There are 135 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What we learned from the Vikings game

the question is what did we LEARN! i learned that vernon is a bad A$$ and we need to sign CRABTREE! yea and you can Quote me. SIGN CRABTREE!!!! AND LET HILL MAKE PLAYS.
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by Chief:
That Shaun Hill the best QB on this team and a solid starter in the NFL.

This staement is laughable imo.

why is it laughable. Shaun Hill has proven he is a capable QB for us, or do you not remember his 2 clutch 4th quarter drives this year against AZ and MIN

That kind of is laughable. Why is he doing it in the forth quarter so much? Because he gets the lead from a blocked fg. because every play that's on offense is a run, until the 4th quarter. Really with gore out it's time to throw. Coffee isn't gore. Check. Vd needs to get the ball on the first play of every game and keep getting it until gore returns.
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.

Davis can catch!!! Just not with 2 seconds left on the clock over his shoulder. I'm proud of him hell of a game. Also to add every play on 3rd down i dont recall seeing many routes beyond the line for a first down and hill didnt have time to throw if there was.
[ Edited by TheGoldDiggerrrr on Sep 28, 2009 at 8:57 PM ]
I've learned that there is a lot of sanity on this board, but also a lot of denial. To watch an offense that couldn't convert a single third down, leads the league in 3 and outs, and when all that was needed was ONE first, couldn't get it, 3 GAMES IN A ROW (!) and to say we're fine with our offense and play calling, and it was the defense's fault????!!!! What are you smoking?
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BuZzB28:
i am so hurt that roman gave up that touchdown! i wanna cut Roman and kewis now please.. maybe goldson cuz goldson is too well that missed to tackle it.. Three guys are too slow to read them the play mark.. damn damn cut them Roman and kewis dude!!

who in the heck is Kewis???

michael Lewis.. opss my bad spell cuz accident the spell it
Originally posted by TheGoldDiggerrrr:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by Chief:
That Shaun Hill the best QB on this team and a solid starter in the NFL.

This staement is laughable imo.

why is it laughable. Shaun Hill has proven he is a capable QB for us, or do you not remember his 2 clutch 4th quarter drives this year against AZ and MIN

That kind of is laughable. Why is he doing it in the forth quarter so much? Because he gets the lead from a blocked fg. because every play that's on offense is a run, until the 4th quarter. Really with gore out it's time to throw. Coffee isn't gore. Check. Vd needs to get the ball on the first play of every game and keep getting it until gore returns.

Hmm... I disagree. Not to pick a fight, but your argument is that he only has the lead from blocked field goals, running, etc. The real situation should be noted -- Shaun Hill is not set up to have good passing attempts before the 4th quarter. With run/run/pass Hill has no opportunities to show off some his good decision-making and accuracy because half the time it is 3rd and 8+ due to the bad running from the first 2 downs. Or, it is 3rd and 5-8 due to the previous reason and the defense KNOWS they are passing. With the unbelievable predictability of our offense, Shaun Hill can't find a groove until the 4th quarter -- which for some reason is the only time Raye lets Shaun sling the rock. And it works -- he gets us the lead back and has proved his ability to be calm under pressure twice... ON THE ROAD. I am absolutely confused as to why Raye doesn't let him do this from play 1.
[ Edited by chico49erfan on Sep 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM ]
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 happened, because that play was setup by everything that happened before it.

Man I gotta disagree here..... Were you around when the Raiders lost a playoff game to the Steelers on a deflected pass that was run in for a TD by Franco Harris? Or the deflected pass that Denver ran in for a long TD against the Bengals this season? The play that "beat" the Niners was absolutely a fluke and even though it didn't happen in a vacuum like you said, it was still a fluke.... In other words, it took a freak play and some questionable officiating to have the game come out like it did.

To answer your comment about the blocked kick, I could use the same argument about the kickoff return that the Vikes had later......not nearly the fluke that the last pass was....which was essentially a "Hail Mary" that was answered. If the same play was repeated 100 times, maybe 2-3 times it happens like it did yesterday...probably just once.

