How did Singletary....

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Lol @ the bolded. I have been responding my ass off in this thread. Can't believe I'm getting called out for not responding enough.

I wasn't calling you out for not responding to this thread, I was referring to you not directly responding to BrianGO's posts. Sorry if I came across as rude in my previous post.

Originally posted by andes14:

Anyways my main goal is not to point out that we passed more than we ran under Sing- every team does that. My point is to show that we were just as pass oriented if not more the last 2 years than we were the previous 3- which the stats clearly show are the case.

The stats may show that we were more pass oriented under Singletary compared to our previous coaches, but watching the actual games tells a different story. According to the flow of the games, you can recognize the difference in offensive philosophy. For example, Norv Turner used the run to set up play-action. When the offense faced extra defenders in the box, we either ran play-action or took a shot down the field. Under Singletary, we used the run to impose our will. If there were 8 or 9 in the box, we still ran up the middle.

The numbers don't show that one coach ran to set up play-action while the other coach ran to set the tone.

Originally posted by andes14:

Bringing up our rankings in pass attempts and rush attempts relative to the rest of the league is just another way to give perspective as to how often we're really running the ball.

Yes it gives another perspective, but this information hasn't been used in this thread so its irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by andes14:

As for those hypothetical drives- it's just that- hypothetical...not too sure how that's relevant in this discussion.

Its hypothetical, but its an example of how numbers can be misleading. We had many games where we were in 2 minute situations. These situations added several passing attempts to our ratio.

Originally posted by andes14:

Yes Sing passed more in the 2 minute drill. But so does every team (so it doesn't skew our rankings relative to the rest of the league), including the '06-'08 niners (the basis for the original argument).

It doesn't skew our rankings relative to the rest of the league, but skews the ratio for the team itself. If you want to use numbers, you have to look into individual situations and not averages or totals. Averages don't tell you how many passes came in no huddle plays, what the score was when those plays were called, how much time was left, etc.

As for Singletary running up the middle with 8 and 9 men in the box. Fine, I'm not arguing that. I agree we were predictable and not creative. Because the defense knew when a run was coming much of the time due to offensive personnel, formations, etc. they obviously would stack the box. Think of it more as the defense stacking the box because they knew a run was coming, not CHOOSING to run the ball EVEN THOUGH the defense stacked the box. Still has nothing to do with HOW MUCH we were running the ball, which was the original point. And sure the 2 minute drill passing skews the ratio for the team itself. But that is canceled out by the fact that it also skewed the ratio for the '06-'08 niners so that has no relevance when comparing run frequency in '09/'10 compared to '06-'08.

Like I said, I think 2009 speaks volumes. We were a solid squad- won 8 games and our average game was a 3 point victory. We only lost 2 games by more than a touchdown so very rarely were we in that desperate catch up mode. If a team that rarely had to play catch up had a HC that truly had a "we're gonna run, run, and run some more" mentality, wouldn't you expect us to be the league leaders (or damn near it) in rushing attempts? Um, most likely. Yet only 2 teams had fewer rushing attempts than us that year. How could that be?

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Lol @ the bolded. I have been responding my ass off in this thread. Can't believe I'm getting called out for not responding enough.

I wasn't calling you out for not responding to this thread, I was referring to you not directly responding to BrianGO's posts. Sorry if I came across as rude in my previous post.

Originally posted by andes14:

Anyways my main goal is not to point out that we passed more than we ran under Sing- every team does that. My point is to show that we were just as pass oriented if not more the last 2 years than we were the previous 3- which the stats clearly show are the case.

The stats may show that we were more pass oriented under Singletary compared to our previous coaches, but watching the actual games tells a different story. According to the flow of the games, you can recognize the difference in offensive philosophy. For example, Norv Turner used the run to set up play-action. When the offense faced extra defenders in the box, we either ran play-action or took a shot down the field. Under Singletary, we used the run to impose our will. If there were 8 or 9 in the box, we still ran up the middle.

The numbers don't show that one coach ran to set up play-action while the other coach ran to set the tone.

Originally posted by andes14:

Bringing up our rankings in pass attempts and rush attempts relative to the rest of the league is just another way to give perspective as to how often we're really running the ball.

Yes it gives another perspective, but this information hasn't been used in this thread so its irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by andes14:

As for those hypothetical drives- it's just that- hypothetical...not too sure how that's relevant in this discussion.

Its hypothetical, but its an example of how numbers can be misleading. We had many games where we were in 2 minute situations. These situations added several passing attempts to our ratio.

Originally posted by andes14:

Yes Sing passed more in the 2 minute drill. But so does every team (so it doesn't skew our rankings relative to the rest of the league), including the '06-'08 niners (the basis for the original argument).

It doesn't skew our rankings relative to the rest of the league, but skews the ratio for the team itself. If you want to use numbers, you have to look into individual situations and not averages or totals. Averages don't tell you how many passes came in no huddle plays, what the score was when those plays were called, how much time was left, etc.

As for Singletary running up the middle with 8 and 9 men in the box. Fine, I'm not arguing that. I agree we were predictable and not creative. Because the defense knew when a run was coming much of the time due to offensive personnel, formations, etc. they obviously would stack the box. Think of it more as the defense stacking the box because they knew a run was coming, not CHOOSING to run the ball EVEN THOUGH the defense stacked the box. Still has nothing to do with HOW MUCH we were running the ball, which was the original point. And sure the 2 minute drill passing skews the ratio for the team itself. But that is canceled out by the fact that it also skewed the ratio for the '06-'08 niners so that has no relevance when comparing run frequency in '09/'10 compared to '06-'08.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Yes but comparing our ratio of run to pass compared to other teams is a good way to get a grasp of what it truly represents in the grand scheme of things. For example, running the ball on 70% of plays doesn't seem like a lot if every other team is running the ball on 80% of plays.

Not once in this thread have you compared where the 49ers rank relative to other teams, so why bring this up now? Can we stick to your original argument? You claim that Singletary shouldn't get the "run run run" reputation because we passed more than we ran. To back this up, you brought up stats showing that the playcall ratio actually favors the pass. However, the stats you used didn't put actual game situations (2 minute drills, no huddle, game score, etc) into consideration. Since you didn't take these into consideration, your stats aren't completely reliable.

The following 2 posts are great examples why your numbers can be misleading:

Originally posted by BrianGO:

You make good points, but this is how I remember how most of our games went in the first half.

Run run pass punt, run run pass punt, run run pass punt, run run pass punt, (2 minute drill) pass pass pass pass pass pass touchdown. Half-time.
That adds up to 10 passes and 8 runs. In this scenario, there are more passes, but it is deceiving because of the two-minute drill at the end of the half where we felt like actually scoring a touchdown.

Originally posted by BrianGO:

We had a LOT of WR screens and HB screens. We would start off most of the games with run run pass punt. This is because Singletary believed in the run. The formations we had practiced throughout training camp were geared for the run.

The issue you speak of regarding the actual run/pass ratio, occurred because his nimrod strategy didn't WORK. We had some games where Raye threw the ball like crazy, but even when that passing strategy WORKED, Sing backed away from it the very next week for unknown reasons. It drove me crazy.

All teams run the 2-minute drill, but we had several half's, and some entire games under Sing where most of the game was like a 2-minute drill. Again, I have no idea why Sing abandoned this successful strategy. The point is, there were large chunks of games when Sing was reluctantly very aggressive with the pass; which skews the numbers.

Also, and this is the most important point, when you have an unsuccessful drive, and go "run run pass punt" you have a 3n'out.
Let's compare it with a hypothetical successful drive, "pass run pass pass run pass pass". The second drive has 5 passes and 2 runs the first drive has only 2 runs and 1 pass. Combined together, they give us 6 passes and 4 runs. But what does the second drive also have? More PLAYS.

So if you have this situation...
Drive one: run run pass punt
Drive two: run run pass punt
Drive three: pass run pass pass run pass pass Touchdown!
Drive four: run run pass punt
Drive five: run run pass punt
2-minute: pass pass pass pass pass pass Touchdown!

Total runs: 10
Total passes: 15

4 out of the 5 non two-minute-drill drives were Iron Mike trying to impose his iron will to run the ball down their throats.
But because our running drives were LESS successful, and our passing drives were MORE successful, the passing drives had more PLAYS.

Singletary wanted to run the ball down their throats, and his utter lack of success made him look like he enjoyed throwing the football as much as running it.

I noticed you ignored these quotes like they were invisible. If you're gonna respond to this post, please acknowledge what I quoted as well.

Lol @ the bolded. I have been responding my ass off in this thread. Can't believe I'm getting called out for not responding enough. Anyways my main goal is not to point out that we passed more than we ran under Sing- every team does that. My point is to show that we were just as pass oriented if not more the last 2 years than we were the previous 3- which the stats clearly show are the case. Bringing up our rankings in pass attempts and rush attempts relative to the rest of the league is just another way to give perspective as to how often we're really running the ball. As for those hypothetical drives- it's just that- hypothetical...not too sure how that's relevant in this discussion. Yes Sing passed more in the 2 minute drill. But so does every team (so it doesn't skew our rankings relative to the rest of the league), including the '06-'08 niners (the basis for the original argument).

