There are 96 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Concerns about our running game

Concerns? How could that be? We are 2-0 and Frank just had a 200 yard game?

As exciting as that is, we still can't run the ball when we need to.

For two games in a row now, we have had two chances, one with about 5 minutes left and one with a minute left, to run the ball, control the clock and win the game.

All four times (twice against the Cards and twice against the Hawks), we went 3 and out, giving the other team chances to get back into, or to win the game.

And for all the excitement about Gore's big day, if you take out the two long runs, he had about 50 yards on 12 carries. That certainly isn't bad, but it isn't great either. Without the long runs, if he had kept up that average and had 20-25 carries, he would have had around a 100 yard day. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

And obviously, if he doesn't break it into the endzone, we can't score. We haven't yet this season. So, against a little better defense that doesn't give up those huge plays, who maybe tackles Gore after a good 15-20 yard gain, we probably don't end up with TDs.

If there is one thing we are supposed to be able to do as a team, it's to run the ball when we need to. Breaking big ones is great, but you can't depend on the home run.

We really need to be able to control the ball late in the game, and to be able to pound the ball into the endzone on long drives, if we want continued success.
I see what you saying homie but instead of all the what if's and if then's let's just take the positives out of last game and hope they build on them. The team isn't perfect by any stretch so you can't expect everything to be working after 2 weeks. Just gonna be a work in progress and hope it gets better. Just 2 weeks ago the o line couldn't block a ant this week they opened up holes for Gore to run through. and he only had 16 carries so it's not like they really feed him the ball down the stretch constantly and were getting stuffed.
[ Edited by lamontb on Sep 21, 2009 at 9:47 AM ]
We still had a 9 minute time of possession swing in our favor and, IMO, that's what a ball control O is all about (limiting the amount of time the other teams O has to score on us).
what if gore popped of two more 80 yard runs

what if coffee broke one

what if
  • Chief
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 24,757
Post like this confuse the s**t out of me.

The "what if" post, it is simply asinine. Running backs break out for big plays when they are good, no matter who they play against. It happens when the line creates big holes, the running back has a good instincts and vision and/or the defense misses assignments, and it can happen at any point in any game. The fact of the matter is, Frank played like a badass yesterday and will play like a badass again.
Originally posted by TexasNiner:

As exciting as that is, we still can't run the ball when we need to.

It is interesting that you think this after the TV analysts broke down Gore's second 80 yard run, and counted 9 defensive players at the line to stop the run.

You can't subtract two of the best plays from the total, and then say they should do better with the rest. That doesn't make sense. It is the total at the end of the day that tells you how effective they were.
Originally posted by djfullshred:
Originally posted by TexasNiner:

As exciting as that is, we still can't run the ball when we need to.

It is interesting that you think this after the TV analysts broke down Gore's second 80 yard run, and counted 9 defensive players at the line to stop the run.

You can't subtract two of the best plays from the total, and then say they should do better with the rest. That doesn't make sense. It is the total at the end of the day that tells you how effective they were.

Yes you can, because they are not indicative of how we ran the ball as a whole. If a QB goes 8 for 25, but has two good long passes out of those 8, it doesn't mean he had a good day. It just means two plays saved an otherwise bad performance.

More importantly, when we HAD to run the ball, with the game on the line and the ability to close it out, we are now 0-4. TWICE at the end of each game, we have the chance to run the ball and end the game. And all four times we have gone 3 and out and gave the ball straight back to the other team.

Do you think we will continue to win if we do that against teams that are better than the Cards or the Hasselbackless Hawks?

I love the way our D is playing, but without more consistency (not just a couple home runs) from our running game when we need it, we will not continue to win the close ones against better teams. We don't have any dynamic players on offense in the passing game, so all we have is running the ball.

The point isn't that we are bad but we need to be better. Like everyone, I'm thrilled with out wins. But given how badly the Cards played, and the way they killed themselves with penalties and the fact that the Hawks were without their QB, means we got lucky to a large degree.

If we pull that same 3 and out stuff every time we have the ball late in a game against better teams, we will blow games. Running for 200 yards isn't nearly as important as being able to run the ball when you HAVE to, (IE: inside the 20 and at the end of the game.)

