There are 162 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

49ers DEAD LAST in NFL in Receptions by Tail Backs (by a wide margin)

Originally posted by NCommand:
you DO have to take what they, literally, give you. It's a game of chess, of scheme, of recognition and adjustments. We lost on all these accounts unfortunately.

Exactly correct, A+ work
Originally posted by SoCold:
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by 9ers:
I remember when we use to pass to the running back all the time.... We fckin sucked.

Like when we passed all day long to Roger Craig, Wendall Tyler, Paul Hofer, Ricky Waters and won 5 superbowls? Sucked like that?

Do you think it's good to be last in the NFL in passes to RB's?
Like when we passed all day long to Bruce Miller but you failed to even mention him as if he wasn't even part of the team?

The fact you created such a dreadful thread makes me question why you are even a 49ers fan.

I think your thread starting privileges should be revoked until you can post a one page essay on why you are a 49er fan.

Maybe we can complain about why a our FB in the 80's got more touches than our RB

I'm happy that the 49ers did utilize their H-back Bruce Miller as pass catcher, but he is an H-back blocking FB, not a running back.

Roger Craig was a RB. He was an elusive open field runner who played RB at Nebraska where he rushed for 2,446 yards and 26 touchdowns, with an average of 6 yards per carry. He was an integral running back in Dr. Tom Osborne's I-Formation offense. Walsh played a two RB offense with Craig + Wendell Tyler for 3 years because the 49ers had Wendell Tyler and Walsh liked to have 5 weapons.

I'm sorry that you call yourself a 49er fan but are satisfied with having a below average offense despite having ~8 pro-bowl players on offense.
[ Edited by maxsmart on Apr 12, 2014 at 1:08 AM ]
Originally posted by maxsmart:
I'm happy that the 49ers did utilize their H-back Bruce Miller as pass catcher, but he is an H-back blocking FB, not a running back.

Roger Craig was a RB. He was an elusive open field runner who played RB at Nebraska where he rushed for 2,446 yards and 26 touchdowns, with an average of 6 yards per carry. He was an integral running back in Dr. Tom Osborne's I-Formation offense. Walsh played a two RB offense with Craig + Wendell Tyler for 3 years because the 49ers had Wendell Tyler and Walsh liked to have 5 weapons.

I'm sorry that you call yourself a 49er fan but are satisfied with having a below average offense despite having ~8 pro-bowl players on offense.


In what version of Earth do the 49ers have 8 pro-bowl players on offense? In what way is the 49ers offense below average?
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by SoCold:
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by 9ers:
I remember when we use to pass to the running back all the time.... We fckin sucked.

Like when we passed all day long to Roger Craig, Wendall Tyler, Paul Hofer, Ricky Waters and won 5 superbowls? Sucked like that?

Do you think it's good to be last in the NFL in passes to RB's?
Like when we passed all day long to Bruce Miller but you failed to even mention him as if he wasn't even part of the team?

The fact you created such a dreadful thread makes me question why you are even a 49ers fan.

I think your thread starting privileges should be revoked until you can post a one page essay on why you are a 49er fan.

Maybe we can complain about why a our FB in the 80's got more touches than our RB

I'm happy that the 49ers did utilize their H-back Bruce Miller as pass catcher, but he is an H-back blocking FB, not a running back.

Roger Craig was a RB. He was an elusive open field runner who played RB at Nebraska where he rushed for 2,446 yards and 26 touchdowns, with an average of 6 yards per carry. He was an integral running back in Dr. Tom Osborne's I-Formation offense. Walsh played a two RB offense with Craig + Wendell Tyler for 3 years because the 49ers had Wendell Tyler and Walsh liked to have 5 weapons.

I'm sorry that you call yourself a 49er fan but are satisfied with having a below average offense despite having ~8 pro-bowl players on offense.

dont do this. Other people are allowed to have different opinions to you. That does not make them less of a fan than you are.

And, for clarification, which 8 players from last year's O played in last year's Pro Bowl?
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,330
Originally posted by NCommand:
And against a team like Seattle, they (well everyone) knows that they only need to stack the box on first downs. After that, it's back to press, cover 3, man and rolling coverages AND utilizing a LB right at the LOS to spy on CK (while bringing the rotating heat off the edges on 2nd and 3rd downs). What does this mean? It means we now have a one-man advantage...a player that has absolutely nobody covering them. In this case, it was Gore, McDonald, Hunter and James. And with our standard go-routes and intermediate+ deeper routes, not only where these guys not covered, they had plenty of green in front of them, often times with 2 blockers out in front, man-on-man. While some cringe and revert back to the "Alex days," when you are playing a stellar defense like Seattle's who was hell-bent on stopping our intermediate passing game and CK's legs, to beat them, sometimes you DO have to take what they, literally, give you. It's a game of chess, of scheme, of recognition and adjustments. We lost on all these accounts unfortunately.

You can leave guys uncovered and free if you have a great pass rush. In 1984, I don't know how many times I saw the replays after the opposing QB is sacked and the WR was nowhere near a 49er DB and if the QB had more time, that was a TD for the opposing team. Seadderall had a great defense last year, and they still have good players - but the loss of depth hurts them in their nickel and dime coverages because that's where the depth matters. When your 5th DB goes against the opposing teams 4rth WR, defensive depth matters and if their pass rush is diminished because of a lack of D Line depth, then guy's like Kaep, Breese, and Manning will hit those 3rd and 4rth options.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,124
Originally posted by maxsmart:
I'm happy that the 49ers did utilize their H-back Bruce Miller as pass catcher, but he is an H-back blocking FB, not a running back.

Roger Craig was a RB.

We are talking about the 49ers, not the Cornhuskers.

Roger Craig played for the 49ers from 1983 to 1990.

Roger Craig played full back in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. (four years)

In 1987, he played both running back and full back.

In 1988, 1989, and 1990, he played running back. (three years)

Craig went to four Pro Bowls.
1985--fullback
1987--fullback
1988--running back
1989--running back.

I remember Craig very well and he did play both full back and half back for the 49ers.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CraiRo00.htm

You excluded Miller when you limited your vision to running backs. I still think that Miller should be included because he is a back.

  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,124
Originally posted by maxsmart:
You're right, the great teams from 80's-90's had great balance with both great running and great passing.

You excluded Bruce Miller, because he is a full back, not a running back.

But, if we look at the great teams from the 1980s and 1990s, we find that in those years the full backs were an integral aspect of our passing game.

Tom Rathman, who played almost exclusively as a full back, had 294 receptions for 2,490 yards and 8 receiving touchdowns.

As a full back, Roger Craig had 292 receptions for 2,742 yards and 13 scores.

I would not exclude the function of full back in the passing game of our great teams from the 1980s and the 1990s.

Nor would I exclude the function of Miller in looking at our current passing game.

Oh, that is just my take.
[ Edited by buck on Apr 12, 2014 at 9:48 AM ]
that's by coaching design. simple as that. they would rather use miller as a wide out than run screens consistently.

or even have the rb's go out consistently.

won't change unless they change the play calling.
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by SoCold:
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by 9ers:
I remember when we use to pass to the running back all the time.... We fckin sucked.

Like when we passed all day long to Roger Craig, Wendall Tyler, Paul Hofer, Ricky Waters and won 5 superbowls? Sucked like that?

Do you think it's good to be last in the NFL in passes to RB's?
Like when we passed all day long to Bruce Miller but you failed to even mention him as if he wasn't even part of the team?

The fact you created such a dreadful thread makes me question why you are even a 49ers fan.

I think your thread starting privileges should be revoked until you can post a one page essay on why you are a 49er fan.


Maybe we can complain about why a our FB in the 80's got more touches than our RB

I'm happy that the 49ers did utilize their H-back Bruce Miller as pass catcher, but he is an H-back blocking FB, not a running back.

Roger Craig was a RB. He was an elusive open field runner who played RB at Nebraska where he rushed for 2,446 yards and 26 touchdowns, with an average of 6 yards per carry. He was an integral running back in Dr. Tom Osborne's I-Formation offense. Walsh played a two RB offense with Craig + Wendell Tyler for 3 years because the 49ers had Wendell Tyler and Walsh liked to have 5 weapons.

I'm sorry that you call yourself a 49er fan but are satisfied with having a below average offense despite having ~8 pro-bowl players on offense.

dont do this. Other people are allowed to have different opinions to you. That does not make them less of a fan than you are.

I was responding to his ridiculous comment . . .
The fact you created such a [u]dreadful thread makes me question why you are even a 49ers fan.

I think your thread starting privileges should be revoked until you can post a one page essay on why you are a 49er fan.[/u]


Originally posted by English:
And, for clarification, which 8 players from last year's O played in last year's Pro Bowl?
I didn't say "last years pro bowl"
Pro bowl players: 49ers who have been named to at least one pro bowl squad = Staley / Iupati / VD / Gore / Boldin / Goodwin / A Boone / A Davis / B Miller / + Kap is expected to earn $18 million per year and make several pro-bowls = 10 pro-bowl level starters on offense

Granted some were only pro-bowl alternates (Miller, Boone, A Davis ), but the point is that the 49ers have lots of talent on offense yet they only ranked 26th in offense in 2013.

