New York Giants show how to beat San Francisco 49ers @ NFL

~ Have an elite QB.
~ Have an elite defense.

Pretty good formula. Not every team has that.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
~ Have an elite QB.
~ Have an elite defense.

Pretty good formula. Not every team has that.

Because alot of teams cant afford it

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
Watching this game.. man.. the NYG receivers just make spectacular catches. They really know how to attack the ball and have glue on their hands.

I think our guys are decent.. but when watching these guys? F**k... not even in the same stratosphere.

No doubt those Giants receivers made some spectacular catches. Some were covered well, some weren't. I'm not sure if it's skill or intensity, but I think it's a little of both that the San Francisco Forty-Niners receivers are lacking. That being said, I would say Manningham and KW have the intensity, not so sure about the other receivers and, dare I say, tight ends.

Originally posted by SFrush:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Culliver got burned up and down all day. I'm starting to think that he just isn't reliable as a nickel corner.

Then you're overreacting. He just had an off day like our run defense.

He is 2 years into this league.Culliver should be fine.

make alex have to pass

Play calling was horrible after the first two series. Akers misses two fg's and special teams are killing us. That's it. Roman panicked.

Originally posted by bigwads:
Play calling was horrible after the first two series. Akers misses two fg's and special teams are killing us. That's it. Roman panicked.

Roman beat himself to a bloody pulp with his own creativity , he refused to run the ball, and tried to force his CK plays to work ...we cant be turned into a one dimensional team like that again , once we abandon running the ball , and become a desperate passing team , things tend to blow up in our faces

Has anybody considered that maybe roman game planned the way he did was in part due to the short week and he wanted to preserve the rbs for the load on the short week?

Originally posted by Allx9er:
Has anybody considered that maybe roman game planned the way he did was in part due to the short week and he wanted to preserve the rbs for the load on the short week?

Definitely possible.. but with the RB stable we have, I don't see a huge need to compromise one game for the next.

I think with Akers missing two first half FGs, being down 10-3, they just tried to get a lil too cute and overly creative. Definitely feel the NYG worked much harder in the film room than we did... that they wanted it more. (much like the Vikes)

Every team has a formula. This is pretty stupid. How have we beaten the teams we have? By coming out with good formulas. Stopping Rodgers, stopping Stafford, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick. Common sense..... Teams gameplan, that what gameplans supposed to do is take qbs out of their rythym. Again sheer common football sense.

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Originally posted by Allx9er:

Has anybody considered that maybe roman game planned the way he did was in part due to the short week and he wanted to preserve the rbs for the load on the short week?

Definitely possible.. but with the RB stable we have, I don't see a huge need to compromise one game for the next.

I think with Akers missing two first half FGs, being down 10-3, they just tried to get a lil too cute and overly creative. Definitely feel the NYG worked much harder in the film room than we did... that they wanted it more. (much like the Vikes)

Well, what happen to that stable? Is dixon worthless in any other situation besides garbage time and ST? As for jacobs idk what to think, is the staff just protecting their guy until he's 100% or is harbaugh having a spy vs. spy moment?

I agree with everything in your 2nd paragraph.

ground game muzzled by the Giants? more like by our own coaching staff. this article is b******t.

Originally posted by Allx9er:

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Originally posted by Allx9er:
Has anybody considered that maybe roman game planned the way he did was in part due to the short week and he wanted to preserve the rbs for the load on the short week?

Definitely possible.. but with the RB stable we have, I don't see a huge need to compromise one game for the next.

I think with Akers missing two first half FGs, being down 10-3, they just tried to get a lil too cute and overly creative. Definitely feel the NYG worked much harder in the film room than we did... that they wanted it more. (much like the Vikes)

Well, what happen to that stable? Is dixon worthless in any other situation besides garbage time and ST? As for jacobs idk what to think, is the staff just protecting their guy until he's 100% or is harbaugh having a spy vs. spy moment?

I agree with everything in your 2nd paragraph.

With Hunter, Gore, and Jacobs on the roster.. we could have afforded to run the ball far more than TWELVE times... and been fine with the short week to run them some more. If Gore was our only worthy RB.. and we ran him 15 times vs the NYG.. he'd have still been fine to run him on Thursday vs Seattle. That's what I am saying.

As for Jacobs... I think Jim is in no hurry to use him. He was signed as quality RB depth in case an injury occurred to Gore/Hunter. I think we straight up lied to his face on how utilized he would be. It is either that... or he's not looking 100% in practice or is not fully absorbed in the playbook and making mistakes in practice.

Originally posted by Allx9er:

Has anybody considered that maybe roman game planned the way he did was in part due to the short week and he wanted to preserve the rbs for the load on the short week?

Nope. We had 3 legit RBs active and 2 others we could use on Thursday night. We simply abandoned the run too soon but I like what I heard from Alex explaining his thought process on each INT and think this will benefit our passing O in the long run.

The formula to beat us was never a secret. You still have to go out and beat the 49ers, thats the difficult part