Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Interesting take on how the game plans are really devised: http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/2012/12/inside-the-49ers/49ers-offense-not-really-greg-romans/
Third string quarterback Scott Tolzien said, "For the most part, Coach [Greg] Roman does the run game, [Wide receivers] Coach [Johnnie] Morton does the pass game and [quarterbacks] Coach [Geep] Chryst takes the red zone."
Later, Anthony Dixon confirmed Tolzien's statement for the Press Democrat, saying, "That sounds right."
So, when Harbaugh says it's "Greg Roman's offense," that does not seem to be entirely accurate. The offense is more of an amalgam. When discussing the pass game, apparently the questions should be directed at Johnnie Morton and not at Greg Roman.
This seems convoluted to me. I've always heard of assistants watching tape of the upcoming opponent and then, knowing their own personnel best (WR's, OL, RB, etc.), providing input into the overall game plan for that week but never assistants doing ALL of one part of a total game plan. I've always agreed with Gore that Roman does appear to be a genius in the run game (check his bio - it makes perfect sense) but have always questioned the overall game plan at times, and esp. the passing game and the RZ fails (BTW: have we passed INTO the EZ more than twice this year on a designed call?).
So how valuable IS Greg Roman overall knowing this (assuming its accurate)? This sounds way too compartmentalized to me and may explain the lack of "flow" and in-game and half-time adjustments. I'm assuming Roman signs off on the final game plan and reviews it with Harbaugh. And after Harbaugh signs off on it, it's them implemented on the practice field. In addition, he probable signs off on each play throughout the course of the game to.
So my question then is, how is the game plan devised and is it flexible? For instance, we continue to see plays where we clearly are running into a brick wall. The pitch back to Ginn...was that a call that was next up on the game plan but it didn't factor in the situational awareness (inside our own 15 with 4 minutes to go and with a lead)? Do they deviate from it? Have multiple plays for each snap...(rolls or kills) and if so, what types...run can be changed to pass and vice versa or both runs or both passes?
I know most great OC's have situational plays...if X then Y. If we're inside our own 20, up by 10 with 4 minutes to go then call from these plays.
This is all very significant...esp. if Roman leaves...or stays.
I don't know about this. Our game plan for the Rams seemed to lack a general concept for how to deal with their pressures, but besides that, was OK as a GAME PLAN.
I think our BASE offense is actually very good. The problem I have is all of the cute plays; perhaps more importantly, cute plays called at the wrong times. We ran a couple QB sneaks at absolutely awful times. It's like Roman is disconnected from the "flow" of the game, or doesn't believe in it.
If those three are scheming a game plan together before the game, that is probably OK, but DURING the game, I think we have been disconnected from what the defense is actually trying to do to us.
It was very remarkable, that we were dropping slant plays on that defense all day long, but for some reason, we were incapable of sticking with it more. That implies some kind of disconnect from the game itself.
Like a general who has taken the left flank, but orders his troops to stop the advance because it's not part of the "plan". Our ability to adapt on the fly is questionable.
Thank you. You explained my biggest concern much better than I did.
Also, I certainly have no issues with the specialty coaches contributing to the overall (initial) game plan coming in. But how much are they contributing? That's what concerns me. You see, the WCO was predicated on exploiting the opponents weaknesses (what game plan isn't though?). If you're a Johnnie Morton and you're facing a 31st ranked passing defense but we're a more run-oriented team, is it 50-50 since HaRoman are always striving for a "balance?" Your opponent and their weaknesses should be dictating the game plan and play calling...not equal contributions. And if Johnnie Morton does provide close to half of the game plan (minus the RZ, which of course we RARELY pass INTO the EZ), shouldn't he be taking better advantage of the optimal receiving weapons we do have in VD, Manningham, Crabtree underneath, the deep speed of Moss (RZ and deep play ability esp. the deep sideline and post patterns), Jenkins, Ginn (deep decoy for those underneath), Miller, Gore/Hunter/ames, etc.? I just don't see much creativity if getting our best receivers the ball in their hands and letting them do their thing and THAT is anti-WCO to me. The last time I saw a game plan that genuinely included getting VD the ball early and often was the Bears game...we lined VD up all over the place and got hi isolated...he had 8 targets and 7 receptions all for big gains and the result was, naturally, an offensive explosion.
But prior to that, he had been missing for 4 games (almost completely) and now, again, for three games after. So where is that same consistent creativity for VD and all of our other weapons? Like in the Rams game...if it's obvious, and it was, that Jenkins (Rams CB) was giving a 10 yard cushion on ever pass, no matter what the down and distance, why not put Moss, Crabtree and Manningham in that FL spot to allow them to get RAC...like Moss did against the Cardinals on the exact same play?
To me, that's Morton not initially building in those passing plays into the final game plan and ROMAN not having game/situational awareness and not going with the "flow" of what the defense is giving you. Another poster brought up the lack of setting defenses up (the chess match). We could have run slants off that all day until they committed to finally stopping it...then do a slant and go. I don't know off the top of my head if I've ever seen Roman or the game plan set up the defense.
Now it's so dumbed down, we run a fly sweep (as a decoy) and just run Gore/Hunter up the middle for next to nothing (b/c the motion pinches the defense closer to the LOS and tighter in the box). This is OK as long as you THEN come back to that same formation and ACTUALLY run a fly sweep. This should get you huge yards and catch the defense flat-footed.
Game plan + Roman = Fail (esp. every 3rd game).
Time to fire the OC for sure.
