49ers are handicapped by using a full time Full Back..

Tom Rathman is gonna hunt the OP down in his sleep.

Miller is a vital piece to the offense even more vital than Stevie will be...And I love me some Stevie..

LMAO! You do know there was football before the spread and pistol formations. Tell Coach Rathman that the fullback is irrelevant. A team doesn't have to win the way everyone else thinks is a cool way to win. A team wins by putting points on the board any way they can. That's who we are.

Actually I think having a great fullback in an era when nobody is using one is all the more reason to use him as often as possible. When everyone else is running spreads and pistols defenses respond with finesse and speed on the defensive side of the ball. Being able to buck the trend and hit them in the teeth is a powerful weapon. The thing that changes now is we have the ability to do both by finally being fully loaded for bare at WR. We can spread em out early getting them running and then when they are winded and tired....bludgeon them to death.

Let's just start with using the weapons at hand in a more modern/creative way and mix in some play calling that's more reminiscent of the sweet science.... Then go from there

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by crake49:

Originally posted by JustinNiner:
but bruce miller is also a good receiver out of the backfield and has the talents to line up every where. i get what you are saying though but roman loves fullbacks

This is why I can easily imagine them mixing in a one-back set with Miller as an outlet.

we have to keep the defense on their toes and account for the RB/FB ..it will definetly help the WR core

agreed. bruce miller's versatility makes opposing defenses keep an eye on him because he is like most fullbacks who never even touch the ball

Nobody appreciates the FB anymore...

Originally posted by pete98146:

Thanks for the comments and they are all duly noted. I just can't agree with folks that say we are more effective with Bruce Miller on the field compared to Stevie Johnson. Hey I like Bruce Miller and I understand what he brings to the offense. Also understand that he's a good receiver out of the backfield. But I'll take the collective unit of Johnson, Crabtree, Boldin and Vernon on almost any play except short yardage.

I just think having to cover all 4 of them puts more pressure on the opposing defense than our current scheme. It also makes our offense less predictable. So instead of the defenders inching forward anticipating the run they are back peddling knowing their first assignment is to cover these 4 stellar receivers.

As a side note, it also allows us the opportunity to rotate Patton and Ellington which gives them much needed game time experience. If Crabtree does bolt for greener pastures next year, they have much more PT under their belts.

Last but not least, the torch is being passed on from Gore to Hyde. I see Hyde as a more physical runner than Frankie and accordingly I don't see the need for a lead FB to make that extra block because I think he's got the ability to break that initial tackle and rumble for 4-5 yards a carry.

Again, thanks for all the points of view but I'm sticking my guns on this one...

Ask the broncos how "covering four people" worked for them in the super bowl against a legitimate defense.

Originally posted by dayday44:

Originally posted by pete98146:
Thanks for the comments and they are all duly noted. I just can't agree with folks that say we are more effective with Bruce Miller on the field compared to Stevie Johnson. Hey I like Bruce Miller and I understand what he brings to the offense. Also understand that he's a good receiver out of the backfield. But I'll take the collective unit of Johnson, Crabtree, Boldin and Vernon on almost any play except short yardage.

I just think having to cover all 4 of them puts more pressure on the opposing defense than our current scheme. It also makes our offense less predictable. So instead of the defenders inching forward anticipating the run they are back peddling knowing their first assignment is to cover these 4 stellar receivers.

As a side note, it also allows us the opportunity to rotate Patton and Ellington which gives them much needed game time experience. If Crabtree does bolt for greener pastures next year, they have much more PT under their belts.

Last but not least, the torch is being passed on from Gore to Hyde. I see Hyde as a more physical runner than Frankie and accordingly I don't see the need for a lead FB to make that extra block because I think he's got the ability to break that initial tackle and rumble for 4-5 yards a carry.

Again, thanks for all the points of view but I'm sticking my guns on this one...

Ask the broncos how "covering four people" worked for them in the super bowl against a legitimate defense.

