There are 123 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

60 / 40 run pass ratio?

More like like 60 / 40 pass run ratio.

"It's not 60%, that's for sure.

49ers have attempted 80 rushes (4.2 yd avg) and 92 passes, incl. sacks (5.4 yd avg). They've run only 46.5% (of the time)."

http://twitter.com/mattmaiocco

First of all what this is telling me is that we need more first downs. More first downs = more opportunities to pass the ball. Averaging 5.4 yards a game with your passing game is abysmal at best. 0/11 is horrible. Whether the fault is on the OLine, the QB, or the play calling, that is exactly the reason we lost this game. Fluke plays happen, but if we were as good as Minnesota on 3rd down (10-20), IMO we'd have won that game.
Practically winning a game on the road against a talented team while not converting a single 3rd down is a tribute to how well the rest of the team played in every other facet of the game. Yes, there were other mistakes but this game would of been a blowout if we converted a reasonable 3 or 4 of the short yardage ones.
Originally posted by Arminini:
Practically winning a game on the road against a talented team while not converting a single 3rd down is a tribute to how well the rest of the team played in every other facet of the game. Yes, there were other mistakes but this game would of been a blowout if we converted a reasonable 3 or 4 of the short yardage ones.

Amen that's the point I was trying to make. The defense played remarkably well. The ST basically was a wash scorewise, but could improve on kickoff return.

The Offense though might want to try to pass on 1st down early in the game once in a while. That might net them over 6 yards and then we can pound the rock. We are just too one dimensional on 1st down early in the game.
Originally posted by Method:
More like like 60 / 40 pass run ratio.

"It's not 60%, that's for sure.

49ers have attempted 80 rushes (4.2 yd avg) and 92 passes, incl. sacks (5.4 yd avg). They've run only 46.5% (of the time)."

http://twitter.com/mattmaiocco

First of all what this is telling me is that we need more first downs. More first downs = more opportunities to pass the ball. Averaging 5.4 yards a game with your passing game is abysmal at best. 0/11 is horrible. Whether the fault is on the OLine, the QB, or the play calling, that is exactly the reason we lost this game. Fluke plays happen, but if we were as good as Minnesota on 3rd down (10-20), IMO we'd have won that game.

I would only add that all of our RB's have combined for 323 yds in three games. If you just take away the two best runs 79 yds and 80 yds we are left with 164 yds in three games. And if you break down those 164 yds with 78 carries we would be averaging 2.10 yds per carry ------ Do the coaches have a false sense of security in our running game ?????

Remove just two run plays from three games and we average 2.10 yds a carry.

Just playing with numbers.
[ Edited by 49ERwhiner on Sep 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM ]
Originally posted by 49ERwhiner:
Originally posted by Method:
More like like 60 / 40 pass run ratio.

"It's not 60%, that's for sure.

49ers have attempted 80 rushes (4.2 yd avg) and 92 passes, incl. sacks (5.4 yd avg). They've run only 46.5% (of the time)."

http://twitter.com/mattmaiocco

First of all what this is telling me is that we need more first downs. More first downs = more opportunities to pass the ball. Averaging 5.4 yards a game with your passing game is abysmal at best. 0/11 is horrible. Whether the fault is on the OLine, the QB, or the play calling, that is exactly the reason we lost this game. Fluke plays happen, but if we were as good as Minnesota on 3rd down (10-20), IMO we'd have won that game.

I would only add that all of our RB's have combined for 323 yds in three games. If you just take away the two best runs 79 yds and 80 yds we are left with 164 yds in three games. And if you break down those 164 yds with 78 carries we would be averaging 2.10 yds per carry ------ Do the coaches have a false sense of security in our running game ?????

Remove just two run plays from three games and we average 2.10 yds a carry.

Just playing with numbers.

The Cards and to a larger extent the Vikings have two of the better run defenses in the league. Things are going to open against the Rams (27th ranked run D) and the Falcons (24th ranked)

You are right that we need to do a better job of running against these defenses. Other teams just aren't scared of our passing game.
[ Edited by alburns on Sep 29, 2009 at 11:29 AM ]
I don't have a problem with running the ball, but I think Raye needs to add in a few different types of run plays: counters, stretches, etc. We ran a lot when Turner was OC, he just had more of an imagination with his running plays.
Originally posted by 49ERwhiner:
Originally posted by Method:
More like like 60 / 40 pass run ratio.

"It's not 60%, that's for sure.

49ers have attempted 80 rushes (4.2 yd avg) and 92 passes, incl. sacks (5.4 yd avg). They've run only 46.5% (of the time)."

http://twitter.com/mattmaiocco

First of all what this is telling me is that we need more first downs. More first downs = more opportunities to pass the ball. Averaging 5.4 yards a game with your passing game is abysmal at best. 0/11 is horrible. Whether the fault is on the OLine, the QB, or the play calling, that is exactly the reason we lost this game. Fluke plays happen, but if we were as good as Minnesota on 3rd down (10-20), IMO we'd have won that game.

I would only add that all of our RB's have combined for 323 yds in three games. If you just take away the two best runs 79 yds and 80 yds we are left with 164 yds in three games. And if you break down those 164 yds with 78 carries we would be averaging 2.10 yds per carry ------ Do the coaches have a false sense of security in our running game ?????

Remove just two run plays from three games and we average 2.10 yds a carry.

Just playing with numbers.

Why would you subtract those? Why don't you subtract the runs that went for negative yards also?

The reason is simple, they all actually happened. They are part of the rushing total. That is why were not at an average of 2.10 yards per carry.
The first series Sunday we started off passing, result three and out. The key is mixing it up do that the play action comes into play. That 60-40 ratio was for the media and opposing coaches guys, Rayes history is a balanced offense, when he was in KC he helped Elvis Grbac to throw for 4100+ yards in a season, he also had a key role in developing Preist Holmes and Larry Johnson. The guy knows what he is doing, much more than any of us do.
I think the numbers are showing something we already knew. The Niners longest most time consuming drives were sustained by using passing almost exclusively. Many of the three and outs came after failing miserably on runs up the gut on 1st and 2nd down. I'm not suggesting the Niners give up on the run, but there needs to be more variety and creativity in the play calling, including the running plays.

It just seems like for the first part of most games, minus the first series last week against the Vikings, Raye gets locked into to trying to stuff the ball down the defenses throats, calling run after run. It's only after we start to fall behind that Hill is finally called upon to make some plays, and most of the time, he's been successful. Then it's back to the run when we've been able to go on top in points regardless of how small the lead is, and failing miserably at trying to stuff it down the defenses throat again. This pattern has been fairly consistent in all three games.

I would have no problem with this overall philosophy, if our running game was actually producing consistently. But with 9 in the box, it's difficult, and until the Niners make teams consistently pay for stacking the box, I suspect the Niners will continue to struggle with the running game.
I think Jimmy Raye's desire for a 60/40 run-pass ratio is very unrealistic. We need to go with what works at the moment. Obviously we can't abandon the running attack, but we need to become more versatile and less predictable. It seems to me that in most situations, Jimmy Raye "tips his hand" at the opposing team before even snapping the football!
Everyone is roasting Jimmy Raye, but totally ignoring this is the offense Singletary wants to run.

If Singletary wanted an aggressive passing attack he would have just kept Martz. Singletary is simply playing to his personnel.
needs to be adjustable based on the game. Against the Vikings there was no need to run 60% of the game because guess what WE COULDN'T RUN! That is when you adjust your game plan and use what works. And Hill to Davis was working.
Originally posted by backontop:
needs to be adjustable based on the game. Against the Vikings there was no need to run 60% of the game because guess what WE COULDN'T RUN! That is when you adjust your game plan and use what works. And Hill to Davis was working.

That's all I'm saying. If something doesn't work, we need to be flexible and adapt our gameplan.
Originally posted by PTulini:
Originally posted by backontop:
needs to be adjustable based on the game. Against the Vikings there was no need to run 60% of the game because guess what WE COULDN'T RUN! That is when you adjust your game plan and use what works. And Hill to Davis was working.

That's all I'm saying. If something doesn't work, we need to be flexible and adapt our gameplan.

I am not sure if it is Raye or Singletary that is so damn stubborn that they don't see this. If the run game isn't working then use the passing game to set up the run.