How did Singletary....

Originally posted by andes14:
There are several things that Singletary deserves criticism for- but running the ball too much is not one of them.

I agree Singletary doesn't deserve criticism for running the ball too much, but he deserves criticism for the way he wanted to execute his offensive philosophy. Nobody is upset that he wanted to utilize Gore as our offensive focus (in fact, most fans would agree with giving Gore as many touches as possible). 49er fans were mad that our weekly gameplan was to run the same unimaginative plays up the gut.

Originally posted by andes14:
We won 8 games, outplayed our opponents in probably 12 or 13

If we outplayed our opponents in 12 or 13 games, then why did we only win 8 of those games? The answer: coaching. You can't put those losses on the players because according to you they played better than the other team. This shows that coaching was the problem, not the talent.

Originally posted by andes14:

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.

The OLine was so bad in 2009 that the GM opted to use two first round draft choices there. You can't have a good team with a bad OLine. If the line is decent and allowed to play together for a few years, they may become a solid unit.

The 9ers have not had that luxury for years! The best line they have had recently was when they signed Larry Allen. That lasted a couple of years. Kwame at RT was not good but comparable to Davis of last year. I still miss Smiley.

[ Edited by dtg_9er on Jul 26, 2011 at 19:00:39 ]

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

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.

The OLine was so bad in 2009 that the GM opted to use two first round draft choices there. You can't have a good team with a bad OLine. If the line is decent and allowed to play together for a few years, they may become a solid unit.

The 9ers have not had that luxury for years! The best line they have had recently was when they signed Larry Allen. That lasted a couple of years. Kwame at RT was not good but comparable to Davis of last year. I still miss Smiley.

So were the '08 Steelers not a good team?

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

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.

The OLine was so bad in 2009 that the GM opted to use two first round draft choices there. You can't have a good team with a bad OLine. If the line is decent and allowed to play together for a few years, they may become a solid unit.

The 9ers have not had that luxury for years! The best line they have had recently was when they signed Larry Allen. That lasted a couple of years. Kwame at RT was not good but comparable to Davis of last year. I still miss Smiley.

So were the '08 Steelers not a good team?

If their OLine was as bad as the 9ers 09 line then no they weren't. But that was not the case! 22 years of experience between the veteran starters, a back up and a rookie. 49ers OLine starters had a total of 10 years of experience in 2010. Not comparable.

[ Edited by dtg_9er on Jul 29, 2011 at 18:35:37 ]

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

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.

The OLine was so bad in 2009 that the GM opted to use two first round draft choices there. You can't have a good team with a bad OLine. If the line is decent and allowed to play together for a few years, they may become a solid unit.

The 9ers have not had that luxury for years! The best line they have had recently was when they signed Larry Allen. That lasted a couple of years. Kwame at RT was not good but comparable to Davis of last year. I still miss Smiley.

So were the '08 Steelers not a good team?

If their OLine was as bad as the 9ers 09 line then no they weren't. But that was not the case! 22 years of experience between the veteran starters, a back up and a rookie. 49ers OLine starters had a total of 10 years of experience in 2010. Not comparable.

I don't care if they had a million years of experience. Their line was AWFUL. Quite possibly the worst in the league. And they won the Super Bowl. That clearly makes that statement completely null and void.

This thread is starting to become about the Steelers.

Back on topic...andes14, what are your thoughts on:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

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.

and this...

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
There are several things that Singletary deserves criticism for- but running the ball too much is not one of them.

I agree Singletary doesn't deserve criticism for running the ball too much, but he deserves criticism for the way he wanted to execute his offensive philosophy. Nobody is upset that he wanted to utilize Gore as our offensive focus (in fact, most fans would agree with giving Gore as many touches as possible). 49er fans were mad that our weekly gameplan was to run the same unimaginative plays up the gut.

Originally posted by andes14:
We won 8 games, outplayed our opponents in probably 12 or 13

If we outplayed our opponents in 12 or 13 games, then why did we only win 8 of those games? The answer: coaching. You can't put those losses on the players because according to you they played better than the other team. This shows that coaching was the problem, not the talent.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

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.

The OLine was so bad in 2009 that the GM opted to use two first round draft choices there. You can't have a good team with a bad OLine. If the line is decent and allowed to play together for a few years, they may become a solid unit.

The 9ers have not had that luxury for years! The best line they have had recently was when they signed Larry Allen. That lasted a couple of years. Kwame at RT was not good but comparable to Davis of last year. I still miss Smiley.

So were the '08 Steelers not a good team?

If their OLine was as bad as the 9ers 09 line then no they weren't. But that was not the case! 22 years of experience between the veteran starters, a back up and a rookie. 49ers OLine starters had a total of 10 years of experience in 2010. Not comparable.

I don't care if they had a million years of experience. Their line was AWFUL. Quite possibly the worst in the league. And they won the Super Bowl. That clearly makes that statement completely null and void.

Now you should know if they have a million years experience they will probably be past their prime! They had a guard many on this board wanted in free agency and a young tackle who is highly regarded.

The 9ers of the 80s had a line that were cast offs and guys who where too small. They were terrible according to many around the league. The one thing they had going for them was tenacity and comaraderie...and experience playing next to each other so they could learn each other's tendencies. That is so under rated by fans!

Once again, Staley was our only legitimate player last year and he missed seven games. Rachal has been terrible, Baas was starting for the first time at center (did a credible job though) and two rookies filled out the rest of the line. Usually, a coach may start a rookie if he will be playing next to two vets who can help with the learning curve.

How does your opinion make another persons statement "null and void?" I know that it's fun to throw out "sayings" but null means "without value" and void means without legal force or effect. As I was stating my opinion about experience being important there was no legal implication and telling someone their opinion is without value is rather rude, don't you think?

[ Edited by dtg_9er on Jul 31, 2011 at 07:17:37 ]

Originally posted by candlestick49er:
This thread is starting to become about the Steelers.

Back on topic...andes14, what are your thoughts on:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

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.

and this...

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
There are several things that Singletary deserves criticism for- but running the ball too much is not one of them.

I agree Singletary doesn't deserve criticism for running the ball too much, but he deserves criticism for the way he wanted to execute his offensive philosophy. Nobody is upset that he wanted to utilize Gore as our offensive focus (in fact, most fans would agree with giving Gore as many touches as possible). 49er fans were mad that our weekly gameplan was to run the same unimaginative plays up the gut.

Originally posted by andes14:
We won 8 games, outplayed our opponents in probably 12 or 13

If we outplayed our opponents in 12 or 13 games, then why did we only win 8 of those games? The answer: coaching. You can't put those losses on the players because according to you they played better than the other team. This shows that coaching was the problem, not the talent.

I can't address the things you say because they are getting ridiculous. You're like taking out Gore's best runs which are obviously gonna lower his yards per carry. You say it's only 8 like that's justifiable...if you take out just 3 runs from Chris Johnson's 2009, his yards per carry drops by nearly a full yard. I guess Tennessee had a terribly inefficient run game in 2009.

Originally posted by andes14:
get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball? 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...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. The stats just don't back that up.

he got few carries bc the drives fizzled out from 3 and outs

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

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.

The OLine was so bad in 2009 that the GM opted to use two first round draft choices there. You can't have a good team with a bad OLine. If the line is decent and allowed to play together for a few years, they may become a solid unit.

The 9ers have not had that luxury for years! The best line they have had recently was when they signed Larry Allen. That lasted a couple of years. Kwame at RT was not good but comparable to Davis of last year. I still miss Smiley.

So were the '08 Steelers not a good team?

If their OLine was as bad as the 9ers 09 line then no they weren't. But that was not the case! 22 years of experience between the veteran starters, a back up and a rookie. 49ers OLine starters had a total of 10 years of experience in 2010. Not comparable.

I don't care if they had a million years of experience. Their line was AWFUL. Quite possibly the worst in the league. And they won the Super Bowl. That clearly makes that statement completely null and void.

Now you should know if they have a million years experience they will probably be past their prime! They had a guard many on this board wanted in free agency and a young tackle who is highly regarded.

The 9ers of the 80s had a line that were cast offs and guys who where too small. They were terrible according to many around the league. The one thing they had going for them was tenacity and comaraderie...and experience playing next to each other so they could learn each other's tendencies. That is so under rated by fans!

Once again, Staley was our only legitimate player last year and he missed seven games. Rachal has been terrible, Baas was starting for the first time at center (did a credible job though) and two rookies filled out the rest of the line. Usually, a coach may start a rookie if he will be playing next to two vets who can help with the learning curve.

How does your opinion make another persons statement "null and void?" I know that it's fun to throw out "sayings" but null means "without value" and void means without legal force or effect. As I was stating my opinion about experience being important there was no legal implication and telling someone their opinion is without value is rather rude, don't you think?

Your opinion IS without value. The Steelers had arguably the worst OL in 2008 and they won it all. Hence your statement that "you can't have a good team with a bad OLine" is CLEARLY wrong. How is that even debatable?

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:
get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball? 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...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. The stats just don't back that up.

he got few carries bc the drives fizzled out from 3 and outs

No that's not the reason. We ran more plays than the previous years and we passed at a higher rate as well. 3 and outs/total plays had NOTHING to do with it.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:
get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball? 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...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. The stats just don't back that up.

he got few carries bc the drives fizzled out from 3 and outs

No that's not the reason. We ran more plays than the previous years and we passed at a higher rate as well. 3 and outs/total plays had NOTHING to do with it.

we passed the ball when we were down by 28 in the second half

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:
get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball? 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...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. The stats just don't back that up.

he got few carries bc the drives fizzled out from 3 and outs

No that's not the reason. We ran more plays than the previous years and we passed at a higher rate as well. 3 and outs/total plays had NOTHING to do with it.

we passed the ball when we were down by 28 in the second half

And we ran the ball when we were down by 28 in the second half from '06-'08? Not to mention, we were down big way more often from '06-'08 than we were in '09/'10.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:
get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball? 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...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. The stats just don't back that up.

he got few carries bc the drives fizzled out from 3 and outs

No that's not the reason. We ran more plays than the previous years and we passed at a higher rate as well. 3 and outs/total plays had NOTHING to do with it.

we passed the ball when we were down by 28 in the second half

And we ran the ball when we were down by 28 in the second half from '06-'08? Not to mention, we were down big way more often from '06-'08 than we were in '09/'10.

you honestly dont remember all the times we called the same run play on 1st and 2nd down that set us up for the long 3rd down?

really?

Originally posted by 49erRider:

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.

LOL. You're interpreting what an average 6 point loss means COMPLETELY wrong. That average also takes into account wins. If we win a game by 1 TD, that means we lose a game by THREE TD's to make that average. It's not like every loss was just by 6...most of them were by at least 2 or 3 TD's because when you factor into account wins, that's what makes the average game a 6 point loss.