Week 7: Thoughts after rewatching the game...

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
First, let me ask you.. how many teams actually have a "franchise QB" ?

I'd say 10 teams have franchis Qb's, eleven if you count Peyton Manning. If Alex Smith was to be traded what would be the asking price?

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Nice to be back in the win column. ;-)

1) Alex Smith running tally: Stats after Eagles game in 2010. Now a complete 32 games or 2 full seasons worth of games. 32 Games, 883 Att, 558 Comp, 6406 Yards, 42 Tds, 13 INTs, 94.69 QB Rating. Alex came through on the TD drive, but he still had a rough night. As fun as it would be to just rip him a new one, I think we need to give some credit here to Seattle. They were BLANKETING the WRs out there. Seattle has a very, very good secondary. You could see Alex just shaking his head because nobody was shaking free of coverage. I also think there was ALOT of defensive holding out there that went FAR beyond 5 yards and Moss was CLEARLY interfered with early in the game on what would have been a first down. The INT was really an aberration for Alex. He VERY seldom throws picks in the Red-Zone. Bad throw? Yes. Bad Decision? Yes. Was Moss Wide Open? Yes. However, Alex was flushed out when Moss broke open. He may have been able to stand in and make the throw, but I'm not sure of that. A bad play tho regardless of how you look at it. Rough night for Alex against a very, very good defense.

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:
We need to be prepared for pass plays like the one Turbin was open for.

Hey Marvin - Keep up the fine work.

AND PLEASE POSTERS - ENOUGH W/ THE ALEX CRAP. MOVE IT TO ANOTHER THREAD.

Some arguments get old, and repetitive agreed, but as Smith was a big part of the original post I see no reason for your angst! Seems more appropriate here than in the OLine or WR threads, but then even those threads tend to beg discussion of the QB.

I think the doubters are just not being realistic. We have a good, not great QB, in Alex Smith. He is excellent at ball protection, but struggles with the long ball. If he is allowed to pass short and intermediate, he can have a lot of success running our run-focused offense. If we play our game, we can beat anyone. But if we start demanding that Smith focus on the long ball, then we are going to have a lot of stalled drives and INT.

While I know it would be tempting to talk about having an elite QB on our team, the salary cap would require us to give up something elsewhere. Do you want a weaker defense? Weaker OL? We would have to find money somewhere else. Most likely, we would have to mortgage our future in order to try and get a SB or 2 right now. Personally, I would rather stick with Alex Smith. I think we can win a Super Bowl with him starting, plus we don't have to sacrifice strength in other areas of the team to keep our QB.

Marvin--didn't see you comment on my questions re the line, so my apologies if you have. Smith mentioned that the D was stacking the box and then dropping off into coverage much as Balt did last year. I did not see the Hawks game against the Pats but did they do the same thing in that game? My feeling was that they believed they could stop the 9er run game with four guys and drop the rest into coverage, which benefited our run game tremendously. Did you see the same thing?

How good has J Goodwin been for this team? Eric H was a liability at center. There are usually a handful of plays where Goodwin has a key block or blocks multiple guys on Gore's runs.

Originally posted by fister30:
How good has J Goodwin been for this team? Eric H was a liability at center. There are usually a handful of plays where Goodwin has a key block or blocks multiple guys on Gore's runs.

In alot of the trap plays goodwin did a good job moving the guy he was blocking to enlarge the hole for Gore.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Marvin--didn't see you comment on my questions re the line, so my apologies if you have. Smith mentioned that the D was stacking the box and then dropping off into coverage much as Balt did last year. I did not see the Hawks game against the Pats but did they do the same thing in that game? My feeling was that they believed they could stop the 9er run game with four guys and drop the rest into coverage, which benefited our run game tremendously. Did you see the same thing?

No. They did what they usually do. They stack the box, play only one deep safety and the CBs mug the WRs at and beyond 5 yards.

They did the same against New England. That was why Brady said "They force you to pass on them" That is a formation you should have success passing against...if the WRs weren't assaulting the WRs illegally.

At the Snap, the LBs sprint back into coverage to cut off even more quick passes and left Alex with nowhere to throw.

In the second half, the 49ers started hitting Gore underneath because the LBs were vacating their zones. Thats also how Walker broke wide open to score the TD. If you watch the replay of the TD, the LBs were all the way back in the endzone.

That stacking of the box tho makes the 170+ rush yard even more impressive.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
7) WRs: Rough game for them. Just couldn't get open. I think losing Manningham made a difference as he's much more "sudden" than the rest and can usually break loose. Kyle Williams has quick feet, but he doesn't really separate. Moss was open in the endzone, but the pressure got to Alex and he made a bad throw. Again tho...you have to give credit to the Seahawks for being the Seahawks. Thats what they did to New England last week. If the refs aren't going to call interference or defensive holding, I don't see them changing any time soon.

So were they or were they not holding? And if we saw this in the first half, do you think we should have tried to emulate how they were covering our WRs? Or do you think that's something they can do/get away with because they have such be CBs?

Originally posted by TTTT9ers:
So were they or were they not holding? And if we saw this in the first half, do you think we should have tried to emulate how they were covering our WRs? Or do you think that's something they can do/get away with because they have such be CBs?

IMO they were holding big time, but like Harbaugh said maybe theres something in the rules that allows such physical contact after 5 yards, im amazed at all the idiots saying Harbaugh was whining, if anyone was a coach and thought contact after 5 yards was illegal but one team did it all the time i would want to know what keeps it in the rules so my defense could do it too.

Originally posted by TTTT9ers:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
7) WRs: Rough game for them. Just couldn't get open. I think losing Manningham made a difference as he's much more "sudden" than the rest and can usually break loose. Kyle Williams has quick feet, but he doesn't really separate. Moss was open in the endzone, but the pressure got to Alex and he made a bad throw. Again tho...you have to give credit to the Seahawks for being the Seahawks. Thats what they did to New England last week. If the refs aren't going to call interference or defensive holding, I don't see them changing any time soon.

So were they or were they not holding? And if we saw this in the first half, do you think we should have tried to emulate how they were covering our WRs? Or do you think that's something they can do/get away with because they have such be CBs?

If I'm the ref, they were holding on just about every down. If they refs don't call it, then they ain't holding.

My understanding is that you can't hit or grab a guy beyond 5 yards of the LOS and they were certainly doing that.

Thier DBs are good and BIG so they are VERY good at jamming WRs at the line...but they were doing alot more than that.