What we learned from the Vikings game

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by scopur49er:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by scopur49er:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:

Originally posted by 4evrfan:

Originally posted by djfullshred:
We learned that Singletary/Raye are not going to deviate from the situational play calling chart that tells them to run the ball no matter what if you have a lead in the 4th quarter - even if you are leaving enough time for the other team to come back if you don't get a 1st down.

So true and so scary. The really frightening thing is the quote attributed to Sing saying he won't 2nd guess Raye and wouldn't analyze his play choices???!!!! WTF! Has he been watching our each game ended with our inability to even get first downs and repeatedly going 3 and outs while stubbornly running for negative yards? "Won't analyze"? Isn't that the job of the head coach.

We lost on the luckiest 32 yard pass and catch you will ever see...

There's nothing wrong with the play calling. Just bad luck

We ran the clock down so that the Vikings eventually had to score on a bomb with 2 seconds left on the clock. I'll take that every single game

When you stubbornly and ineffectively run the ball up the middle against the best run defense in the league and go 0-11 in 3rd down conversions then yes, there is something very wrong with the offensive playcalling.

The Vikings are not even as good on run D as we are, even after this game. The strategy was sound on the play calling, we got beat on a one in a thousand throw and catch. Even Farve admitted as much saying "I knew I was gonna get hit, so I just threw it as hard as I can". Sometimes the offense wins, it is just that simple.

See I don't buy that argument at all.
I don't believe one play ever makes or breaks you. There's 60 minutes of football and plenty of opportunities to extend your lead or lose it.
Look at the game as a whole and our offensive playcalling was sub-par. Our third down conversions couldn't have been worse. Our defense couldn't get off the field like they were supposed to. Too many factors play into the outcome of a game to simply say "we lost because of a one in a thousand throw and catch".

It's too convenient and too easy of an excuse and I guarantee you not a single coach or player on the team is going to look at it that same way because it'll prevent them from seeing what the real problems were.
If you're Singletary, there's no way you're satisfied with how we played as a whole. We did some things right and we did some things wrong but they won't use that final play as an excuse and I don't see why we need to either.

We played as well as we can with the QB that we have. We lost because of a play that if they were to run it a thousand times, they succeed maybe 10% of the time. It was a fluke play, not a high percentage pass at all. There is no way Singletary is happy with the overall play, but the same could likely have been said even if we had won that game. The o line and QB were sore spots for us, Hill once again only had one good drive and looked average the rest of the day. The defense played well all day and in the end our 5th or maybe 6th DB got beat on a play that was a perfect throw and excellent catch. I do not even blame Roman for that play, the only other thing he could have done was interfere with the guy. He played his zone exactly like he should have, the only thing about that last play is what Herm Edwards brought up, there should have been more DB's in the end zone.

It sounds to me like you're seeing what you want to see and if that makes you feel better about the loss then that's cool but I'm not willing to accept that.
What about that fluke blocked kick play that we scored on? That happens far less than 10% of the time but you're not pointing it out at all because it worked in our favor.
That's my point - it's not about 1 play. It's about the whole effort.
It makes more sense to look at the bigger picture and the contributing factors which put us in that position in the first place. What if Gore didn't get injured? What if we hadn't failed to convert a single third down? What if we ran the ball less? What if VD had dropped one of those TD catches?
The what-if scenarios can go on endlessly because there are an endless number of things that could've changed the outcome of this game.
Blaming it on one fluke play doesn't make sense, regardless of when it happend, because that play was setup by everything that happened before it.

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
i learned that the vikings gave massages with happy endings to the refs before the game

No s**t.

Originally posted by scopur49er:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by scopur49er:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by scopur49er:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:

Originally posted by 4evrfan:

Originally posted by djfullshred:
We learned that Singletary/Raye are not going to deviate from the situational play calling chart that tells them to run the ball no matter what if you have a lead in the 4th quarter - even if you are leaving enough time for the other team to come back if you don't get a 1st down.

So true and so scary. The really frightening thing is the quote attributed to Sing saying he won't 2nd guess Raye and wouldn't analyze his play choices???!!!! WTF! Has he been watching our each game ended with our inability to even get first downs and repeatedly going 3 and outs while stubbornly running for negative yards? "Won't analyze"? Isn't that the job of the head coach.

We lost on the luckiest 32 yard pass and catch you will ever see...

There's nothing wrong with the play calling. Just bad luck

We ran the clock down so that the Vikings eventually had to score on a bomb with 2 seconds left on the clock. I'll take that every single game

When you stubbornly and ineffectively run the ball up the middle against the best run defense in the league and go 0-11 in 3rd down conversions then yes, there is something very wrong with the offensive playcalling.

The Vikings are not even as good on run D as we are, even after this game. The strategy was sound on the play calling, we got beat on a one in a thousand throw and catch. Even Farve admitted as much saying "I knew I was gonna get hit, so I just threw it as hard as I can". Sometimes the offense wins, it is just that simple.

See I don't buy that argument at all.
I don't believe one play ever makes or breaks you. There's 60 minutes of football and plenty of opportunities to extend your lead or lose it.
Look at the game as a whole and our offensive playcalling was sub-par. Our third down conversions couldn't have been worse. Our defense couldn't get off the field like they were supposed to. Too many factors play into the outcome of a game to simply say "we lost because of a one in a thousand throw and catch".

