Smashmouth 49ers...I like it. (Bucking the NFL trend has its advantages)

Great topics today on game philosophy and trends. It's nice to read well thought out posts with evidence to back these claims up! Good work fellas.

I'm sorry I can't agree with the group think going on here.

While it may be nice to go against a trend when you see an advantage that is NOT the case with our offensive philosophy in the current NFL.

Every year the rules are changed to provide a bigger advantage to passing teams (not running teams)

DBs aren't allowed any contact after 5 yards (in the power running days you could beat the living daylights out of the WR all the way down the field)

If you look at top passing stats most of them came in the past 5-10 years.

In this environment we are purposefully sticking to a caveman style running game? Maybe if OC Raye showed some spark of offensive creativity (like running outside the tackles) I would have faith...but I have seen our offense shutdown by 8 men in the box blitzing the A gaps.

There is hope for our offense if we get an OC that figures out how to run a power running game with 2 TEs that are a threat in the passing game but we have had VD and Walker for a while now and that isn't anywhere close to our base formation

Since all the good posters are in this thread, I thought I'd add something from another post:

Originally posted by Micky6:
People love to talk about how all Singletary wants is to run the ball. He’s never said that. He has always maintained that he wants balance and that he wants the offense to be able to run the ball when it has to run the ball. That isn’t saying that he is building the team to look like the 2000 Ravens. Not at all.

The team has invested in players like V. Davis and Crabtree to help be targets in the passing game. Playing time at the RB position has been given (almost exclusively) to players that are competent in blitz pickup.

I agree with nannite’s assertion that this current Oline is not necessary a bulrush team and that nearly all the currently Olinemen have been used and have excelled in pass protection. With that said, nearly every guy is big (and nasty), and that tends to lend itself to that argument. These Oline pickups are as much about the passing game (if not a little more) than they are about the running game. The bottom line is that both need to be better.

Great post Mickey!

I'd like to add...I agree that Singletary is preaching "balance" this year esp. after last year's claim to run at will. And how can he not with the success we had in passing esp. from the spread with Alex, Crabtree, VD, Gore & company out of the backfield, Morgan...now guys such as Ginn, we still have Hill and our new draft picks, Brit Miller may be worked into the mix who appears to have a complete game, etc.

But my assertion is that we not only need to have a balance BETWEEN running and passing but more importantly, WITHIN the running game and WITHIN the passing game.

Last year we exclusively passed on teams we should have run on and run exclusively against teams we should have passed on.

But the glaring issue aside from poor game-planning was that, esp. in the running game, the formations were totally predictable and even the personnel lent itself to telegraphing what the play was going to be. So THIS year, instead of 99% of the runs straight up the gut against 8 and 9-man run blitzing defenses, how about a RB toss (sweep, toss-out), a reverse with Ginn, quick WR and RB screens outside; all to soften up the edge and keep defenses guessing. I was watching tape of Leroy Vann this morning and could not believe how much he reminds me of Darren Sproles and how the Chargers use him not only between the tackles but esp. off tackle.

As for the passing game, now we have our deep threats. Instead of the constant seam pass to VD down the middle of the field every time, how about stretch it with a deep out, post pattern, double-move and go? And how about a crossing pattern for God's sakes! With as much speed as we now have with a VD and Ginn, these guys should be running crossing patterns on short passes and allowed to run from sideline to sideline with their speed and take it to the house. Morgan is a great possession receiver and Crabtree is even better - intermediate zone are where they could make a living.

This year will fall on Singletary's philosphy to be able to run when we need too. But let's not forget the WCO and the theory was to game-plan effeciently, dominante in the pass game and run up the score and THEN run when we needed to in the second halfs of game and win comfortably while teeing off on defense.

IMHO, this is Singeltary/Raye's year (with the help of Johnson and more input with Alex) to show they know some X's & O's, can game-plan properly against an opponent exploiting their weaknesses, get the players in place to execute best, make in-game and half-time adjustments and essentially, out-coach another team. Did we see that at all last year?

We now have the players and can no longer pin things on the o-line or Alex. If we fail, it starts at the top with philosophy and then the OC. Mike's got his players now.

