How did Singletary....

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by ghostrider:
That's easy to explain. I'm too lazy to look up the stats but I'd wager you'd see the following...

#1. Our offense likely ran fewer plays because we had fewer first downs per game.

#2. Look at the first and second quarters. I'm betting what you'll see is that we ran heavy in the first quarter, about 50/50 in the second, and almost not at all in the second half because our run heavy philosophy put us too far behind on the scoreboard thus forcing us to pass.

1- It had nothing to do with first downs...we averaged 224 1st downs the last 2 years and 231 the previous 3- not a very significant difference. We also averaged exactly 900 plays per season over the last 2 years compared to 886.3 over the previous 3. So no, we did not run fewer plays.

2- Gore in 2010: 1st quarter- 55 carries, 2nd quarter- 47 carries, 3rd quarter- 52 carries, 4th quarter- 39 carries...Gore in 2009: 1st quarter- 66 carries, 2nd quarter- 44 carries, 3rd quarter- 63 carries, 4th quarter- 56 carries...your point? I also pointed out that in the last 2 years, Gore only has 2 more first half carries than 2nd half carries.

Also, in 2010 we were 22nd in the league in passing attempts while tied for 25th in rushing attempts. In 2009, we were 21st in the league in passing attempts while we were 30th in rushing attempts.

Fair enough, but did you watch any of the games? I'm going to tell you right now that we had minimal success running the ball, we had no creativity while doing so, and we had constant 3+outs while trying to do so. We only really started throwing it—and I mean really throwing it (WR screens do NOT count)—when we became hopelessly behind and were forced to actually take a chance.

Qualitatively speaking, those are the facts despite what the quantitative data says.

I agree we had no creativity in the running game, but that's not my point. The 3 and out argument is invalid when you consider we had more offensive snaps the last 2 years than the previous 3. And we were hopelessly behind even more often from '06-'08 than we were in '09/'10 so that argument makes no sense. We were a better team the last 2 years than the previous 3 yet still were throwing more and running less.

Originally posted by RichmondPete:
All of these statistics are completely meaningless. We all watched the games and watched runs being called every time we needed a first down unless we were 2 or more touchdowns behind, which did not take long. Once we started getting killed Singletary had no choice but to allow the team to throw because the fans wanted his head.

Can the same not be said for the '06, '07, and '08 squads? We were even worse then and were 2 or more touchdowns behind even more often (yet still ran more and passed less), so that aspect has ZERO relevance.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by ghostrider:
That's easy to explain. I'm too lazy to look up the stats but I'd wager you'd see the following...

#1. Our offense likely ran fewer plays because we had fewer first downs per game.

#2. Look at the first and second quarters. I'm betting what you'll see is that we ran heavy in the first quarter, about 50/50 in the second, and almost not at all in the second half because our run heavy philosophy put us too far behind on the scoreboard thus forcing us to pass.

1- It had nothing to do with first downs...we averaged 224 1st downs the last 2 years and 231 the previous 3- not a very significant difference. We also averaged exactly 900 plays per season over the last 2 years compared to 886.3 over the previous 3. So no, we did not run fewer plays.

2- Gore in 2010: 1st quarter- 55 carries, 2nd quarter- 47 carries, 3rd quarter- 52 carries, 4th quarter- 39 carries...Gore in 2009: 1st quarter- 66 carries, 2nd quarter- 44 carries, 3rd quarter- 63 carries, 4th quarter- 56 carries...your point? I also pointed out that in the last 2 years, Gore only has 2 more first half carries than 2nd half carries.

Also, in 2010 we were 22nd in the league in passing attempts while tied for 25th in rushing attempts. In 2009, we were 21st in the league in passing attempts while we were 30th in rushing attempts.

Fair enough, but did you watch any of the games? I'm going to tell you right now that we had minimal success running the ball, we had no creativity while doing so, and we had constant 3+outs while trying to do so. We only really started throwing it—and I mean really throwing it (WR screens do NOT count)—when we became hopelessly behind and were forced to actually take a chance.

Qualitatively speaking, those are the facts despite what the quantitative data says.

I agree we had no creativity in the running game, but that's not my point. The 3 and out argument is invalid when you consider we had more offensive snaps the last 2 years than the previous 3. And we were hopelessly behind even more often from '06-'08 than we were in '09/'10 so that argument makes no sense. We were a better team the last 2 years than the previous 3 yet still were throwing more and running less.

Like I said, watch the games. If we weren't running up the gut for no gain, we were throwing WR screens and the occasional RB screen. We very very very seldom took any chance beyond 7yards until we were considerably behind.

You wrote in one of your posts that the stats show that 1st half carries and second half carries were about the same.

What about quarter by quarter? Or better, the first 28 minutes of each quarter. The two minute drill at the end of the 1st half may have skewed the passing numbers.

Originally posted by Otter:
You wrote in one of your posts that the stats show that 1st half carries and second half carries were about the same.