It's too convenient and too easy of an excuse and I guarantee you not a single coach or player on the team is going to look at it that same way because it'll prevent them from seeing what the real problems were.
If you're Singletary, there's no way you're satisfied with how we played as a whole. We did some things right and we did some things wrong but they won't use that final play as an excuse and I don't see why we need to either.

We played as well as we can with the QB that we have. We lost because of a play that if they were to run it a thousand times, they succeed maybe 10% of the time. It was a fluke play, not a high percentage pass at all. There is no way Singletary is happy with the overall play, but the same could likely have been said even if we had won that game. The o line and QB were sore spots for us, Hill once again only had one good drive and looked average the rest of the day. The defense played well all day and in the end our 5th or maybe 6th DB got beat on a play that was a perfect throw and excellent catch. I do not even blame Roman for that play, the only other thing he could have done was interfere with the guy. He played his zone exactly like he should have, the only thing about that last play is what Herm Edwards brought up, there should have been more DB's in the end zone.

It sounds to me like you're seeing what you want to see and if that makes you feel better about the loss then that's cool but I'm not willing to accept that.
What about that fluke blocked kick play that we scored on? That happens far less than 10% of the time but you're not pointing it out at all because it worked in our favor.
That's my point - it's not about 1 play. It's about the whole effort.
It makes more sense to look at the bigger picture and the contributing factors which put us in that position in the first place. What if Gore didn't get injured? What if we hadn't failed to convert a single third down? What if we ran the ball less? What if VD had dropped one of those TD catches?
The what-if scenarios can go on endlessly because there are an endless number of things that could've changed the outcome of this game.
Blaming it on one fluke play doesn't make sense, regardless of when it happend, because that play was setup by everything that happened before it.

Actually, there is a reason they have the saying :"Your only as good as the next play." in the NFL. The first thing SF needs to do is focus on correcting that massive f**kup on the d's part, on that ONE play. They need to defend that play better, that play being...an end of the game play. That is where you start.

Now, you speak of "looking at what put us in that position"... what position were we in? We had 4 point lead, with an O that couldn't find it's ass from a hole in the ground and a d that could, along with a pro bowl punter. In that position, you give it to the punter and the d, and send those lame asses who can't block for s**t, can't get a 1st down for s**t the whole game, to the bench, before something bad happens.... like having a QB all jacked up to convert and under pressure from a kick ass opposing d, force a throw to get a 1st down, when all that is really needed is for him to protect the f**king ball. If the Vikes needed a FG, I may believe it would have been wiser to attempt the 1st. If the d had not been stellar in keeping the Vikes out of even FG range the entire second half, I might think different, too. This will happen again, no matter how well the offense performs, no matter how many points they score, 1st downs they convert etc, IT WILL GET HANDED TO THE D AGAIN AT SOME POINT.

OK, we did that passing it to the d,...and what it came down to was basically only a 32 yard pass could beat us, and we let that happen. We let the only thing that could beat us, beat us.That needs to be corrected, no buts about it, no big analysis needed, no big change of philosophy and the like, just simply learn to defend that end of the game play.

Originally posted by Joecool:
What we learned?

Mark Roman whored himself out to 31 teams and no one wanted him. He hasn't done anything for us besides being in plays made by the OTHER team.

Why in the hell is he even getting THIS much playing time? Seriously, I have no problem with our run run run in the last drive as it drained the teams timeouts. I don't have a problem with prevent because there was VERY little time remaining and the last thing we want is to blitz, get it picked up and allow a 1-on-1 jump ball.

What I DO have a problem is with some idiot who is in a prevent defense for a reason relaxes for a split second and says "Oh s**t!" as soon as Favre rifles a ball from 35 yards back only to misjudge the ball as he so often does and allow a toe tipper catch. Man, Roman has NO game awareness. I have seen Clements catch a jumping receiver and throw him out of bounds. Roman is no Clements and would have never though of trying to push the receiver out of bounds or even making contact with the receiver as soon as the ball got there.

There is a reason why Roman was passed up by 31 teams. Why the hell does he keep playing for ours AND getting time on the field?

Exactly..... When they ran the reply and I realized it was #26 on the coverage, I went ballistic!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Joecool:
What we learned?

Mark Roman whored himself out to 31 teams and no one wanted him. He hasn't done anything for us besides being in plays made by the OTHER team.

Why in the hell is he even getting THIS much playing time? Seriously, I have no problem with our run run run in the last drive as it drained the teams timeouts. I don't have a problem with prevent because there was VERY little time remaining and the last thing we want is to blitz, get it picked up and allow a 1-on-1 jump ball.

What I DO have a problem is with some idiot who is in a prevent defense for a reason relaxes for a split second and says "Oh s**t!" as soon as Favre rifles a ball from 35 yards back only to misjudge the ball as he so often does and allow a toe tipper catch. Man, Roman has NO game awareness. I have seen Clements catch a jumping receiver and throw him out of bounds. Roman is no Clements and would have never though of trying to push the receiver out of bounds or even making contact with the receiver as soon as the ball got there.

There is a reason why Roman was passed up by 31 teams. Why the hell does he keep playing for ours AND getting time on the field?

Joe, we all feel the pain and frustration. Couldn't agree more. Does anyone know the dime package as far who is in on the secondary on prevent dime?