[ Edited by NCommand on Apr 27, 2010 at 14:09:32 ]

I saw one of Dixon's highlights, where he leaped over the line into the endzone. I have always wondered why we didn't do that occasionally. Was it because we didn't have the man who had that ability, or was it not considered smashmouth enough? I will be disppointed if we do not use Dixon in this capacity this year. It may not be smashmouth but if it'll result in a first down or six points, I'm all for it.

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

I know stats don't tell the whole story...and thats why I said as much in my post.

Let me ask you a question tho...Is Aikman one of the best QBs of all time? How about Terry Bradshaw?

I would submit to you that the answer on both counts is a resounding NO. They WERE very good tho when they needed to be, but neither of them were the engine that made the team go.

I'm not trying to slam Troy Aikman. He's a 3 time SB champion and a HOF QB. He has nothing to prove. Maybe if he played in a different offense he would have posted much better numbers.

Thats not my point tho.

My point is that its not outside the realm of possibility that a QB like Alex Smith could perform as well as Aikman given the other factors (best and biggest O-Line in football...maybe of all time, and the NFLs all time leading rusher behind him).

If the Niners can build a similar line (and thats a tall order...tho using two picks in the top 17 helps) then any 49ers QB finds their job ALOT easier.

Um...just by the fact he's in the HOF makes him one of best QBs of all time. Of all the QB's that have ever played in the NFL, he's one of the select few in the HOF. If your point was that its "not outside the realm of possibility that Smith could perform as well as Aikman given other factors," you're right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. It is, however, unlikely, just as it is unlikely that "given other factors" Smith will perform up to Young or Montana's level.

And, of course, if the 49ers line is better, it will make the QB's job easier but, again, that does not mean that Smith will easily play at Aikman's level, which like it or not led him to the HOF.

I disagree with your first statement altogether.

The HOF is largely a popularity contest. Aikman is in the Hall for 3 reason.

1) 1992 Super Bowl
2) 1993 Super Bowl
3) 1995 Super Bowl

I submit to you that if he doesn't have that line in front of him or #22 running the ball, he is NOT a HOF QB.

Does that mean that ANY QB could do it? No. Not at all. Aikman was a very good QB, I just don't think of him as one of the best of all time. Its not like he's Trent Dilfer and they got there in spite of him.

Also, like I said before, maybe if you put him in a different O he becomes a much more prolific QB. WHo knows, I can only judge on what he DID do.

My point in all of this tho is simply that the SBs the Cowboys won were not won and lost on Aikmans shoulders. He was a part of course, but he didn't need to play like a "Franchise QB" to win. He only needed to be solid ebnough to make the important throws and to burn the D when they stacked against the run.

THAT is all Alex Smith or whomever plays QB for the 49ers need to do to succeed if they can build a similar O-Line and keep Frank Gore healthy. Thats my entire point...we don't need Peyton Manning. We just need someone to keep the D honest.

I can't believe I'm having to defend Troy Aikman.

I don't see how you can say he's not one of the greatest of all time when he's in the HOF and 1 of only 23 QB's enshrined in the modern era, which is roughly the SB era. That in and of itself makes him one of the greatest by definition. Now if you want to say, he's in the bottom half of those 23 HOF QBs, that's another argument.

You keep saying he was only a HOF QB because of Emmitt Smith and the OL. Couldn't you say the same thing about Emmitt Smith? He was good but was only great because of the OL and having a HOF QB and WR to form the "Triplets" with?

Notwithstanding those arguments, we can agree to disagree on Aikman. If the real point was that the 49ers don't need a franchise QB, it does not hold up. Look at the 4 QBs in the Championship Games last year: Manning, Brees, Favre and then Sanchez as a rookie with the best defense in the league. Look at the teams having sustained success: Pats (Brady); Eagles (McNabb); Steelers (Big Ben); the Chargers are winning 2/3 of their games since Rivers took over; etc. Even to a lesser extent, the Seahawks dominated the NFC West for a few years and got toa SB because Hasselbeck was the best QB in the division and was playing at a high level. The Cardinals have been the best in the division and got to a SB because Warner was playing like he did with the Rams.

Like I said in the beginning, the 49ers can win without a franchise QB but its hard to sustain. They can even win a SB but the teams without franchise QBs but it usually takes everything breaking right in a given year. I'm not saying the 49ers can't win this year with Smith. I think they can but unless he can prove to be a franchise type QB, history shows it is unlikely the 49ers will have they type of sustained success that 49er fans are used to and looking for.