So far, when it really matters, we have not been able to do that. And if you don't think that will hurt us as we get into the tougher part of our schedule, you are fooling yourself.
Originally posted by TexasNiner:
Concerns? How could that be? We are 2-0 and Frank just had a 200 yard game?

As exciting as that is, we still can't run the ball when we need to.

For two games in a row now, we have had two chances, one with about 5 minutes left and one with a minute left, to run the ball, control the clock and win the game.

All four times (twice against the Cards and twice against the Hawks), we went 3 and out, giving the other team chances to get back into, or to win the game.

And for all the excitement about Gore's big day, if you take out the two long runs, he had about 50 yards on 12 carries. That certainly isn't bad, but it isn't great either. Without the long runs, if he had kept up that average and had 20-25 carries, he would have had around a 100 yard day. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

And obviously, if he doesn't break it into the endzone, we can't score. We haven't yet this season. So, against a little better defense that doesn't give up those huge plays, who maybe tackles Gore after a good 15-20 yard gain, we probably don't end up with TDs.

If there is one thing we are supposed to be able to do as a team, it's to run the ball when we need to. Breaking big ones is great, but you can't depend on the home run.

We really need to be able to control the ball late in the game, and to be able to pound the ball into the endzone on long drives, if we want continued success.

Wow, I don't get all those negative comments about your post, other than to write it off to homerism. you are right on. Both games in a row, we couldn't sustain drives, mostly going 3 and out, to ice the game. We relied on our defense and they came up big. And, yes, take some major positives about the difference between week 1 and 2 in our running game, but 2 huge runs don't make for a good running game when there's no consistency. Too many negative yards or little to no gain. I take a lot of positives from this game, but the poster is dead to rights on his observations, and I bet if you ask Singletary, he'd agree, because, unlike some fans, he views his team with objectivity.
Although I believe that our running game is solid (and going to get even better as the O-line gels and gets into a groove), I do understand this posters concern.

But my issue is not our running game so much as it is the play-calling on 3rd downs. I'm behind our new T.O.P./run first offensive philosophy. But that type of scheme constantly creates 3rd and medium and 3rd and short situations. Which isn't preferred, but OK as long as the run game is rolling. What bothers me most is the 3rd down calls by Coach Raye. I'm not always understanding his mindset, especially with the tired, over-used Wildcat/Taser formation. NFL defensive coordinators have that figured out; not much use for it these days. And you can't always pound up the middle on 3rd and long.

Otherwise, We ROCK!!!
Originally posted by TexasNiner:
Originally posted by djfullshred:
Originally posted by TexasNiner:

As exciting as that is, we still can't run the ball when we need to.

It is interesting that you think this after the TV analysts broke down Gore's second 80 yard run, and counted 9 defensive players at the line to stop the run.

You can't subtract two of the best plays from the total, and then say they should do better with the rest. That doesn't make sense. It is the total at the end of the day that tells you how effective they were.

Yes you can, because they are not indicative of how we ran the ball as a whole. If a QB goes 8 for 25, but has two good long passes out of those 8, it doesn't mean he had a good day. It just means two plays saved an otherwise bad performance.

More importantly, when we HAD to run the ball, with the game on the line and the ability to close it out, we are now 0-4. TWICE at the end of each game, we have the chance to run the ball and end the game. And all four times we have gone 3 and out and gave the ball straight back to the other team.

Do you think we will continue to win if we do that against teams that are better than the Cards or the Hasselbackless Hawks?

I love the way our D is playing, but without more consistency (not just a couple home runs) from our running game when we need it, we will not continue to win the close ones against better teams. We don't have any dynamic players on offense in the passing game, so all we have is running the ball.

The point isn't that we are bad but we need to be better. Like everyone, I'm thrilled with out wins. But given how badly the Cards played, and the way they killed themselves with penalties and the fact that the Hawks were without their QB, means we got lucky to a large degree.

If we pull that same 3 and out stuff every time we have the ball late in a game against better teams, we will blow games. Running for 200 yards isn't nearly as important as being able to run the ball when you HAVE to, (IE: inside the 20 and at the end of the game.)

So far, when it really matters, we have not been able to do that. And if you don't think that will hurt us as we get into the tougher part of our schedule, you are fooling yourself.

