Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Talented but not good is well stated. A good team does not start one failed RG, two rookies at LG and RT, with a back-up center in his first starting year. How is that line considered good? In retrospect, the line did fairly well under these circumstances. The experience level was not there and it showed. WRs were inexperienced as well and none of them have proven to be NFL caliber. Once again, how can they be considered "good."
We were talking about the 2009 niners.
This overall discussion still revolves around the Singletary-coached 49ers. So even though we were talking about the 2009 49ers here, dtg_9er's point is still valid. We were discussing efficiency, and the 2010 49ers were NOT efficient at running the ball (just like the 2009 team).
Originally posted by andes14:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/8479/year/2009/frank-gore
Thanks.
Earlier in this thread I claimed that we weren't effective on the ground without Gore's occasional big run. In the following stats, I removed 1 "big run" (longest gain) from each game if applicable. The longest gain had to be 20+ yards to be considered a "big run". If the longest gain was 19 yards or less, I didn't remove a carry from that game. Overall, only 8 carries were removed from a total of 229 carries.
FRANK GORE'S 2009 SEASON STATS:
OPPONENT-----ATT------YDS------AVG
VS ARI------------46--------161--------3.5 (both ARI games are combined)
VS CHI------------24---------79--------3.3
VS DET------------28---------71--------2.5
VS GB--------------6----------17--------2.8 *We went into the 2nd half down 23-3
VS HOU-----------13----------32--------2.5 *We went into the 2nd half down 21-0
VS IND------------12---------27--------2.3
VS JAC------------16---------33--------2.1
VS MIN-------------1----------4---------4.0 *Gore was injured early in the game
VS PHI------------15---------70--------4.7 *We went into the 2nd half down 20-3
VS STL------------22---------73--------3.3 (both STL games are combined)
VS SEA------------23---------72--------3.1 *I removed both 80+ yard runs (both SEA games are combined)
VS TEN------------15---------83--------5.5 *Down 34-20 in the 4th quarter
These stats show 2 things:
1. We weren't efficient on the ground without Gore's occasional big runs (remember, I only removed 8 out of a total of 229 carries). We averaged less than 3.5ypc in 10 combined games and failed to get over 2.8ypc in 5 games. I don't think anybody can say that's an example of an efficient run game.
2. When we were losing by a considerable margin in the 2nd half, we had to abandon the running game (even when we were actually efficient on the ground, ex: PHI and TEN games).
Originally posted by andes14:
It doesn't matter how efficient the run game was, we were THIRTIETH in the league in rushing. That's the bottom line.
It DOES matter how efficient the run game was because it affects how often we were allowed to run. If you're not getting solid yardage consistently and you're team is losing by at least 2 scores in the 2nd half, you HAVE to pass. We were 30th in the league in rushing because (1) we couldn't do it well and (2) we had to open up the passing game because we were either losing in the 2nd half and/or the run was getting us no where.
Now back to your original question...
Originally posted by andes14:
(How did Singletary) get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball?
He said himself that he envisions a team that could impose its will. You say that his words mean nothing because stats say otherwise...but you're underestimating the power of words and how it affects one's image. Through press conferences and interviews, Singletary made it clear that he wanted a physical (fysical?) team that hits people in the mouth...a smash mouth team. At times he claimed he wanted a balanced team, but his image was already established as an old school coach that favored the run. IIRC, Singletary (or Raye?) stated in an interview that the
ideal playcalling ratio should be 60% running.
You obviously base things on stats and don't agree with words creating Singletary's image. Its fine that you disagree and I respect your view...BUT the bottom line is that what people say DOES add to a person's reputation, whether you agree if it should or not.
Originally posted by andes14:
Gore averaged fewer carries per game with Singletary as HC in 09/10 than he did in 06/07/08 with Turner/Hostler/Martz running the offense
The stats you brought up show that Gore DID average fewer carries in 09-10 compared to 06-08...but there are many factors as to WHY this is the case. Stats aren't that simple because specific situations have to be taken into consideration.
Originally posted by andes14:
I never understood how there are all these articles talking about how all Sing did was run, run, run despite 8 and 9 men in the box.
Singletary's offensive philosophy was smash mouth football and pounding the rock. Obviously he wasn't gonna literally run EVERY down, but his intention and gameplan every week was to establish the ground game. As for his willingness to run directly up the gut against 8-9 man boxes, you seen it yourself. You agreed several times that we weren't creative on offense and ran against a stacked box. Basically...
Question: Why did all these articles talk about Sing running despite 8 and 9 men in the box?
Answer: Because we DID run often against 8 and 9 men in the box.
Originally posted by andes14:
The stats just don't back that up.
Stats can be manipulated and/or interpreted differently. This is why I prefer making judgments on what I SEE happening on the field, not what a stat sheet tells me. However, stats are definitely useful and I do like analyzing them as well sometimes...but I feel that watching the games with my own eyes speaks more truth than numbers can.
[ Edited by candlestick49er on Jul 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM ]