There are 93 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

MM-49ers didn't run spread offense more with Smith

Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by chico49erfan:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by chico49erfan:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by chico49erfan:
Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Originally posted by mississippi_sam:
I'd like to add that I like the idea of the 4 and 5WR look from the single back, 3WR set, with Gore and VD lined up split wide at times. This lets us keep our base package on the field and create mismatches.... if only it would work. That would be nice.

Good blocking makes it work.

If you watch some of the throws he makes in the Pics thread (the .gifs that Boast posted) he does have protection. If that can hold, our offensive will make great strides before the last quarter of the season.

it just seems like he had protection because Hill was holding onto the ball longer than Hill and longer than the line could protect him.

wait what?

long night no sleep. Hill then Smith damn 2 more hours at work then I can go to sleep


haha okay that's what i thought. but u have to agree that the line played better for smith

maybe it is a case that Smith elevated the play of his teammates

A good QB will do that, the team definitely looked more excited when he was in there.
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
Fine, it wasn't a "spread" offense.

But we did THROW the football a higher percentage of the time.

We did? A higher percentage of the time compared to what games? In the Atlanta game we had more attempts, as a percentage of all plays and a whole, than we did in Houston.

Originally posted by BrianGO:
Smith, and even Hill, always seem to march down the field and score points, when we throw the ball a lot.

It may seem like that but it's not true. And when it is true we're throwing the ball more because we're behind and trying to catch up.

"THROW the football a higher percentage of the time." -- Smith compared to Hill in most games this season, especially in the fourth quarter. Of course in the third quarter, we had plenty of our classic, "run for about a yard" plays, where Smith did a nice job of bailing us out on third and long.
So perhaps it wasn't MUCH higher, but late in the fourth we were really throwing it.

I'm not looking up the stats, but if you take all of our touchdown scoring drives, and then you look at how many times we passed and how many times we ran, we almost certainly passed the ball more.
In the Cardinals game we scored the go ahead touchdown by passing the ball down the field.
In the Vikings game, we scored the go ahead touchdown by passing the ball down the field.
In Atlanta, our touchdown drive consisted of one long pass, followed by a rare running touchdown.
And finally in Houston, we scored three touchdown from the air.

On the other side of that coin, yes, we pass because we are behind, but why are we behind? To me at least, its because we are running for no-gain over and over and over and then setting up third and long for our quarterbacks.

Why not simply pretend that we are behind in the beginning of the game, so we can score points early and then throughout the entire game, instead of just at the very end?

Running for 1 yard at a time really hurts our team, it is very frustrating to watch. It sets up third and longs and gets us behind in games. It forces our defense to stay on the field stopping the other team all day long.

Why not scare teams with a shotgun formation and THEN run on them? I don't mean one or two plays. How about an entire quarter of shotgun, and then run on them a bunch after that?

I just can't understand the argument that the "run sets up the pass." You CAN'T run on an NFL team if they want to stop you. Nobody can. They have to be afraid of your PASS before they back up off the line of scrimmage. That is the main point I am trying to make.

Isn't the leading rusher in the NFL on a winless team (Titans)?
[ Edited by BrianGO on Oct 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM ]