Week 16: Thoughts after rewatching the game...

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
Well with a full quarter difference in TOP between the two yeah.

How do they score when they don't have the ball? I don't get how that makes no sense. How does our defense expect to play well being out there 15 more minutes a game? You honestly thing that makes no difference? Again I said "maybe" cause this is nothing but a hypothetical, but I don't see how us not maintaining ball control had no effect on this game.

I think you're onto something here. I was very disappointed with the playcalling in the first half, and with the first offensive possession especially.

After halftime they reported Harbaugh as saying that they needed to simplify the plays called and get them in quicker. So Roman was trying to be too cute with his shifts and motion calls in the first half. Didn't he understand how difficult it would be to execute those kinds of plays in a stadium as loud as Seattle's?

The best defense is a good ground attack on offense that keeps the ball away from the other team. Where was that?

I think we shoulda pounded them with the running game--even if they put 8 in the box. Gore has beaten that kind of defense from Seattle before and would have at least expected it. He's their most experienced offensive player, and best able to perform in a big game under adverse conditions like they faced Sunday nite.

Really, I think alot of the blame for the poor performance this game has to go on Roman and the offensive game plan. IMHO.

Seattle might have still won the game, but if we came out with the idea that our O-line and Gore is gonna pound on them, it might have opened some passing lanes, and would have meant that we were just as physical as they were from the start.

Anytime there is a big game, its best to come out with an aggressive game plan and put pressure on the other team. That starts with a hard hitting offense. Give the O-line a chance to smash the other team's defense first and often, then see if that aggression doesn't spread to the rest of the team.

Roman started with a three and out passing attack, immediately giving Seattle the opportunity to start with their own aggressive ground attack.

I don't know if the Niners use the first 15 plays script that Bill Walsh used and made famous, but they should. It would give them a way to plan ahead and take advantage of the other team's weaknesses.

Disagree with you Marvin, Alex Smith would have had a better game vs the Rams and vs the Seahawks. The 49ers would have won one of those games with Alex Smith as QB. He knows both teams way better then Kaep and plays very well in Seattle. This is what happens when you screw around late in the season with the QB's. Jimmy H is not perfect he's made mistakes and this one was huge. We win one of those games and were the 2nd seed, now we need some help to make the 2nd seed.

Originally posted by 49erJim:

Disagree with you Marvin, Alex Smith would have had a better game vs the Rams and vs the Seahawks. The 49ers would have won one of those games with Alex Smith as QB. He knows both teams way better then Kaep and plays very well in Seattle. This is what happens when you screw around late in the season with the QB's. Jimmy H is not perfect he's made mistakes and this one was huge. We win one of those games and were the 2nd seed, now we need some help to make the 2nd seed.

The argument can be made that Kaep cost the 49ers the Rams game. I don't think it's that simple, but the argument can certainly be made. This one tho? I think that's crazy talk. If people's expectation is that he keep up with the other team by scoring everytime they had the ball, you are totally scapegoating the defense. Kaep didn't have a good game. Nobody here is saying he did. Saying that Smith would have won this game tho is crazy talk. It's not that I think would have played poorly. It's that the D was THAT bad.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Ok. Let's say they hold the ball longer and score the same 13 points they scored in SF. Seattle had the ball twice and the score was 14-0. They made it 21-0 after the blocked FG. No matter how much you play ball control, the other team eventually gets the ball. The Niner D didn't stop them. At all.

Again. Argument makes no sense. Teams can win by limiting the other teams possessions, but that only works if you PLAY DEFENSE.

Well we will agree to disagree I guess. No need to argue.

But what do you say about having to simplify the offense at half? Why did we have to do that? If the offense had no bearing on the game, why are we simplifying our offense mid-game? Did this have nothing to do with us being totally inept? To me that makes no sense. I don't see a single reason we should have to simplify the offense week 16.

And I agree that the defense played like s**t, but so did our offense and it seems like many don't even care to go there. Nobody cares to divulge into why our offense can't score t.d's. We did against NE but besides that we had 2 t.d's in the 3 other games. NE has everybody so excited, but in all reality his pass to moss was a designed play. His pass to Walker was a designed play. His pass to Crabs was a thing of beauty, but his other one was a pretty simple read as well.

Just in regards to the simplified offense. The 49ers rely on PREsnap shifts and reads much more than most teams. That's why even with Alex under center they always snapped the ball with only a few seconds on the clock. The 49ers were having trouble getting the play calls in to Kaep. Whether that was crowd noise or whatever, he was getting to the line without enough time to make the shifts and reads they wanted to make. That's what they simplified.