1Clements
2Bly
3Spencer
4Goldson
5Lewis
6?

Originally posted by scopur49er:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by scopur49er:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:

Originally posted by 4evrfan:

Originally posted by djfullshred:
We learned that Singletary/Raye are not going to deviate from the situational play calling chart that tells them to run the ball no matter what if you have a lead in the 4th quarter - even if you are leaving enough time for the other team to come back if you don't get a 1st down.

So true and so scary. The really frightening thing is the quote attributed to Sing saying he won't 2nd guess Raye and wouldn't analyze his play choices???!!!! WTF! Has he been watching our each game ended with our inability to even get first downs and repeatedly going 3 and outs while stubbornly running for negative yards? "Won't analyze"? Isn't that the job of the head coach.

We lost on the luckiest 32 yard pass and catch you will ever see...

There's nothing wrong with the play calling. Just bad luck

We ran the clock down so that the Vikings eventually had to score on a bomb with 2 seconds left on the clock. I'll take that every single game

When you stubbornly and ineffectively run the ball up the middle against the best run defense in the league and go 0-11 in 3rd down conversions then yes, there is something very wrong with the offensive playcalling.

The Vikings are not even as good on run D as we are, even after this game. The strategy was sound on the play calling, we got beat on a one in a thousand throw and catch. Even Farve admitted as much saying "I knew I was gonna get hit, so I just threw it as hard as I can". Sometimes the offense wins, it is just that simple.

See I don't buy that argument at all.
I don't believe one play ever makes or breaks you. There's 60 minutes of football and plenty of opportunities to extend your lead or lose it.
Look at the game as a whole and our offensive playcalling was sub-par. Our third down conversions couldn't have been worse. Our defense couldn't get off the field like they were supposed to. Too many factors play into the outcome of a game to simply say "we lost because of a one in a thousand throw and catch".

It's too convenient and too easy of an excuse and I guarantee you not a single coach or player on the team is going to look at it that same way because it'll prevent them from seeing what the real problems were.
If you're Singletary, there's no way you're satisfied with how we played as a whole. We did some things right and we did some things wrong but they won't use that final play as an excuse and I don't see why we need to either.

It seemed to me just a give up at the end by the offense, saying, "Ok we expect the defense to save our asses once again". That is not good strategy. In this particular game situation if you make getting the 1st down a higher priority than running down the clock, you are at least trying to end the game with your offense, before relying on the defense as a fallback. Obviously they were more concerned about the clock to keep running then getting the 1st down, and were already planning to use the defense as a fallback. I don't like that strategy. Not when your opponent has a future hall of fame quarterback, and will get the ball back with 90 seconds to do something he has done many times in his career.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by baltien:

Originally posted by scopur49er:
Ok so we lost to the Vikes at home. Time to move on and learn from our mistakes.
IMO, the Favre miracle pass had nothing to do with it but rather this key statistic did.

Third down conversions:
Niners, 0-11
Vikings, 10-20

If you all recall, one of our biggest problems the last couple years is that our defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs. Allowing 50% conversion on third downs pretty much sealed the defenses fate if you ask me. Our guys are tougher this year and they can hang with any offense in the league but not if you keep letting them move the ball down field and control the clock. Preventing 3rd down conversions is a crucial part of that.

On the flip side, we didn't convert ANY third downs which, quite honestly, is just pathetic. The root of this became apparent during the game. At one point towards the end of the game they flashed a stat which showed our average yards needed on third down and it was (if I recall) around 9.2 yards. It should be no wonder we had such a hard time converting.
So why were we so often in 3rd and long situations?
Well if you watched the game you know exactly why. Jimmy Raye was challenging the Vikings d-line by trying to push the ball up the gut and let's be honest, we lost that battle far more often than we won it. When you run up the middle on first down and fail, then run up the middle on second down and fail hey guess what? It's 3rd and long now. This happened quite often, far more often than it should have.

Let's be honest. Jimmy Raye is no offensive genius. If you know you're going up against a defense that tops the league in run stoppage, why do you continue to try and run up the gut long after it's already proven to be ineffective? We won't win games with offensive playcalling like that and it shows that Jimmy Raye either:
a) Failed to gameplan properly against the Vikes
or
b) Stubbornly refused to adapt the gameplan when it was evident things weren't working.

I think it's time Sing pulled his pants down and had a chat with our OC about his offensive strategy.

See bold. And I don't want to hear this "he doesn't trust Shaun Hill" crap. He TRUSTED Shaun Hill to convert on 4th and 1 by calling a 25 yard pass play to Morgan. If Sing/Raye truly felt that keeping the ball on the ground was our best bet, then why deviate there?

Answer: Because as much as I like Sing, he's full of it here.

He knew damn well like anyone else with two eyes that we were getting stuffed on nearly every run play. Why he thought the result would be different towards the end is beyond me. On those last two series, he just chumped out. At the worst possible time they caved into their fear of Hill POSSIBLY throwing pick, or fumbling, and it cost us the game.

End of story.

The thing that hurts my head the most is for all the "Hill just isn't that good" excuses on why we won't open the playbook, no one is LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS. So far this season, we are by far a better passing team than a running team. Hill is currently ranked 11th in the league in completion percentage.