The last time I heard the argument that the 49ers didn't need a franchise QB, it was when Garcia left and Rattay took over. All the 49ers needed was a great defense and a good OL. How did that turn out?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Yes, we can agree to disagree on Aikman (and I have a friend who is a Dallas fan who would be real upset right now...lol).

I agree that a good QB is ESSENTIAL to winning in the NFL. I think we disagree on what makes them good...or even a "Franchise" QB.

Aikman didn't have to put up dazzling numbers because his O-Line was so strong and he had Emmitt. Emmitt was so good because the O-Line was dominant and Troy could keep the D honest...and of course Emmitt was pretty damn good in his own right. ;-)

I get that they go hand in hand.

I'm not trying to be an Alex Smith apologist here...I'm just using him as an example because he is the current starter.

The point I am TRYING to make (and doing it badly appearantly) is that whomever plays QB for the 49ers won't need to throw for 4000 yards and 35 TDs if the Niners have a GREAT O-Line and a good running game.

He can go his entire career throwing over 20 TDs in a season only once and STILL go to the Hall of Fame and get defended on the forum of his biggest rival...lol.

YES, we need a good QB (and maybe Smith when protected and in the same system for two years can be that guy).

Question, If Alex Throws 16 TDs and 7 INTs next year, but they win the SB (Troy Aikman in 1995), will you call HIM a "Franchise QB"? If the answer to that question is YES, then we can stop the conversation right now because we are just arguing terminology.

Originally posted by excelsior:
I saw one of Dixon's highlights, where he leaped over the line into the endzone. I have always wondered why we didn't do that occasionally. Was it because we didn't have the man who had that ability, or was it not considered smashmouth enough? I will be disppointed if we do not use Dixon in this capacity this year. It may not be smashmouth but if it'll result in a first down or six points, I'm all for it.

Agreed!

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

I know stats don't tell the whole story...and thats why I said as much in my post.

Let me ask you a question tho...Is Aikman one of the best QBs of all time? How about Terry Bradshaw?

I would submit to you that the answer on both counts is a resounding NO. They WERE very good tho when they needed to be, but neither of them were the engine that made the team go.

I'm not trying to slam Troy Aikman. He's a 3 time SB champion and a HOF QB. He has nothing to prove. Maybe if he played in a different offense he would have posted much better numbers.

Thats not my point tho.

My point is that its not outside the realm of possibility that a QB like Alex Smith could perform as well as Aikman given the other factors (best and biggest O-Line in football...maybe of all time, and the NFLs all time leading rusher behind him).

If the Niners can build a similar line (and thats a tall order...tho using two picks in the top 17 helps) then any 49ers QB finds their job ALOT easier.

Um...just by the fact he's in the HOF makes him one of best QBs of all time. Of all the QB's that have ever played in the NFL, he's one of the select few in the HOF. If your point was that its "not outside the realm of possibility that Smith could perform as well as Aikman given other factors," you're right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. It is, however, unlikely, just as it is unlikely that "given other factors" Smith will perform up to Young or Montana's level.

And, of course, if the 49ers line is better, it will make the QB's job easier but, again, that does not mean that Smith will easily play at Aikman's level, which like it or not led him to the HOF.

I disagree with your first statement altogether.

The HOF is largely a popularity contest. Aikman is in the Hall for 3 reason.

1) 1992 Super Bowl
2) 1993 Super Bowl
3) 1995 Super Bowl

I submit to you that if he doesn't have that line in front of him or #22 running the ball, he is NOT a HOF QB.

Does that mean that ANY QB could do it? No. Not at all. Aikman was a very good QB, I just don't think of him as one of the best of all time. Its not like he's Trent Dilfer and they got there in spite of him.

Also, like I said before, maybe if you put him in a different O he becomes a much more prolific QB. WHo knows, I can only judge on what he DID do.

My point in all of this tho is simply that the SBs the Cowboys won were not won and lost on Aikmans shoulders. He was a part of course, but he didn't need to play like a "Franchise QB" to win. He only needed to be solid ebnough to make the important throws and to burn the D when they stacked against the run.

THAT is all Alex Smith or whomever plays QB for the 49ers need to do to succeed if they can build a similar O-Line and keep Frank Gore healthy. Thats my entire point...we don't need Peyton Manning. We just need someone to keep the D honest.