The original question was, "How did Singletary get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball?"

Most people responded, it "looked" like he was trying to run the ball.
You asked how it was possible for it to look that way when the numbers don't support that perspective.

I answered with the hypothetical drives; that is how it is POSSIBLE. A team could try "run down the throat" in 4 out of 5 non two-minute drives, yet the actual number of run/pass plays would not reveal how many drives were squandered away with failed running plays.
If your running plays are LESS successful than your passing plays, you will have fewer run plays (relative to your pass).

run run pass punt
run run pass punt
run run pass punt
pass pass pass punt
Passes: 6
Runs: 6
Even if your passing AND running offense are equally unsuccessful, you could still end up with the same amount of attempts of runs and passes while attempting to run the ball on 3 out of 4 drives.

Does it prove anything? No. It simply provides an answer to the question of how people could have POSSIBLY thought Singletary wanted to run the ball so much.
How does it compare to Nolan? No idea. We would have to go through all the game-books and look at all the drives from both coaches to figure out which coach had more failed "run drives".
Looking that all up would take a long time, and I sure as heck ain't gonna do it.

Originally posted by andes14:
As for Singletary running up the middle with 8 and 9 men in the box. Fine, I'm not arguing that. I agree we were predictable and not creative. Because the defense knew when a run was coming much of the time due to offensive personnel, formations, etc. they obviously would stack the box. Think of it more as the defense stacking the box because they knew a run was coming, not CHOOSING to run the ball EVEN THOUGH the defense stacked the box. Still has nothing to do with HOW MUCH we were running the ball, which was the original point.

Predictability and creativity actually does have some affect on how much we run the ball...it affects efficiency. We were more efficient under Norv Turner and ran the ball pretty well. We would face many 3rd & short/medium situations, which gave us the option to run the ball on 3rd down. Under Singletary we would face many 3rd & long situations where we had to pass.

Originally posted by andes14:
And sure the 2 minute drill passing skews the ratio for the team itself. But that is canceled out by the fact that it also skewed the ratio for the '06-'08 niners so that has no relevance when comparing run frequency in '09/'10 compared to '06-'08.

They shouldn't cancel out unless all those 49er teams have the exact same amount of passing attempts during no huddle situations. They do not have the same 2-min numbers, therefore they don't cancel each other out. But at the end of the day, the numbers are in fact skewed, which is why they are unreliable without looking into actual game situations. Whether you are looking at stats for the 06 team alone, 09 team alone, or both teams together, those numbers are skewed.

Originally posted by andes14:
Like I said, I think 2009 speaks volumes. We were a solid squad- won 8 games and our average game was a 3 point victory. We only lost 2 games by more than a touchdown so very rarely were we in that desperate catch up mode. If a team that rarely had to play catch up had a HC that truly had a "we're gonna run, run, and run some more" mentality, wouldn't you expect us to be the league leaders (or damn near it) in rushing attempts? Um, most likely. Yet only 2 teams had fewer rushing attempts than us that year. How could that be?

I agree, we did have a solid squad in 2009. However, we weren't efficient at running the ball. It could be due to predictable play-calling, bad offensive line play, etc whatever...the bottom line is that we couldn't get consistent yardage on run plays. Because of this, we faced many pass situations on 3rd down during Singletary's head coaching tenure.

Wow... this thread is way too long considering the answer to the question is on the first page.

Also:

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics...."

its not about the carries...its about sing running a running play every single 1st and 2nd down, then throwing on 3rd down...too predictable

Originally posted by Wodwo:
Wow... this thread is way too long considering the answer to the question is on the first page.

Also:

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics...."

Never trust a man who uses an alias!

Originally posted by warrior198:
its not about the carries...its about sing running a running play every single 1st and 2nd down, then throwing on 3rd down...too predictable

Then why didn't we have twice as many runs as passes? Yes we were predictable, but we didn't run the ball as much as people seem to think.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
As for Singletary running up the middle with 8 and 9 men in the box. Fine, I'm not arguing that. I agree we were predictable and not creative. Because the defense knew when a run was coming much of the time due to offensive personnel, formations, etc. they obviously would stack the box. Think of it more as the defense stacking the box because they knew a run was coming, not CHOOSING to run the ball EVEN THOUGH the defense stacked the box. Still has nothing to do with HOW MUCH we were running the ball, which was the original point.

