There are 68 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What do the 49ers need to be a better team?

What do the 49ers need to be a better team?

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Um, just check the past few pages..

Um I did. Saw nothing. What postrs
dupe
[ Edited by brodiebluebanaszak on Feb 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM ]
They need the Seahawks not in their division. But unfortunately that won't happen.
Originally posted by thl408:
Teams rarely go split back anymore. It was used to get the RBs into their routes quicker by having them line up closer to the edge of the formation, which is why Walsh used it often. Nowadays, teams would just rather place a guy in the slot. Going split also telegraphs which side of the formation a run play would go (FB as lead blocker). I wouldn't count on the 49ers using a split back look. I do see them use offset I-formation though.

I'm not following how slot formations substitute for dual half back pro sets. But, my point is that when you have miller + gore in the backfield the ball always goes to gore and other teams tee off on that. Running an I formation won't change that. If you have hunter plus gore, and they go 2 different directions, the d can't really jump the line, they have to wait to see where the q will go with the ball.

Isn't that reasonable?
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
They need the Seahawks not in their division. But unfortunately that won't happen.

Oh we can beat those guys. We need to change some things that's all to do it consistently.
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
They need the Seahawks not in their division. But unfortunately that won't happen.

Oh we can beat those guys. We need to change some things that's all to do it consistently.

We haven't even faced them with Harvin much and his speed. He was a killer in the Super Bowl. They beat us all the time without him. With him it will be even tougher.
  • fropwns
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 12,976
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
They need the Seahawks not in their division. But unfortunately that won't happen.

Oh we can beat those guys. We need to change some things that's all to do it consistently.

We haven't even faced them with Harvin much and his speed. He was a killer in the Super Bowl. They beat us all the time without him. With him it will be even tougher.
All the time?
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by thl408:
Teams rarely go split back anymore. It was used to get the RBs into their routes quicker by having them line up closer to the edge of the formation, which is why Walsh used it often. Nowadays, teams would just rather place a guy in the slot. Going split also telegraphs which side of the formation a run play would go (FB as lead blocker). I wouldn't count on the 49ers using a split back look. I do see them use offset I-formation though.

I'm not following how slot formations substitute for dual half back pro sets. But, my point is that when you have miller + gore in the backfield the ball always goes to gore and other teams tee off on that. Running an I formation won't change that. If you have hunter plus gore, and they go 2 different directions, the d can't really jump the line, they have to wait to see where the q will go with the ball.

Isn't that reasonable?

Instead of using a split back formation, which is a passing formation by nature since it creeps the RBs closer to the edge of the formation, which allows the RBs to quickly get into open space, teams will just go with a slot WR instead. If you are referring to using Hunter and Gore in a split back formation, with the intention of not allowing the defense to clue in on which RB will get the ball, then you are asking for one of Hunter or Gore to lead block, which is not their strength.

Running out of a traditional I allows the run play to go either left or right. Using split back with a traditional RB/FB split allows the defense to know which side the run play goes to, assuming the FB is always the lead blocker.

I am not clear on the bolded. Q formation of QB?
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
They need the Seahawks not in their division. But unfortunately that won't happen.

Oh we can beat those guys. We need to change some things that's all to do it consistently.

You know, as an SC guy, I've seen the Seahawks defense before. I've also seen what beats that defense.

EVERY time SC went up against a team that had a running qb that could also get the ball out of their hands quickly, they lost. Dennis Dixon at Oregon was the master. The other player / type of player was Jaquiz(sp) Rogers for Oregon St.. He was able to take advantage of SC's/PC's defenses tendency to be overly aggressive. His quick cuts to the other side, once the D committed, always netted big yards.

The 49ers have both those players (Kaep just needs to pitch it faster)(James just needs to play), they also have Lattimore who showed the same knack for taking advantage of overly aggressive pursuit.