That's AHEAD of such names as Romo, Warner, Roethlisberger, Brady, Rivers etc etc:

[url=null]null[/url] LINKAGE

Coming into the game, Shaun Hill I believe was around 3rd in the league in 3rd down completions (heard one of the sportscasters say it). He has SHOWN the first two games that we don't have to just pass when necessary. He has proved he's more than capable than shouldering the load.

All we needed was ONE first down. Just ONE. Yet we ran plays directly into the strength of the defense. Only a fool would try to argue that making sense. We gave the Vikings a gift chance they should have never had. And they made fools of us for it.

I sincerely hope that beyond the feel good speeches Sing & Raye realizes this, and will correct it.

Great post!

Pffft great post? I completely disagree. This notion that S Hill is some kind of stud waiting in the wings. there is a reason Hills completion percentage is so high. Look at how many passes he has thrown, then how many were HIGH percentage throws, and now compare those stats to those names you through up for your passion filled post and I think the picture becomes REAL clear. Shaun Hill SUCKS and our coaches know this and don't trust him to pass unless they HAVE NO CHOICE.

Raye's call for a long pass on 4th and 1 was one of the best calls he has had to date as a Niner. I mean what better play when you have demonstrated to frustration your willingness to run it straight at the heart of the defense. I am sure the Vikes figured the trend would continue. Again tho, they only let Hill pass it cause they HAD NO CHOICE if they didn't want it all to unravel right then and there.

It is completely beyond me how anyone can watch S Hill and then just about any other starting QB in just about any other game and still feel S.Hill is an adequate starter.

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by baltien:

Originally posted by scopur49er:
Ok so we lost to the Vikes at home. Time to move on and learn from our mistakes.
IMO, the Favre miracle pass had nothing to do with it but rather this key statistic did.

Third down conversions:
Niners, 0-11
Vikings, 10-20

If you all recall, one of our biggest problems the last couple years is that our defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs. Allowing 50% conversion on third downs pretty much sealed the defenses fate if you ask me. Our guys are tougher this year and they can hang with any offense in the league but not if you keep letting them move the ball down field and control the clock. Preventing 3rd down conversions is a crucial part of that.

On the flip side, we didn't convert ANY third downs which, quite honestly, is just pathetic. The root of this became apparent during the game. At one point towards the end of the game they flashed a stat which showed our average yards needed on third down and it was (if I recall) around 9.2 yards. It should be no wonder we had such a hard time converting.
So why were we so often in 3rd and long situations?
Well if you watched the game you know exactly why. Jimmy Raye was challenging the Vikings d-line by trying to push the ball up the gut and let's be honest, we lost that battle far more often than we won it. When you run up the middle on first down and fail, then run up the middle on second down and fail hey guess what? It's 3rd and long now. This happened quite often, far more often than it should have.

Let's be honest. Jimmy Raye is no offensive genius. If you know you're going up against a defense that tops the league in run stoppage, why do you continue to try and run up the gut long after it's already proven to be ineffective? We won't win games with offensive playcalling like that and it shows that Jimmy Raye either:
a) Failed to gameplan properly against the Vikes
or
b) Stubbornly refused to adapt the gameplan when it was evident things weren't working.

I think it's time Sing pulled his pants down and had a chat with our OC about his offensive strategy.

See bold. And I don't want to hear this "he doesn't trust Shaun Hill" crap. He TRUSTED Shaun Hill to convert on 4th and 1 by calling a 25 yard pass play to Morgan. If Sing/Raye truly felt that keeping the ball on the ground was our best bet, then why deviate there?

Answer: Because as much as I like Sing, he's full of it here.

He knew damn well like anyone else with two eyes that we were getting stuffed on nearly every run play. Why he thought the result would be different towards the end is beyond me. On those last two series, he just chumped out. At the worst possible time they caved into their fear of Hill POSSIBLY throwing pick, or fumbling, and it cost us the game.

End of story.

The thing that hurts my head the most is for all the "Hill just isn't that good" excuses on why we won't open the playbook, no one is LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS. So far this season, we are by far a better passing team than a running team. Hill is currently ranked 11th in the league in completion percentage.

That's AHEAD of such names as Romo, Warner, Roethlisberger, Brady, Rivers etc etc:

[url=null]null[/url] LINKAGE

Coming into the game, Shaun Hill I believe was around 3rd in the league in 3rd down completions (heard one of the sportscasters say it). He has SHOWN the first two games that we don't have to just pass when necessary. He has proved he's more than capable than shouldering the load.

All we needed was ONE first down. Just ONE. Yet we ran plays directly into the strength of the defense. Only a fool would try to argue that making sense. We gave the Vikings a gift chance they should have never had. And they made fools of us for it.

I sincerely hope that beyond the feel good speeches Sing & Raye realizes this, and will correct it.

Great post!

Pffft great post? I completely disagree. This notion that S Hill is some kind of stud waiting in the wings. there is a reason Hills completion percentage is so high. Look at how many passes he has thrown, then how many were HIGH percentage throws, and now compare those stats to those names you through up for your passion filled post and I think the picture becomes REAL clear. Shaun Hill SUCKS and our coaches know this and don't trust him to pass unless they HAVE NO CHOICE.

Raye's call for a long pass on 4th and 1 was one of the best calls he has had to date as a Niner. I mean what better play when you have demonstrated to frustration your willingness to run it straight at the heart of the defense. I am sure the Vikes figured the trend would continue. Again tho, they only let Hill pass it cause they HAD NO CHOICE if they didn't want it all to unravel right then and there.