Had those two TD scores not been one play drives, there may have been more carries that gave you an a sustained drive with effective running. The scores took less time than a 3 & out. So really if you take away those scores, you have a different ballgame with perhaps a bunch more offensive plays. Gore only carried 16 times, and it was enough. Maybe in another game he carries twice as many times for less yards, and yet that looks better to people who are suspicious of their running game, because it invilves more 1st downs.

You are overstating things when you say the game was on the line later when they didn't convert on some 3rd downs. Now I am not saying they don't need improvement, but the scenerios was not a game on the line scenerio. The Seahawks were trailing from the beginning to end of that game.
Originally posted by djfullshred:
Originally posted by TexasNiner:
Originally posted by djfullshred:
Originally posted by TexasNiner:

As exciting as that is, we still can't run the ball when we need to.

It is interesting that you think this after the TV analysts broke down Gore's second 80 yard run, and counted 9 defensive players at the line to stop the run.

You can't subtract two of the best plays from the total, and then say they should do better with the rest. That doesn't make sense. It is the total at the end of the day that tells you how effective they were.

Yes you can, because they are not indicative of how we ran the ball as a whole. If a QB goes 8 for 25, but has two good long passes out of those 8, it doesn't mean he had a good day. It just means two plays saved an otherwise bad performance.

More importantly, when we HAD to run the ball, with the game on the line and the ability to close it out, we are now 0-4. TWICE at the end of each game, we have the chance to run the ball and end the game. And all four times we have gone 3 and out and gave the ball straight back to the other team.

Do you think we will continue to win if we do that against teams that are better than the Cards or the Hasselbackless Hawks?

I love the way our D is playing, but without more consistency (not just a couple home runs) from our running game when we need it, we will not continue to win the close ones against better teams. We don't have any dynamic players on offense in the passing game, so all we have is running the ball.

The point isn't that we are bad but we need to be better. Like everyone, I'm thrilled with out wins. But given how badly the Cards played, and the way they killed themselves with penalties and the fact that the Hawks were without their QB, means we got lucky to a large degree.

If we pull that same 3 and out stuff every time we have the ball late in a game against better teams, we will blow games. Running for 200 yards isn't nearly as important as being able to run the ball when you HAVE to, (IE: inside the 20 and at the end of the game.)

So far, when it really matters, we have not been able to do that. And if you don't think that will hurt us as we get into the tougher part of our schedule, you are fooling yourself.

Had those two TD scores not been one play drives, there may have been more carries that gave you an a sustained drive with effective running. The scores took less time than a 3 & out. So really if you take away those scores, you have a different ballgame with perhaps a bunch more offensive plays. Gore only carried 16 times, and it was enough. Maybe in another game he carries twice as many times for less yards, and yet that looks better to people who are suspicious of their running game, because it invilves more 1st downs.

You are overstating things when you say the game was on the line later when they didn't convert on some 3rd downs. Now I am not saying they don't need improvement, but the scenerios was not a game on the line scenerio. The Seahawks were trailing from the beginning to end of that game.

We won by less than two touchdowns. Twice in the final five minutes we went 3 and out and gave them the opportunity to score. They could have scored on both drives, or even if just on one, then a TD wins the game for them. And as any NFL fan knows, as long as the other team has the ball, or a shot at it, a TD can be scored at any time.

So how was the game not on the line? Twice we could have put the game away and run out the clock if we could just run the ball down their throats and get some first downs. Both times we immediately gave the ball right back to them and ran very little time off the clock.

This is the equivalent of a closer in baseball giving up a bunch of hits, or even some runs, but holding on to win anyway. Sure, it beats losing. And technically, the job got done. But if you keep giving the other team chances to stay in the game, when you could close things out, you wind up losing games you should win.

7 of 8 of our next games (with the exception being the Rams) are against better teams than we have already faced. If we can't control the ball at the end of the game and keep giving those teams second chances, we will regret it.

Even if we rushed for 300 yard before that.
True, but I think the uber-conservative playcalling has something to do with it, too. Teams like Pittsburgh, Dallas, New England, New York will have the balls to call a bootleg or somethin' and hope to catch the defense off-guard with eight or nine in the box. Coach Sing said he wants the offensive line to carry the offensive load, but there's only so much they can do when they defense knows Raye will just run it up the gut three times.
Originally posted by TexasNiner:
Originally posted by djfullshred:
Originally posted by TexasNiner:
Originally posted by djfullshred:
Originally posted by TexasNiner:

As exciting as that is, we still can't run the ball when we need to.