I can't believe I'm having to defend Troy Aikman.

I don't see how you can say he's not one of the greatest of all time when he's in the HOF and 1 of only 23 QB's enshrined in the modern era, which is roughly the SB era. That in and of itself makes him one of the greatest by definition. Now if you want to say, he's in the bottom half of those 23 HOF QBs, that's another argument.

You keep saying he was only a HOF QB because of Emmitt Smith and the OL. Couldn't you say the same thing about Emmitt Smith? He was good but was only great because of the OL and having a HOF QB and WR to form the "Triplets" with?

Notwithstanding those arguments, we can agree to disagree on Aikman. If the real point was that the 49ers don't need a franchise QB, it does not hold up. Look at the 4 QBs in the Championship Games last year: Manning, Brees, Favre and then Sanchez as a rookie with the best defense in the league. Look at the teams having sustained success: Pats (Brady); Eagles (McNabb); Steelers (Big Ben); the Chargers are winning 2/3 of their games since Rivers took over; etc. Even to a lesser extent, the Seahawks dominated the NFC West for a few years and got toa SB because Hasselbeck was the best QB in the division and was playing at a high level. The Cardinals have been the best in the division and got to a SB because Warner was playing like he did with the Rams.

Like I said in the beginning, the 49ers can win without a franchise QB but its hard to sustain. They can even win a SB but the teams without franchise QBs but it usually takes everything breaking right in a given year. I'm not saying the 49ers can't win this year with Smith. I think they can but unless he can prove to be a franchise type QB, history shows it is unlikely the 49ers will have they type of sustained success that 49er fans are used to and looking for.

The last time I heard the argument that the 49ers didn't need a franchise QB, it was when Garcia left and Rattay took over. All the 49ers needed was a great defense and a good OL. How did that turn out?

Well said. I can't believe there are still people who actually watch what the NFL has become over the past decade and believe that a team can achieve sustained success without a franchise QB and a solid receiving corp.

I think I'm being misinterpreted.

I'm not advocating go the Ravens route and send out the call for Trent Dilfer.

I'm saying you can win without throwing for 4000 yards and 35 TDs.

Lets show a few examples...

Aikman SB years:
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5

...or more recently

Roethlisberger SB years:
2008 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 281 469 59.9 3,301 17 15 80.1
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers 12 12 168 268 62.7 2,385 17 9 98.6

Eli Manning SB:
2007 New York Giants 16 16 297 529 56.1 3,336 23 20 73.9

...and now Alex Smith last year:
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5


I think you can see that the hurdle isn't as large as many might say it is. Alex is much more likely to perform this well at QB than to go out and put up Manning/Brady/Brees numbers and it might still be enough to get them where they need to go.

The bar doesn't need to be set so high. Does Alex need to play well? Certainly. He needs to play better than he's ever played. He needs to realize his potential, but I don't think its as far off as some might think because of the way the team is being constructed....like the Cowboys of the 90's.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
I'm sorry I can't agree with the group think going on here.

While it may be nice to go against a trend when you see an advantage that is NOT the case with our offensive philosophy in the current NFL.

Every year the rules are changed to provide a bigger advantage to passing teams (not running teams)

DBs aren't allowed any contact after 5 yards (in the power running days you could beat the living daylights out of the WR all the way down the field)

If you look at top passing stats most of them came in the past 5-10 years.

In this environment we are purposefully sticking to a caveman style running game? Maybe if OC Raye showed some spark of offensive creativity (like running outside the tackles) I would have faith...but I have seen our offense shutdown by 8 men in the box blitzing the A gaps.

There is hope for our offense if we get an OC that figures out how to run a power running game with 2 TEs that are a threat in the passing game but we have had VD and Walker for a while now and that isn't anywhere close to our base formation

I'm not saying we should stop passing. With Crabtree and Davis we have 2 legit threats. Those two guys tho match my point tho. Davis is big AND fast. Crabtree is biggish and a willing blocker.

Its about physicality...not three yards and a cloud of dust.

Originally posted by rum53:
To continue on the idea that the league is cyclical, look at the NFL defenses. In the past 5 years, how many defenses switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4? I think the latest count has over half of all defenses use a base 3-4.