It is completely beyond me how anyone can watch S Hill and then just about any other starting QB in just about any other game and still feel S.Hill is an adequate starter.

To answer your question, it is because people are watching the games without carrying into it all that baggage of "I hate that dude. He sucks". People are seeing the good with the bad, not just the bad.

I am not one to say Shaun Hill is the next franchise QB for the 49ers, but on a team that has had a long drought of talent at the position, it isn't too hard to see he is the best option out of what they currently have on the roster.

1) Either the Vikings are Overrated

2) 49ers are Underrated

3) We cant finish

We learned that we are capable of losing. Lesson learned, NOW DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by baltien:

Originally posted by scopur49er:
Ok so we lost to the Vikes at home. Time to move on and learn from our mistakes.
IMO, the Favre miracle pass had nothing to do with it but rather this key statistic did.

Third down conversions:
Niners, 0-11
Vikings, 10-20

If you all recall, one of our biggest problems the last couple years is that our defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs. Allowing 50% conversion on third downs pretty much sealed the defenses fate if you ask me. Our guys are tougher this year and they can hang with any offense in the league but not if you keep letting them move the ball down field and control the clock. Preventing 3rd down conversions is a crucial part of that.

On the flip side, we didn't convert ANY third downs which, quite honestly, is just pathetic. The root of this became apparent during the game. At one point towards the end of the game they flashed a stat which showed our average yards needed on third down and it was (if I recall) around 9.2 yards. It should be no wonder we had such a hard time converting.
So why were we so often in 3rd and long situations?
Well if you watched the game you know exactly why. Jimmy Raye was challenging the Vikings d-line by trying to push the ball up the gut and let's be honest, we lost that battle far more often than we won it. When you run up the middle on first down and fail, then run up the middle on second down and fail hey guess what? It's 3rd and long now. This happened quite often, far more often than it should have.

Let's be honest. Jimmy Raye is no offensive genius. If you know you're going up against a defense that tops the league in run stoppage, why do you continue to try and run up the gut long after it's already proven to be ineffective? We won't win games with offensive playcalling like that and it shows that Jimmy Raye either:
a) Failed to gameplan properly against the Vikes
or
b) Stubbornly refused to adapt the gameplan when it was evident things weren't working.

I think it's time Sing pulled his pants down and had a chat with our OC about his offensive strategy.

See bold. And I don't want to hear this "he doesn't trust Shaun Hill" crap. He TRUSTED Shaun Hill to convert on 4th and 1 by calling a 25 yard pass play to Morgan. If Sing/Raye truly felt that keeping the ball on the ground was our best bet, then why deviate there?

Answer: Because as much as I like Sing, he's full of it here.

He knew damn well like anyone else with two eyes that we were getting stuffed on nearly every run play. Why he thought the result would be different towards the end is beyond me. On those last two series, he just chumped out. At the worst possible time they caved into their fear of Hill POSSIBLY throwing pick, or fumbling, and it cost us the game.

End of story.

The thing that hurts my head the most is for all the "Hill just isn't that good" excuses on why we won't open the playbook, no one is LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS. So far this season, we are by far a better passing team than a running team. Hill is currently ranked 11th in the league in completion percentage.

That's AHEAD of such names as Romo, Warner, Roethlisberger, Brady, Rivers etc etc:

[url=null]null[/url] LINKAGE

Coming into the game, Shaun Hill I believe was around 3rd in the league in 3rd down completions (heard one of the sportscasters say it). He has SHOWN the first two games that we don't have to just pass when necessary. He has proved he's more than capable than shouldering the load.

All we needed was ONE first down. Just ONE. Yet we ran plays directly into the strength of the defense. Only a fool would try to argue that making sense. We gave the Vikings a gift chance they should have never had. And they made fools of us for it.

I sincerely hope that beyond the feel good speeches Sing & Raye realizes this, and will correct it.

Great post!

Pffft great post? I completely disagree. This notion that S Hill is some kind of stud waiting in the wings. there is a reason Hills completion percentage is so high. Look at how many passes he has thrown, then how many were HIGH percentage throws, and now compare those stats to those names you through up for your passion filled post and I think the picture becomes REAL clear. Shaun Hill SUCKS and our coaches know this and don't trust him to pass unless they HAVE NO CHOICE.

Raye's call for a long pass on 4th and 1 was one of the best calls he has had to date as a Niner. I mean what better play when you have demonstrated to frustration your willingness to run it straight at the heart of the defense. I am sure the Vikes figured the trend would continue. Again tho, they only let Hill pass it cause they HAD NO CHOICE if they didn't want it all to unravel right then and there.

It is completely beyond me how anyone can watch S Hill and then just about any other starting QB in just about any other game and still feel S.Hill is an adequate starter.

To answer your question, it is because people are watching the games without carrying into it all that baggage of "I hate that dude. He sucks". People are seeing the good with the bad, not just the bad.

I am not one to say Shaun Hill is the next franchise QB for the 49ers, but on a team that has had a long drought of talent at the position, it isn't too hard to see he is the best option out of what they currently have on the roster.

I agree 100%. Honestly I do, and I don't "hate" Shaun Hill. I have a lot of respect for the guy actually, however the fact remains that he is a deficient starter and aaaannny thought that we should not make our glaringly obvious #1 priority in the offseason of upgrading the position is plain homerism imo.

