It does not appear that there will be any major changes in the coaching staff for the coming year.
If that proves to be true, we will see if the passing game improves in the coming year.
Multiple factors influence the success of the passing game.
I do not really care how the coaching staff improves the passing game, but they MUST make it better.
There are 192 users in the forums
Greg Roman, is he really good?
Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM
- buck
- Veteran
- Posts: 13,137
Jan 23, 2014 at 11:24 AM
- NCommand
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 123,337
Originally posted by buck:
It does not appear that there will be any major changes in the coaching staff for the coming year.
If that proves to be true, we will see if the passing game improves in the coming year.
Multiple factors influence the success of the passing game.
I do not really care how the coaching staff improves the passing game, but they MUST make it better.
No question but we also have to be realistic here and note that the running game (outside CK) was underutilzed and completely shut down as well. It was poor from top to bottom.
Jan 23, 2014 at 11:31 AM
- buck
- Veteran
- Posts: 13,137
Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by buck:It does not appear that there will be any major changes in the coaching staff for the coming year.
If that proves to be true, we will see if the passing game improves in the coming year.
Multiple factors influence the success of the passing game.
I do not really care how the coaching staff improves the passing game, but they MUST make it better.
No question but we also have to be realistic here and note that the running game (outside CK) was underutilzed and completely shut down as well. It was poor from top to bottom.
Do you mean for the season or the last game against Seattle?
I remain much more concerned about the passing game.
Jan 23, 2014 at 11:37 AM
- jonesadrian
- Veteran
- Posts: 6,015
Originally posted by buck:
Do you mean for the season or the last game against Seattle?
I remain much more concerned about the passing game.
last game was inexcusable. it was literally a 1 man show. and nobody can win by themselves. if he doesn't have to make every play we win easily...
however the passing game needs an identity. it needs a flow. they can do whatever they want with it so in turn they don't do much with it.
he can make every throw and adapt to all systems me and another poster were discussing this a while back.
they don't know what to do.
Jan 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM
- dj43
- Moderator
- Posts: 35,655
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by theduke85:
What does "AR" mean, NCommand?
Term coined a while back where plays are called in by Roman and company (5 others) and signed off by Harbaugh into CK. AR stands for Annointed Receiver. This AR is pre-determined "pre snap." There are two types...AR1 is where the non-AR's run "decoy" routes clearing space for the AR. AR2's are when the non-AR's physically "rub" or literally, "block" out defenders creating a sure path for the AR. It's essentially, a college-like offense leaving added focus on "execution" by all to help make the play work. It requires NO breaks in the chain or the entire play blows up. It's nice when the design works and it limits the focus for a young QB on one read only. But the downside is what we just saw (aside from lack of QB development in progression reads). If the defense is smart they can figure out the AR by the routes of the non-AR's (Green Bay INT) or hone in on the primary AR's (like Boldin/VD most of the year or in this case, Crabtree in the RZ where Seattle had underneath and deep coverage). DB's can watch the body language of CK, his eyes and if they are an aggressive, physical defense like the Ravens and Seattle, they can blow the entire play up from the line of scrimmage and forcing CK to ad lib more (run and throw on the run). Once Crabtree came back, it was much harder to determine who the AR would be though (Crabtree, Boldin or VD). This style of offense works much better with an athletic QB b/c if that read is covered, he can make something happen with his legs like we saw against Seattle/Carolina.
Nice job of describing the term. IIRC, you and I had this discussion a month ago or so. That was the first time I recall Anointed Receiver term being used. All the variations fit.
Jan 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM
- NCommand
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 123,337
Originally posted by buck:
Do you mean for the season or the last game against Seattle?
I remain much more concerned about the passing game.
Well naturally!
I could very well be wrong but not just against Seattle, but in the playoffs in particular (minus CK of course). I shouldn't exclude CK but very few of those runs were by design via creativity...Gore, Hunter and James have had very little production (esp. bc of the predictability on 1st downs setting up long 2nd/3rd downs). Then we lost Miller and did OK for a bit but we certainly weren't very effective. I think if we genuinely broke down the runs to the three RB's we'd find overall, we were pretty ineffective and certainly not a threat for a TD (like Lynch) or enough to back defenses off the LOS (esp. on 1st downs). Naturally, that spins off to play calling and the passing game as well.
Jan 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM
- lamontb
- Veteran
- Posts: 30,016
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by buck:
Do you mean for the season or the last game against Seattle?
I remain much more concerned about the passing game.
Well naturally!
I could very well be wrong but not just against Seattle, but in the playoffs in particular (minus CK of course). I shouldn't exclude CK but very few of those runs were by design via creativity...Gore, Hunter and James have had very little production (esp. bc of the predictability on 1st downs setting up long 2nd/3rd downs). Then we lost Miller and did OK for a bit but we certainly weren't very effective. I think if we genuinely broke down the runs to the three RB's we'd find overall, we were pretty ineffective and certainly not a threat for a TD (like Lynch) or enough to back defenses off the LOS (esp. on 1st downs). Naturally, that spins off to play calling and the passing game as well.
I was dying for play action on the 1st play of the 2nd half. Then another dam running play.
[ Edited by lamontb on Jan 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM ]
Jan 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM
- jimmythegreekjr
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,543
This vanilla offense needs to change. Offensive consultant Eric Mangini is useless - show him the door. Our offense was actually better last year without him. We need smarter schemes, more screens, more play action, more throws to running backs. Red zone offense is pathetic.
[ Edited by jimmythegreekjr on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM ]
Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM
- leebert81
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,161
Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:This ^^^ Are you available?
This vanilla offense needs to change. Offensive consultant Eric Mangini is useless - show him the door. Out offense was actually better last year with him. We need smarter schemes, more screens, more play action, more throws to running backs. Red zone offense is pathetic.
Jan 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM
- thl408
- Moderator
- Posts: 32,307
Originally posted by BKpower:
Originally posted by thl408:
Crabs was running a fade. A streak/fly/go is straight up the field. On a fade, the WR must establish an outside release while winning as much room as possible between himself and the near sideline. He uses his body to shield the CB away from where the ball is supposed to go, towards the outside shoulder (corner of endzone). Once the ball is in the air, the WR adjusts to the throw while keeping the CB away from where the ball will land. Crabs loses on the route as Sherman pushes him very close to the sideline while also winning body position.
I'd assume that the rule of go-routes applies to fades as well, where you shouldn't throw it if the corner is over the top of the receiver. The pre-snap I didn't have a problem with (locate Thomas and check his coverage just off the snap), but there was still the post-snap part of the read Kaepernick failed on (Sherman's position relative to Crabtree) as you touched upon in another post.
You are correct. As a general rule, when it's man coverage, the CB's leverage and technique (over the top vs trail + inside vs outside leverage) should tell a QB whether the route being run is a win or is defeated. Don't try to throw over the top when the CB is playing over the top. Don't throw to an inside breaking route when the CB has inside leverage, etc. It's not always this black and white - it's not paper, scissor, rocks. Sometimes the scissor is too dull to cut the cardboard. This is why option routes kill man coverage. Whatever the CB is doing, make him incorrect in the technique he is using.
Had Sherman played bail technique on this play, Kap would have quickly moved to his second read. I have no doubt about this.
I stated earlier in the this thread that the playcall was fine. Actually, the play design is fine, the play call is fine, the formation is what I hate. Why not flip this formation to trips right and have Crabs 1 on 1 versus Maxwell on the left side of the formation, or Boldin 1 on 1 versus Maxwell? I hate this play.
Jan 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM
- buck
- Veteran
- Posts: 13,137
Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by buck:Do you mean for the season or the last game against Seattle?
I remain much more concerned about the passing game.
Well naturally!
I could very well be wrong but not just against Seattle, but in the playoffs in particular (minus CK of course). I shouldn't exclude CK but very few of those runs were by design via creativity...Gore, Hunter and James have had very little production (esp. bc of the predictability on 1st downs setting up long 2nd/3rd downs). Then we lost Miller and did OK for a bit but we certainly weren't very effective. I think if we genuinely broke down the runs to the three RB's we'd find overall, we were pretty ineffective and certainly not a threat for a TD (like Lynch) or enough to back defenses off the LOS (esp. on 1st downs). Naturally, that spins off to play calling and the passing game as well.
The degree of the spin off that you mention clearly exists, but quantifying it stands beyond my capacity.
My hope is that a better passing game would also benefit the running game.
In the months that come, we will begin to see indications of what the future bears.
I maybe be blind, but I do not see any free agent wide receivers that would be worth a major investment.
In my estimation, not drafting two wide receivers within the first three rounds will be an indication, but only an indication, that Harbaugh and company do not feel that the passing scheme needs significant revision.
I do not believe that re-signing Boldin would reduce the need to pick two wide receivers in the first three rounds. He really is getting old. Maybe, Boldin has one more stellar year left in him, but the upcoming draft is not just about next year.
But, again the goal is to improve the passing game. If Harbaugh decides to stay with the same scheme and the passing game gets substantially better, I will not complain...well, not very much.
Jan 23, 2014 at 2:48 PM
- NCommand
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 123,337
Originally posted by thl408:
I stated earlier in the this thread that the playcall was fine. Actually, the play design is fine, the play call is fine, the formation is what I hate. Why not flip this formation to trips right and have Crabs 1 on 1 versus Maxwell on the left side of the formation, or Boldin 1 on 1 versus Maxwell? I hate this play.
This certainly would be a better option although Maxwell is tall too (6'1") and lanky as well and has played well this year. It increases your odds but not by much...still a low percentage play at the wrong time of the game. And that still has to be a perfect 35 yard throw to the perfect spot in the corner of the EZ. Now if the play design would have focused on the flood side where you had Boldin deep for a TD on a laser throw, then check down to VD coming across to gain yards and get out of bounds or even Patton as the AR with Boldin/VD clearing out much space underneath (like we saw here), then yeah, I'd agree 100%.
Either way, I hate this play too. LOL
[ Edited by NCommand on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:50 PM ]
Jan 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM
- real9erfan
- Veteran
- Posts: 1,653
Originally posted by jonesadrian:Originally posted by buck:Do you mean for the season or the last game against Seattle?
I remain much more concerned about the passing game.
last game was inexcusable. it was literally a 1 man show. and nobody can win by themselves. if he doesn't have to make every play we win easily...
however the passing game needs an identity. it needs a flow. they can do whatever they want with it so in turn they don't do much with it.
he can make every throw and adapt to all systems me and another poster were discussing this a while back.
they don't know what to do.
Exactly. The passing game this year did not have any kind of rhythm or continuity. It was basically Kap making plays. Now that may be due to Kap, Roman, or both. The bottom line is you can't have long-term success with this type of passing offense. Kap really needs to work hard this offseason in conjunction with his OC in implementing a WCO type passing game. If they can do that, combined with Kap's abilities to make plays, this offense will be very difficult to stop.
Jan 23, 2014 at 3:08 PM
- jonesadrian
- Veteran
- Posts: 6,015
Originally posted by real9erfan:
Exactly. The passing game this year did not have any kind of rhythm or continuity. It was basically Kap making plays. Now that may be due to Kap, Roman, or both. The bottom line is you can't have long-term success with this type of passing offense. Kap really needs to work hard this offseason in conjunction with his OC in implementing a WCO type passing game. If they can do that, combined with Kap's abilities to make plays, this offense will be very difficult to stop.
if it just had consistency on the routes mixing them up and not running predictable ones out of predictable formations the offense would have been way better passing wise as well.
roman is not scheming anyone open in the passing game consistently and that's a problem.
Jan 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM
- Jd925
- Veteran
- Posts: 1,286
Originally posted by NCommand:
It's interesting to note that everyone continues to focus on the surface...the execution of the play, when in fact Harbaugh himself said the play was determined pre-snap. It was the CALL that was poor, IMHO. CK and Crabtree did what they could and came within inches of completing it yet the issue is that this call and route is a VERY low % play against one of the best CB's in the game to a spot (corner of the EZ) requiring a 35 yard pinpoint accurate pass at the wrong time of the game. Even if you watch Crabtree's feet, had he caught the ball, he was BARELY in bounds. Barely. We talked all year about situational play calling and awareness. This is not the time to run a flood to the left to isolate Crabtree outside on the right and hope he can beat Sherman on a low % pass-catch in the EZ. And given Harbaugh's comments, he signed off on it.
I agree 100%. The biggest revelation about the 49er passing scheme and play calling was the last play of last year's Superbowl. That showed me that HaRoMan would rather rely on player execution & luck than strategy & play design. No 'The Catch'... No creative schemes. No rekindling of the magic that Bill Walsh brought.
I think the HaRoMan pass offense has been the single biggest factor in the failures to win the big games. I think Harbaugh is one of the top coaches in the league and does almost everything else right, but falls short in the offense/pass offense to push him over the top. We'll see what happens and see what Harbaugh does if anything.