How did Singletary....

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by wolfpack52:
Can this fail of a thread just die?

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:


LOL. Why would you make a point of saying you never said they had a good o-line if you actually did indeed think they had a good o-line. I never in this thread said Joe Montana was a great quarterback, but I still won't say "I never said Joe Montana was a great quarterback" because of what that obviously would imply. So you'd rather have a back-up Joe Schmo in his 5th year, than say Mike Iupati since he's only in his 2nd year? f**k experience. How good and talented you are matters way more than experience. Why was every single analyst and expert on the planet ripping Pittsburgh's o-line if they had a good one? Name one good player from EITHER line in that super bowl. You still haven't. How do TEN dudes combine for ZERO pro-bowls if they had good lines? There's no way...

Ahh! I see a pattern and within the pattern a ray of insight! You ignored the fact that Pitts 1st and 2nd string RBs went down with injuries early in 2008, but insisted the running game was bad because the OLine was bad. Then you changed the subject, misinterpreting along the way.

You disparage experience. How absurd! Iupati will be a better player this year than last or he will be on his way out for lack of progress. He may be a Hall of Famer eventually but last year he was a rookie and made many rookie mistakes...that he admitted, by the way, because he wants to be great.

Rachal is an inigma. He had a bad year but did not come to the summer camps. That's OK as they were not manditory but if I had played as badly as he did, nothing would have kept me from working out with my team mates--to be a part of the unit. He is hanging onto his position by his fingernails.

Davis improved throughout the year and I like him. He just needs to not bite on DE moves to allow them a free path to the QB. Having a vet will help that.

Why was the running game more successful last year? Run blocking is aggressive and more easily learned. You take on the DLman and dictate the action, whereas pass blocking is reactive...more difficult as you can't just hit someone as hard as you can and be done. Both Iapati and Davis were known to be good run blockers and they did OK last year.

Would you rather have an OLine with probowlers or one with two superbowl rings? Which is more important in indicating quality?

Again, you fail to name even one of their o-linemen that was good. They won that ring despite the line, not because of it. Teams win rings, individuals make pro-bowls. Would you rather have Darnell Stapleton over Steve Hutchinson because Stapleton has jewelry and Hutch doesn't? Of course not. So yes, pro-bowls are more indicative of individual success than rings. Every single expert was ripping their o-line...why would they do that if they were good? Why do you continually fail to name one starting offensive lineman from EITHER team that was good? Why did Willie Parker run for nearly a full yard more per carry during their first super bowl run? Because they had a real nice o-line with guys like Faneca, Hartings, and Marvel Smith. Again, name one good o-lineman on the '08 squad. I know Justin Hartwig and Darnell Stapleton are seemingly canton-bound in your head, but no one else agrees with that sentiment.

You have not given any evidence to back up your statements and are becoming repetitive. Go back to arguing how Singletary did not focus on the run...at least you had some stats to use.

[ Edited by dtg_9er on Jul 31, 2011 at 19:28:26 ]

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:


LOL. Why would you make a point of saying you never said they had a good o-line if you actually did indeed think they had a good o-line. I never in this thread said Joe Montana was a great quarterback, but I still won't say "I never said Joe Montana was a great quarterback" because of what that obviously would imply. So you'd rather have a back-up Joe Schmo in his 5th year, than say Mike Iupati since he's only in his 2nd year? f**k experience. How good and talented you are matters way more than experience. Why was every single analyst and expert on the planet ripping Pittsburgh's o-line if they had a good one? Name one good player from EITHER line in that super bowl. You still haven't. How do TEN dudes combine for ZERO pro-bowls if they had good lines? There's no way...

Ahh! I see a pattern and within the pattern a ray of insight! You ignored the fact that Pitts 1st and 2nd string RBs went down with injuries early in 2008, but insisted the running game was bad because the OLine was bad. Then you changed the subject, misinterpreting along the way.

