How did Singletary....

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:
The bottom line is we were CLEARLY more efficient (and efficient period) at running than passing (not efficient period).

Originally posted by candlestick49er :
Wait, didn't you agree that we were predictable and our lack of creativity allowed defenses to stack the box? You said yourself that defenses knew we were going to run, yet we still ran up the gut. We STILL ran against those 8-9 man boxes and went nowhere most of the time. You're basically saying that we were efficient despite having a lack of success running into a wall.

When defenses load up against our runs, we go nowhere (not efficient)

When defenses load up against the Jets, they are still able to get solid yardage (efficient)

When I think of smash mouth football the Washington Hogs come to mind. They could move the LOS forward with 11 in the box.

Originally posted by andes14:
We were a good team that barely ever had to enter catch up mode.

Originally posted by candlestick49er :
We were a talented team, but not a good team due to poor coaching. Ok maybe its unfair for me to say we had to enter "catch up" mode a lot, but we did enter situations that were unfavorable (ex: putting ourselves in 3rd & long). We were rarely in situations where we could run our way to victory, therefore we had to open up the pass (regardless of how ineffective we were through the air).

Talented but not good is well stated. A good team does not start one failed RG, two rookies at LG and RT, with a back-up center in his first starting year. How is that line considered good? In retrospect, the line did fairly well under these circumstances. The experience level was not there and it showed. WRs were inexperienced as well and none of them have proven to be NFL caliber. Once again, how can they be considered "good."

We were talking about the 2009 niners.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
He also averaged 5.5 yards per carry on 1st and 10 btw.

Interesting. Can you provide a link for this stat? I'm not doubting you, I just want access to the same information you're using.

Originally posted by andes14:
The bottom line is we were CLEARLY more efficient (and efficient period) at running than passing (not efficient period).

Wait, didn't you agree that we were predictable and our lack of creativity allowed defenses to stack the box? You said yourself that defenses knew we were going to run, yet we still ran up the gut. We STILL ran against those 8-9 man boxes and went nowhere most of the time. You're basically saying that we were efficient despite having a lack of success running into a wall.

When defenses load up against our runs, we go nowhere (not efficient)

When defenses load up against the Jets, they are still able to get solid yardage (efficient)

Originally posted by andes14:
We were a good team that barely ever had to enter catch up mode.

We were a talented team, but not a good team due to poor coaching. Ok maybe its unfair for me to say we had to enter "catch up" mode a lot, but we did enter situations that were unfavorable (ex: putting ourselves in 3rd & long). We were rarely in situations where we could run our way to victory, therefore we had to open up the pass (regardless of how ineffective we were through the air).

Originally posted by andes14:
There's absolutely no way that when you take those 2 things into account, that you'd finish THIRTIETH in the league in rushing attempts if you have a truly "run, run, run some more" oriented HC. Sing did indeed say that's what he was, but the facts just happen to tell a different story. Don't you think if a coach legitimately had that mentality, he would run ALL THE TIME with: a. a way better running game than passing game and b. almost never being in a situation of being forced to pass? Again, only TWO teams ran less. TWO. DOS. DEUX. DOIS. ZWEI.

You said yourself that ALL coaches pass more than they run, so my answer is NO...he would not run ALL THE TIME.

A. Its true that our running game was somewhat better than our passing game, but that doesn't mean our running game was good. In my opinion, we weren't efficient on the ground because we were unimaginative with our run plays. We couldn't dominate on the ground against solid defenses who gameplanned for Gore.

B. We definitely found ourselves in passing situations, so its unreasonable to say we were never forced to pass.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/8479/year/2009/frank-gore

It doesn't matter how efficient the run game was, we were THIRTIETH in the league in rushing. That's the bottom line.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by BrianGO:

It does matter if it skews it for all 32 teams in terms of where the niners rank in pass attempts/rush attempts relative to the rest of the league. The bottom line is we have ranked higher in pass attempts relative to the rest of the league than we did rushing attempts. Look at '09...solid squad- 8 wins, the average game being a 3 point victory, and only 2 teams ran the ball less often. Throwing a few more passes in a 2 minute situation (as all teams do) does nothing to not be able to infer what that represents in terms of run/pass ratio.

Originally posted by dlance:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by BrianGO:

It does matter if it skews it for all 32 teams in terms of where the niners rank in pass attempts/rush attempts relative to the rest of the league. The bottom line is we have ranked higher in pass attempts relative to the rest of the league than we did rushing attempts. Look at '09...solid squad- 8 wins, the average game being a 3 point victory, and only 2 teams ran the ball less often. Throwing a few more passes in a 2 minute situation (as all teams do) does nothing to not be able to infer what that represents in terms of run/pass ratio.

First off all 32 teams number are not going to be Skewed the same by the 2 min drill teams like the colts just pass more then the 49er do. As for QB rushing that is basicly the same Tom brady runs with the ball too. Vick and Vince Young are going to run more. thats part of there Offense.
Stop using 3 years of stat vs 2 years of stats. your trying to prove something that really doesn't matter. I could care less about how many times they ran the ball vs pass the ball. If they ran the ball as well as Kc or the Jets i hope they would Run the ball more then pass it. Under sing they didnt run the ball worth a piss. But back to your point let use 2007 vs 2010. In 2007 they had 513 pass 357 rush in 2010 they had 401 rush 500 passes . Big Deal the stunk both years.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Talented but not good is well stated. A good team does not start one failed RG, two rookies at LG and RT, with a back-up center in his first starting year. How is that line considered good? In retrospect, the line did fairly well under these circumstances. The experience level was not there and it showed. WRs were inexperienced as well and none of them have proven to be NFL caliber. Once again, how can they be considered "good."

We were talking about the 2009 niners.

This overall discussion still revolves around the Singletary-coached 49ers. So even though we were talking about the 2009 49ers here, dtg_9er's point is still valid. We were discussing efficiency, and the 2010 49ers were NOT efficient at running the ball (just like the 2009 team).

Originally posted by andes14:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/8479/year/2009/frank-gore

Thanks.

Earlier in this thread I claimed that we weren't effective on the ground without Gore's occasional big run. In the following stats, I removed 1 "big run" (longest gain) from each game if applicable. The longest gain had to be 20+ yards to be considered a "big run". If the longest gain was 19 yards or less, I didn't remove a carry from that game. Overall, only 8 carries were removed from a total of 229 carries.

FRANK GORE'S 2009 SEASON STATS:

OPPONENT-----ATT------YDS------AVG
VS ARI------------46--------161--------3.5 (both ARI games are combined)
VS CHI------------24---------79--------3.3
VS DET------------28---------71--------2.5
VS GB--------------6----------17--------2.8 *We went into the 2nd half down 23-3
VS HOU-----------13----------32--------2.5 *We went into the 2nd half down 21-0
VS IND------------12---------27--------2.3
VS JAC------------16---------33--------2.1
VS MIN-------------1----------4---------4.0 *Gore was injured early in the game
VS PHI------------15---------70--------4.7 *We went into the 2nd half down 20-3
VS STL------------22---------73--------3.3 (both STL games are combined)
VS SEA------------23---------72--------3.1 *I removed both 80+ yard runs (both SEA games are combined)
VS TEN------------15---------83--------5.5 *Down 34-20 in the 4th quarter

These stats show 2 things:

1. We weren't efficient on the ground without Gore's occasional big runs (remember, I only removed 8 out of a total of 229 carries). We averaged less than 3.5ypc in 10 combined games and failed to get over 2.8ypc in 5 games. I don't think anybody can say that's an example of an efficient run game.

2. When we were losing by a considerable margin in the 2nd half, we had to abandon the running game (even when we were actually efficient on the ground, ex: PHI and TEN games).

Originally posted by andes14:
It doesn't matter how efficient the run game was, we were THIRTIETH in the league in rushing. That's the bottom line.

It DOES matter how efficient the run game was because it affects how often we were allowed to run. If you're not getting solid yardage consistently and you're team is losing by at least 2 scores in the 2nd half, you HAVE to pass. We were 30th in the league in rushing because (1) we couldn't do it well and (2) we had to open up the passing game because we were either losing in the 2nd half and/or the run was getting us no where.


Now back to your original question...

Originally posted by andes14:
(How did Singletary) get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball?

He said himself that he envisions a team that could impose its will. You say that his words mean nothing because stats say otherwise...but you're underestimating the power of words and how it affects one's image. Through press conferences and interviews, Singletary made it clear that he wanted a physical (fysical?) team that hits people in the mouth...a smash mouth team. At times he claimed he wanted a balanced team, but his image was already established as an old school coach that favored the run. IIRC, Singletary (or Raye?) stated in an interview that the ideal playcalling ratio should be 60% running.

You obviously base things on stats and don't agree with words creating Singletary's image. Its fine that you disagree and I respect your view...BUT the bottom line is that what people say DOES add to a person's reputation, whether you agree if it should or not.

Originally posted by andes14:
Gore averaged fewer carries per game with Singletary as HC in 09/10 than he did in 06/07/08 with Turner/Hostler/Martz running the offense

The stats you brought up show that Gore DID average fewer carries in 09-10 compared to 06-08...but there are many factors as to WHY this is the case. Stats aren't that simple because specific situations have to be taken into consideration.

Originally posted by andes14:
I never understood how there are all these articles talking about how all Sing did was run, run, run despite 8 and 9 men in the box.

Singletary's offensive philosophy was smash mouth football and pounding the rock. Obviously he wasn't gonna literally run EVERY down, but his intention and gameplan every week was to establish the ground game. As for his willingness to run directly up the gut against 8-9 man boxes, you seen it yourself. You agreed several times that we weren't creative on offense and ran against a stacked box. Basically...

Question: Why did all these articles talk about Sing running despite 8 and 9 men in the box?

Answer: Because we DID run often against 8 and 9 men in the box.

Originally posted by andes14:
The stats just don't back that up.

Stats can be manipulated and/or interpreted differently. This is why I prefer making judgments on what I SEE happening on the field, not what a stat sheet tells me. However, stats are definitely useful and I do like analyzing them as well sometimes...but I feel that watching the games with my own eyes speaks more truth than numbers can.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by 49erRider:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by tankle104:
he would run alot in beginging of games.. and pass pass pass to catch up. it was a sad sad offense. very seldom did it work.. and if it wasnt for our defense being a lil above average then we would of lost alot more games. like the bears game.. we got 5 int and they still almost won. several games like that.

Are all my posts invisible? I've said so many times already...the running all the time at the beginning argument doesn't hold any weight considering he had only 7 more first half carries over the last 2 years than 2nd half carries...and considering he had 5 first half carries in that Arizona game where he didn't play the 2nd half...it's essentially just a difference of 2. That neutralizes the whole "beginning of games" argument. As for catching up, yes we had to play catch up the last 2 years, but we also had to play catch up the previous 3 years so how is that relevant? In fact, we had to play catch up even more often from '06-'08 since we won an average of 6.3 games those 3 years as opposed to winning an average of 7 games in '09/'10. So we were actually better the last 2 years, yet still threw more and ran less.

What do average wins per year have to do with playing catch up? You do understand that being down by a small amount would still allow you to run the football, right? You fail to take situations into account when looking at your numbers.

Our average game from '06-'08 was a 6.27 point loss...our average game in '09/'10 was a .25 point win. We were clearly playing catch up more often back then.

That still has nothing to do with how often we rushed. You can still run the football being down by ONE TD.

As I said earlier, you fail to take situations into consideration. An average 6 point loss doesn't mean the run was or should have been abandoned. That's a one-score game, and unless there is very little time left on the clock, most coaches will NOT abandon the run when playing catch up in a close game.

It wasn't the number of times the Niners ran.......It was that EVERYBODY knew it was coming and EVERYBODY knew where the RB was going to take the ball.

I think that the running argument is just a mere extension of the real argument and that is just how vanilla and predictable our offense was. There was very little creativity in our play designs and as a fan we almost always knew the play before it was operated. If our team's own fans knew the play beforehand, then how easy was it for these professional coaches to pick us apart?

Pass to take the lead, run the ball to hold onto it. I hope this Walsh principle is something that Harbaugh adopts. Because Sing sure didn't.

Well once TC opens this thread is over I guess. Let's hope gores numbers return, and that our running failures werent based on him getting older/losing a step, and were mostly because of OLine and playcalls.

...he didn't, so now he is gone...why is this in ninertalk still?

Originally posted by andes14:


We were talking about the 2009 niners.

The 2009 OLine was so good that the next year two rookies were drafted to start right away. So, how does that make it a good team in 2009?

Can you explain your view of Singletary as a HC? You are defending his record of not running more than other teams by using stats (in or out of context depending on who's view you take). Are you under the impression that he was doing a good job. Not sure why this issue is so important to you.

This thread name needs to be changed to, " How did Singletary get the 49er head coaching job?"

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:


We were talking about the 2009 niners.

The 2009 OLine was so good that the next year two rookies were drafted to start right away. So, how does that make it a good team in 2009?

Can you explain your view of Singletary as a HC? You are defending his record of not running more than other teams by using stats (in or out of context depending on who's view you take). Are you under the impression that he was doing a good job. Not sure why this issue is so important to you.

I have mixed feelings on Singletary. He definitely had his flaws and has improving to do if he ever wants to have a shot at being a successful HC. But a lot of the losses weren't due to bad coaching. Also, we aren't the type of team that is constructed in such a way that he should be HC. Perhaps if he were the coach in Indy and could really whip the defense into shape and be a leader for the team and just let Peyton Manning do his thing on offense, they'd be better than they are under Jim Caldwell. Ain't no Peyton Manning in San Fran though. There are several things that Singletary deserves criticism for- but running the ball too much is not one of them.

And how does the fact that we drafted 2 OL in 2010 mean we weren't a good team in 2009? We won 8 games, outplayed our opponents in probably 12 or 13, and scored 49 more points than we allowed. We were a pretty solid team.