There are 166 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Offensive Line Play

9 teams in a row have lost in Seattle. We get our shot at revenge 8 Dec...by then we'll have Manningham and possibly Crabtree back for Kap. On defense we'll have Dial, Carradine, Wright, etc. Iupati said it best...OL didn't play well in Seattle, they'll bounce back. This team's resilient...count on it.
  • cciowa
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 25,230
Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
9 teams in a row have lost in Seattle. We get our shot at revenge 8 Dec...by then we'll have Manningham and possibly Crabtree back for Kap. On defense we'll have Dial, Carradine, Wright, etc. Iupati said it best...OL didn't play well in Seattle, they'll bounce back. This team's resilient...count on it.

i am really not sure if we will have dial or tank this year at all
They were terrible against Seattle... in both run and pass. Hopefully, they bounce back.

Pass pro against Green Bay was quite good I thought. Run blocking could have been better, but Green Bay was clearly stacking the box against the run.

Overall, I'd say our OL is playing at an average level right now. Certainly not like on of the best OLs in the league. They have that ability, but they need to pull it together going forward.
I think they will run against .500 and lower teams. When they play against top teams it becomes a matter of formation. When teams put 8 in the box it's difficult to run but if they break through the line the field is open for a long gainer. The odds are good that they pop some long runs this week, they are due.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Man, does anyone else in here see the irony in this? This is the EXACT same strategy defenses used to employ against us when we had Alex Smith and a more methodical-offense. Defenses would stack 8-9 men in the box and run blitz between the tackles. This way they'd shut down Gore AND get Alex pressured and on the run, usually, scrambling for his life hoping SOMEONE would break off their route and be open before he was murdered. Now Seattle did the same thing to CK (Gore was useless), no point in trying to run inside or outside while forcing CK on the run to make a pass play (and usually, the 1 or 2 receivers are covered). How ironic.

There are a million ways to combat this but I don't think HaRoMan "get it" quite yet.

What would you do to combat this strategy NC?
They are stacking the box with 8 guys to stop our read option and running game.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
They are stacking the box with 8 guys to stop our read option and running game.

So this is what teams are going to do. They are going to take away the run and make us one dimensional. They figure our targets consists of 2 people: VD and Q. We simply need to show teams this is death by getting the ball to QP Vance and KW. Also the backs out of the backfield. We have to make teams pay. They want to erase our single greatest advantage and then flip it on us to run at us. We can't let this happen
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
So this is what teams are going to do. They are going to take away the run and make us one dimensional. They figure our targets consists of 2 people: VD and Q. We simply need to show teams this is death by getting the ball to QP Vance and KW. Also the backs out of the backfield. We have to make teams pay. They want to erase our single greatest advantage and then flip it on us to run at us. We can't let this happen

All true. The extra man in the box is a great way to stop the run but I have 3 points. First, Eric Mangini was hired to help offensive game planning so I think a large amount responsibility rests on the coaching staff to figure this out. Secondl much of the running comes out of the Power/Big/Jumbo I so when we decide to pass in those formations we have to make teams pay for dropping that extra man into the box and leaving that hole in coverage. Miller/Gore/VD/Mcdonald are the pass threats in those formations so they're going to have to get open, and Kaep is going to have make the short throws to Miller/Gore. Third how about giving Hunter more than one snap a game.
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
They are stacking the box with 8 guys to stop our read option and running game.

So this is what teams are going to do. They are going to take away the run and make us one dimensional. They figure our targets consists of 2 people: VD and Q. We simply need to show teams this is death by getting the ball to QP Vance and KW. Also the backs out of the backfield. We have to make teams pay. They want to erase our single greatest advantage and then flip it on us to run at us. We can't let this happen

Wasn't that what teams were doing against us when Smith was QB?
Originally posted by NCommand:
Man, does anyone else in here see the irony in this? This is the EXACT same strategy defenses used to employ against us when we had Alex Smith and a more methodical-offense. Defenses would stack 8-9 men in the box and run blitz between the tackles. This way they'd shut down Gore AND get Alex pressured and on the run, usually, scrambling for his life hoping SOMEONE would break off their route and be open before he was murdered. Now Seattle did the same thing to CK (Gore was useless), no point in trying to run inside or outside while forcing CK on the run to make a pass play (and usually, the 1 or 2 receivers are covered). How ironic.

There are a million ways to combat this but I don't think HaRoMan "get it" quite yet.


Originally posted by eonblue:
What would you do to combat this strategy NC?

I'm not NC but I will answer--what the Chiefs are doing...quick hits with receivers blocking to open holes for yak. Not sure our receivers are very good at blocking but they can get in a DBs way. That and spread the field rather than stay with the read option or jumbo packages. Harbaugh/Roman seem hell bent on over powering defenses rather than out scheming them.

NC?
[ Edited by dtg_9er on Sep 22, 2013 at 7:48 AM ]
Can we please get soem screens out of this offense. And get some more 2 tight end sets. MIa killed the Colts last week with screens.