What about quarter by quarter? Or better, the first 28 minutes of each quarter. The two minute drill at the end of the 1st half may have skewed the passing numbers.

2 minute drill skews passing #'s for every team though, and I pointed out that the last 2 years our passing attempt ranking was higher than our rush attempt ranking relative to the rest of the league. As for quarter by quarter, here you go:

Gore in 2010: 1st quarter- 55 carries (technically 60, but I think we can all agree the fair thing to do is throw out the 5 carries from the Arizona game since he didn't play in the final 3 quarters), 2nd quarter- 47 carries, 3rd quarter- 52 carries, 4th quarter- 39 carries...Gore in 2009: 1st quarter- 66 carries, 2nd quarter- 44 carries, 3rd quarter- 63 carries, 4th quarter- 56 carries

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by Allx9er:
couple reasons why gore didnt get the carries...
1)injury
2)cant get a lot of carries if you cant extend drives
3)cant extend drives if you have a bone head scheme
that includes running your rb into 9 man fronts down after down

Injury has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about carries per game...so if he misses games, that doesn't skew it.

As for extending drives, that's a moot point also- we passed 514 times per season in 09/10. From '06-'08 we passed 488.7 times per season...therefore we actually passed the ball at a higher rate than under Turner/Hostler/Martz.

We passed more because we were trailing more and playing catch up. Also, if you are in 3rd and long you are more adept to throwing than running if say you are 3rd 3.

Walsh would pass more, but in the 4th quarter with the lead he ran more to protect the lead and the D.

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by Allx9er:
couple reasons why gore didnt get the carries...
1)injury
2)cant get a lot of carries if you cant extend drives
3)cant extend drives if you have a bone head scheme
that includes running your rb into 9 man fronts down after down

Injury has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about carries per game...so if he misses games, that doesn't skew it.

As for extending drives, that's a moot point also- we passed 514 times per season in 09/10. From '06-'08 we passed 488.7 times per season...therefore we actually passed the ball at a higher rate than under Turner/Hostler/Martz.

We passed more because we were trailing more and playing catch up. Also, if you are in 3rd and long you are more adept to throwing than running if say you are 3rd 3.

Walsh would pass more, but in the 4th quarter with the lead he ran more to protect the lead and the D.

For like the 20th time in this thread, playing catch up is a moot point since we were also playing catch up from '06-'08....even moreso actually because in those 3 years we averaged 6.3 wins per year and in the last 2 years we averaged 7 wins per year. So we were actually a better team the last 2 years than the previous 3 yet were still passing more and running less.

Originally posted by Baalkesux:
He was one of the worst coaches in the history of NFL football.... and we thought Nolan could not be surpassed.... .... I wouldn't jump on Harbaugh's jock either.... there is something sketchy about the guy.... The Broncos and Dolphins knew better....

The Broncos and Dolphins couldn't land him and knew it so they gave up. Harbaugh so said that his heart was on SF. phins owner is a joke from the coaches point of view, plus he would have to deal with Tuna, and would have to deal with Elway-an unknown quantity. He was more familiar with Baalke and knew he would get the support he needed and plus he wanted to stay in the bay.

However, I understand what you are saying, JH still has to prove himself and his brand of style will work, but at theis juncture an OC as HC is preferable more often to a Def minded HC.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by elguapo:
also hard to run when you are behind in quite a few games.

Again, he had essentially as many carries in the 2nd half as the first...and we were behind in even more games from '06-'08 than in '09/'10 (6.3 wins per year in '06-'08 and 7 wins per year in '09/'10) so I don't see the logic in that argument.

Your stats are skewed. You are using wins only-you can't do that. Look at our loses and wins and see how much points we won or loss by. A team can have only three wins, but lose by only less than seven in all their games. also even though we won, by how many points and how many timeswas it done in the five minutes of the game. Stats are misleading.

If you are going to so what you have - break it down from the last two years to the ones from yestayear by quarters, to prove your point with the point totals.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by LloydsKittyKat:
stat boy, put down your ti-83 and go talk to a woman who doesn't require you to give a credit card number first

Oh man, you are truly hilarious. Congrats. I suppose you're under the impression the statistics are lying. Good to know. Keep living in that world.

Stats and numbers are not the end all, a team can have less yardage still not win the game right, the other side could dominate the stats and still lose, it has been done lots of times. even on the niners teams of SB years.

Watch the game, and watch the actual flow, you can't rely only on numbers. If you go by numbers only then many a battle should have been lost in real life.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by unst4bl3:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by pd24:
They started to Pass more when Mike Johonson took over and he had control of the playcalling. Sing was just trying to save his job at this point and wasn't involved with the offensive play calling.

Again, not true. Gore averaged 19.8 carries per game in the 10 games he completed. In the first 3 games under Raye, he averaged 17.3. His carries per game actually increased under Mike Johnson.

