There are 183 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Raye speaking

You guys crack me up acting like you know more about football than the guy that has been doing it for 25 + years. It is obvious that he doesn't trust Hills abilities fully, that will come with time. Hell, Hill is playing like he doesn't trust himself yet, there is a difference between being the back up coming in to salvage a year and being the man expected to deliver. We run more because we have an above average defense and the idea is to minimize mistakes, it is not that hard to figure it out. We are going to win ugly a lot, so you better get used to it and be happy we are not the joke we were under Nolan.
I think some of you guys are misunderstanding what Raye's saying.

The overall strategy is, obviously, to run the ball. As we all know, it chews up the clock, wears down the opposing defense, keeps your offense on the field, gives your defense a rest, keeps an opposing high-powered offense off the field and doesn't allow it to get rhythm, and is generally safer in terms of turnovers than a passing attack.

The big WTF?! we've all been thinking is "Why are we running when there's 8 men in the box?" I'm also of that sentiment, but Raye feels that we can still run with 8 men in the box. We're still letting the defense dictate how we play. As unusual as that sounds, it isn't really that unusual. For instance, when we played against the Seahawks, they stacked the box and were burned because Frank Gore was able to get to the second level and had two 70+ yard TDs. Because the safeties were cheating up, if we can block accordingly, those big plays can happen.

I think that's what Raye is trying to explain. Good teams CAN run against an 8 man front. We've seen it throughout the league. The thing is, I don't know if we're an elite running team that can take beat an 8-man front consistently. We have the runningback, fullback, and tight ends for it, but our offensive line play ranges from medicore to above-average. Their play is very volatile. Sometimes they play well, other times I wish for Bob McKittrick to come back.

Raye also explains that Hill's numbers are so good BECAUSE of the things we've done on offense. In theory, it sounds correct. When we run the ball well, we can tire out a defense and make linebackers and safeties freeze at the playaction pass. We also get them to play close to the line of scrimmage. By the fourth quarter, defenses are tired and worrying about the run.

I kind of don't agree with that because we're not running the ball well. We have a lot of three and outs. I don't see how we can tire out a defense with that. Often times, I think our own offensive line and runningbacks can get tired.

In theory, what Raye says isn't incorrect, in my opinion. I just think that the reality of it doesn't hold up when we fail to run well.
Originally posted by Wubbie:
I think some of you guys are misunderstanding what Raye's saying.

The overall strategy is, obviously, to run the ball. As we all know, it chews up the clock, wears down the opposing defense, keeps your offense on the field, gives your defense a rest, keeps an opposing high-powered offense off the field and doesn't allow it to get rhythm, and is generally safer in terms of turnovers than a passing attack.

The big WTF?! we've all been thinking is "Why are we running when there's 8 men in the box?" I'm also of that sentiment, but Raye feels that we can still run with 8 men in the box. We're still letting the defense dictate how we play. As unusual as that sounds, it isn't really that unusual. For instance, when we played against the Seahawks, they stacked the box and were burned because Frank Gore was able to get to the second level and had two 70+ yard TDs. Because the safeties were cheating up, if we can block accordingly, those big plays can happen.

I think that's what Raye is trying to explain. Good teams CAN run against an 8 man front. We've seen it throughout the league. The thing is, I don't know if we're an elite running team that can take beat an 8-man front consistently. We have the runningback, fullback, and tight ends for it, but our offensive line play ranges from medicore to above-average. Their play is very volatile. Sometimes they play well, other times I wish for Bob McKittrick to come back.

Raye also explains that Hill's numbers are so good BECAUSE of the things we've done on offense. In theory, it sounds correct. When we run the ball well, we can tire out a defense and make linebackers and safeties freeze at the playaction pass. We also get them to play close to the line of scrimmage. By the fourth quarter, defenses are tired and worrying about the run.

I kind of don't agree with that because we're not running the ball well. We have a lot of three and outs. I don't see how we can tire out a defense with that. Often times, I think our own offensive line and runningbacks can get tired.

In theory, what Raye says isn't incorrect, in my opinion. I just think that the reality of it doesn't hold up when we fail to run well.

well said
this is what else Raye has said....this was from MM article about Jason Hill

Quote:
Earlier today I asked 49ers offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye on whether he believes in using four-receiver sets. The 49ers have not put four wideouts on the field at the same time this season. And they use three receivers sparingly.

"It would stress us tremendously to have double open edges and four wide receivers and no threat to run the ball and put that kind of pass-rush burden on our offensive line and on the quarterback," Raye said. "I think we would be entering into foreign territory at a point where we don't need to.

"Now if it's for some cosmetic purpose, to make somebody feel better, we could go spread out everybody and throw it all over the lot, but that's not what we do. We have the ability to do that if for some reason -- injury or a situation dictated that -- we have that package."

its like this guy did not even watch any of our tapes last year. We did fine passing the ball with Martz....we moved the ball...sure Hill got sacked once (mainly because of those 7step drops) in a while but we still moved the ball. Its like he doesn't care how we did in the past and just makes his own conclusions about our talent on Offense, without giving them a chance to prove themselves.