You disparage experience. How absurd! Iupati will be a better player this year than last or he will be on his way out for lack of progress. He may be a Hall of Famer eventually but last year he was a rookie and made many rookie mistakes...that he admitted, by the way, because he wants to be great.

Rachal is an inigma. He had a bad year but did not come to the summer camps. That's OK as they were not manditory but if I had played as badly as he did, nothing would have kept me from working out with my team mates--to be a part of the unit. He is hanging onto his position by his fingernails.

Davis improved throughout the year and I like him. He just needs to not bite on DE moves to allow them a free path to the QB. Having a vet will help that.

Why was the running game more successful last year? Run blocking is aggressive and more easily learned. You take on the DLman and dictate the action, whereas pass blocking is reactive...more difficult as you can't just hit someone as hard as you can and be done. Both Iapati and Davis were known to be good run blockers and they did OK last year.

Would you rather have an OLine with probowlers or one with two superbowl rings? Which is more important in indicating quality?

Again, you fail to name even one of their o-linemen that was good. They won that ring despite the line, not because of it. Teams win rings, individuals make pro-bowls. Would you rather have Darnell Stapleton over Steve Hutchinson because Stapleton has jewelry and Hutch doesn't? Of course not. So yes, pro-bowls are more indicative of individual success than rings. Every single expert was ripping their o-line...why would they do that if they were good? Why do you continually fail to name one starting offensive lineman from EITHER team that was good? Why did Willie Parker run for nearly a full yard more per carry during their first super bowl run? Because they had a real nice o-line with guys like Faneca, Hartings, and Marvel Smith. Again, name one good o-lineman on the '08 squad. I know Justin Hartwig and Darnell Stapleton are seemingly canton-bound in your head, but no one else agrees with that sentiment.

You have not given any evidence to back up your statements and are becoming repetitive. Go back to arguing how Singletary did not focus on the run...at least you had some stats to use.

Tell you what, I'll take the Steelers o-line topic to the NFL Talk forum to see if other members remember how every expert and analyst was ripping their line to shreds that year.

P.S. you still have not named a single o-lineman from either team from that Super Bowl that you claim to be a good player

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
So are you trying to say the last 2 years Gore was far less efficient running the ball than before? Because he wasn't. So if by your definition he was inefficient the last couple years, then he also was before, and so it cancels out.

No, I'm not saying that the last 2 years Gore was less efficient than before. I'm saying that our running game during 07-10 was inefficient, period. The reason I brought up efficiency was to show you why we ranked so low in rushing attempts. From 07-10, the 49ers finished 25th, 27th twice, and 30th in the league in rushing attempts. We didn't/couldn't run more often because we WERE NOT efficient...which is why we ranked in the bottom third of the league each of those years.

It doesn't matter if he was more/less efficient because the bottom line is that he wasn't effective in any of those seasons. So yes...they should cancel out in terms of arguing the ratio of runs to passes. But I never argued that point anyways. You brought up the fact that the 49ers finished almost last in rushing attempts, so I used efficiency to explain why that was the case. I never used efficiency to argue the RATIO of runs to passes.

Originally posted by andes14:
Frank Gore is Frank Gore. With the exception of '06, all his years are relatively similar. So if we weren't efficient in '09/'10, then we also weren't efficient in '07/'08. So it cancels out. We're talking about the same dude here. But we ran him less under Sing than beforehand.

Wow, I don't know why I didn't do this in the beginning. I calculated the stats myself. This is what the stats show...

(All of the following stats are based on the link you provided)

SEASONS-----GP-----ATT-----CARRIES PER GAME
07-08------------29------500----------17.2
09-10------------24------431----------18.0 (The 2010 Vikings game was removed because Gore only played 1 snap due to injury)

Gore ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! You can't just look at Gore's carries per game. You have to look at the entire team and the ratio of runs to passes."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08--------------754-------------1776-------------------42%
09-10--------------772-------------1800-------------------43%

The team ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! If you look at the ratio of runs to passes, you shouldn't include QB runs. QB runs should count as pass attempts."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS (not including QB rushes)----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08-----------------------------665-------------------------------------1776----------------37%
09-10-----------------------------699-------------------------------------1800----------------39%

The team ran MORE under Singletary (counting QB runs as pass attempts) compared to previous seasons.

