jshawaii22 wrote:It was ONE game... we lead the NFL is 20+ yard 'game changing plays". You have to throw long to do that. We have been applauding it all year.
It was ONE game.
You know Russell was at the VMAC at 4:30am today? He knows that he didn't play a good game, either.
It was ONE GAME.
FYI: it's early but the 2-13 Falcons are outplaying SF... any given Sunday...
js
jshawaii22 wrote:I'm not trying to be negitive. You're probably right as I don't watch the game from a technical viewpoint.
But you comment about how much 'better looking' San Francisco's offense is then ours... and how yesterday 'proves' that our offense is offensive... well then how do explain the first half of tonights Monday night game?
So we don't have a top ten offense. That should not be new news to anyone. IT's old news. You're going to have bad games. You're going to have New Orleans games. You just won't have them every game.
js
RiverDog wrote:Play calling is the easiest of all subjects one can second guess, much more so than a 4th down decision, accepting or declining a penalty, or managing the clock. It's so obvious when the play doesn't work that there was probably a better option.
Russell played a bad game. He made some uncharacteristically poor decisions and he wasn't as sharp as he's been. The OL couldn't punch it in on two plays from inside the 5. Our fg kicker missed from xp range. Receivers couldn't get separation. Anytime the defense comes up with 4 interceptions and all the offense can manage is 10 points, there's far more things wrong than the play calling, and railing on Bevell excuses the rest of the team of their complicity.
RiverDog wrote:I understand what you're saying, Anthony. The problem for Bevell is that he doesn't have a great receiving corps to work with. The front office recognized that weakness when they went out and got Harvin. Losing Rice early didn't help, either. With our top two receivers out, there is no one in our WR corps that demands special attention, so teams can afford to bring their safeties up into the box and man up on the tight end, shut down Lynch and the running game, press man-to-man on Tate and Baldwin, and dare Russell to beat them deep. You're not going to be able to throw a lot of underneath routes as your advocating with the secondary playing us as tight as they were, which is why you saw Russell throwing deep as often as he was, to try to hit on one or two of those and loosen things up some. It also explains why our tight ends haven't been as productive as they underneath is all clogged up. Defenses around the league seem to have figured out the read option, something that we made a lot of hay on last season. It hasn't been nearly as effective this year.
Don't expect Bevell to pull a rabbit out of the hat against the Rams, either. They've shut us down in our last 3 meetings. If our offense can manage 20 points and not commit any turnovers, I'll be ecstatic.
I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive.
Vegaseahawk wrote:I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive.
Of course it would be open if there were no receivers or TE's running routes to that area. My point is, how could you know that guys would be open on the shallow routes if they never ran them. The defense certainly is not going to cover an area where no offensive players are running to.
Anthony wrote:RiverDog wrote:I understand what you're saying, Anthony. The problem for Bevell is that he doesn't have a great receiving corps to work with. The front office recognized that weakness when they went out and got Harvin. Losing Rice early didn't help, either. With our top two receivers out, there is no one in our WR corps that demands special attention, so teams can afford to bring their safeties up into the box and man up on the tight end, shut down Lynch and the running game, press man-to-man on Tate and Baldwin, and dare Russell to beat them deep. You're not going to be able to throw a lot of underneath routes as your advocating with the secondary playing us as tight as they were, which is why you saw Russell throwing deep as often as he was, to try to hit on one or two of those and loosen things up some. It also explains why our tight ends haven't been as productive as they underneath is all clogged up. Defenses around the league seem to have figured out the read option, something that we made a lot of hay on last season. It hasn't been nearly as effective this year.
Don't expect Bevell to pull a rabbit out of the hat against the Rams, either. They've shut us down in our last 3 meetings. If our offense can manage 20 points and not commit any turnovers, I'll be ecstatic.
well for one we have not run much read option this year so we really do not know. As to the rest well we were doing very well prior to the last 3, and things changed after NO, and the thing I see is play calling, there are things you can do to help them, like I said quick hitters, screens, picks, bunch formations, there are things you can do, now will Bevel do them who knows but they can be done. Also being at the game I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive. IF they call plays like NO mixing it up with short, long, screens etc we will be fine, if they choose to do like they did against AZ and only play for one type of pass offense we will be in trouble.