We started to pass then, and had some slight rushing success.

Again, not true. We averaged 31.25 passes per game for the season, but just under 40 under Raye.

See, what I mean, you are using avg per game and not the individual game itself. Also, you did not say if you factored in if the other RB had more touches in the last two years compared to the others. Admit it you are related to Singletary.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

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.

Cause Sing's priority was to run the ball. When we got down by a couple of TD's we then had to switch to a passing attack to try and catchup. This balanced out the statistics; but, is more indicative of playing from behind instead of a HC's mentality...

For the 10th time, we had to play catch-up from '06-'08 as well...even moreso as we were better the last 2 years (7 wins per season) than the previous 3 (6.3 wins per season), yet we still passed more and ran less in '09/'10 than from '06-'08.

Let's scratch the surface on those stats just a bit...

06 Alex's first year as a starter. Forced to run the ball due to Alex's inexperience.
Runs 439, Pass attempts 444. Run% 49%

07 Alex gets injured, we start a total of 4 different QBs including an injured Alex. Forced to run the ball due to injuries and QB Carousel inexperience.
Runs 357, Pass attempts 513. Run% 41%

08 Alex is out for the Year and we have JTO and Hill as our QB's. They had a whopping combined 2 starts and a combined total of 5 games that they played in prior to the 2008 season. Forced to run the ball due to QB inexperience.
Runs 370, Pass attempts 508. Run% 42%

Now for Sing
09 A much more experienced Shaun Hill and Alex Smith are starters.
Runs 471, Pass attempts 528. Run% 41%

10 The Alex, Troy, and Carr show. 2 experienced QBs and one rookie.
Runs 400, Pass attempts 500. Run% 44%

So the highest % of runs was in 06 or Alex's first full year as a starter. Next was 2010 under Sing with an experienced group of QB's. The other 3 years are pretty close; but, the QB experience is very different. Sing chose to run more because it's his style while the other coaches had to run more than they wanted to due to inexperienced QB play.

So in summation... We ran more under Sing in 09-10 than we did in 07-08. 06 is the only year we really ran more than under Sing and that was due to an inexperienced Alex. Sing Chose to run wher other coaches needed to run due to inexperienced QB play.

what your stats shows is the total and not just Gore- the original poster was so fixated on just Gore.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by Allx9er:
couple reasons why gore didnt get the carries...
1)injury
2)cant get a lot of carries if you cant extend drives
3)cant extend drives if you have a bone head scheme
that includes running your rb into 9 man fronts down after down

Injury has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about carries per game...so if he misses games, that doesn't skew it.

As for extending drives, that's a moot point also- we passed 514 times per season in 09/10. From '06-'08 we passed 488.7 times per season...therefore we actually passed the ball at a higher rate than under Turner/Hostler/Martz.

We passed more because we were trailing more and playing catch up. Also, if you are in 3rd and long you are more adept to throwing than running if say you are 3rd 3.

Walsh would pass more, but in the 4th quarter with the lead he ran more to protect the lead and the D.

For like the 20th time in this thread, playing catch up is a moot point since we were also playing catch up from '06-'08....even moreso actually because in those 3 years we averaged 6.3 wins per year and in the last 2 years we averaged 7 wins per year. So we were actually a better team the last 2 years than the previous 3 yet were still passing more and running less.

6.3 wins to 7 wins-ohhhhhh, big difference Again there is a difference between catch of 14 pts to 7 and less in strategy.

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by elguapo:
also hard to run when you are behind in quite a few games.

Again, he had essentially as many carries in the 2nd half as the first...and we were behind in even more games from '06-'08 than in '09/'10 (6.3 wins per year in '06-'08 and 7 wins per year in '09/'10) so I don't see the logic in that argument.

Your stats are skewed. You are using wins only-you can't do that. Look at our loses and wins and see how much points we won or loss by. A team can have only three wins, but lose by only less than seven in all their games. also even though we won, by how many points and how many timeswas it done in the five minutes of the game. Stats are misleading.

If you are going to so what you have - break it down from the last two years to the ones from yestayear by quarters, to prove your point with the point totals.

The last 2 years, we outscored our opponent by an average of .25 points per game...over the previous 3, we were outscored by 6.27 points per game...next?

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by LloydsKittyKat:
stat boy, put down your ti-83 and go talk to a woman who doesn't require you to give a credit card number first

Oh man, you are truly hilarious. Congrats. I suppose you're under the impression the statistics are lying. Good to know. Keep living in that world.

Stats and numbers are not the end all, a team can have less yardage still not win the game right, the other side could dominate the stats and still lose, it has been done lots of times. even on the niners teams of SB years.

Watch the game, and watch the actual flow, you can't rely only on numbers. If you go by numbers only then many a battle should have been lost in real life.

Stats and numbers ARE the end all for showing how much you're passing and how much you're running.