I don't get why they are using this pistol crap so much. Did we use all of that in the Chicago game? I remember a very traditional looking ground and pound offense in that game, but now we are using this crap that is not working.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by 49erJim:
Disagree with you Marvin, Alex Smith would have had a better game vs the Rams and vs the Seahawks. The 49ers would have won one of those games with Alex Smith as QB. He knows both teams way better then Kaep and plays very well in Seattle. This is what happens when you screw around late in the season with the QB's. Jimmy H is not perfect he's made mistakes and this one was huge. We win one of those games and were the 2nd seed, now we need some help to make the 2nd seed.

The argument can be made that Kaep cost the 49ers the Rams game. I don't think it's that simple, but the argument can certainly be made. This one tho? I think that's crazy talk. If people's expectation is that he keep up with the other team by scoring everytime they had the ball, you are totally scapegoating the defense. Kaep didn't have a good game. Nobody here is saying he did. Saying that Smith would have won this game tho is crazy talk. It's not that I think would have played poorly. It's that the D was THAT bad.

Really, the D--and the entire team--was on their heels from the start. It looked like they weren't ready for Seattle's aggressiveness, both on offense and on defense.

I agree with you, Marvin, it would not have mattered if Alex started against Seattle or not. The entire team was not ready, and couldn't overcome some bad breaks and bad plays. I put that failure on the coaches.

Frankly, I put Kaepernick's play down near the bottom of the list of problems in the Seattle game. He threw an INT that he shouldn't have, but it wasn't a very good play call on a third and goal in the first place--he had no choice, either throw it or take a sack, so he tried to put it in a very tight window.

Originally posted by SJniner7:
I don't get why they are using this pistol crap so much. Did we use all of that in the Chicago game? I remember a very traditional looking ground and pound offense in that game, but now we are using this crap that is not working.

Taking advantage of Kaep's talent. But the good defenses around the NFL aren't cooperating.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Ok. Let's say they hold the ball longer and score the same 13 points they scored in SF. Seattle had the ball twice and the score was 14-0. They made it 21-0 after the blocked FG. No matter how much you play ball control, the other team eventually gets the ball. The Niner D didn't stop them. At all.

Again. Argument makes no sense. Teams can win by limiting the other teams possessions, but that only works if you PLAY DEFENSE.

Well we will agree to disagree I guess. No need to argue.

But what do you say about having to simplify the offense at half? Why did we have to do that? If the offense had no bearing on the game, why are we simplifying our offense mid-game? Did this have nothing to do with us being totally inept? To me that makes no sense. I don't see a single reason we should have to simplify the offense week 16.

And I agree that the defense played like s**t, but so did our offense and it seems like many don't even care to go there. Nobody cares to divulge into why our offense can't score t.d's. We did against NE but besides that we had 2 t.d's in the 3 other games. NE has everybody so excited, but in all reality his pass to moss was a designed play. His pass to Walker was a designed play. His pass to Crabs was a thing of beauty, but his other one was a pretty simple read as well.

Just in regards to the simplified offense. The 49ers rely on PREsnap shifts and reads much more than most teams. That's why even with Alex under center they always snapped the ball with only a few seconds on the clock. The 49ers were having trouble getting the play calls in to Kaep. Whether that was crowd noise or whatever, he was getting to the line without enough time to make the shifts and reads they wanted to make. That's what they simplified.

All in all i'm just more worried about the change in philosophy between the two. We need to get back to our roots and that's running the ball, and taking the simple shots. Maybe adding dimensions off that with Kaep's ability. That's what I expected when the change was made not trying to go vertical too much and playing out of the pistol. I think that's what made Alex so successful and a top 10 QB was his ability to "manage" a game at the line. To milk the clock, and let our defense rest. That's my whole reasoning of bringing Alex even up.

He's gone, I'm not saying bench Kaep. But our offensive philosophy is out of whack. You can't come out throwing 3 times a game. Throwing a bomb on first down, like people do on Madden. How about we get a first down or two running and passing, get a little momentum, and even if we don't score we don't give them the ball at the 50. Not to mention a 15 yard penalty. That's the difference with Alex. I think we would have run the ball a lot more, and I think we could have made this game completely different if we did. It's not that Kaep sucks, to me its our change in philosophy.

To me everything has changed. And I don't see how it's suddenly all just going to click when we are playing great teams from here on out. We should be doing this week 6-10, not week 17.

Originally posted by susweel:
Im not gonna over analyze this game Im just gonna say they wanted it more than our guys did.

Ditto. Starting Alex over Kaep would have made zero difference. The final score still would have been the final score.

The only problem I have with Marvin's review is this one line: "The Niners had better find a way to beat that team in Seattle or they are going to be thorn in our collective sides for years to come."