"Well, it doesn't matter. That's the bottom line. Period."

Anything else?

But considering our yards per carry rankings compared vs. our yards per pass attempt rankings AS WELL AS the fact that our rushing yardage ranking was higher than our rush attempt ranking, we were not as inefficient as you claim. As for those figures on '07/'08 vs. '09/'10, my original argument included '06. But even if it didn't the fact that the Singletary figures are withing a percent or 2 of the pre-Singletary figures, that alone should convey that the difference isn't egregious enough for Sing to deserve the running reputation that he has, esp. when you consider that we were playing catchup even MORESO pre-Sing which padded the passing stats. People keep thinking playing catch up with Sing padded the passing stats but it's the complete opposite. We had larger and more frequent deficits before him so it was THOSE figures that got padded, which is more than responsible for any negligible statistical difference, which, again, doesn't even exist if you factor in '06.

Wow even when someone shows you with numerical data that we ran the ball more, you still think you are right.

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
So are you trying to say the last 2 years Gore was far less efficient running the ball than before? Because he wasn't. So if by your definition he was inefficient the last couple years, then he also was before, and so it cancels out.

No, I'm not saying that the last 2 years Gore was less efficient than before. I'm saying that our running game during 07-10 was inefficient, period. The reason I brought up efficiency was to show you why we ranked so low in rushing attempts. From 07-10, the 49ers finished 25th, 27th twice, and 30th in the league in rushing attempts. We didn't/couldn't run more often because we WERE NOT efficient...which is why we ranked in the bottom third of the league each of those years.

It doesn't matter if he was more/less efficient because the bottom line is that he wasn't effective in any of those seasons. So yes...they should cancel out in terms of arguing the ratio of runs to passes. But I never argued that point anyways. You brought up the fact that the 49ers finished almost last in rushing attempts, so I used efficiency to explain why that was the case. I never used efficiency to argue the RATIO of runs to passes.

Originally posted by andes14:
Frank Gore is Frank Gore. With the exception of '06, all his years are relatively similar. So if we weren't efficient in '09/'10, then we also weren't efficient in '07/'08. So it cancels out. We're talking about the same dude here. But we ran him less under Sing than beforehand.

Wow, I don't know why I didn't do this in the beginning. I calculated the stats myself. This is what the stats show...

(All of the following stats are based on the link you provided)

SEASONS-----GP-----ATT-----CARRIES PER GAME
07-08------------29------500----------17.2
09-10------------24------431----------18.0 (The 2010 Vikings game was removed because Gore only played 1 snap due to injury)

Gore ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! You can't just look at Gore's carries per game. You have to look at the entire team and the ratio of runs to passes."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08--------------754-------------1776-------------------42%
09-10--------------772-------------1800-------------------43%

The team ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! If you look at the ratio of runs to passes, you shouldn't include QB runs. QB runs should count as pass attempts."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS (not including QB rushes)----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08-----------------------------665-------------------------------------1776----------------37%
09-10-----------------------------699-------------------------------------1800----------------39%

The team ran MORE under Singletary (counting QB runs as pass attempts) compared to previous seasons.

"Well, it doesn't matter. That's the bottom line. Period."

Anything else?

But considering our yards per carry rankings compared vs. our yards per pass attempt rankings AS WELL AS the fact that our rushing yardage ranking was higher than our rush attempt ranking, we were not as inefficient as you claim. As for those figures on '07/'08 vs. '09/'10, my original argument included '06. But even if it didn't the fact that the Singletary figures are withing a percent or 2 of the pre-Singletary figures, that alone should convey that the difference isn't egregious enough for Sing to deserve the running reputation that he has, esp. when you consider that we were playing catchup even MORESO pre-Sing which padded the passing stats. People keep thinking playing catch up with Sing padded the passing stats but it's the complete opposite. We had larger and more frequent deficits before him so it was THOSE figures that got padded, which is more than responsible for any negligible statistical difference, which, again, doesn't even exist if you factor in '06.

Wow even when someone shows you with numerical data that we ran the ball more, you still think you are right.

Seems to be a pattern?!

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
So are you trying to say the last 2 years Gore was far less efficient running the ball than before? Because he wasn't. So if by your definition he was inefficient the last couple years, then he also was before, and so it cancels out.

No, I'm not saying that the last 2 years Gore was less efficient than before. I'm saying that our running game during 07-10 was inefficient, period. The reason I brought up efficiency was to show you why we ranked so low in rushing attempts. From 07-10, the 49ers finished 25th, 27th twice, and 30th in the league in rushing attempts. We didn't/couldn't run more often because we WERE NOT efficient...which is why we ranked in the bottom third of the league each of those years.

It doesn't matter if he was more/less efficient because the bottom line is that he wasn't effective in any of those seasons. So yes...they should cancel out in terms of arguing the ratio of runs to passes. But I never argued that point anyways. You brought up the fact that the 49ers finished almost last in rushing attempts, so I used efficiency to explain why that was the case. I never used efficiency to argue the RATIO of runs to passes.

Originally posted by andes14:
Frank Gore is Frank Gore. With the exception of '06, all his years are relatively similar. So if we weren't efficient in '09/'10, then we also weren't efficient in '07/'08. So it cancels out. We're talking about the same dude here. But we ran him less under Sing than beforehand.

Wow, I don't know why I didn't do this in the beginning. I calculated the stats myself. This is what the stats show...

(All of the following stats are based on the link you provided)

SEASONS-----GP-----ATT-----CARRIES PER GAME
07-08------------29------500----------17.2
09-10------------24------431----------18.0 (The 2010 Vikings game was removed because Gore only played 1 snap due to injury)

Gore ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! You can't just look at Gore's carries per game. You have to look at the entire team and the ratio of runs to passes."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08--------------754-------------1776-------------------42%
09-10--------------772-------------1800-------------------43%

The team ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! If you look at the ratio of runs to passes, you shouldn't include QB runs. QB runs should count as pass attempts."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS (not including QB rushes)----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08-----------------------------665-------------------------------------1776----------------37%
09-10-----------------------------699-------------------------------------1800----------------39%

The team ran MORE under Singletary (counting QB runs as pass attempts) compared to previous seasons.

"Well, it doesn't matter. That's the bottom line. Period."

Anything else?

But considering our yards per carry rankings compared vs. our yards per pass attempt rankings AS WELL AS the fact that our rushing yardage ranking was higher than our rush attempt ranking, we were not as inefficient as you claim. As for those figures on '07/'08 vs. '09/'10, my original argument included '06. But even if it didn't the fact that the Singletary figures are withing a percent or 2 of the pre-Singletary figures, that alone should convey that the difference isn't egregious enough for Sing to deserve the running reputation that he has, esp. when you consider that we were playing catchup even MORESO pre-Sing which padded the passing stats. People keep thinking playing catch up with Sing padded the passing stats but it's the complete opposite. We had larger and more frequent deficits before him so it was THOSE figures that got padded, which is more than responsible for any negligible statistical difference, which, again, doesn't even exist if you factor in '06.

Wow even when someone shows you with numerical data that we ran the ball more, you still think you are right.

Lol, yes, I am right, because I said '06-'08 and he conveniently left '06 out. Besides, even if you do alter my argument and omit '06, the difference was very small (certainly small enough to come to the conclusion that it's ridiculous how much criticism he got for only running the ball) and any minute difference can be more than explained by the fact that we were in "we gotta throw the ball to catch up" mode far more often back then than in the last 2 years.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
So are you trying to say the last 2 years Gore was far less efficient running the ball than before? Because he wasn't. So if by your definition he was inefficient the last couple years, then he also was before, and so it cancels out.

No, I'm not saying that the last 2 years Gore was less efficient than before. I'm saying that our running game during 07-10 was inefficient, period. The reason I brought up efficiency was to show you why we ranked so low in rushing attempts. From 07-10, the 49ers finished 25th, 27th twice, and 30th in the league in rushing attempts. We didn't/couldn't run more often because we WERE NOT efficient...which is why we ranked in the bottom third of the league each of those years.

It doesn't matter if he was more/less efficient because the bottom line is that he wasn't effective in any of those seasons. So yes...they should cancel out in terms of arguing the ratio of runs to passes. But I never argued that point anyways. You brought up the fact that the 49ers finished almost last in rushing attempts, so I used efficiency to explain why that was the case. I never used efficiency to argue the RATIO of runs to passes.

Originally posted by andes14:
Frank Gore is Frank Gore. With the exception of '06, all his years are relatively similar. So if we weren't efficient in '09/'10, then we also weren't efficient in '07/'08. So it cancels out. We're talking about the same dude here. But we ran him less under Sing than beforehand.

Wow, I don't know why I didn't do this in the beginning. I calculated the stats myself. This is what the stats show...

(All of the following stats are based on the link you provided)

SEASONS-----GP-----ATT-----CARRIES PER GAME
07-08------------29------500----------17.2
09-10------------24------431----------18.0 (The 2010 Vikings game was removed because Gore only played 1 snap due to injury)

Gore ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! You can't just look at Gore's carries per game. You have to look at the entire team and the ratio of runs to passes."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08--------------754-------------1776-------------------42%
09-10--------------772-------------1800-------------------43%

The team ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! If you look at the ratio of runs to passes, you shouldn't include QB runs. QB runs should count as pass attempts."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS (not including QB rushes)----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08-----------------------------665-------------------------------------1776----------------37%
09-10-----------------------------699-------------------------------------1800----------------39%

The team ran MORE under Singletary (counting QB runs as pass attempts) compared to previous seasons.

"Well, it doesn't matter. That's the bottom line. Period."

Anything else?

But considering our yards per carry rankings compared vs. our yards per pass attempt rankings AS WELL AS the fact that our rushing yardage ranking was higher than our rush attempt ranking, we were not as inefficient as you claim. As for those figures on '07/'08 vs. '09/'10, my original argument included '06. But even if it didn't the fact that the Singletary figures are withing a percent or 2 of the pre-Singletary figures, that alone should convey that the difference isn't egregious enough for Sing to deserve the running reputation that he has, esp. when you consider that we were playing catchup even MORESO pre-Sing which padded the passing stats. People keep thinking playing catch up with Sing padded the passing stats but it's the complete opposite. We had larger and more frequent deficits before him so it was THOSE figures that got padded, which is more than responsible for any negligible statistical difference, which, again, doesn't even exist if you factor in '06.

Wow even when someone shows you with numerical data that we ran the ball more, you still think you are right.

Lol, yes, I am right, because I said '06-'08 and he conveniently left '06 out. Besides, even if you do alter my argument and omit '06, the difference was very small (certainly small enough to come to the conclusion that it's ridiculous how much criticism he got for only running the ball) and any minute difference can be more than explained by the fact that we were in "we gotta throw the ball to catch up" mode far more often back then than in the last 2 years.

Riiiiiight.

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
So are you trying to say the last 2 years Gore was far less efficient running the ball than before? Because he wasn't. So if by your definition he was inefficient the last couple years, then he also was before, and so it cancels out.

No, I'm not saying that the last 2 years Gore was less efficient than before. I'm saying that our running game during 07-10 was inefficient, period. The reason I brought up efficiency was to show you why we ranked so low in rushing attempts. From 07-10, the 49ers finished 25th, 27th twice, and 30th in the league in rushing attempts. We didn't/couldn't run more often because we WERE NOT efficient...which is why we ranked in the bottom third of the league each of those years.

It doesn't matter if he was more/less efficient because the bottom line is that he wasn't effective in any of those seasons. So yes...they should cancel out in terms of arguing the ratio of runs to passes. But I never argued that point anyways. You brought up the fact that the 49ers finished almost last in rushing attempts, so I used efficiency to explain why that was the case. I never used efficiency to argue the RATIO of runs to passes.

Originally posted by andes14:
Frank Gore is Frank Gore. With the exception of '06, all his years are relatively similar. So if we weren't efficient in '09/'10, then we also weren't efficient in '07/'08. So it cancels out. We're talking about the same dude here. But we ran him less under Sing than beforehand.

Wow, I don't know why I didn't do this in the beginning. I calculated the stats myself. This is what the stats show...

(All of the following stats are based on the link you provided)

SEASONS-----GP-----ATT-----CARRIES PER GAME
07-08------------29------500----------17.2
09-10------------24------431----------18.0 (The 2010 Vikings game was removed because Gore only played 1 snap due to injury)

Gore ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! You can't just look at Gore's carries per game. You have to look at the entire team and the ratio of runs to passes."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08--------------754-------------1776-------------------42%
09-10--------------772-------------1800-------------------43%

The team ran MORE under Singletary compared to previous seasons.

"Well, thats ridiculous! If you look at the ratio of runs to passes, you shouldn't include QB runs. QB runs should count as pass attempts."


SEASONS-----RUN PLAYS (not including QB rushes)----TOTAL PLAYS-----% OF RUNS
07-08-----------------------------665-------------------------------------1776----------------37%
09-10-----------------------------699-------------------------------------1800----------------39%

The team ran MORE under Singletary (counting QB runs as pass attempts) compared to previous seasons.

"Well, it doesn't matter. That's the bottom line. Period."

Anything else?

But considering our yards per carry rankings compared vs. our yards per pass attempt rankings AS WELL AS the fact that our rushing yardage ranking was higher than our rush attempt ranking, we were not as inefficient as you claim. As for those figures on '07/'08 vs. '09/'10, my original argument included '06. But even if it didn't the fact that the Singletary figures are withing a percent or 2 of the pre-Singletary figures, that alone should convey that the difference isn't egregious enough for Sing to deserve the running reputation that he has, esp. when you consider that we were playing catchup even MORESO pre-Sing which padded the passing stats. People keep thinking playing catch up with Sing padded the passing stats but it's the complete opposite. We had larger and more frequent deficits before him so it was THOSE figures that got padded, which is more than responsible for any negligible statistical difference, which, again, doesn't even exist if you factor in '06.

Wow even when someone shows you with numerical data that we ran the ball more, you still think you are right.

Lol, yes, I am right, because I said '06-'08 and he conveniently left '06 out. Besides, even if you do alter my argument and omit '06, the difference was very small (certainly small enough to come to the conclusion that it's ridiculous how much criticism he got for only running the ball) and any minute difference can be more than explained by the fact that we were in "we gotta throw the ball to catch up" mode far more often back then than in the last 2 years.

Riiiiiight.

Haha, what don't you get? From '06-'08 we did run the ball more, and he showed stats from '07-'08. He responded with stats from an argument I didn't make. And like I said, if Singletary truly ran the ball as often as most people think he did, the difference would be like 15%, not 1%- WITH the 1% being constructed from a different argument AND with us being forced in situations of HAVING to pass way more often.

Originally posted by andes14:

But considering our yards per carry rankings compared vs. our yards per pass attempt rankings AS WELL AS the fact that our rushing yardage ranking was higher than our rush attempt ranking, we were not as inefficient as you claim.

You agreed a few posts ago that the 07-08 and 09-10 seasons cancel out because we were inefficient running during all those seasons. Now suddenly we weren't as inefficient? Make up your mind. Do you agree or disagree that we were inefficient?

Without Gore's occasional big runs, we couldn't establish a solid run game. Stats back that up. Stating that my post was "ridiculous" doesn't counter the fact that we weren't efficient without Gore's occasional big runs.

Originally posted by andes14:
As for those figures on '07/'08 vs. '09/'10, my original argument included '06.

I didn't include 2006 because of this post:

Originally posted by andes14:
With the exception of '06, all his years are relatively similar. So if we weren't efficient in '09/'10, then we also weren't efficient in '07/'08. So it cancels out. We're talking about the same dude here. But we ran him less under Sing than beforehand.

Its more reasonable to compare teams that have similar situations. You've said I conveniently left out 2006. Well, I think you conveniently included 2006. We ran the ball A LOT in 2006, so obviously its gonna increase the run average of 07-08. However, its unfair to include 2006 in the first place because we featured a GOOD running game while 07-10 featured a POOR running game.

We ran the ball a lot in 2006 for 2 obvious reasons:

1. Norv Turner was our OC. Norv has been known as an OC that favors the run. Its a no brainer that a run-first OC will call a lot of run plays.

2. We were able to maintain drives running the ball. Our good run efficiency allowed us to KEEP running. We weren't getting stuffed running up the middle for minimal gains like we did from 07-10. Not only was our OL better in 2006, the playcalling was better as well.

Originally posted by andes14:
But even if it didn't the fact that the Singletary figures are withing a percent or 2 of the pre-Singletary figures, that alone should convey that the difference isn't egregious enough for Sing to deserve the running reputation that he has

According to you, STATS ARE WHAT THEY ARE and "thats the bottom line, period". It shouldn't matter if its 1% or 100%...the stats clearly show that we DID run the ball more under Singletary when comparing similar seasons.

Originally posted by andes14:
esp. when you consider that we were playing catchup even MORESO pre-Sing which padded the passing stats. People keep thinking playing catch up with Sing padded the passing stats but it's the complete opposite. We had larger and more frequent deficits before him so it was THOSE figures that got padded, which is more than responsible for any negligible statistical difference, which, again, doesn't even exist if you factor in '06.

LOL. You didn't let anybody use the 2-minute drill/catch up mode argument because you said they cancel out. Now you're trying to use catchup situations to prove your point?


BTW, you still haven't responded to the following:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

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.

^I answered EVERYTHING you asked/stated in your original post.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:

But considering our yards per carry rankings compared vs. our yards per pass attempt rankings AS WELL AS the fact that our rushing yardage ranking was higher than our rush attempt ranking, we were not as inefficient as you claim.

You agreed a few posts ago that the 07-08 and 09-10 seasons cancel out because we were inefficient running during all those seasons. Now suddenly we weren't as inefficient? Make up your mind. Do you agree or disagree that we were inefficient?

Without Gore's occasional big runs, we couldn't establish a solid run game. Stats back that up. Stating that my post was "ridiculous" doesn't counter the fact that we weren't efficient without Gore's occasional big runs.

Originally posted by andes14:
As for those figures on '07/'08 vs. '09/'10, my original argument included '06.

I didn't include 2006 because of this post:

Originally posted by andes14:
With the exception of '06, all his years are relatively similar. So if we weren't efficient in '09/'10, then we also weren't efficient in '07/'08. So it cancels out. We're talking about the same dude here. But we ran him less under Sing than beforehand.

Its more reasonable to compare teams that have similar situations. You've said I conveniently left out 2006. Well, I think you conveniently included 2006. We ran the ball A LOT in 2006, so obviously its gonna increase the run average of 07-08. However, its unfair to include 2006 in the first place because we featured a GOOD running game while 07-10 featured a POOR running game.

We ran the ball a lot in 2006 for 2 obvious reasons:

1. Norv Turner was our OC. Norv has been known as an OC that favors the run. Its a no brainer that a run-first OC will call a lot of run plays.

2. We were able to maintain drives running the ball. Our good run efficiency allowed us to KEEP running. We weren't getting stuffed running up the middle for minimal gains like we did from 07-10. Not only was our OL better in 2006, the playcalling was better as well.

