More Gore? 49ers are 5-0 in '09 when ...

Originally posted by jaghetersofie:
The reason he gets 25 carries is because we're winning. When we're down by two or three scores we need to be constantly passing to score quickly. When we're ahead we want to milk the clock by running the ball. So it's more, "If we win he will get 25 carries" than it is "If he gets 25 carries we will win".

That wasn't the case against TEN. He averaged 4.5, the game was close and he still didn't get the touches.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by jaghetersofie:
The reason he gets 25 carries is because we're winning. When we're down by two or three scores we need to be constantly passing to score quickly. When we're ahead we want to milk the clock by running the ball. So it's more, "If we win he will get 25 carries" than it is "If he gets 25 carries we will win".

That wasn't the case against TEN. He averaged 4.5, the game was close and he still didn't get the touches.

I was just about to point that one out, I completely agree with you in that regard, problem is Frank hasn't had the openings due to our poor offensive line and at times he tends to dance instead of exploding through holes. His performance against the Cards was his single best performance of the season, even better than the seacocks the first time around because this was his most BALANCED game from him start to finish.

[ Edited by dave1003 on Dec 17, 2009 at 16:37:58 ]

The amount of touches a RB gets has a lot to do with what needs to be done when the offence has the ball.

For example, we saw a lot of Gore against Zona, mostly because we were able to get a lead early. The approach then was to grind it out and use up clock. If Zona went up 14-0, we'd have thrown the ball a lot more in an effort to score quickly.

In contrast, the Seahawk game (which still burns) could have used more Gore. It was 14-14 at half! Someone explain to me why he only had 9 carries! He averaged 2.8 a carry, so maybe Seattle was daring us to beat them with Alex, which is a tall task considering the lack of chemistry he has with his WR's.

Originally posted by 9erObsession:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Those statistics are always deceiving. When you are up you try to run the ball more to run out the clock and run out the game. Of course you always win more when your RB gets more carries. That's the case for every team.

It means you were up in the game, in control and trying to run out the clock.

Gore averaged more than Chris Johnson in the TEN game but we thought it would be cute to throw 40 times and lose again. Gore is our best player.

It's not how we lost.

1) Run a reverse on the return and give the team the ball around the 10 yard line (-7 points)

2) Go on 4th down and don't get it and not take the field goal (-3 points)

3) Multiple dropped passes in the endzone for touchdowns. Right in the receivers hands.

4) Call all timeouts in the 1st 6 minutes of the game. Including one on the first play.

That's how we lost. It wasn't because we threw the ball.

I remember that in the Seattle Game not Tennessee

Facts should never stand in the way of a good argument.

I don't buy these type of statistics. The reason we switched to passing was because we COULDN'T run. If the lanes are there, well of course we'll pound the ball.

I've noticed this effect after years of watching spread football. My best guess is that Jimmy Raye is more than likely being too predictable with his formations and playcalling on situational down and distances. Approximately 65%-70% of all plays in any game are ran on either 1st down or 2nd and long. Most good football teams only have about 3 or 4 plays they run well and this is where OC/Playcallers will spend their bread-n-butter stuff. If the other team knows when you run them and what formation you do it out of, then you're most likely screwed unless you have a really good OL or QB. Calling more runs on 2nd and 10 can sometimes bust things open. This seemed to be the case against Arizona, but I don't get to watch much Niner football.

I'm also a firm believer that a good system doesn't make a good offense. Only good playcalling. Bill Walsh, Andy Reid, June Jones, etc......they always stayed one step ahead of DCs.

Originally posted by Allx9er:
folks crack me up what happen to.......

we're going to a spread offense so we need a new back

frank is washed up

theres a difference between just spread and opening up our playbook with the spread so we can run the ball. We went to the spread bc too many teams are loading the box and frank couldnt go anywhere. We also went in the spread because our oline couldnt protect the qb. As for people saying Frank was washed up and all the trade talk they should take a serious reality check

It's not like he shares the carries with another back as is the case with most backs around the league. He's our guy. He's the bell cow of the team - period. As goes Gore, so go the '9ers.

There's no reason why he shouldn't get 15 to 20 carries a game on average. He is still an elite back. Coffee comes in when Gore needs to catch his breath. That's all.

I'd like to see 20 to 25 touches a game, but more importantly 15 to 20 carries a game.