S. Hill is a backup playing in a VERY controlled situation and listening to announcers and Niner fans talk about how good he is, is sickening to say the least.

Once again....WE LOST CAUSE OUR COACHING STAFF DOESN'T TRUST OUR QB! With our style of play, how many more times will we have the opportunity to seal a game away and instead allow a team to control our destiny because Raye and Sing would rather take that chance then trust the starting QB?

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by baltien:

Originally posted by scopur49er:
Ok so we lost to the Vikes at home. Time to move on and learn from our mistakes.
IMO, the Favre miracle pass had nothing to do with it but rather this key statistic did.

Third down conversions:
Niners, 0-11
Vikings, 10-20

If you all recall, one of our biggest problems the last couple years is that our defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs. Allowing 50% conversion on third downs pretty much sealed the defenses fate if you ask me. Our guys are tougher this year and they can hang with any offense in the league but not if you keep letting them move the ball down field and control the clock. Preventing 3rd down conversions is a crucial part of that.

On the flip side, we didn't convert ANY third downs which, quite honestly, is just pathetic. The root of this became apparent during the game. At one point towards the end of the game they flashed a stat which showed our average yards needed on third down and it was (if I recall) around 9.2 yards. It should be no wonder we had such a hard time converting.
So why were we so often in 3rd and long situations?
Well if you watched the game you know exactly why. Jimmy Raye was challenging the Vikings d-line by trying to push the ball up the gut and let's be honest, we lost that battle far more often than we won it. When you run up the middle on first down and fail, then run up the middle on second down and fail hey guess what? It's 3rd and long now. This happened quite often, far more often than it should have.

Let's be honest. Jimmy Raye is no offensive genius. If you know you're going up against a defense that tops the league in run stoppage, why do you continue to try and run up the gut long after it's already proven to be ineffective? We won't win games with offensive playcalling like that and it shows that Jimmy Raye either:
a) Failed to gameplan properly against the Vikes
or
b) Stubbornly refused to adapt the gameplan when it was evident things weren't working.

I think it's time Sing pulled his pants down and had a chat with our OC about his offensive strategy.

See bold. And I don't want to hear this "he doesn't trust Shaun Hill" crap. He TRUSTED Shaun Hill to convert on 4th and 1 by calling a 25 yard pass play to Morgan. If Sing/Raye truly felt that keeping the ball on the ground was our best bet, then why deviate there?

Answer: Because as much as I like Sing, he's full of it here.

He knew damn well like anyone else with two eyes that we were getting stuffed on nearly every run play. Why he thought the result would be different towards the end is beyond me. On those last two series, he just chumped out. At the worst possible time they caved into their fear of Hill POSSIBLY throwing pick, or fumbling, and it cost us the game.

End of story.

The thing that hurts my head the most is for all the "Hill just isn't that good" excuses on why we won't open the playbook, no one is LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS. So far this season, we are by far a better passing team than a running team. Hill is currently ranked 11th in the league in completion percentage.

That's AHEAD of such names as Romo, Warner, Roethlisberger, Brady, Rivers etc etc:

[url=null]null[/url] LINKAGE

Coming into the game, Shaun Hill I believe was around 3rd in the league in 3rd down completions (heard one of the sportscasters say it). He has SHOWN the first two games that we don't have to just pass when necessary. He has proved he's more than capable than shouldering the load.

All we needed was ONE first down. Just ONE. Yet we ran plays directly into the strength of the defense. Only a fool would try to argue that making sense. We gave the Vikings a gift chance they should have never had. And they made fools of us for it.

I sincerely hope that beyond the feel good speeches Sing & Raye realizes this, and will correct it.

Great post!

Pffft great post? I completely disagree. This notion that S Hill is some kind of stud waiting in the wings. there is a reason Hills completion percentage is so high. Look at how many passes he has thrown, then how many were HIGH percentage throws, and now compare those stats to those names you through up for your passion filled post and I think the picture becomes REAL clear. Shaun Hill SUCKS and our coaches know this and don't trust him to pass unless they HAVE NO CHOICE.

Raye's call for a long pass on 4th and 1 was one of the best calls he has had to date as a Niner. I mean what better play when you have demonstrated to frustration your willingness to run it straight at the heart of the defense. I am sure the Vikes figured the trend would continue. Again tho, they only let Hill pass it cause they HAD NO CHOICE if they didn't want it all to unravel right then and there.

It is completely beyond me how anyone can watch S Hill and then just about any other starting QB in just about any other game and still feel S.Hill is an adequate starter.

To answer your question, it is because people are watching the games without carrying into it all that baggage of "I hate that dude. He sucks". People are seeing the good with the bad, not just the bad.

I am not one to say Shaun Hill is the next franchise QB for the 49ers, but on a team that has had a long drought of talent at the position, it isn't too hard to see he is the best option out of what they currently have on the roster.

I agree 100%. Honestly I do, and I don't "hate" Shaun Hill. I have a lot of respect for the guy actually, however the fact remains that he is a deficient starter and aaaannny thought that we should not make our glaringly obvious #1 priority in the offseason of upgrading the position is plain homerism imo.

S. Hill is a backup playing in a VERY controlled situation and listening to announcers and Niner fans talk about how good he is, is sickening to say the least.

Once again....WE LOST CAUSE OUR COACHING STAFF DOESN'T TRUST OUR QB! With our style of play, how many more times will we have the opportunity to seal a game away and instead allow a team to control our destiny because Raye and Sing would rather take that chance then trust the starting QB?

I don't find it at all "sickening" to hear people compliment Hill's playing thus far. He deserves the compliments he gets. I think that it says more about you as a fan & where you are coming from, then it does about Hill if compliments from varied sources including professional broadcasters, former & current players are "sickening" to you.

Also, I think you contradict yourself when you say that you have a lot of respect for Shaun Hill, when your comments are dissing him.

To take some game situations where they ran the ball (not that I agree with those calls) and not look at others where they threw the ball, like on a 4th down...is also a contradiction of the argument that the coaches do not trust the QB. In reality, I think the coaches trusting him is one of the main reasons he is the starter. This idea that they don;t trust him is a made up argument, without any evidence. You know that the run, run, run is what gives Singletary a hard on. That is what they are going to do, regardless if they trust the QB or not.

Originally posted by backontop:
We learned that we are capable of losing. Lesson learned, NOW DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN

A lesson that's worth learning again.

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by baltien:

Originally posted by scopur49er:
Ok so we lost to the Vikes at home. Time to move on and learn from our mistakes.
IMO, the Favre miracle pass had nothing to do with it but rather this key statistic did.

Third down conversions:
Niners, 0-11
Vikings, 10-20

If you all recall, one of our biggest problems the last couple years is that our defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs. Allowing 50% conversion on third downs pretty much sealed the defenses fate if you ask me. Our guys are tougher this year and they can hang with any offense in the league but not if you keep letting them move the ball down field and control the clock. Preventing 3rd down conversions is a crucial part of that.

On the flip side, we didn't convert ANY third downs which, quite honestly, is just pathetic. The root of this became apparent during the game. At one point towards the end of the game they flashed a stat which showed our average yards needed on third down and it was (if I recall) around 9.2 yards. It should be no wonder we had such a hard time converting.
So why were we so often in 3rd and long situations?
Well if you watched the game you know exactly why. Jimmy Raye was challenging the Vikings d-line by trying to push the ball up the gut and let's be honest, we lost that battle far more often than we won it. When you run up the middle on first down and fail, then run up the middle on second down and fail hey guess what? It's 3rd and long now. This happened quite often, far more often than it should have.

Let's be honest. Jimmy Raye is no offensive genius. If you know you're going up against a defense that tops the league in run stoppage, why do you continue to try and run up the gut long after it's already proven to be ineffective? We won't win games with offensive playcalling like that and it shows that Jimmy Raye either:
a) Failed to gameplan properly against the Vikes
or
b) Stubbornly refused to adapt the gameplan when it was evident things weren't working.

I think it's time Sing pulled his pants down and had a chat with our OC about his offensive strategy.

See bold. And I don't want to hear this "he doesn't trust Shaun Hill" crap. He TRUSTED Shaun Hill to convert on 4th and 1 by calling a 25 yard pass play to Morgan. If Sing/Raye truly felt that keeping the ball on the ground was our best bet, then why deviate there?

Answer: Because as much as I like Sing, he's full of it here.

He knew damn well like anyone else with two eyes that we were getting stuffed on nearly every run play. Why he thought the result would be different towards the end is beyond me. On those last two series, he just chumped out. At the worst possible time they caved into their fear of Hill POSSIBLY throwing pick, or fumbling, and it cost us the game.

End of story.

The thing that hurts my head the most is for all the "Hill just isn't that good" excuses on why we won't open the playbook, no one is LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS. So far this season, we are by far a better passing team than a running team. Hill is currently ranked 11th in the league in completion percentage.

That's AHEAD of such names as Romo, Warner, Roethlisberger, Brady, Rivers etc etc:

[url=null]null[/url] LINKAGE

Coming into the game, Shaun Hill I believe was around 3rd in the league in 3rd down completions (heard one of the sportscasters say it). He has SHOWN the first two games that we don't have to just pass when necessary. He has proved he's more than capable than shouldering the load.

All we needed was ONE first down. Just ONE. Yet we ran plays directly into the strength of the defense. Only a fool would try to argue that making sense. We gave the Vikings a gift chance they should have never had. And they made fools of us for it.

I sincerely hope that beyond the feel good speeches Sing & Raye realizes this, and will correct it.

Great post!

Pffft great post? I completely disagree. This notion that S Hill is some kind of stud waiting in the wings. there is a reason Hills completion percentage is so high. Look at how many passes he has thrown, then how many were HIGH percentage throws, and now compare those stats to those names you through up for your passion filled post and I think the picture becomes REAL clear. Shaun Hill SUCKS and our coaches know this and don't trust him to pass unless they HAVE NO CHOICE.

Raye's call for a long pass on 4th and 1 was one of the best calls he has had to date as a Niner. I mean what better play when you have demonstrated to frustration your willingness to run it straight at the heart of the defense. I am sure the Vikes figured the trend would continue. Again tho, they only let Hill pass it cause they HAD NO CHOICE if they didn't want it all to unravel right then and there.

It is completely beyond me how anyone can watch S Hill and then just about any other starting QB in just about any other game and still feel S.Hill is an adequate starter.

