Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Whether you are with NC, Thl, GM,dtg, et al, I think all agree (as I do) that regardless of whether ARs or PS, the middle continues to be open and we avoid it as if it were the Bermuda triangle. Man, Vance, hunter, Baldwin, LMJ could camp out there for all game and wouldn't be touched. Kap would have to take a remedial course on throwing more 4-6 yd passes with way less heat however. Still, he is talented and I am sure he can learn it.
Also, running frank into the box 8-10 is just flat ass goofy. 8 on 5 guys just doesn't work so throw dinks and dunks over the middle, slant, crossing patterns,whatever, and watch the completions pile up. Then when D move 3 or more guys off LOS, then turn frank loose, and watch the yrds pile up. Frank into a box 8-10 is just a wasted play...every dam time.
Good points Paso--John Elway was the same way as a young QB. It took him years to learn how to take a bit off his passes without throwing lame duck interceptions. Montana was the best I've seen in the short passing game and I believe it is largely due to his tutor--B. Walsh. When you have a coach insist on you practicing every aspect of QBing to the point where it becomes totally ingrained, you have a chance to become your potential.
My worry is that, even though Harbaugh is a very knowledgeable QB coach, CK won't get that insistent training every year. I know he goes to that Atlanta clinic, but that's not a 9er QB coach using 9er plays and precision, with all 9er players around you. The chemistry didn't happen, or not to a great extent, to make Lockette a keeper; so his training with receivers in the off-season did not do much to help the team. I do commend him for trying but wouldn't it have made more sense to train at the SF facilities where more players would have been available?
NC--as for the difference between you, Mac and myself (or anyone else)...I think one key is defining a receiving option. To me, a receiving option is any receiver running a route...whether that route is 80 yards down the field or behind the LOS on either side. It's clear that you are using a different definition and that clears things up quite a bit. I'm not sure where the AR idea originates but if you can post a history I would greatly appreciate it. I'm always open to remedial tutoring!
Well the good news is that we use both AR and PS plays (with quite a bit of ad lib thrown in there). One camp thinks we run a pre-dominant PS offense with a few AR's (specifically AR2's) thrown in there while I believe we run a pre-dominant AR (mostly AR1 with a few AR2's) with a few more PS plays added each game (now that we have a "full arsenal" ~ Roman). Either way, we're both right and getting down to semantics at this point. We should all be proud of the time and effort we all put into this JUST to understand what kind of offense we're trying to run here b/c lilke Chucky said, "I don't know what the heck this (our offense) is!"
Like all my "theories" they typically come from researching what we do closely, lots of video breakdowns, rewinding, etc. and from there, patterns start to emerge and then suddenly, you see a philosophy
. Based on the Bo Schemblacher philsophy HaRoMan subscribes too, both were succesful with it in college, it being counter to the NFL (and therefore, it worked), CK stilll being green, personnel injuries, comments made by players such as Moss, Alex, CK, Boldin, etc. and HaRoMan, etc. you start to see a true philosophy here. Nobody would dispute much of it esp. when you bring in the more common descriptives such as "one read," "remedial," "conservative," "smoke and mirrors," "trickery with personnel packages, misdirections, pre-snap motions," etc.. In fact, this film study lead me to call this offense the Anti-WCO
So to be honest, it's just a theory through video analysis coupled with our coaching M.O. In short, the passing game is more similar to a common college "team passing attack" vs. a pro-style passing attack like what you see in the majority of the NFL whether that's grounded in a version of the WCO or the Spread, it's VERY different from offenses we typically see in Chicago, GB, Denver, Detroit, Cleveland, NE, etc.
I think the more time people take to watch their own film (the play from start to finish) and esp. what the Non-AR's are doing to assist that AR in getting open (or isolated), the more you'll "see it." And by "it" I mean, our "passing philosophy." The comments made recently by CK and Boldin (and Moss last year) are VERY telling to me; Harbaugh too on why we don't use the RB's for screens or as outlets more (if we ran ANY version of a WCO, the RB's would be a staple of the offense - a true focus).
Quite simple, just watch the design of the play in real time. You'll see all of the receivers save for one over on the right to get isolation for the AR1 over on the left...you'll see literally, WR's blocking out CB's and LB's to free up the AR2...you'll see routes where cuts by a deeper receiver are done to freeze a DB to get the underneath AR1 open...you'll see Moss running constant sideline go and post routes to draw 2 defenders for underneath passes to the AR1...you'll see the non-AR's done with their part of the play, walking around, standing there (knowing they are not the target)...you'll see the AR coming out of his break WAY faster than anyone else...you'll see VD running constant deep go and corner routes to get the underneath AR1's the ball...I could go on and on.
Don't focus on the coverage of the defense or even pre-snap reads. Just watch the passing play from start to finish, CK's head/body positioning, watch the AR catch it and THEN go back and watch how the others aided in getting him open. It's pretty easy to see after just a few passing plays. Watch the play designs. You'll get to the point you can ID who the AR is very quickly. You'll see it!
PS: Yes, I don't define a late, flaring out Gore as a true receiver. He's an outlet in case the progressions or the AR play didn't work. Even if we ran a WCO (high-to-low progressions, the RB is still not a true receiver). In the WCO, the QB looks to deeper routes (progression 1) and then to his next intermediate routes (p2) the to his TE (p3) and finally, his check down RB/FB (outlet). What some are claiming here is that every receiver is a true progression read option by design (like we're running a WCO here) and that simply is not the case IMHO. The "design" demonstrates just the opposite.
Remember, when an AR pass play is unsuccessful, it instantly becomes an ad lib play. At THAT point, then the receivers ad lib and can become "viable" options. This is how we scored 2 TD's against the Rams (VD & Boldin) and the big 27 yarder over Sherman (Boldin). These targets were NOT part of a natural progression read passing play (i.e. a PS play called in by Roman; like what we see when we go Spread with CK in shotgun and with 3 and 4 WR's al running routes and looking back to the QB as true, viable options.).
[ Edited by NCommand on Dec 13, 2013 at 8:53 AM ]