The problem with the offense is NOT lack of talent, it's scheme and coaching. Specifically it's Roman (and Harbaugh? and Kap?)
[ Edited by maxsmart on Apr 12, 2014 at 12:30 PM ]
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by maxsmart:
I'm happy that the 49ers did utilize their H-back Bruce Miller as pass catcher, but he is an H-back blocking FB, not a running back.

Roger Craig was a RB.

We are talking about the 49ers, not the Cornhuskers.

Roger Craig played for the 49ers from 1983 to 1990.

Roger Craig played full back in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. (four years)

In 1987, he played both running back and full back.

In 1988, 1989, and 1990, he played running back. (three years)

Craig went to four Pro Bowls.
1985--fullback
1987--fullback
1988--running back
1989--running back.

I remember Craig very well and he did play both full back and half back for the 49ers.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CraiRo00.htm

You excluded Miller when you limited your vision to running backs. I still think that Miller should be included because he is a back.


You are comparing Roger Craig to Bruce Miler.
You may call Roger Craig a FB, but my point is that the 49ers need to get the ball to RB-type players on short passes just beyond or near the LOS. Roger Craig was a RB-type player as he had 200 carries for over 8000 yards + 5000 yards receiving. Bruce Miller is not.

Dumping the ball to a RB-type player on short passes has several advantages including: slowing down the pass rush, opening up the deep pass game, preventing the defense from doubling other players.
Originally posted by maxsmart:
I was responding to his ridiculous comment . . .
The fact you created such a [u]dreadful thread makes me question why you are even a 49ers fan.

I think your thread starting privileges should be revoked until you can post a one page essay on why you are a 49er fan.[/u]


I didn't say "last years pro bowl"
Pro bowl players: 49ers who have been named to at least one pro bowl squad = Staley / Iupati / VD / Gore / Boldin / Goodwin / A Boone / A Davis / B Miller / + Kap is expected to earn $18 million per year and make several pro-bowls = 10 pro-bowl level starters on offense

Granted some were only pro-bowl alternates (Miller, Boone, A Davis ), but the point is that the 49ers have lots of talent on offense yet they only ranked 26th in offense in 2013.

The problem with the offense is NOT lack of talent, it's scheme and coaching. Specifically it's Roman (and Harbaugh? and Kap?)

Do not hit back at other posters in thread.

Regarding the Pro Bowl, to use historic Pro Bowlers and alternates is just stretching it beyond what is justified, the point is, last year's O did NOT have a plethora of talent. Pretty much everyone except you sees this.
Originally posted by jonesadrian:
that's by coaching design. simple as that. they would rather use miller as a wide out than run screens consistently.

or even have the rb's go out consistently.

won't change unless they change the play calling.

Obviously, that's my point. The play-calling + scheme offensively is poor in this area.
Oh and just to mention, how many 49ers from the O actually played in last year's Pro Bowl?
Originally posted by English:
. . . the point is, last year's O did NOT have a plethora of talent. Pretty much everyone except you sees this.

I disagree. The 49ers did have a lot of talent:
Offensive Line: Excellent = was considered the "best in the NFL" my many analysts! (all 5 with history of pro-bowl mention)
Running Backs: Excellent = Frank Gore = pro-bowler and Miller + Hunter also good RB & FB
Tight End: Excellent VD Pro-bowl + (McDonald) 2nd rd back-up
QB: They want to pay Kap $18 mil/year
WR: Boldin (excellent) + Crabtree. They had the injury at WR, so they were depleted there, but ended up with 3 good WR's.

Also, on offense the 49ers had SIX 1st rd picks and FOUR 2nd rd picks. The Seahawks had only FOUR 1st and TWO 2nd rd picks, yet they were better on offense, despite 49ers having better talent.

Some examples of 49ers under-utilizing talent:
*The 49ers had more talent than the Seahawks at OL / TE / WR and QB?
Yet the Seahawks were able to get more offensive production from their inferior talent.
Their 5th rd TE and their UDFA WR's out-performed our 2nd rd TE and WR's.
* 49ers were last in the NFL in passes to RB's despite having elusive RB's in Gore, Hunter and LMJ
* Ted Ginn did pretty well in Miami and also in Carolina. Yet we never threw him the deep ball. Why couldn't our offense get the fastest guy in the NFL the ball a few times on deep throws when the defense was stacking the LOS against us?

I don't think that our offense coaches properly utilize our weapons.
[ Edited by maxsmart on Apr 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM ]
Originally posted by English:
last year's O did NOT have a plethora of talent. Pretty much everyone except you sees this.

Why do you think out offensive production was below average or average at best?

You think out offensive talent is average? or below average?

Other than speed WR, where are the weak spots on our offense?
[ Edited by maxsmart on Apr 12, 2014 at 1:09 PM ]