Legitimate

Originally posted by pete98146:
Thanks for the comments and they are all duly noted. I just can't agree with folks that say we are more effective with Bruce Miller on the field compared to Stevie Johnson. Hey I like Bruce Miller and I understand what he brings to the offense. Also understand that he's a good receiver out of the backfield. But I'll take the collective unit of Johnson, Crabtree, Boldin and Vernon on almost any play except short yardage.

I just think having to cover all 4 of them puts more pressure on the opposing defense than our current scheme. It also makes our offense less predictable. So instead of the defenders inching forward anticipating the run they are back peddling knowing their first assignment is to cover these 4 stellar receivers.

As a side note, it also allows us the opportunity to rotate Patton and Ellington which gives them much needed game time experience. If Crabtree does bolt for greener pastures next year, they have much more PT under their belts.

Last but not least, the torch is being passed on from Gore to Hyde. I see Hyde as a more physical runner than Frankie and accordingly I don't see the need for a lead FB to make that extra block because I think he's got the ability to break that initial tackle and rumble for 4-5 yards a carry.

Again, thanks for all the points of view but I'm sticking my guns on this one...

Good points. I'm curious what you really mean by more 3WR sets. Does this mean to also pass more, or just use more 3WR sets, but keep a run first mentality from a single back formation? Running the ball against an opponent's nickel package is a matchup opportunity. Hyde rarely ran with a FB in college so we know he can do that.

To the bolded, it should be by situation, whether SJ>Miller. (I said SJ>Miller earlier in the thread, but that was in a vacuum, who is the better player.) What do you think about matchups between offense vs defense? Do you think a team should stick to a certain offensive style and perfect it, or play a multiple scheme that tries to adapt? Given the roster to do either. Honest question. To me, there are pros and cons to each.

NOTMADDEN.COM

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by Since07:
Bruce Miller > Steve Johnson

Debatable. Obviously they bring completely different skill sets to the table. SJ has proven success over a longer period of time. Miller plays a position that has high value in a run first offense.

That's not debatable. I'd rather have Johnson on the field. Miller caught a lot of balls because teams weren't expecting it and because Kap had no other receivers who he trusted (or saw depending on your opinion). Our full back shouldn't have been the third leading receiver. Stevie Johnson can do way more damage. He can block as well.

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by Since07:
Bruce Miller > Steve Johnson

Debatable. Obviously they bring completely different skill sets to the table. SJ has proven success over a longer period of time. Miller plays a position that has high value in a run first offense.

That's not debatable. I'd rather have Johnson on the field. Miller caught a lot of balls because teams weren't expecting it and because Kap had no other receivers who he trusted (or saw depending on your opinion). Our full back shouldn't have been the third leading receiver. Stevie Johnson can do way more damage. He can block as well.

So what if Miller caught the ball because teams aren't expecting it? Is that bad?

To me, it's debatable on a per game basis, even a per drive basis. If Miller is having success lead blocking and acting as a joker, and the pass protection isn't holding up, then SJ plays less, for that stretch in the game. If the defense can't handle 4 WRs and Kap has time to throw, then SJ plays more, for that game. It's not black and white as SJ>Miller, or Miller>SJ. They do different things and their degree of effectiveness differs depending on the defense they are facing. The roster is that talented where this debate can take place. Maybe I just overestimate Miller, or you underestimate him. I know for sure I do not underestimate SJ.

edit: I think I know what you meant by Miller caught passes because teams didn't expect it. Meaning he didn't run a great route to get open, they just left him open. Whatever works. If they start paying attention to a FB in the flats, that opens up a more enticing area of the field. Other times, he's short over the middle acting as a solid outlet.

Miller is a key component to the offense. He keeps Kap upright and blasts holes for the running backs. He's a great outlet receiver. If he had been healthy for the NFC Championship game.......................who knows?

Do they still say "derp" around these parts. If so, "DERP."