Maybe the key to beating the Seahawks lies in PC's tenure at SC.
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by thl408:
Teams rarely go split back anymore. It was used to get the RBs into their routes quicker by having them line up closer to the edge of the formation, which is why Walsh used it often. Nowadays, teams would just rather place a guy in the slot. Going split also telegraphs which side of the formation a run play would go (FB as lead blocker). I wouldn't count on the 49ers using a split back look. I do see them use offset I-formation though.

I'm not following how slot formations substitute for dual half back pro sets. But, my point is that when you have miller + gore in the backfield the ball always goes to gore and other teams tee off on that. Running an I formation won't change that. If you have hunter plus gore, and they go 2 different directions, the d can't really jump the line, they have to wait to see where the q will go with the ball.

Isn't that reasonable?

Instead of using a split back formation, which is a passing formation by nature since it creeps the RBs closer to the edge of the formation, which allows the RBs to quickly get into open space, teams will just go with a slot WR instead. If you are referring to using Hunter and Gore in a split back formation, with the intention of not allowing the defense to clue in on which RB will get the ball, then you are asking for one of Hunter or Gore to lead block, which is not their strength.

Running out of a traditional I allows the run play to go either left or right. Using split back with a traditional RB/FB split allows the defense to know which side the run play goes to, assuming the FB is always the lead blocker.

I am not clear on the bolded. Q formation of QB?

Brodie, I may have rambled in my previous post. What I should have just said is that instead of using a split back formation to pass out of, teams now will just place the player even closer to the LoS (edge of the formation) by putting him in the slot. This is with the notion that teams no longer run the ball out of the split back look.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
We haven't even faced them with Harvin much and his speed. He was a killer in the Super Bowl. They beat us all the time without him. With him it will be even tougher.

Stop taking peyote dude. It makes you paranoid. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Please, don't ever watch a movie in a crowded theater. Ha ha.

Our record against Seattle over the last two years is 2-3. What do you mean they beat us all the time? Harvin is a nice addition for them, but he's not a cure all. You will find his impact to be primarily against bad defensive teams.

Seattle is still in need of impact skill position players. They don't have a lot at TE. Not a lot at WR. Not a lot behind Lynch at RB. (I like turbin though. he's a good back up).

In fact, one of the things that makes me very angry is to think that we have Crabs, Davis, Gore, Boldin, Miller. Any of these guys would be instantly in the Seattle rotation. They would kill to have players like that. They know they are not going to the super bowl again with having a mini-me fran tarkenton running around like a crazy person improv'ing passes because the whole world is keying on marshawn lynch. Didn't really fly this year, won't fly next year either.

In fact, they are a lot like us on offense -- kind of desperate to make things right. Their defense hides a lot of inadequacies and we saw that at Candlestick.

Just like us, the answer isn't one simple thing -- one flashy free agent signing.

Plus, I see them losing staff too.

However, you will be pleased to know that they will continue to have the edge against us if we can't find a way to get their frickin linebackers off the line of scrimmage. That might entail something like a short passing game being developed in San Fran, which I think isn't likely to happen.
Originally posted by thl408:
Brodie, I may have rambled in my previous post. What I should have just said is that instead of using a split back formation to pass out of, teams now will just place the player even closer to the LoS (edge of the formation) by putting him in the slot. This is with the notion that teams no longer run the ball out of the split back look.

Ok, thanks for your explanation. I was actually proposing running out of a Hunter/Gore backfield to keep our run play selection from being so predictable. Also, why not pass out of a pro set? I think that would be a helpful addition to the playbook, as we neglect getting the ball to rb's in the air. Don't rb's get better matchups starting their routes from the backfield instead of the slot? they will usually be covered by an lb instead of a cb?

I'm desperately throwing some ideas out so that we don't keep smashing our head against over playing, over keying front 7's like seattle, carolina, arizona.

The real reason we lost to seattle was because we had no viable run strategy, no effectiveness there. The Kap turnovers in the 4th quarter were a result of that.
Originally posted by kronik:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
We got beat the last 3 times out of 4 times we played them. Several by blowout margins in their favor. They are better.

