Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
I hear what you are saying, but let me point out a couple of things.
This isn't madden. You go in with a specific game plan on how you want to execute. Smith started out strong, completing something like 11/13 passes. But as I pointed out in the OP, they just couldn't finish it off even when they had it in the bag.
You can't totally blame our HC for sticking with what should be our bread and butter offense. This is what they practice. This is what they expect to execute. Should we go into Spread offense the first sign of trouble? Where is the confidence in what we are doing? I think they wanted to see more out of Alex from under center. Alas, he never was able to get out of first gear and lead the team from under center. If you looked at his eyes he never seemed to be looking beyond 10 yards so the Hawks stacked the box and we where doomed.
Ted Ginn got injured in the game, so that left us with Morgan, Crab and Zig. I think I would like Walker over Zig (Actually over Morgan). The only burner is Davis, but neither you nor I know how many WR/TE where open. You can't make the assumption it was because we had a 2 WR set, especially when we use our TE as WRs.
Something no one else points out. We dont have any real game film on Carol. Not to mention he aquired some of our players/staff literally a week before the game. I wouldn't doubt if a disgruntled Balmer game him our defensive play book.
If you go back and read my in game posts, I was very frustrated with some of the play calling even when moving the ball so in some ways I agree with you. But, I think we lost this game primarily through the lack on execution on the players part.
Oh really? This isn't Madden? Don't insult me like that please we're having the first intelligent football argument I've been involved in in Ninertalk.
Number 1 -- I realize that Alex Smith started out strong and I completely agree that that is what is practiced, etc. But if the gameplan fails you're trying to tell me that the coach should continue to do so? As if suddenly it will work? I'm talking about we're down 22 our offense has looked like s**t for an entire quarter and half. It's time to change. It's time to try and spread out the defense. When did we run the ball with more than 2 WRs? I didn't keep count but I'd say it was 0 (unless it was a draw). I said that I agreed that the players were terrible in execution, but I fully blame the HC/OC for not attempting to spread out the field and throw the ball. Our factual evidence from last year shows that Alex is pretty good out of shotgun, and we needed a spark. What better way?? But you're saying we should just continue to grind out the same gameplan? To me, that is absolutely ludicrous.
Number 2 -- I know that Ted Ginn was injured. In the, what, 4th quarter? He saw the field about 10 times before that. How do we make Seattle respect the deep threat if he NEVER goes on the field? Even as a decoy to back off the safeties.. it opens up underneath routes AND can have a positive effect on the running game.
Number 3 -- I obviously know that we run our TEs as WRs. But if we get 4 WRs out there, they have to spread out their CBs. This opens up the running game as well. With 4 WR, there are not as good as CBs on the field and we can use that to our advantage. Football is a game of match-ups, and I feel like our coaching staff does not gameplan for this very well.
In the end, I agree that execution was a large problem. The biggest maybe. But that does not take away from the fact that we didn't mix it up. Ever. If you don't mix up against professionals, it's not going to work. The same running play 15 times? The same formation almost every time -- whether it be run or pass -- can compact their defense and make it easier to defend. No new personnel means no new thinking for the defensive players. I mean how easy is that? To not worry about something because hell, we've seen the same 11 players for 75% of the snaps... That's a good gameplan?! I agree with you about the execution, but the coaching was just awful.