Favre admitted he threw the ball as hard as he could to "an area" where he thought the receiver would be and the receiver only had a general idea of where the end line was when he caught the ball. If Favre throws the ball a foot in any other direction, the ball is incomplete or knocked down. If the receiver's first foot down is a single inch or two to the left, the call is obvious and it is no touchdown.....and then there is the call itself....also questionable. Basically, the stars had to align for that play to work.
I like what Sing had to say afterwards. Any time you lose a game like this, there is always second guessing, replaying, what ifs, what thens, blah, blah, blah.... Bottom line is the Niners lost on a fluke. What can you do is except give credit to the officials and move on...
  • B650
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,205
Originally posted by TheGoldDiggerrrr:
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.

Davis can catch!!! Just not with 2 seconds left on the clock over his shoulder. I'm proud of him hell of a game. Also to add every play on 3rd down i dont recall seeing many routes beyond the line for a first down and hill didnt have time to throw if there was.

I like the fact that he scored twice, and both times didn't do much celebrating. That's a sign of maturity. I remember a game a couple years ago where the 49ers were getting blown out by GB at home and he scored a TD in the final minutes. He started doing some ridiculous dance. You could tell the 49er that was closest to him was trying to get him to stop dancing and go to the sideline. Well, now he knows what to do without anyone telling him.

They also mentioned that he spent extra time this week catching balls. Looks like it paid off, because he dropped a pass in Arizona in which he had to reach up high to grab the ball, although he did get hit there pretty badly. He caught some pretty tough passes in this game. I hope he keeps it up.
Originally posted by 4evrfan:
I've learned that there is a lot of sanity on this board, but also a lot of denial. To watch an offense that couldn't convert a single third down, leads the league in 3 and outs, and when all that was needed was ONE first, couldn't get it, 3 GAMES IN A ROW (!) and to say we're fine with our offense and play calling, and it was the defense's fault????!!!! What are you smoking?


Right Freakin Arm bro...
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.

Under the given circumstances, high percentage throws are irrelevant. Hill averages about 7 yards per pass. On those last two series, that was more than what we needed to get a FIRST DOWN and keep the ball moving (and out of the Vikes hands). The point of my post wasn't to argue in Hill's favor he's some kind of "stud." All I'm saying that he's shown that he does have the ability to lead at the minimum a decent passing attack. And I believe the stats support that.

But in the interest of fairness let's see how he does as a full year starter before saying one way or another, ok?
[ Edited by baltien on Sep 29, 2009 at 6:05 AM ]
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
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 happened, because that play was setup by everything that happened before it.

Man I gotta disagree here..... Were you around when the Raiders lost a playoff game to the Steelers on a deflected pass that was run in for a TD by Franco Harris? Or the deflected pass that Denver ran in for a long TD against the Bengals this season? The play that "beat" the Niners was absolutely a fluke and even though it didn't happen in a vacuum like you said, it was still a fluke.... In other words, it took a freak play and some questionable officiating to have the game come out like it did.

To answer your comment about the blocked kick, I could use the same argument about the kickoff return that the Vikes had later......not nearly the fluke that the last pass was....which was essentially a "Hail Mary" that was answered. If the same play was repeated 100 times, maybe 2-3 times it happens like it did yesterday...probably just once.

Favre admitted he threw the ball as hard as he could to "an area" where he thought the receiver would be and the receiver only had a general idea of where the end line was when he caught the ball. If Favre throws the ball a foot in any other direction, the ball is incomplete or knocked down. If the receiver's first foot down is a single inch or two to the left, the call is obvious and it is no touchdown.....and then there is the call itself....also questionable. Basically, the stars had to align for that play to work.
I like what Sing had to say afterwards. Any time you lose a game like this, there is always second guessing, replaying, what ifs, what thens, blah, blah, blah.... Bottom line is the Niners lost on a fluke. What can you do is except give credit to the officials and move on...

I understand most people here probably disagree with me but that's fine.
I think blaming the loss on the fluke play makes you overlook the real reasons why we lost.
If Sing wants to improve this team, he won't be spending the next week focusing on "How Favre completed that pass". He'll be focused on everything else we did wrong like some of the poor offensive playcalling, our inability to run, how we didn't convert any third downs and how our special teams gave away a touchdown to a rookie kick returner. Ultimately, it's a culmination of these things that put us where we were, defending a 4 point lead with one of the games most feared 4th quarter comeback QBs leading the charge. Let's be honest, watching that last drive, I think we all felt it in the pit of our stomach. If anyone could bring the Vikings back, Favre could. Hell he had only done it like 40 times previously.
Originally posted by scopur49er:
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
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 happened, because that play was setup by everything that happened before it.