Vegaseahawk wrote:I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive.
Of course it would be open if there were no receivers or TE's running routes to that area. My point is, how could you know that guys would be open on the shallow routes if they never ran them. The defense certainly is not going to cover an area where no offensive players are running to.
Anthony wrote:Vegaseahawk wrote:I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive.
Of course it would be open if there were no receivers or TE's running routes to that area. My point is, how could you know that guys would be open on the shallow routes if they never ran them. The defense certainly is not going to cover an area where no offensive players are running to.
I know what I saw, and I know during our TD they actually threw to the middle, and as I said it was open. Add to that maybe if they had some middle routes being run the long ones would have been more open. The point is the only time they tried it, it worked, no reason to think it would not have all game, or at least give them something else think bout, it s just plain stupid to not use whole field
Vegaseahawk wrote:
Anthony, you see the game at a whole other level than I do. I get your point. Again, the only reason that they might be sandbagging is to use the whole playbook in the playoffs, & not provide film for upcoming opponents to look at. I think that is really stupid, but what other reason could there be?
Anthony wrote:Vegaseahawk wrote:
Anthony, you see the game at a whole other level than I do. I get your point. Again, the only reason that they might be sandbagging is to use the whole playbook in the playoffs, & not provide film for upcoming opponents to look at. I think that is really stupid, but what other reason could there be?
You could be right but guess what? Now the playoffs start this Sunday, so no more holding back.
RiverDog wrote:Anthony wrote:Vegaseahawk wrote:
Anthony, you see the game at a whole other level than I do. I get your point. Again, the only reason that they might be sandbagging is to use the whole playbook in the playoffs, & not provide film for upcoming opponents to look at. I think that is really stupid, but what other reason could there be?
You could be right but guess what? Now the playoffs start this Sunday, so no more holding back.
I agree 100%. The playoffs start this Sunday. This is a hugely important game for us. If they have been holding something back, they need to pull out all the stops for this game. We have to play like there's no tomorrow.
Anthony wrote:You could be right but guess what? Now the playoffs start this Sunday, so no more holding back.
Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:There's a reason you don't see many crossing routes, slants or use of the middle in our offense - Russell Wilson's height is a big factor here. It's just the reality of it.
He does a great job of finding throwing lanes and seeing the field, but the middle is the one place where his vertical limitation shows up a bit.
Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:There's a reason you don't see many crossing routes, slants or use of the middle in our offense - Russell Wilson's height is a big factor here. It's just the reality of it.
He does a great job of finding throwing lanes and seeing the field, but the middle is the one place where his vertical limitation shows up a bit.
RiverDog wrote:Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:There's a reason you don't see many crossing routes, slants or use of the middle in our offense - Russell Wilson's height is a big factor here. It's just the reality of it.
He does a great job of finding throwing lanes and seeing the field, but the middle is the one place where his vertical limitation shows up a bit.
Not only is it Russell's lower launching point, it's the lower ending point. Our wide receivers are Tate (5'10"), Baldwin (5'10") and Kearse (6'1"). Take a look at what the league's other notable short quarterback, Drew Brees, has for a receiving corps: Colston (6'4"), Mecham (6'2") and Graham (6'7"). And in case you're wondering, Percy Harvin is 5'11". Our only big WR, 6'4" Sidney Rice, is obviously absent, and it shows in our inability to run routes across the middle.
HumanCockroach wrote:It seems to me, that when this offense is really cooking it isn't the short routes or the long balls that are garnering the success, it is the intermediate routes this offense thrives on, a BIG part of that is the threat of Wilson and Lynch running the ball, I personally do not feel it is coincidence that the fall off of the running production ( and I am not picking on a specific player here) has hampered severely the ability to find those gaps in the intermediate routes. Creating a void between the LBS and safeties is key for this offense to function properly, and the last three games it has been missing. IMHO even the threat of Wilson and Lynch running successfully changes the course of the offense's ability to. Be successful. Wilson HAS to occasionally run the ball, Lynch HAS to pound them more than 11 or so times a game and they HAVE to have some success doing so.
Users browsing this forum: Oly and 13 guests