The trend to 3-4 coincides with offenses going to pass attacks. First, the 3-4 has 4 linebackers on the field during base defense which helps with pass coverage. Second, the 3-4 allows the defense to use a variety of blitz packages to confuse pass blockers.

The one downside of the 3-4 defense is the ability to stop the run. The 3-4 uses only three large DL to hold the line against 5 large OLmen. The key to make a 3-4 work is a large dominant NT, which a very few and far between. With so many teams going with a 3-4, NT's are at a premium. Not every team has one. Advantage offense.

Singletary is indeed building a team that goes against the current trend. I think it's perfect timing for such a move.

But it isn't as if teams are stoic in their defensive packages. A team that predominantly runs a 3-4 may not do so when they play us, realizing that they are going to have to stop the run. If Singletary is building a team that goes against the current trend then he isn't taking advantage of the rules. Even utilizing 3-4 defenses, teams cannot stop the pass. More QBs threw for 4,000 yards in the past three seasons than in the entire decade of the 80s. So, while we may catch a defense "off guard" by emphasizing the run our defense is getting passed on at a huge clip. Best case scenario when we play a good team that takes advantage of the current rules - our offense chews up enough clock and our defense allows "only" 20-24 points and we're in close games. Worst case scenario - we throw our gameplan out the window at the half because we're down by 3 scores.

The important thing is endurance. With a "smashmouth" team, you can't just be big maulers. You have to be a team that's ready to go, full-on, non-stop, torrential, relentlessly, play.. after play.. after play. Every down. All game.

You get the point.

We must be able to outlast, beat down, and wear down our opponent, while at the same time scoring points. We'll see if all the pieces are together this year.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

Awsome post! It's easy to say now, but I have thought the exact same thing before. I think it can give you an advantage on O like you said, but it can also hurt you on D if you don't have the players to cover teams like the Saints and Pats.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I've read and heard alot of criticism that the league is moving to a passing league and having a free safety who can cover like a corner is essential.

I've read that the Niners building up front to crush people is too "old-school" and won't work in todays NFL.

I think thats all bunk. ;-)

The NFL is cyclical. People act as tho the NFL moves in one direction and it never comes back around again. That just isn't the case. Just look at the 3-4 defense....it comes and goes...just like everything else.

Follow me here. The league goes after smaller, quicker guys to counter pass happy offenses (West Coast O, Run and Shoot, No Huddle?). Now, everyone on the field is small and fast and you have neutralized the faster pass-happy O.

Along comes a team with an O-Line that everages over 320 lbs and simply MAULS you. It is a run first team that can pass to keep you honest. The D just crushes those streaking WRs and the safeties make those smaller faster guys pay every time they make a catch.

Do you know what I just described? The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Most of the league was moving to the pass-happy west coast offense or K-Gun or any number of other pass offenses. The Cowboys came along with a MASSIVE line and some speed and size on D and won 3 SB's.

I'm not saying that the Niners are the Cowboys. I'm saying that sometimes bucking the trend makes you unique in a league of parity and being the only team in the Division that will hit you in the mouth has some advantages.

It is a good thing for the 49ers to finally have a vision and identity. I don't even have a problem with the 49ers bucking the NFL trend.

The one problem is that to win and contend for SB's consistently, you have to have a franchise QB. The Cowboys example you referenced above is a good one...except that they had a franchise QB in Aikman. The 49ers still do not know what they have in Smith. If he fails this year or becomes simply a "manage the game" type QB, they can still potentially win a SB if everything goes right in a given year but it is unlikely they will contend year after year.

Aikman won 3 SBs and thats why people think of him so highly. The reality tho is that Aikman struggled badly before Norv Turner turned him around and he never threw more than 23 TDs in a season...and that was his ONLY 20+ TD season.

Troy Aikman
Year Team G GS ATT CMP % YDS PA TD INT RATE
2000 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 156 262 59.5 1,632 6.2 7 14 64.3
1999 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 263 442 59.5 2,964 6.7 17 12 81.1
1998 Dallas Cowboys 11 11 187 315 59.4 2,330 7.4 12 5 88.5
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 292 518 56.4 3,283 6.3 19 12 78.0
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 296 465 63.7 3,126 6.7 12 13 80.1
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 280 432 64.8 3,304 7.6 16 7 93.6
1994 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 233 361 64.5 2,676 7.4 13 12 84.9
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 271 392 69.1 3,100 7.9 15 6 99.0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 302 473 63.8 3,445 7.3 23 14 89.5
1991 Dallas Cowboys 12 12 237 363 65.3 2,754 7.6 11 10 86.7
1990 Dallas Cowboys 15 -- 226 399 56.6 2,579 6.5 11 18 66.6
1989 Dallas Cowboys 11 -- 155 293 52.9 1,749 6.0 9 18 55.7

Alex Smith
2009 San Francisco 49ers 11 10 225 372 60.5 2,350 6.3 18 12 81.5
2006 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 257 442 58.1 2,890 6.5 16 16 74.8
2005 San Francisco 49ers 9 7 84 165 50.9 875 5.3 1 11 40.8

To be fair, I took out Alexs two injury seasons (he has 2 TDs and 4 INTS in one...and 3 of those INTS came in a game he should never have been allowed to play in...freakin Nolan).

Now...before people get all up in arms, I'm not saying Alex is Troy Aikman. #s also don't tell the whole story. Even if Troy doesn't put up big numbers, he put them up when they needed them. I'm not gonna get in another Alex Smith debate.

My only point in comparing these stats is that Dallas didn't have what you are calling a "Franchise" QB. They had a guy with the best O-Line in the NFL and #22 behind a very good QB. Its the LINE that made Dallas a champion.

I think what I'm trying to say is the Aikman bar isn't that hard to hurdle.

This would be a great analysis...if this was baseball and not football. Stats are important but they don't tell the whole story. Aikman's a HOF QB, that's a fact. Saying he was a product of those around him doesn't really get you any where because you could say the same about just about any HOF QB, including Montana and Young. In a USA Today piece in 2007, 10 NFL reporters and editors voted Aikman 1 of the top 25 players of the past 25 years (#20 specifically). All in all, as much as I hated him as a 49er fan, he was pretty good, not Montana good, but pretty good. The 49ers would be in very good shape if Smith could end up having Aikman's career. Heck, that would mean another HOF QB.

I know stats don't tell the whole story...and thats why I said as much in my post.

Let me ask you a question tho...Is Aikman one of the best QBs of all time? How about Terry Bradshaw?

I would submit to you that the answer on both counts is a resounding NO. They WERE very good tho when they needed to be, but neither of them were the engine that made the team go.

I'm not trying to slam Troy Aikman. He's a 3 time SB champion and a HOF QB. He has nothing to prove. Maybe if he played in a different offense he would have posted much better numbers.

Thats not my point tho.

My point is that its not outside the realm of possibility that a QB like Alex Smith could perform as well as Aikman given the other factors (best and biggest O-Line in football...maybe of all time, and the NFLs all time leading rusher behind him).

If the Niners can build a similar line (and thats a tall order...tho using two picks in the top 17 helps) then any 49ers QB finds their job ALOT easier.

Um...just by the fact he's in the HOF makes him one of best QBs of all time. Of all the QB's that have ever played in the NFL, he's one of the select few in the HOF. If your point was that its "not outside the realm of possibility that Smith could perform as well as Aikman given other factors," you're right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. It is, however, unlikely, just as it is unlikely that "given other factors" Smith will perform up to Young or Montana's level.

And, of course, if the 49ers line is better, it will make the QB's job easier but, again, that does not mean that Smith will easily play at Aikman's level, which like it or not led him to the HOF.

I disagree with your first statement altogether.

The HOF is largely a popularity contest. Aikman is in the Hall for 3 reason.

1) 1992 Super Bowl
2) 1993 Super Bowl
3) 1995 Super Bowl

I submit to you that if he doesn't have that line in front of him or #22 running the ball, he is NOT a HOF QB.

Does that mean that ANY QB could do it? No. Not at all. Aikman was a very good QB, I just don't think of him as one of the best of all time. Its not like he's Trent Dilfer and they got there in spite of him.

Also, like I said before, maybe if you put him in a different O he becomes a much more prolific QB. WHo knows, I can only judge on what he DID do.

My point in all of this tho is simply that the SBs the Cowboys won were not won and lost on Aikmans shoulders. He was a part of course, but he didn't need to play like a "Franchise QB" to win. He only needed to be solid ebnough to make the important throws and to burn the D when they stacked against the run.