Man I gotta disagree here..... Were you around when the Raiders lost a playoff game to the Steelers on a deflected pass that was run in for a TD by Franco Harris? Or the deflected pass that Denver ran in for a long TD against the Bengals this season? The play that "beat" the Niners was absolutely a fluke and even though it didn't happen in a vacuum like you said, it was still a fluke.... In other words, it took a freak play and some questionable officiating to have the game come out like it did.

To answer your comment about the blocked kick, I could use the same argument about the kickoff return that the Vikes had later......not nearly the fluke that the last pass was....which was essentially a "Hail Mary" that was answered. If the same play was repeated 100 times, maybe 2-3 times it happens like it did yesterday...probably just once.

Favre admitted he threw the ball as hard as he could to "an area" where he thought the receiver would be and the receiver only had a general idea of where the end line was when he caught the ball. If Favre throws the ball a foot in any other direction, the ball is incomplete or knocked down. If the receiver's first foot down is a single inch or two to the left, the call is obvious and it is no touchdown.....and then there is the call itself....also questionable. Basically, the stars had to align for that play to work.
I like what Sing had to say afterwards. Any time you lose a game like this, there is always second guessing, replaying, what ifs, what thens, blah, blah, blah.... Bottom line is the Niners lost on a fluke. What can you do is except give credit to the officials and move on...

I understand most people here probably disagree with me but that's fine.
I think blaming the loss on the fluke play makes you overlook the real reasons why we lost.
If Sing wants to improve this team, he won't be spending the next week focusing on "How Favre completed that pass". He'll be focused on everything else we did wrong like some of the poor offensive playcalling, our inability to run, how we didn't convert any third downs and how our special teams gave away a touchdown to a rookie kick returner. Ultimately, it's a culmination of these things that put us where we were, defending a 4 point lead with one of the games most feared 4th quarter comeback QBs leading the charge. Let's be honest, watching that last drive, I think we all felt it in the pit of our stomach. If anyone could bring the Vikings back, Favre could. Hell he had only done it like 40 times previously.

Completely agree. We are excusing this loss because it was a "Superbowl" bound team that won on a "luck" play. We make our own luck and the Vikings, to the NFL, still have not played any special team yet and they could possibly collapse and be an 8 win team once they begin to play tougher offensive teams where they will need to score more points.

The fact is that we learned that we made some mistakes and if we keep making these types of mistakes, things will not always go in our favor.

Remember, we let Kurt Warner have two chances under 4 minutes also. Who knows, if Boldin was 100% and their third WR wasn't hurt, they may have drove all the way down.

Looking back at this game and trying to figure out where we stand is BS. We lost this game and we need to figure out WHY we lost it and fix it!

We should be 3-0.
Originally posted by Snider8706:
the question is what did we LEARN! i learned that vernon is a bad A$$ and we need to sign CRABTREE! yea and you can Quote me. SIGN CRABTREE!!!! AND LET HILL MAKE PLAYS.

Even if we signed him today he wouldn't be ready to go for at-least 6-8 weeks. Bringing him in to sit out 2 months isn't going to help us at all. Also we would have to cut a player (most likely a WR) to make room for him.
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by Snider8706:
the question is what did we LEARN! i learned that vernon is a bad A$$ and we need to sign CRABTREE! yea and you can Quote me. SIGN CRABTREE!!!! AND LET HILL MAKE PLAYS.

Even if we signed him today he wouldn't be ready to go for at-least 6-8 weeks. Bringing him in to sit out 2 months isn't going to help us at all. Also we would have to cut a player (most likely a WR) to make room for him.



I can think of two players we wouldn't miss (battle and spurlock)..... And I don't think it would take that long to get him playing
if anything, I hope the team (coaching staff) learned to play to win the game, not to play not to lose. Don't simply try to protect the lead, increase it. KILLER INSTINCT!!!