I'm going to have to start a new thread about something that has been on my mind for a minute.
Originally posted by Afrikan:
this is what else Raye has said....this was from MM article about Jason Hill

Quote:
Earlier today I asked 49ers offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye on whether he believes in using four-receiver sets. The 49ers have not put four wideouts on the field at the same time this season. And they use three receivers sparingly.

"It would stress us tremendously to have double open edges and four wide receivers and no threat to run the ball and put that kind of pass-rush burden on our offensive line and on the quarterback," Raye said. "I think we would be entering into foreign territory at a point where we don't need to.

"Now if it's for some cosmetic purpose, to make somebody feel better, we could go spread out everybody and throw it all over the lot, but that's not what we do. We have the ability to do that if for some reason -- injury or a situation dictated that -- we have that package."

its like this guy did not even watch any of our tapes last year. We did fine passing the ball with Martz....we moved the ball...sure Hill got sacked once (mainly because of those 7step drops) in a while but we still moved the ball. Its like he doesn't care how we did in the past and just makes his own conclusions about our talent on Offense, without giving them a chance to prove themselves.

I'm going to have to start a new thread about something that has been on my mind for a minute.

I was going to quote that article. It seems like Jimmy Raye is the anti-Martz. It would stress us tremendously? Really? I don't think four receiver sets are the way to go, but it wouldn't kill us to try it 2-3 times a game. I think it's ialso ncorrect to say there is no threat to run the ball. The threat is minimal, but it's there. Two or three quick passes, not 7 step drops, out of that formation will not kill us.

Now 3-receiver sets on the other hand, quick slants, screens, running out of his beloved taser should be our territory. Something to spice it up and pile on yards. The way to control clock is by gaining yards and limiting turnovers, not simply running the ball for little to no gain.
Originally posted by BETTERDAYZ9ERS:
Originally posted by A-R-S:
"the perception you've got to throw it because they're eight people in the box would be, in my opinion, would be disingenuous to the philosophy we have and the way we play."


Give us a f**king break, man. If they stack the box, just throw the ball like your supposed too. Or just keep getting stopped for 2 yard losses on first down.

Why can't we just have a normal offensive coordinator? God damn I wish we could have gotten Linehan.


disingenuous-when that is the reason for it then it better not lose us games.

Raye must of had disingenuous on his "word of the week" toilet paper role.
  • Nabisko
  • Info N/A
Originally posted by marshniners24:
Originally posted by jrg:
Coffee is gonna have a huge game this week and the Zone n00bs are gonna be all saying "BENCH GORE!"

Watch.

lol this
LOL did anyone read the whole transcript? he actually talks about how passing vs an 8 man box would put them in "a situation where we go 360 degrees and end up in an arena we dont want to be in". ummm raye, going 360 degrees puts you right back where you are now!
Originally posted by blunt_probe:
Sounds like he's not going to change anything at all...
Originally posted by Memphis9er:
You guys crack me up acting like you know more about football than the guy that has been doing it for 25 + years. It is obvious that he doesn't trust Hills abilities fully, that will come with time. Hell, Hill is playing like he doesn't trust himself yet, there is a difference between being the back up coming in to salvage a year and being the man expected to deliver. We run more because we have an above average defense and the idea is to minimize mistakes, it is not that hard to figure it out. We are going to win ugly a lot, so you better get used to it and be happy we are not the joke we were under Nolan.

I agree with most of what you said. The only thing is that I feel that the ugly wins will become better looking as the season goes on. After all, this IS ANOTHER new offensive system and the offense doesn't have the luxury of being with the same coordinator for 3-4 years like the Defense. JMO
Originally posted by Afrikan:
this is what else Raye has said....this was from MM article about Jason Hill

Quote:
Earlier today I asked 49ers offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye on whether he believes in using four-receiver sets. The 49ers have not put four wideouts on the field at the same time this season. And they use three receivers sparingly.

"It would stress us tremendously to have double open edges and four wide receivers and no threat to run the ball and put that kind of pass-rush burden on our offensive line and on the quarterback," Raye said. "I think we would be entering into foreign territory at a point where we don't need to.

"Now if it's for some cosmetic purpose, to make somebody feel better, we could go spread out everybody and throw it all over the lot, but that's not what we do. We have the ability to do that if for some reason -- injury or a situation dictated that -- we have that package."

its like this guy did not even watch any of our tapes last year. We did fine passing the ball with Martz....we moved the ball...sure Hill got sacked once (mainly because of those 7step drops) in a while but we still moved the ball. Its like he doesn't care how we did in the past and just makes his own conclusions about our talent on Offense, without giving them a chance to prove themselves.