It is interesting that you think this after the TV analysts broke down Gore's second 80 yard run, and counted 9 defensive players at the line to stop the run.

You can't subtract two of the best plays from the total, and then say they should do better with the rest. That doesn't make sense. It is the total at the end of the day that tells you how effective they were.

Yes you can, because they are not indicative of how we ran the ball as a whole. If a QB goes 8 for 25, but has two good long passes out of those 8, it doesn't mean he had a good day. It just means two plays saved an otherwise bad performance.

More importantly, when we HAD to run the ball, with the game on the line and the ability to close it out, we are now 0-4. TWICE at the end of each game, we have the chance to run the ball and end the game. And all four times we have gone 3 and out and gave the ball straight back to the other team.

Do you think we will continue to win if we do that against teams that are better than the Cards or the Hasselbackless Hawks?

I love the way our D is playing, but without more consistency (not just a couple home runs) from our running game when we need it, we will not continue to win the close ones against better teams. We don't have any dynamic players on offense in the passing game, so all we have is running the ball.

The point isn't that we are bad but we need to be better. Like everyone, I'm thrilled with out wins. But given how badly the Cards played, and the way they killed themselves with penalties and the fact that the Hawks were without their QB, means we got lucky to a large degree.

If we pull that same 3 and out stuff every time we have the ball late in a game against better teams, we will blow games. Running for 200 yards isn't nearly as important as being able to run the ball when you HAVE to, (IE: inside the 20 and at the end of the game.)

So far, when it really matters, we have not been able to do that. And if you don't think that will hurt us as we get into the tougher part of our schedule, you are fooling yourself.

Had those two TD scores not been one play drives, there may have been more carries that gave you an a sustained drive with effective running. The scores took less time than a 3 & out. So really if you take away those scores, you have a different ballgame with perhaps a bunch more offensive plays. Gore only carried 16 times, and it was enough. Maybe in another game he carries twice as many times for less yards, and yet that looks better to people who are suspicious of their running game, because it invilves more 1st downs.

You are overstating things when you say the game was on the line later when they didn't convert on some 3rd downs. Now I am not saying they don't need improvement, but the scenerios was not a game on the line scenerio. The Seahawks were trailing from the beginning to end of that game.

We won by less than two touchdowns. Twice in the final five minutes we went 3 and out and gave them the opportunity to score. They could have scored on both drives, or even if just on one, then a TD wins the game for them. And as any NFL fan knows, as long as the other team has the ball, or a shot at it, a TD can be scored at any time.

So how was the game not on the line? Twice we could have put the game away and run out the clock if we could just run the ball down their throats and get some first downs. Both times we immediately gave the ball right back to them and ran very little time off the clock.

This is the equivalent of a closer in baseball giving up a bunch of hits, or even some runs, but holding on to win anyway. Sure, it beats losing. And technically, the job got done. But if you keep giving the other team chances to stay in the game, when you could close things out, you wind up losing games you should win.

7 of 8 of our next games (with the exception being the Rams) are against better teams than we have already faced. If we can't control the ball at the end of the game and keep giving those teams second chances, we will regret it.

Even if we rushed for 300 yard before that.

Now I don't want to give the impression that I don't think their offense needs a lot of improvement. But I think these two games are not enough to get overly worried they will not be a really good running team this year.

As far as "game on the line", well that is a matter of opinion. That phrase can be interpereted however anyone wants to percieve it. IMHO when you have a really good defense, and leading by two scores, I do not consider missing a 3rd down conversion late in the game by your offense a game on the line situation. I think it sucks when that happens, but not necessarily game on the line. The seachickens offense was totally owned by the 49ers defense in the second half.
Originally posted by DShanghai69er:
True, but I think the uber-conservative playcalling has something to do with it, too. Teams like Pittsburgh, Dallas, New England, New York will have the balls to call a bootleg or somethin' and hope to catch the defense off-guard with eight or nine in the box. Coach Sing said he wants the offensive line to carry the offensive load, but there's only so much they can do when they defense knows Raye will just run it up the gut three times.

Yeah i agree with this.

I think more to do with the playcalling.

-9fA
I think we will get better as we go during the season.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home