Originally posted by candlestick49er:Originally posted by andes14:
Lol @ the bolded. I have been responding my ass off in this thread. Can't believe I'm getting called out for not responding enough.
I wasn't calling you out for not responding to this thread, I was referring to you not directly responding to BrianGO's posts. Sorry if I came across as rude in my previous post.
Originally posted by andes14:
Anyways my main goal is not to point out that we passed more than we ran under Sing- every team does that. My point is to show that we were just as pass oriented if not more the last 2 years than we were the previous 3- which the stats clearly show are the case.
The stats may show that we were more pass oriented under Singletary compared to our previous coaches, but watching the actual games tells a different story. According to the flow of the games, you can recognize the difference in offensive philosophy. For example, Norv Turner used the run to set up play-action. When the offense faced extra defenders in the box, we either ran play-action or took a shot down the field. Under Singletary, we used the run to impose our will. If there were 8 or 9 in the box, we still ran up the middle.
The numbers don't show that one coach ran to set up play-action while the other coach ran to set the tone.
Originally posted by andes14:
Bringing up our rankings in pass attempts and rush attempts relative to the rest of the league is just another way to give perspective as to how often we're really running the ball.
Yes it gives another perspective, but this information hasn't been used in this thread so its irrelevant to this discussion.
Originally posted by andes14:
As for those hypothetical drives- it's just that- hypothetical...not too sure how that's relevant in this discussion.
Its hypothetical, but its an example of how numbers can be misleading. We had many games where we were in 2 minute situations. These situations added several passing attempts to our ratio.
Originally posted by andes14:
Yes Sing passed more in the 2 minute drill. But so does every team (so it doesn't skew our rankings relative to the rest of the league), including the '06-'08 niners (the basis for the original argument).
It doesn't skew our rankings relative to the rest of the league, but skews the ratio for the team itself. If you want to use numbers, you have to look into individual situations and not averages or totals. Averages don't tell you how many passes came in no huddle plays, what the score was when those plays were called, how much time was left, etc.
As for Singletary running up the middle with 8 and 9 men in the box. Fine, I'm not arguing that. I agree we were predictable and not creative. Because the defense knew when a run was coming much of the time due to offensive personnel, formations, etc. they obviously would stack the box. Think of it more as the defense stacking the box because they knew a run was coming, not CHOOSING to run the ball EVEN THOUGH the defense stacked the box. Still has nothing to do with HOW MUCH we were running the ball, which was the original point. And sure the 2 minute drill passing skews the ratio for the team itself. But that is canceled out by the fact that it also skewed the ratio for the '06-'08 niners so that has no relevance when comparing run frequency in '09/'10 compared to '06-'08.
Like I said, I think 2009 speaks volumes. We were a solid squad- won 8 games and our average game was a 3 point victory. We only lost 2 games by more than a touchdown so very rarely were we in that desperate catch up mode. If a team that rarely had to play catch up had a HC that truly had a "we're gonna run, run, and run some more" mentality, wouldn't you expect us to be the league leaders (or damn near it) in rushing attempts? Um, most likely. Yet only 2 teams had fewer rushing attempts than us that year. How could that be?
[ Edited by andes14 on Jul 23, 2011 at 1:13 AM ]