THAT is all Alex Smith or whomever plays QB for the 49ers need to do to succeed if they can build a similar O-Line and keep Frank Gore healthy. Thats my entire point...we don't need Peyton Manning. We just need someone to keep the D honest.

I can't believe I'm having to defend Troy Aikman.

I don't see how you can say he's not one of the greatest of all time when he's in the HOF and 1 of only 23 QB's enshrined in the modern era, which is roughly the SB era. That in and of itself makes him one of the greatest by definition. Now if you want to say, he's in the bottom half of those 23 HOF QBs, that's another argument.

You keep saying he was only a HOF QB because of Emmitt Smith and the OL. Couldn't you say the same thing about Emmitt Smith? He was good but was only great because of the OL and having a HOF QB and WR to form the "Triplets" with?

Notwithstanding those arguments, we can agree to disagree on Aikman. If the real point was that the 49ers don't need a franchise QB, it does not hold up. Look at the 4 QBs in the Championship Games last year: Manning, Brees, Favre and then Sanchez as a rookie with the best defense in the league. Look at the teams having sustained success: Pats (Brady); Eagles (McNabb); Steelers (Big Ben); the Chargers are winning 2/3 of their games since Rivers took over; etc. Even to a lesser extent, the Seahawks dominated the NFC West for a few years and got toa SB because Hasselbeck was the best QB in the division and was playing at a high level. The Cardinals have been the best in the division and got to a SB because Warner was playing like he did with the Rams.

Like I said in the beginning, the 49ers can win without a franchise QB but its hard to sustain. They can even win a SB but the teams without franchise QBs but it usually takes everything breaking right in a given year. I'm not saying the 49ers can't win this year with Smith. I think they can but unless he can prove to be a franchise type QB, history shows it is unlikely the 49ers will have they type of sustained success that 49er fans are used to and looking for.

The last time I heard the argument that the 49ers didn't need a franchise QB, it was when Garcia left and Rattay took over. All the 49ers needed was a great defense and a good OL. How did that turn out?

Well said. I can't believe there are still people who actually watch what the NFL has become over the past decade and believe that a team can achieve sustained success without a franchise QB and a solid receiving corp.

The Panthers and Ravens have been pretty successful without either of those. Even the Vikings appear to be heading that direction and that was before Favre. And if Terry Bradshaw was in the NFL today he wouldn't be considered a "franchise" qb. To me the term is just thrown around and has lost most of its significance. This is the ultimate team game but yet the QB gets most of the credit.

So basically if you build a team that becomes a dynasty your QB will be considered a "franchise" QB, whether he carries that team or is just along for the ride. This is why most people on the board can't see him and franchise in the same sentence, because he is linked to one of the worst droughts in our history. BUT ever since he was drafted we have been trending up(slowly) so only time will tell.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by rum53:
To continue on the idea that the league is cyclical, look at the NFL defenses. In the past 5 years, how many defenses switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4? I think the latest count has over half of all defenses use a base 3-4.

The trend to 3-4 coincides with offenses going to pass attacks. First, the 3-4 has 4 linebackers on the field during base defense which helps with pass coverage. Second, the 3-4 allows the defense to use a variety of blitz packages to confuse pass blockers.

The one downside of the 3-4 defense is the ability to stop the run. The 3-4 uses only three large DL to hold the line against 5 large OLmen. The key to make a 3-4 work is a large dominant NT, which a very few and far between. With so many teams going with a 3-4, NT's are at a premium. Not every team has one. Advantage offense.

Singletary is indeed building a team that goes against the current trend. I think it's perfect timing for such a move.

But it isn't as if teams are stoic in their defensive packages. A team that predominantly runs a 3-4 may not do so when they play us, realizing that they are going to have to stop the run. If Singletary is building a team that goes against the current trend then he isn't taking advantage of the rules. Even utilizing 3-4 defenses, teams cannot stop the pass. More QBs threw for 4,000 yards in the past three seasons than in the entire decade of the 80s. So, while we may catch a defense "off guard" by emphasizing the run our defense is getting passed on at a huge clip. Best case scenario when we play a good team that takes advantage of the current rules - our offense chews up enough clock and our defense allows "only" 20-24 points and we're in close games. Worst case scenario - we throw our gameplan out the window at the half because we're down by 3 scores.

To be successful in the NFL, a team has to be able to play different styles of football. Each team has various strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the chances are that we won't be able to run on the Ravens with their two monster DT's Ngata and Mount Cody. To beat the Ravens, the 49ers will have to find a different offensive game plan in order to attack the Ravens weaknesses.

The perfect example of adjusting your offensive game plan to your opponent is the Saints in the Superbowl. New Orleans utilized a ball control short passing game that effectively kept Peyton Manning on the sidelines.

There are two ways to play ball control offense, either by power running (ala the 90's cowboys) or by short passing (ala the Montan 49ers). Our personnel dictates that we use a power running game for a ball control offense.

The question remains is if we can air it out if we find ourselves in a shootout. We have numerous weapons (crabtree, vd, morgan, walker, ginn, gore, etc.) that have the potential to make a potent offense. Given strong QB play, we should be able to match the most potent of offensives if we find ourselves in a high scoring battle.

The NFL is a game of matchups. Every team has a weakness. Teams the win find a way to exploit their opponents weaknesses.

Originally posted by rum53:

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by rum53:
To continue on the idea that the league is cyclical, look at the NFL defenses. In the past 5 years, how many defenses switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4? I think the latest count has over half of all defenses use a base 3-4.

The trend to 3-4 coincides with offenses going to pass attacks. First, the 3-4 has 4 linebackers on the field during base defense which helps with pass coverage. Second, the 3-4 allows the defense to use a variety of blitz packages to confuse pass blockers.

The one downside of the 3-4 defense is the ability to stop the run. The 3-4 uses only three large DL to hold the line against 5 large OLmen. The key to make a 3-4 work is a large dominant NT, which a very few and far between. With so many teams going with a 3-4, NT's are at a premium. Not every team has one. Advantage offense.

Singletary is indeed building a team that goes against the current trend. I think it's perfect timing for such a move.

But it isn't as if teams are stoic in their defensive packages. A team that predominantly runs a 3-4 may not do so when they play us, realizing that they are going to have to stop the run. If Singletary is building a team that goes against the current trend then he isn't taking advantage of the rules. Even utilizing 3-4 defenses, teams cannot stop the pass. More QBs threw for 4,000 yards in the past three seasons than in the entire decade of the 80s. So, while we may catch a defense "off guard" by emphasizing the run our defense is getting passed on at a huge clip. Best case scenario when we play a good team that takes advantage of the current rules - our offense chews up enough clock and our defense allows "only" 20-24 points and we're in close games. Worst case scenario - we throw our gameplan out the window at the half because we're down by 3 scores.

To be successful in the NFL, a team has to be able to play different styles of football. Each team has various strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the chances are that we won't be able to run on the Ravens with their two monster DT's Ngata and Mount Cody. To beat the Ravens, the 49ers will have to find a different offensive game plan in order to attack the Ravens weaknesses.

The perfect example of adjusting your offensive game plan to your opponent is the Saints in the Superbowl. New Orleans utilized a ball control short passing game that effectively kept Peyton Manning on the sidelines.

There are two ways to play ball control offense, either by power running (ala the 90's cowboys) or by short passing (ala the Montan 49ers). Our personnel dictates that we use a power running game for a ball control offense.

The question remains is if we can air it out if we find ourselves in a shootout. We have numerous weapons (crabtree, vd, morgan, walker, ginn, gore, etc.) that have the potential to make a potent offense. Given strong QB play, we should be able to match the most potent of offensives if we find ourselves in a high scoring battle.

The NFL is a game of matchups. Every team has a weakness. Teams the win find a way to exploit their opponents weaknesses.

I agree with what you're saying. Versatility is key and teams like NO can beat you many ways. All I'm getting at is that the teams that enjoy the most success in today's NFL are almost all pass-first (the only exception I can think of is Baltimore, but they haven't won a SB in a decade). It just seems the rules are there to take advantage of using some form of a spread offense, which teams like NE, NO, Ariz, Indy, and even Pittsburgh run as their base package. Our QB and best WR were from spread offenses in college ... just seems we should be building a team for that, not a run-first O. The great part is that I don't see Davis or Iupati being liabilities in that department, so I'm not saying the first round was a waste.

I think it can work but we will see.