where the 49ers were in 2007. I think the suggesting that the 49ers are some sort of instant success is completely bogus.

That's really all I'm trying to say.

 

[Elephant]

El, I think we need to address our line. Sooner rather than later.

All I'm saying is the 49ers didn't become good overnight. They spent years building through the draft. As far back as 2005, when they drafted their QB and RB. We just started. We are in year two. We are where the 49ers were in 2007. I think the suggesting that the 49ers are some sort of instant success is completely bogus.

That's really my only point.

I don't believe I ever made the argument they were an over night success. I remember watching their draft picks as OL who I wanted us to draft were being scooped up by them, thinking they were doing it the right way. And now here we are. I do not question the Shanahan era because he hasn't had time, I question him because of what he has done with that time and I am not confident it will get much better as long as he plays such a big part of player acquisition. 50/50 is what I have seen from him at this point. That will not get it done. For every Alfred Morris there is Jamal Brown and Larry Johnson.

 

[Henry]

I don't believe I ever made the argument they were an over night success.

I don't believe I ever said you said that.

I remember watching their draft picks as OL who I wanted us to draft were being scooped up by them, thinking they were doing it the right way. And now here we are. I do not question the Shanahan era because he hasn't had time, I question him because of what he has done with that time and I am not confident it will get much better as long as he plays such a big part of player acquisition. 50/50 is what I have seen from him at this point. That will not get it done. For every Alfred Morris there is Jamal Brown and Larry Johnson.

I think Shanahan's first year here was absolutely awful. I think he wasted the entire off-season foodling about with old players who didn't make sense ... and don't get me started on the whole McNabb thing.

Since then, I'm seeing a much better strategy. Would I prefer the OL be given higher priority than the WRs? Sure. But the fact is we had (have) to fill a ton of holes and they weren't all going to get filled at once. If the OL gets it's due next offseason I will live with it and just accept that Shanahan and Allen built this team in a different order than I would have, but as long as it gets built that's the important thing. If we continue to pretend things are fine on the line (and in the secondary) I'll agree with you, and I'd be surprised to see Shanahan survive to year five.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

 

[Neophyte]

I don't see what all the ruckus is about, really. We don't have the strongest interior line to be sure but we are no Dallas Cowboys either. Another solid starting OT so that we can make Polumbus the swing Tackle to backup and this offense is going to rock.

On defense we are really a big starting CB and a Safety away from something solid, assuming we hire a competent DC in the next few months. But if we don't upgrade the DC then no personnel moves we could make will make a difference.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

The dream scenario is Rex Ryan gets fired midseason, and we hire him immediately to be DC.

 

[tshile]

I think rex ryan is a douche bag and would rather him not be on the team. But that's just my opinon

 

[Neophyte]

The dream scenario is Rex Ryan gets fired midseason, and we hire him immediately to be DC.

I disagree. I would prefer to never root for a team being coached in anyway by genes related to Buddy Ryan.

No, the dream scenario is that Dick LeBeau suddenly decides he wants to live in Great Falls and that Pittsburgh is just to far to commute.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I disagree. I would prefer to never root for a team being coached in anyway by genes related to Buddy Ryan.

No, the dream scenario is that Dick LeBeau suddenly decides he wants to live in Great Falls and that Pittsburgh is just to far to commute.

Well, yeah. Realistic dream scenario I should have said.

 

[Fear The Spear]

Whoever the hell we hire, he better be a 3-4 coach, because I damn sure don't want to go through another freakin overhaul of our front 7

 

[Elephant]

Gonna have to agree with the anti-Rex sentiment. We do not need his drama here! He revels in the NY media spotlight and they love him for it. Our market isn't quite the same, but he will command entirely too much attention. He will become a huge distraction!

Fear is right, whomever it is they better be great! Will Raheem fit that bill?

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

actually we now have the personelle to run a multiple front D. we could run 4-3, 3-4, 5-2 and be decent at all of them, we have a couple guys who are versatile enough to do that.

 

[RedskinfaninOC]

how are we 2 years away after 4?
he just started his 3rd season....

to answer your question, the 49ers weren't a talent deprived, organizationally bankrupt team. we were.



Dan Reves was the coach during the '87 season, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Reeves#Head_coaching_record
Not Shanahan...

Thank you for the correction. Setting aside that it was not Shanny, doesn't Gibbs approach make more sense and support the theory that the team should keep running the plays that works...and keep running them until your opponent stops you?