CORRECTION: Marvin, they ARE a thorn in our collective sides. They have already arrived. They will continue to be a thorn for quite some time. The 80's team had to battle it out with the Reams for division supremacy. This time, in this decade, it's the Hags. It's about time Seattle got themselves a team. Those folks up north have waited long enough.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by 49erJim:
Disagree with you Marvin, Alex Smith would have had a better game vs the Rams and vs the Seahawks. The 49ers would have won one of those games with Alex Smith as QB. He knows both teams way better then Kaep and plays very well in Seattle. This is what happens when you screw around late in the season with the QB's. Jimmy H is not perfect he's made mistakes and this one was huge. We win one of those games and were the 2nd seed, now we need some help to make the 2nd seed.

The argument can be made that Kaep cost the 49ers the Rams game. I don't think it's that simple, but the argument can certainly be made. This one tho? I think that's crazy talk. If people's expectation is that he keep up with the other team by scoring everytime they had the ball, you are totally scapegoating the defense. Kaep didn't have a good game. Nobody here is saying he did. Saying that Smith would have won this game tho is crazy talk. It's not that I think would have played poorly. It's that the D was THAT bad.

The defense was very tired and did not play well in the Seattle game for sure, but we did have a few chances to get right back in the game so saying that its crazy talk is crazy. Kaep had a crap game, Alex Smith who plays well in Seattle I am sure would have had a much better game. I am sure Alex Smith would have had a better game vs the rams as well. Not having Justin Smith killed us as well. Jimmy H made a very bad mistake in these two games.

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by SJniner7:
I don't get why they are using this pistol crap so much. Did we use all of that in the Chicago game? I remember a very traditional looking ground and pound offense in that game, but now we are using this crap that is not working.

Taking advantage of Kaep's talent. But the good defenses around the NFL aren't cooperating.

Am I wrong here though, the pistol seems very easy to defend with the "spy" linebackers. Our offense against the Bears did not utilize the pistol at all, and we were extremely well balanced and successful.

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by susweel:
Im not gonna over analyze this game Im just gonna say they wanted it more than our guys did.

Ditto. Starting Alex over Kaep would have made zero difference. The final score still would have been the final score.

The only problem I have with Marvin's review is this one line: "The Niners had better find a way to beat that team in Seattle or they are going to be thorn in our collective sides for years to come."

CORRECTION: Marvin, they ARE a thorn in our collective sides. They have already arrived. They will continue to be a thorn for quite some time. The 80's team had to battle it out with the Reams for division supremacy. This time, in this decade, it's the Hags. It's about time Seattle got themselves a team. Those folks up north have waited long enough.

Not true, Alex Smith has played in Seattle many times and he has played well in Seattle, the crowd played a part in this game, and Kaep has never played in Seattle vs the Seahawks and was not ready for what he was in for. To say is made ZERO difference makes zero sense.

The defense did play poor and Seattle played very well on both sides of the ball, I feel we would have had a better chance of winning one or maybe both of these games with Alex Smith at QB.

The problem is I think we had a better chance to win with Kaep as QB vs NE and the Bears.

Originally posted by 49erJim:

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by susweel:
Im not gonna over analyze this game Im just gonna say they wanted it more than our guys did.

Ditto. Starting Alex over Kaep would have made zero difference. The final score still would have been the final score.

The only problem I have with Marvin's review is this one line: "The Niners had better find a way to beat that team in Seattle or they are going to be thorn in our collective sides for years to come."

CORRECTION: Marvin, they ARE a thorn in our collective sides. They have already arrived. They will continue to be a thorn for quite some time. The 80's team had to battle it out with the Reams for division supremacy. This time, in this decade, it's the Hags. It's about time Seattle got themselves a team. Those folks up north have waited long enough.

Not true, Alex Smith has played in Seattle many times and he has played well in Seattle, the crowd played a part in this game, and Kaep has never played in Seattle vs the Seahawks and was not ready for what he was in for. To say is made ZERO difference makes zero sense.

The defense did play poor and Seattle played very well on both sides of the ball, I feel we would have had a better chance of winning one or maybe both of these games with Alex Smith at QB.

The problem is I think we had a better chance to win with Kaep as QB vs NE and the Bears.

I've seen Alex play some fairly horrific football in Seattle. The season opener from two years ago comes to mind.

But we've all seen Alex play some pretty horrific football. He improved vastly under Harbaugh, no doubt about that.

I just don't think his starting the game would have made one iota of difference. As Marvin pointed out in his review, there were many reasons why we lost that game. Mistakes by the QB wasn't one of them.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Ok. Let's say they hold the ball longer and score the same 13 points they scored in SF. Seattle had the ball twice and the score was 14-0. They made it 21-0 after the blocked FG. No matter how much you play ball control, the other team eventually gets the ball. The Niner D didn't stop them. At all.

