There are 101 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Coaching Wasn't Nearly as Bad as You Think!

the plays they had scripted before the game worked awesome, seattle couldnt stop us on the first few drives and the whole team looked sharp. after the scripted plays ran out our coaching staff showed off their in game coaching skills...
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
If you read the OP the title of this thread is misleading. I stated at the begining that the coaching wasn't good, but that ultimately the Players lost this game. We left 21 points on the board as well as played undiciplined on defense.

But tell me if you agree with this....

Whatever was working we strayed away from in the first half, i.e. used D. Walker in most of the first half. then never in the second. That was the coaches

And above all, just curious, do you agree or not, that if your put in the correct position for success, and then u fail, is one thing. But if your not even put in the right position, and say make best with whatever we can do, is that the players fault?

We were down 2 scores with an entire half to play yet Raye called plays as if there was only 7 minutes left in the game. All we needed to do was stick to the original game plan, score in the 3rd and put the pressure back on Seattle.

What do you guys think is more important:

Pre-Game Plan ala Raye

or

In-Game Adjustments ala Seattle's OC?
  • dj43
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 21,053
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
If you read the OP the title of this thread is misleading. I stated at the begining that the coaching wasn't good, but that ultimately the Players lost this game. We left 21 points on the board as well as played undiciplined on defense.

But tell me if you agree with this....

Whatever was working we strayed away from in the first half, i.e. used D. Walker in most of the first half. then never in the second. That was the coaches

And above all, just curious, do you agree or not, that if your put in the correct position for success, and then u fail, is one thing. But if your not even put in the right position, and say make best with whatever we can do, is that the players fault?

We were down 2 scores with an entire half to play yet Raye called plays as if there was only 7 minutes left in the game. All we needed to do was stick to the original game plan, score in the 3rd and put the pressure back on Seattle.

What do you guys think is more important:

Pre-Game Plan ala Raye

or

In-Game Adjustments ala Seattle's OC?
The sad part of that is that Jeremy Bates joined the Seattle staff at the beginning of the summer, IIRC. He didn't need two years to get a game plan ready.
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
If you read the OP the title of this thread is misleading. I stated at the begining that the coaching wasn't good, but that ultimately the Players lost this game. We left 21 points on the board as well as played undiciplined on defense.

But tell me if you agree with this....

Whatever was working we strayed away from in the first half, i.e. used D. Walker in most of the first half. then never in the second. That was the coaches

And above all, just curious, do you agree or not, that if your put in the correct position for success, and then u fail, is one thing. But if your not even put in the right position, and say make best with whatever we can do, is that the players fault?

We were down 2 scores with an entire half to play yet Raye called plays as if there was only 7 minutes left in the game. All we needed to do was stick to the original game plan, score in the 3rd and put the pressure back on Seattle.

What do you guys think is more important:

Pre-Game Plan ala Raye

or

In-Game Adjustments ala Seattle's OC?
The sad part of that is that Jeremy Bates joined the Seattle staff at the beginning of the summer, IIRC. He didn't need two years to get a game plan ready.

I'm thinking it depends on who you play. If you play us, just wing it until after the 1st quarter and begin making adjustments.

If you play the Colts, you better come in with something strong or be ready to be down by 21 after the 1st.
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
If you read the OP the title of this thread is misleading. I stated at the begining that the coaching wasn't good, but that ultimately the Players lost this game. We left 21 points on the board as well as played undiciplined on defense.

But tell me if you agree with this....

Whatever was working we strayed away from in the first half, i.e. used D. Walker in most of the first half. then never in the second. That was the coaches

And above all, just curious, do you agree or not, that if your put in the correct position for success, and then u fail, is one thing. But if your not even put in the right position, and say make best with whatever we can do, is that the players fault?

We were down 2 scores with an entire half to play yet Raye called plays as if there was only 7 minutes left in the game. All we needed to do was stick to the original game plan, score in the 3rd and put the pressure back on Seattle.

What do you guys think is more important:

Pre-Game Plan ala Raye

or

In-Game Adjustments ala Seattle's OC?
The sad part of that is that Jeremy Bates joined the Seattle staff at the beginning of the summer, IIRC. He didn't need two years to get a game plan ready.

I'm thinking it depends on who you play. If you play us, just wing it until after the 1st quarter and begin making adjustments.

If you play the Colts, you better come in with something strong or be ready to be down by 21 after the 1st.

Well i guess the answer is both then. Do enough work as an OC to prepare a flawless gameplan. and if by halftime that aint working, then make the proper in game ajustment to start the second half.

I just dont get like someone said earlier, why did we stray away from what was working?????
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
If you read the OP the title of this thread is misleading. I stated at the begining that the coaching wasn't good, but that ultimately the Players lost this game. We left 21 points on the board as well as played undiciplined on defense.

But tell me if you agree with this....

Whatever was working we strayed away from in the first half, i.e. used D. Walker in most of the first half. then never in the second. That was the coaches

And above all, just curious, do you agree or not, that if your put in the correct position for success, and then u fail, is one thing. But if your not even put in the right position, and say make best with whatever we can do, is that the players fault?