 

[tshile]

Thank you for the correction. Setting aside that it was not Shanny, doesn't Gibbs approach make more sense and support the theory that the team should keep running the plays that works...and keep running them until your opponent stops you?

Well, a few things. First off, Gibb's 2.0 did that and it was a miserable failure. Now I don't put the blame solely on Gibbs, he had a terrible front office (compared to the excellent front office in Gibb's 1.0) with an meddling owner who let the inmates run the asylum. But it still didn't work. He did the best we've had, with 2 playoff appearances, but both years were not long term competitive teams - they were back-into-the-playoffs teams.

The league is clearly pass oriented. That said I want a strong running game.

I just disagree with this idea that we're constantly moving away from 'what works'. Just because the running plays were giving us yards doesn't mean they were working. Working means points on the board. We dominated the yards on the ground last game through 3 quarters, but we fell short on the score board (our lead was because of a TD on defense) and time of possession.

A solid, balanced attack is what is key. Some weeks it'll mean more running than passing, some weeks it'll mean more passing than running.

The criticism of the (general) play calling is over blown and tiring. It comes after every single loss and is just as much of an overreaction as the stuff we see after wins; go look at how people reacted to the Saints win... You'll see the same people overreacting in those threads/calls/articles/blogs as you see overreacting now. The idiots on certain radio stations are the ones furthering the argument and then it winds up being spewed by fans. Actually analysing the general play calling shows it's pretty balanced.

If you want to criticize a specific play call, or you want to get into who they have running the ball (specifically Banks and Griffin) that's one thing. But, in general, I refuse to see how the offensive play calling is the issue. I hear people make complaints, but when you look at the stats and the play log, and give each series some context (being ahead, being behind, time left, quarter, success/failure of previous plays) their argument falls apart. When you show them this and point it out, their only rebuttal is that they aren't a 'stats guy' or something else as ridiculous; yeah i hate when pesky 'stats' and 'facts' get in the way of my knee-jerk reactions and opinions as well...

 

[servumtuum]

Tshile...

Thank you.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Well, a few things. First off, Gibb's 2.0 did that and it was a miserable failure. Now I don't put the blame solely on Gibbs, he had a terrible front office (compared to the excellent front office in Gibb's 1.0) with an meddling owner who let the inmates run the asylum. But it still didn't work. He did the best we've had, with 2 playoff appearances, but both years were not long term competitive teams - they were back-into-the-playoffs teams.

The league is clearly pass oriented. That said I want a strong running game.

I just disagree with this idea that we're constantly moving away from 'what works'. Just because the running plays were giving us yards doesn't mean they were working. Working means points on the board. We dominated the yards on the ground last game through 3 quarters, but we fell short on the score board (our lead was because of a TD on defense) and time of possession.

A solid, balanced attack is what is key. Some weeks it'll mean more running than passing, some weeks it'll mean more passing than running.

The criticism of the (general) play calling is over blown and tiring. It comes after every single loss and is just as much of an overreaction as the stuff we see after wins; go look at how people reacted to the Saints win... You'll see the same people overreacting in those threads/calls/articles/blogs as you see overreacting now. The idiots on certain radio stations are the ones furthering the argument and then it winds up being spewed by fans. Actually analysing the general play calling shows it's pretty balanced.

If you want to criticize a specific play call, or you want to get into who they have running the ball (specifically Banks and Griffin) that's one thing. But, in general, I refuse to see how the offensive play calling is the issue. I hear people make complaints, but when you look at the stats and the play log, and give each series some context (being ahead, being behind, time left, quarter, success/failure of previous plays) their argument falls apart. When you show them this and point it out, their only rebuttal is that they aren't a 'stats guy' or something else as ridiculous; yeah i hate when pesky 'stats' and 'facts' get in the way of my knee-jerk reactions and opinions as well...

You continue to focus on the overall numbers, when that's not the argument at all. Its not a knee-jerk reaction either, its a reaction to the flow of the game. And its not a reaction to every loss either; I had the same thoughts after the win against Tampa.

The playcalling is the issue because Kyle does not seem to understand game flow, and his playcalling is predictable. I go back to the first series against Atlanta - Morris crushed the first two runs, and they called a very obvious play-action pass on the third play. CB blitz, Griffin is creamed. We're lucky that wasn't 6 points the other direction! Results in a 7-yard loss & the drive never recovers. That same sort of lack of "feel" for the game continued throughout.