Originally posted by andes14:
But even if it didn't the fact that the Singletary figures are withing a percent or 2 of the pre-Singletary figures, that alone should convey that the difference isn't egregious enough for Sing to deserve the running reputation that he has

According to you, STATS ARE WHAT THEY ARE and "thats the bottom line, period". It shouldn't matter if its 1% or 100%...the stats clearly show that we DID run the ball more under Singletary when comparing similar seasons.

Originally posted by andes14:
esp. when you consider that we were playing catchup even MORESO pre-Sing which padded the passing stats. People keep thinking playing catch up with Sing padded the passing stats but it's the complete opposite. We had larger and more frequent deficits before him so it was THOSE figures that got padded, which is more than responsible for any negligible statistical difference, which, again, doesn't even exist if you factor in '06.

LOL. You didn't let anybody use the 2-minute drill/catch up mode argument because you said they cancel out. Now you're trying to use catchup situations to prove your point?


BTW, you still haven't responded to the following:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

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.

^I answered EVERYTHING you asked/stated in your original post.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I agree with you that under Singletary we were more run-oriented than before, the fact that it was by a very small margin proves that he doesn't deserve that reputation. If you asked someone random to guess how much more of the time we ran under Singletary, just given his REPUTATION, they'd probably say like 20% or more. Not even exaggerating. Niner fans that don't look at the actual facts probably think Singletary ran over 60% of the time. Most niner fans are THAT entrenched in their belief that all he did was run. But even ignoring more of a run based year like 2006, it's STILL only 1%. ONE PERCENT. Think about it. That would mean that roughly every two games, we would run the ball one more time than his predecessors would. 2 minute drill and catch up are 2 completely different things. Catch up is because you're down a lot and need to pass. 2 minute drill you need to pass because there's not much time left. So even if you're winning you pass a lot in a 2 minute drill. So yes, 2 minute drills cancel out. But playing catch up does not because we were doing significantly more of that in the few years before Sing took over than we did in the last 2 years- which MORE than explains any sort of minute 1% differential...a differential, which, again, only applies when omitting 2006.

Originally posted by andes14:
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I agree with you that under Singletary we were more run-oriented than before, the fact that it was by a very small margin proves that he doesn't deserve that reputation.

Let me clear this up. I agree with you that Singletary doesn't deserve the reputation for "running the ball too much". This is what I previously posted:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
There are several things that Singletary deserves criticism for- but running the ball too much is not one of them.

I agree Singletary doesn't deserve criticism for running the ball too much, but he deserves criticism for the way he wanted to execute his offensive philosophy. Nobody is upset that he wanted to utilize Gore as our offensive focus (in fact, most fans would agree with giving Gore as many touches as possible). 49er fans were mad that our weekly gameplan was to run the same unimaginative plays up the gut.

As you can see, I agreed with you in the post above. However, let me explain where we don't see eye to eye. I disagree with using stats to prove this thread's argument. Stats are misleading and can be interpreted differently. You used numbers to show that we passed more under Singletary, and I used numbers to show that we ran more under Singletary. The stats didn't lie for either of us, but it told 2 different stories. The purpose of using my stats vs your stats was to prove that numbers can be meaningless in certain discussions...just like this one.

Originally posted by andes14:
Most niner fans are THAT entrenched in their belief that all he did was run.

Some fans believe all he did was run, but I think the majority of fans believe all he did was run up the middle. I've heard more complaints about how we ran more than how many times we ran. I'm one of the fans who believes that he ran up the middle too much. Stats won't change my mind because I seen it happen on the field.

I don't think Singletary was more "run-oriented" than previous years...but I do think he was more "smash-mouth oriented". Norv Turner was very run-oriented, but he used different kinds of runs. On the other hand, Singletary preferred overpowering defenses by running up the gut, even against stacked boxes. This is the type of thing you have to SEE DURING GAMES to understand why Singletary has his reputation...not what you see on a stat sheet. You asked why Singletary has his reputation and we responded based on what we witnessed in games. It seems you won't accept the fact that stats don't mean much here.