The short answer to both of your questions is, yes I agree.

But i dont think everything is that simple. I've never been a playcaller on any level, but I can see how things just begin to drift from the original scheme. Yes, the formation with Walker was working well, but some times you want to keep the defense guessing. IMO, you can't always "stick with what has worked," because thats how defenses figure you out. How many plays do you think Jimmy has with Walker anyway? Unlimited? Maybe it was working, but come halftime he decided to switch it up, because he figured Seattle would make adjustments? I'm not trying to defend Jimmy, I'm just saying It's not that black and white. You guys act like he tried to throw the game.

Also, with as beat up as Seattles line was, why didn't we call more blitzes? You guys dont talk about that at all? It seemed like we only rushed 3 men in the second half? We only talk about the Offense, but the truth is the offense hardly saw the field in the second half the way the defense was given up the booty. I didn't look at second half time of possession, but I dont know that we had that many chances.

I like the 2 TE set. Check some of my posts prior to the game calling for it. But that shouldn't be the only formation our offense should be able to execute out of. That's for sure. You have to think of it this way. You start a series with an idea of what you want. You have 3 tries to get a first down. You might go 3 and out with one of the plays getting a few yards. The next series do you say, "oh that formation sucks, we can't do it?
Not likely. So you try a few other plays, but those don't work. At that point you might change it up, but it's likely a quarter has passed if your D can't get off the field. You dont have the benefit of 20/20 when the game is happening.

[ Edited by Oakland-Niner on Sep 16, 2010 at 14:04:42 ]
Interesting last few posts.

I've been supportive of Oakland-Niner in this thread because I think he raises an excellent point, shaky (often inept) excecution isn't doing our less-than-stellar playcaller any favors.

But I think Jersey9er raises a great point, and one that drives me nuts about Raye. He'll often call a play that works very well, call it later with similar results, then abandon the play, as if he wants to pocket it for a rainy day or, as Oakland suggests, in anticipation that the defense has or will figure it out. The plays to Walker in last week's game and the pitches to Coffee around the left corner during last season are great examples of this. It's as if Raye feels like he's pulled a fast one on the defense and figures he'd better quit while he's still ahead.

To the contrary, I'm of the mind that successful plays like these aren't a fast one. Rather, they're an uncovered weakness in the defense and they should be exploited until the defense demonstrates that they can stop the play. Like a boxer, you keep punching the cut eye.

This has been an especially frustrating trait of Raye's, particularly given the spotty excecution of our players. You'd think that when he finds something that works and the players can consistently execute, he'd hammer away at it.

[ Edited by BubbaParisMVP on Sep 16, 2010 at 15:51:28 ]
You know, even though I think Raye is mediocre at best, Smith himself said something very true: if the Niners had scored the two easy touchdowns, they would have been up 17-0 and we would have been talking about the Saints right now. The tragic upshot of all this is that it is a huge distraction and will not help their preparation for the Saints. The only silver lining is that maybe the Saints will underestimate the Niners even more.
Originally posted by Smokie:
You know, even though I think Raye is mediocre at best, Smith himself said something very true: if the Niners had scored the two easy touchdowns, they would have been up 17-0 and we would have been talking about the Saints right now. The tragic upshot of all this is that it is a huge distraction and will not help their preparation for the Saints. The only silver lining is that maybe the Saints will underestimate the Niners even more.

yup yup

i keep thinking we'll go 0-4 before the eagles, but still get our 10 wins even though.

if we sneak one or two against saints/chiefs/falcons, then cool, we could get more than 10 wins.
Originally posted by znk916:
Originally posted by 9erReign:
Giving a scrub like Norris the ball on 2 crucial redzone plays is on the coaching staff. He sucks and shouldn't be expected to score TD's. Leave that to skilled player like Gore and Vernon.



Keasey would made that play
Mr. Wunderlich should know who he is throwing to. 99% of NFL QBs make that completion. I don't understand how you can fault Norris on that play. Watch that play again. If Smith was truly worried about the linebacker, he could have pump faked and the play would have been super easy. He could have even ran the ball in. But I forgot. Smith never makes a play like that.
Originally posted by Smokie:
Mr. Wunderlich should know who he is throwing to. 99% of NFL QBs make that completion. [b]I don't understand how you can fault Norris on that play. Watch that play again
. If Smith was truly worried about the linebacker, he could have pump faked and the play would have been super easy. He could have even ran the ball in. But I forgot. Smith never makes a play like that.
[/b]

The LB excuse is BS.

[ Edited by Oakland-Niner on Sep 16, 2010 at 19:56:17 ]
If Moran Norris caught the TD pass and Morgan stepped his other foot in bounds wed be jocking Jimmy Raye for how good the play calling was...
The only questionable call the whole game was the FB dive on 3rd and 1.. Teams with good FBs always go to the FBs in 1 yard situations, unfortunately our FB sucks..
I picture our coaches like this b4 picking a play

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
the plays they had scripted before the game worked awesome, seattle couldnt stop us on the first few drives and the whole team looked sharp. after the scripted plays ran out our coaching staff showed off their in game coaching skills...

yeah, the coaching was worse than we previously thought