I'm going to have to start a new thread about something that has been on my mind for a minute.

just remember we also damn near lead the league in sacks also. Raye is also correct that we should be able to run with 8. Just because the teams show 8 don't always mean that they will rush 8. We will see a better passing team soon. just don't know how soon. I do think it will take a bad loss before it happens though
Originally posted by Afrikan:
this is what else Raye has said....this was from MM article about Jason Hill

Quote:
Earlier today I asked 49ers offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye on whether he believes in using four-receiver sets. The 49ers have not put four wideouts on the field at the same time this season. And they use three receivers sparingly.

"It would stress us tremendously to have double open edges and four wide receivers and no threat to run the ball and put that kind of pass-rush burden on our offensive line and on the quarterback," Raye said. "I think we would be entering into foreign territory at a point where we don't need to.

"Now if it's for some cosmetic purpose, to make somebody feel better, we could go spread out everybody and throw it all over the lot, but that's not what we do. We have the ability to do that if for some reason -- injury or a situation dictated that -- we have that package."

its like this guy did not even watch any of our tapes last year. We did fine passing the ball with Martz....we moved the ball...sure Hill got sacked once (mainly because of those 7step drops) in a while but we still moved the ball. Its like he doesn't care how we did in the past and just makes his own conclusions about our talent on Offense, without giving them a chance to prove themselves.

I'm going to have to start a new thread about something that has been on my mind for a minute.

Our QB's got sacked a team record tying 55 times last year, and was -17 in the turnover department and ranked 26th out of 32 teams in rushing. Those kind of numbers alone take you out of the playoff picture.

[ Edited by Memphis9er on Oct 1, 2009 at 21:21:41 ]
YeAh RaYyE iZz WaCkK sAuCe!!!! Y wE gOtTa RuNn 60 tiMeZ n E wAyYz?! DaTs ShIeT iZ fOr f*ggZ! bRiNg BaCk MaRtZ!! hE wUz GaNgZta!! EvEn If HiLL gOtT SaCkEd 20 tYmEz AnD wE lOsT, At LeAsT wE cAn ThRoW n ScOrE 35 pOiNtZ! RaYyE sUckKz Yo! WuT dO hIzz oLd AzZ kNoW 'BoUt SuM FoOtBaLL n E WaYz?!?!?
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
LOL he says shaun only does what he does because shaun plays vs 8 guys in the box, but when asked whether he should pass more vs 8 men in the box he basically says no. man i like this team a lot and i like what sing has done but raye pisses me off a lot. why doesnt he have any confidence in hill, and if he doesnt than why did he choose him. wtf raye?

What a bunch of double talk! I agree, this team is very close to consistent, dare I say, greatness, but this stupid senile offense is holding it back.

Don't you think we could have put up at least 10 points more in the three games played if the O was opened up, even just a tad?

Skin the Lambs!!!!!!! NINERS!
Originally posted by Wubbie:
I think some of you guys are misunderstanding what Raye's saying.

The overall strategy is, obviously, to run the ball. As we all know, it chews up the clock, wears down the opposing defense, keeps your offense on the field, gives your defense a rest, keeps an opposing high-powered offense off the field and doesn't allow it to get rhythm, and is generally safer in terms of turnovers than a passing attack.

The big WTF?! we've all been thinking is "Why are we running when there's 8 men in the box?" I'm also of that sentiment, but Raye feels that we can still run with 8 men in the box. We're still letting the defense dictate how we play. As unusual as that sounds, it isn't really that unusual. For instance, when we played against the Seahawks, they stacked the box and were burned because Frank Gore was able to get to the second level and had two 70+ yard TDs. Because the safeties were cheating up, if we can block accordingly, those big plays can happen.

I think that's what Raye is trying to explain. Good teams CAN run against an 8 man front. We've seen it throughout the league. The thing is, I don't know if we're an elite running team that can take beat an 8-man front consistently. We have the runningback, fullback, and tight ends for it, but our offensive line play ranges from medicore to above-average. Their play is very volatile. Sometimes they play well, other times I wish for Bob McKittrick to come back.

Raye also explains that Hill's numbers are so good BECAUSE of the things we've done on offense. In theory, it sounds correct. When we run the ball well, we can tire out a defense and make linebackers and safeties freeze at the playaction pass. We also get them to play close to the line of scrimmage. By the fourth quarter, defenses are tired and worrying about the run.

I kind of don't agree with that because we're not running the ball well. We have a lot of three and outs. I don't see how we can tire out a defense with that. Often times, I think our own offensive line and runningbacks can get tired.

In theory, what Raye says isn't incorrect, in my opinion. I just think that the reality of it doesn't hold up when we fail to run well.


Right, the fact we don't run well and can't consistently sustain drives using this strategy would logically lead to a change in strategy. Yet, he seems pretty stubborn on staying with the strategy. The only reason I can think he doesn't change is the lack of confidence on the offense's ability to execute more complex schemes. I don't think Hill's inability to throw deep impairs a robust passing game. Montana never had a strong arm and he did just fine in a pass oriented offense predicated on short passes.