Play-by-play Passing game review

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Bummer for the CK fans too: "Chip Kelly on Kaepernick: "I don't think he's ready to go full-time"

You are not a CK fan?
I am a Niner fan which means I am also a CK fan, it is a shame you are not.

Could you please post Gabbert's completion percentage? All I have is the one that shows up in the box score which you think is not real.

Your problem is you are so QB focused you don't appear to recognize any other component of the game.

Do you have any comment on the design and sequencing of the pass plays that Kelly?Modkins called? Do you disagree with my observation that the majority of the play calls were designed to gain 10 yards or less?

Your problem is that you dislike Kaepernick so much that you will do anything to make excuses for Gabbert's play which has been perhaps the worst of any starter in the NFL this year. Gabbert is the same player he has always been.

Who is fixated on what? I put up a lengthy post that detailed every pass play and all the visible components of those plays with observations about each...and all you can talk about is the play of the QB. You have yet to even acknowledge anything else was said.

Now, as I said above, nothing further from me.

I made an observation about the QB play that I didn't see in your analysis. The QB accuracy is the elephant in the room that is your post.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

He turned himself around to get the pass, that ball should lead him and he should be in a position to see the field and keep running as he catches it.
There was no chance of YAC because it was a poorly executed pass that should have been easy.

Thanks for this thread. I agree on that play there was nothing Gabbert or Vance could do for RAC. Chancellor was playing off coverage which is the best way to attack a flat route. Watch the throw, take the proper angle, smash the WR. On a route like that, the defender needs to be in a trail position for RAC to take place.

Regardless of result, do you think the ball was thrown where it should be or was it a poor throw? Even with a little more space there would have been little a receiver could have done with that pass IMO.

Originally posted by Kense:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Well, if that's how you interpret his work, do one yourself...the antithesis of it.

Do what myself

Really? You aren't sure what he is talking about? What is the title of this thread, it might give you an idea of what he is asking.

Only because he knows Kaepernick is not at playing weight or 100% it was obvious watching him run in the pre season. He looked slow and frail.

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Count Kelly in as one of the delusionals. He's been saying the same thing the last 2 weeks. It's the offense as a whole, not solely on Gabbert.

Originally posted by Kense:
Only because he knows Kaepernick is not at playing weight or 100% it was obvious watching him run in the pre season. He looked slow and frail.

.

Looking at that list, we need Boldin back lol

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
He turned himself around to get the pass, that ball should lead him and he should be in a position to see the field and keep running as he catches it.
There was no chance of YAC because it was a poorly executed pass that should have been easy.

Thanks for this thread. I agree on that play there was nothing Gabbert or Vance could do for RAC. Chancellor was playing off coverage which is the best way to attack a flat route. Watch the throw, take the proper angle, smash the WR. On a route like that, the defender needs to be in a trail position for RAC to take place.

Regardless of result, do you think the ball was thrown where it should be or was it a poor throw? Even with a little more space there would have been little a receiver could have done with that pass IMO.

I hope we are talking about the same play. I am referring to Gabbert's first pass of the game. It was Double Slants to his left, Curl-Flat (I think) to his right. SEA is in man coverage.
Double Slants can beat man coverage. Curl-Flat is a zone buster.
Two things to take note of. Notice the yellow LB lined up out wide with Hyde. This screams man coverage. Chancellor is off coverage against Vance. Any flat route that is being defended by a safety that is able to attack downhill has no chance of working unless the safety misses the tackle.


Had Gabbert looked to Double Slants, he would see that orange LB defeats the inside slant. The other slant, can't tell who, beats his man off the LoS and that should/would have been the target.


My main point, and I think the basis of this string of quotes, is that Gabbert could have placed this throw perfectly one foot in front of the numbers and it would not have mattered because it was the incorrect read. The correct read is to the Double Slants, not the Curl-Flat which is what Gabbert targeted. This is a case of incorrect read not bad ball location to the target.