3 of last 4 games have been at their house though. I guess that doesn't count? So tired of your whining and b***hin throughout the years. Everything is so dramatic to you. Still don't understand why you won't become a charger fan.

He actually would fit in being a Charger ' s fan. Most of them don't know s**t either!
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by thl408:
Teams rarely go split back anymore. It was used to get the RBs into their routes quicker by having them line up closer to the edge of the formation, which is why Walsh used it often. Nowadays, teams would just rather place a guy in the slot. Going split also telegraphs which side of the formation a run play would go (FB as lead blocker). I wouldn't count on the 49ers using a split back look. I do see them use offset I-formation though.

I'm not following how slot formations substitute for dual half back pro sets. But, my point is that when you have miller + gore in the backfield the ball always goes to gore and other teams tee off on that. Running an I formation won't change that. If you have hunter plus gore, and they go 2 different directions, the d can't really jump the line, they have to wait to see where the q will go with the ball.

Isn't that reasonable?

Instead of using a split back formation, which is a passing formation by nature since it creeps the RBs closer to the edge of the formation, which allows the RBs to quickly get into open space, teams will just go with a slot WR instead. If you are referring to using Hunter and Gore in a split back formation, with the intention of not allowing the defense to clue in on which RB will get the ball, then you are asking for one of Hunter or Gore to lead block, which is not their strength.

Running out of a traditional I allows the run play to go either left or right. Using split back with a traditional RB/FB split allows the defense to know which side the run play goes to, assuming the FB is always the lead blocker.

I am not clear on the bolded. Q formation of QB?

Brodie, I may have rambled in my previous post. What I should have just said is that instead of using a split back formation to pass out of, teams now will just place the player even closer to the LoS (edge of the formation) by putting him in the slot. This is with the notion that teams no longer run the ball out of the split back look.

I actually posted prior to the NFCCG that we should run split back sometimes. It would make the defense either play in a nickel or make a LB cover a skill player in space. The Rams ran this in the Warner days and the Chargers did under Air Coryell.
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
We haven't even faced them with Harvin much and his speed. He was a killer in the Super Bowl. They beat us all the time without him. With him it will be even tougher.

Stop taking peyote dude. It makes you paranoid. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Please, don't ever watch a movie in a crowded theater. Ha ha.

Our record against Seattle over the last two years is 2-3. What do you mean they beat us all the time? Harvin is a nice addition for them, but he's not a cure all. You will find his impact to be primarily against bad defensive teams.

Seattle is still in need of impact skill position players. They don't have a lot at TE. Not a lot at WR. Not a lot behind Lynch at RB. (I like turbin though. he's a good back up).

In fact, one of the things that makes me very angry is to think that we have Crabs, Davis, Gore, Boldin, Miller. Any of these guys would be instantly in the Seattle rotation. They would kill to have players like that. They know they are not going to the super bowl again with having a mini-me fran tarkenton running around like a crazy person improv'ing passes because the whole world is keying on marshawn lynch. Didn't really fly this year, won't fly next year either.

In fact, they are a lot like us on offense -- kind of desperate to make things right. Their defense hides a lot of inadequacies and we saw that at Candlestick.

Just like us, the answer isn't one simple thing -- one flashy free agent signing.

Plus, I see them losing staff too.

However, you will be pleased to know that they will continue to have the edge against us if we can't find a way to get their frickin linebackers off the line of scrimmage. That might entail something like a short passing game being developed in San Fran, which I think isn't likely to happen.

He's being cowardly again.. as usual. According to him, the niners are the worst team in the history of the NFL and Seattle the greatest thing since sliced bread. Obviously too young to have watched a real dynasty back in the 80's. Dude's a fan from another city, don't take him too seriously. He's been whining and b***hin since the site has been created.
[ Edited by kronik on Feb 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM ]