Glad that this interview is getting it's own thread. It was originally referenced elsewhere by a very astute and thought provoking poster, can't recall his name
Most of the comments here seem to validate Young's observations while trying to criticize them. A lot of folks here are posting about how the Pistol is just a formation, Kaep is a quality pocket passer, and so on. In other words, so what if the pistol is a fad, Kap is way more than the pistol....
But what makes Kap Kap is the dual threat. This dude is built like a Mack truck 6'5" can see over his lineman has rocket arm AND runs like a freakin gazelle. Can we realistically exploit that?
Question: do we see any more designed runs besides the read option out of the Pistol for CK in the future? Or is this attack philosophy going the way of the dodo bird? That's the real question. As mentioned originally, both ATL & BAL had success keeping yards from designed runs to a minimum for CK. Our record against those teams is .500. Obviously we have to do better. A lot of people say we need another receiver, a deep threat, etc. True, but we can always whine about something. And we overlook the unusual luck SF enjoyed this year starting the same 5 offensive lineman every game. That happens about as often as an asteroid hits the earth.
A great staff knows how to make a winning stew from what's in the fridge. We had enough in the fridge for a SB this year. Didn't happen. Do we have what it takes to survive the Darwinian battle of strategy, counter, counter the counter, and so on that we can expect with every team having 10 games worth of tape to study on CK. I think that is what Young was apprehensive about. That's why he felt the pistol was a trendy thing, not of import in the long run.
I don't care about the Pistol so much. But what's important is if/how can we keep this kid running wild without taking a pounding. Not sure there is a real answer here.
We're already toning him down. In the Super Bowl, he had room to improvise to the outside on key plays and didn't do it. Not to our benefit, in the short run anyway.