There are 130 users in the forums

Evolution requires failure

Offensive scoring...

Weeks 1 and 2 - 28.5 points (average)
Week 3 - 13 points
Week 4 and 5 - 39.5 points (average)
Week 6 and 7 - 8 (average)

I see the 49ers are doing something rarely seen in the NFL, they're experimenting offensively. Most teams have a model, and try and to be perfect at that model. I see a team that is waiting for a model to expose itself through the natural course of an NFL season.

When you're experimenting with current concepts, old concepts and new concepts, you're bound to see extreme successes and wallowing failures. The goal is to hone in on some consitancy/identity of a new concept. You're not necessarily trying to achieve a certain ideal philosophy, you letting the "tests"(/other teams ability to deal with what your doing) mold what you'll look like come post-season. Experiments like this REQUIRE failure, even welcome it as long as your in control of your post season fate. The more you test, the more you discover what works and what doesn't, hopefully creating a very unpredictable, successful evolution to be the "fittest" team to "survive" the post season. You just need enough success so you can afford failure.

I think last year, we installed some new and conservative ideals while building a confident team. This year, it looks like we have more confidence to be a little more bold and be able to handle some failures in our exploration of edgy concepts.

At least, that's what I see this team doing so far this season. No more do i see this concept being played out than with the Kaepernick experiment. I think it's easy to think, because it's never been seen before, that we're grooming Kaep for a takeover in the future. But I don't think they're on that mindset at all. This is not a wildcat instillation, I think they're toying around with the idea of a very confusing and dangerous "two-QB" system. Now, other teams have adjusted and through the failures of this system, we can see more clearly how it works and doesn't work, adjust, and continue the experiment.

Thursday night I saw the experiment put on hold, back to conservative, what we know works in a game we need to win. BUT, i see the experiment resuming after the bye. Wouldn't be surprised if we hold off on the experiment (just get the W) against the cardinals next week as well.

I see this darwinian philosophy being played out this season and wouldn't be surprised to see more wild success and "huh… what are they doing" failures. After about 12 games or so, the experiment will stop and the team will build a model and try to master it going into the post season. BTW, It's not only the two-QB experiment, that's just the most obvious experiment. Also, that model might look just like it did in last years post season philosophy. It's really exciting to watch, and the reason I haven't been bother AT ALL with our failures this season.

We could very well have a preconceived mold, but the seemingly erratic offense philosophy tells me otherwise. Interested to see what you guys think of this experimental philosophy. Anyway, we're 5-2 and in sole possession of the NFC West, somethings working.
Jim better stop experimenting, my brain cant take much more
I dont know if I can agree with such a huge proclamation without examples to back up your theory. The only experiment ive seen so far is the the whole 2-qb Kapernick Wildcat thing, other than that it looks like we're running the same offense as last year only with a better o-line and better play from our recievers. The focus on every drive should be to score, the focus on every game should be to win, all the time. Exepriments are for pre-season.
i agree that they are trying some different things. i'm ok with it. i srsly think JH is just trolling the NFL.

Having a great regular season record isn't the goal, i think doing the things we have to do now; to figure out what works, what doesn't, how teams react, etc, will only help this team.
I fundamentally disagree with the title of this thread.

Evolution is based on natural selection. Which is to say, the winning gene pool wins out and procreates and their genetic code seeds future generations. So no, Evolution is based on winning not failing.
The evolution will be televised !
The evolution is 5-2!
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I fundamentally disagree with the title of this thread.

Evolution is based on natural selection. Which is to say, the winning gene pool wins out and procreates and their genetic code seeds future generations. So no, Evolution is based on winning not failing.

...but for one to win, another has to lose.
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I fundamentally disagree with the title of this thread.

Evolution is based on natural selection. Which is to say, the winning gene pool wins out and procreates and their genetic code seeds future generations. So no, Evolution is based on winning not failing.

Would the success of one not require the failure of another?
Originally posted by darkknight49:
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I fundamentally disagree with the title of this thread.

Evolution is based on natural selection. Which is to say, the winning gene pool wins out and procreates and their genetic code seeds future generations. So no, Evolution is based on winning not failing.

Would the success of one not require the failure of another?

Ok, so we are talking macroscopically, our Offense is an ecosystem, in which certain plays and players become genetically superior while others fall away. That does make sense.
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Originally posted by darkknight49:
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I fundamentally disagree with the title of this thread.

Evolution is based on natural selection. Which is to say, the winning gene pool wins out and procreates and their genetic code seeds future generations. So no, Evolution is based on winning not failing.

Would the success of one not require the failure of another?

Ok, so we are talking macroscopically, our Offense is an ecosystem, in which certain plays and players become genetically superior while others fall away. That does make sense.

Haha, ok, while I like the literal evolution discussion on the zone, I was using it as a metaphor. Clearly, if you take it literal in it's entirety, all analogies and metaphors brake down. I was using it as a thought process to show how teams they take more risks, learn more and are more dynamic in the post season. And rather than having a set "model" let the model expose itself naturally. Similar to how species evolution isn't planned, just happens as a result of the environment. I'm using the analogy on the environmental level, meaning how species adapt to environment. clearly, I'm not using it with the concept of genetic mutations, sexual selections... ext. ext.

I see us letting the environment shape who we are, by tossing a lot ideas/concepts/personel, rather than planning a shape before facing the environment.
More of a revolution?
i think the test of evolution is putting the game on the QBs shoulder and seeing if he can win the game. that test did not go well. therefore i think we have toyed enuf with giving our QB too much control/influence on the game and are going back to a ball control game w the QB having as minimal effect as possible. i think this formula will be used pretty much throughout the season and will only be abandoned for periods during a game just to see what happens.
Think of the Beatles Song - Revolution, "Say you want an evolution..."

Sorry about that.

Interesting take that I never considered. Not sure BUT I can't shake the feeling that the coaches are holding back plays & schemes. Maybe they don't want to show all our cards?

I think, last week was our first screen play of the season.
Fair point -- seems reasonable to assume that with only 1.5 seasons of installation that the offense is still growing, learning, experimenting. Shoot, the WCO under Walsh evolved EVERY year, and adapted to each game, with the personnell available. And there were some painful losses in those years as well!

Not comparing JH to BW - but willing to watch the evolution.
Share 49erswebzone