To answer your question, it is because people are watching the games without carrying into it all that baggage of "I hate that dude. He sucks". People are seeing the good with the bad, not just the bad.

I am not one to say Shaun Hill is the next franchise QB for the 49ers, but on a team that has had a long drought of talent at the position, it isn't too hard to see he is the best option out of what they currently have on the roster.

I agree 100%. Honestly I do, and I don't "hate" Shaun Hill. I have a lot of respect for the guy actually, however the fact remains that he is a deficient starter and aaaannny thought that we should not make our glaringly obvious #1 priority in the offseason of upgrading the position is plain homerism imo.

S. Hill is a backup playing in a VERY controlled situation and listening to announcers and Niner fans talk about how good he is, is sickening to say the least.

Once again....WE LOST CAUSE OUR COACHING STAFF DOESN'T TRUST OUR QB! With our style of play, how many more times will we have the opportunity to seal a game away and instead allow a team to control our destiny because Raye and Sing would rather take that chance then trust the starting QB?

I don't find it at all "sickening" to hear people compliment Hill's playing thus far. He deserves the compliments he gets. I think that it says more about you as a fan & where you are coming from, then it does about Hill if compliments from varied sources including professional broadcasters, former & current players are "sickening" to you.

Also, I think you contradict yourself when you say that you have a lot of respect for Shaun Hill, when your comments are dissing him.

To take some game situations where they ran the ball (not that I agree with those calls) and not look at others where they threw the ball, like on a 4th down...is also a contradiction of the argument that the coaches do not trust the QB. In reality, I think the coaches trusting him is one of the main reasons he is the starter. This idea that they don;t trust him is a made up argument, without any evidence. You know that the run, run, run is what gives Singletary a hard on. That is what they are going to do, regardless if they trust the QB or not.

That throw on 4th and 1 was REQUIRED, and that's the ONLY reason they called it. Best play call of Rayes time in SF to this point. Completely caught the Vikes off guard as they expected another run up the gut.

As for the rest of your statement...well I guess not all of us can take off the rose colored glasses. However if you think for one single moment that S Hill is a stud who's being held back by Raye and Sing, in the Not For Long simply because they are stubborn and get some personal satisfaction from it...........well it looks kinda silly actually typing out what you are suggesting doesn't it?

I mean do you honestly believe Coach Mike would prefer to lose running the ball and playing an uuuuugggly style of offense because that's his own personal belief, rather then pass the ball more often and win? Do you really think this? Because it IS what you are suggesting.

Originally posted by scopur49er:
Ok so we lost to the Vikes at home. Time to move on and learn from our mistakes.
IMO, the Favre miracle pass had nothing to do with it but rather this key statistic did.

Third down conversions:
Niners, 0-11
Vikings, 10-20

If you all recall, one of our biggest problems the last couple years is that our defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs. Allowing 50% conversion on third downs pretty much sealed the defenses fate if you ask me. Our guys are tougher this year and they can hang with any offense in the league but not if you keep letting them move the ball down field and control the clock. Preventing 3rd down conversions is a crucial part of that.

On the flip side, we didn't convert ANY third downs which, quite honestly, is just pathetic. The root of this became apparent during the game. At one point towards the end of the game they flashed a stat which showed our average yards needed on third down and it was (if I recall) around 9.2 yards. It should be no wonder we had such a hard time converting.
So why were we so often in 3rd and long situations?
Well if you watched the game you know exactly why. Jimmy Raye was challenging the Vikings d-line by trying to push the ball up the gut and let's be honest, we lost that battle far more often than we won it. When you run up the middle on first down and fail, then run up the middle on second down and fail hey guess what? It's 3rd and long now. This happened quite often, far more often than it should have.

Let's be honest. Jimmy Raye is no offensive genius. If you know you're going up against a defense that tops the league in run stoppage, why do you continue to try and run up the gut long after it's already proven to be ineffective? We won't win games with offensive playcalling like that and it shows that Jimmy Raye either:
a) Failed to gameplan properly against the Vikes
or
b) Stubbornly refused to adapt the gameplan when it was evident things weren't working.

I think it's time Sing pulled his pants down and had a chat with our OC about his offensive strategy.

No disputing the 3rd down conversions could have been better on both sides of the ball BUT you are not exactly being fair here...In the first 2 games, the Cards and Seahawks were both 4-14 on 3rd down conversions, so the defense was getting off the field. Yes, they need to be more like the 4 for 14 and less like the 10 for 20 on 3rd downs but lets not act like its a trend yet. On the season, even with yesterday, the 49ers are 13th in the league in defensive 3rd down conversion percentage right behind the Steelers and in front of the Bears, Chargers, Falcons and Colts.

On the other side of the ball, the Vikings are number 1 in defensive third down conversion percentage. Obviously, having the 49ers go 0-11 helps a lot but its not like they were terrible going into the game. If you take out the 0-11, the Vikings were 8-25 or 32% before Sunday's game, which would place them around 10th, but considering their first 2 games were on the road and their defense had the advantage yesterday of being at home, crowd noise and the 49ers losing Gore early in the first quarter, its easy to see why the 49ers had a poor day on 3rd down. Lets also not forget, that despite the 0-11, the 49ers were still ahead up until the final play by Favre. Given that, its hard to say the 3rd down conversions cost them the game.