What is the fundamental problem? I can't wait to see the all-22 because it looks to me like our weak receivers were blanketed the whole game. This is due to lousy personnel and atrocious play-calling. Throw in the fact that Gabbert is scattershot and it's a perfect storm. Why does anyone care about putting Kap in? Watch him look just as bad, or worse. Neither quarterback is accurate, so who cares?

Originally posted by insanemike27:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by insanemike27:
Just as I suspected after reading this same thread after last weeks game. Blame everything on either play design, play call or the receiver running a bad route.

Gabbert must be the greatest 50% completion, 5 ypa passer anyone has ever seen.

If you actually read the thread, I blamed all three areas at various times and sometimes all at the same time. So I guess you jus take what you want.

I want you to pick one pass play that was clearly Gabbert's fault and be critical of it. I mean you even blamed the RB for Gabbert hitting him in the back of the helmet. That ball needs to be out in front. Your breakdown of the passing plays are really good but your bias is what is frustrating.

From my OP: "Perfect pass would have been very catchable..."

I also cited Gabbert for the low throw on the slant to Smith that forced Smith to go to his knees thereby negating an opportunity for an additional 3-5 yards RAC.

There were others.

I appreciate the time you put into breaking the offense down. I would like to know why are we not running any motion to get a favorable match up. We can only assume, but Chip is calling plays to the strength of the quarterback. I do not think Chip or Gabbert trust Gabbert to push the ball down the field.

Yes

Originally posted by Jcool:
.

Originally posted by Afrikan:

Originally posted by insanemike27:
Just as I suspected after reading this same thread after last weeks game. Blame everything on either play design, play call or the receiver running a bad route.

Gabbert must be the greatest 50% completion, 5 ypa passer anyone has ever seen.

"Gabbert didn't have any really horrible passes yesterday" "he also didn't have any throws that made you go wow." (from my OP)

"The lack of quality receivers may be forcing him to play more timid than we would like." This is a speculative observation that calls up the point that has been discussed at length in several threads on the quality of the receivers.

Gabbert has been consistent for most of his career. He plays timid most of the time when the scores are close. Yes, he does not have a reputation as a gunslinger, however, his time spent with any remote level of quality around him is small.

being down by 20 pts though... shiiiiit there might not be anyone better. This may be true from what we have seen of Kaepernick and Ponder.

My responses in bold.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by Afrikan:
Oldman used to do that for Alex, but it was obvious he had a bias in his approach/agenda.

and you've been doing the same...

and the same was being done in the film threads last year.

If it smells like BS, it will be called out... especially when we keep seeing the same garbage s**t, yet someone is telling us differently.

Well that certainly is calling me out. What was I doing last year in the film threads that gave you the impression I had a bias/agenda towards Gabbert? I thought I showed his good and bad plays and at no point did I think he was the answer at QB, which means I never spoke glowingly of Gabbert on a whole. Perhaps a play here and there where praise was warranted, but not as a comprehensive review.

I think anyone who has followed those threads knows I wasn't talking about you thl408. And if I say his name specifically, I thought that might put you in awkward position.

Originally posted by northoakland510:
I appreciate the time you put into breaking the offense down. I would like to know why are we not running any motion to get a favorable match up. We can only assume, but Chip is calling plays to the strength of the quarterback. I do not think Chip or Gabbert trust Gabbert to push the ball down the field.

Thank you.

I too question the play design and calls. As I noted in the OB, it is unclear if Kelly does not trust his players to execute anything more intricate that what we are currently seeing. It may be that Kelly does not trust Gabbert. It may be equally true that he does not trust his wide outs as well. From the couple of times when 49er receivers were interfering with each other on simple routes, I suspect there are varying amounts of both.

Originally posted by audick:

What is the fundamental problem? I can't wait to see the all-22 because it looks to me like our weak receivers were blanketed the whole game. This is due to lousy personnel and atrocious play-calling. Throw in the fact that Gabbert is scattershot and it's a perfect storm. Why does anyone care about putting Kap in? Watch him look just as bad, or worse. Neither quarterback is accurate, so who cares?

Lol. Pretty much.