Again. Argument makes no sense. Teams can win by limiting the other teams possessions, but that only works if you PLAY DEFENSE.

Well we will agree to disagree I guess. No need to argue.

But what do you say about having to simplify the offense at half? Why did we have to do that? If the offense had no bearing on the game, why are we simplifying our offense mid-game? Did this have nothing to do with us being totally inept? To me that makes no sense. I don't see a single reason we should have to simplify the offense week 16.

And I agree that the defense played like s**t, but so did our offense and it seems like many don't even care to go there. Nobody cares to divulge into why our offense can't score t.d's. We did against NE but besides that we had 2 t.d's in the 3 other games. NE has everybody so excited, but in all reality his pass to moss was a designed play. His pass to Walker was a designed play. His pass to Crabs was a thing of beauty, but his other one was a pretty simple read as well.

Just in regards to the simplified offense. The 49ers rely on PREsnap shifts and reads much more than most teams. That's why even with Alex under center they always snapped the ball with only a few seconds on the clock. The 49ers were having trouble getting the play calls in to Kaep. Whether that was crowd noise or whatever, he was getting to the line without enough time to make the shifts and reads they wanted to make. That's what they simplified.

All in all i'm just more worried about the change in philosophy between the two. We need to get back to our roots and that's running the ball, and taking the simple shots. Maybe adding dimensions off that with Kaep's ability. That's what I expected when the change was made not trying to go vertical too much and playing out of the pistol. I think that's what made Alex so successful and a top 10 QB was his ability to "manage" a game at the line. To milk the clock, and let our defense rest. That's my whole reasoning of bringing Alex even up.

He's gone, I'm not saying bench Kaep. But our offensive philosophy is out of whack. You can't come out throwing 3 times a game. Throwing a bomb on first down, like people do on Madden. How about we get a first down or two running and passing, get a little momentum, and even if we don't score we don't give them the ball at the 50. Not to mention a 15 yard penalty. That's the difference with Alex. I think we would have run the ball a lot more, and I think we could have made this game completely different if we did. It's not that Kaep sucks, to me its our change in philosophy.

To me everything has changed. And I don't see how it's suddenly all just going to click when we are playing great teams from here on out. We should be doing this week 6-10, not week 17.

I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree about the difference being at QB.

Whether it was Alex or CK would not have mattered in the last game as long as the offensive game plan relied on presnap shifts and motion, and throwing the ball instead of running it.

The decision to come out throwing the ball was a coaching mistake, independent of who was at QB. IMHO

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by 49erJim:

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by susweel:
Im not gonna over analyze this game Im just gonna say they wanted it more than our guys did.

Ditto. Starting Alex over Kaep would have made zero difference. The final score still would have been the final score.

The only problem I have with Marvin's review is this one line: "The Niners had better find a way to beat that team in Seattle or they are going to be thorn in our collective sides for years to come."

CORRECTION: Marvin, they ARE a thorn in our collective sides. They have already arrived. They will continue to be a thorn for quite some time. The 80's team had to battle it out with the Reams for division supremacy. This time, in this decade, it's the Hags. It's about time Seattle got themselves a team. Those folks up north have waited long enough.

Not true, Alex Smith has played in Seattle many times and he has played well in Seattle, the crowd played a part in this game, and Kaep has never played in Seattle vs the Seahawks and was not ready for what he was in for. To say is made ZERO difference makes zero sense.

The defense did play poor and Seattle played very well on both sides of the ball, I feel we would have had a better chance of winning one or maybe both of these games with Alex Smith at QB.

The problem is I think we had a better chance to win with Kaep as QB vs NE and the Bears.

I've seen Alex play some fairly horrific football in Seattle. The season opener from two years ago comes to mind.

But we've all seen Alex play some pretty horrific football. He improved vastly under Harbaugh, no doubt about that.

I just don't think his starting the game would have made one iota of difference. As Marvin pointed out in his review, there were many reasons why we lost that game. Mistakes by the QB wasn't one of them.

agree with most of your post but to say that Mistakes by the QB was not one of the reasons we lost that game is wrong. I have watched the game over as well and if you rewatch the game you will see that Kaep had a very very bad game.

He was almost picked off 2 times in the endzone, and a few other times as well, he almost got VD killed and did end up getting Mario killed and over for the season. Very bad lead passes and late passes all night long.

I could go on and on about other plays from our QB play in that game but will leave it there......it was one of the worse overall games the 49ers have ever played and QB play was at the top of the list in this game.