Predictability and creativity actually does have some affect on how much we run the ball...it affects efficiency. We were more efficient under Norv Turner and ran the ball pretty well. We would face many 3rd & short/medium situations, which gave us the option to run the ball on 3rd down. Under Singletary we would face many 3rd & long situations where we had to pass.

Originally posted by andes14:
And sure the 2 minute drill passing skews the ratio for the team itself. But that is canceled out by the fact that it also skewed the ratio for the '06-'08 niners so that has no relevance when comparing run frequency in '09/'10 compared to '06-'08.

They shouldn't cancel out unless all those 49er teams have the exact same amount of passing attempts during no huddle situations. They do not have the same 2-min numbers, therefore they don't cancel each other out. But at the end of the day, the numbers are in fact skewed, which is why they are unreliable without looking into actual game situations. Whether you are looking at stats for the 06 team alone, 09 team alone, or both teams together, those numbers are skewed.

Originally posted by andes14:
Like I said, I think 2009 speaks volumes. We were a solid squad- won 8 games and our average game was a 3 point victory. We only lost 2 games by more than a touchdown so very rarely were we in that desperate catch up mode. If a team that rarely had to play catch up had a HC that truly had a "we're gonna run, run, and run some more" mentality, wouldn't you expect us to be the league leaders (or damn near it) in rushing attempts? Um, most likely. Yet only 2 teams had fewer rushing attempts than us that year. How could that be?

I agree, we did have a solid squad in 2009. However, we weren't efficient at running the ball. It could be due to predictable play-calling, bad offensive line play, etc whatever...the bottom line is that we couldn't get consistent yardage on run plays. Because of this, we faced many pass situations on 3rd down during Singletary's head coaching tenure.

The bottom line in terms of 2 minute drill skewing things is that you have to assume it skewed it APPROXIMATELY the same amount. There's no way the 2010 niners had their passing stats FAR more skewed because of the 2 minute drill than did the '07 niners. If there was a difference, it was slight, and the slight difference could have gone either way. It's not significant enough to matter. And we weren't efficient at running the ball in 2009? We averaged 4.3 yards per carry, which is plenty efficient (good for 12th in the league). We actually weren't that efficient at passing as we gained only 6.2 yards per pass attempt (24th in the league). Yet we still ran the ball less than almost any team. What makes you say we weren't efficient at running the ball? We were 30th in the league in attempts yet 25th in yardage...how in the world is that not efficient? Not to mention, Frank Gore is an elite back. Shaun Hill/Alex Smith were not elite.

Originally posted by andes14:
The bottom line in terms of 2 minute drill skewing things is that you have to assume it skewed it APPROXIMATELY the same amount. There's no way the 2010 niners had their passing stats FAR more skewed because of the 2 minute drill than did the '07 niners. If there was a difference, it was slight, and the slight difference could have gone either way. It's not significant enough to matter.

We aren't getting anywhere with this whole 2 minute drill argument. The numbers are definitely skewed, but its unknown to what degree. The only way to know for sure is to dig up the actual no huddle numbers...and I'm not interested in doing that.

Originally posted by andes14:
And we weren't efficient at running the ball in 2009? We averaged 4.3 yards per carry, which is plenty efficient (good for 12th in the league).

No, we weren't efficient running the ball in 2009. When Gore wasn't breaking away for the occasional big gain, he was getting stuffed in the backfield. I define run efficiency as being able to run the ball for at least 3 yards each time the HB carries the rock. Getting stuffed a million times before breaking a big run is not efficient. And thats not a knock on Gore because its not all his fault. He was getting hit as soon as he received the handoff.

Originally posted by andes14:
We actually weren't that efficient at passing as we gained only 6.2 yards per pass attempt (24th in the league). Yet we still ran the ball less than almost any team.

I agree, we were not efficient through the air either. We weren't running the ball positively enough, so eventually we had to pass the ball despite being a poor passing team.

Originally posted by andes14:
What makes you say we weren't efficient at running the ball? We were 30th in the league in attempts yet 25th in yardage...how in the world is that not efficient?

We got minimal gains most times we ran the ball, even struggling to pick up yards on short yardage situations. I don't think anybody who actually watched the games can say we were efficient at running the ball. If we were effective at running then we wouldn't have faced as many 3rd & long situations as we did.

Originally posted by andes14:
Not to mention, Frank Gore is an elite back. Shaun Hill/Alex Smith were not elite.

No argument here

LOL!! im just gonna start dying laughing when harbaugh and roman run such a non neanderthal offense and unpredictable offense this season. what a difference its gonna be coming out of a half making adjustments and during the game and not when were down by 3 tds coming out in a spread and saying we made adjustments

I love how everyone is complaining about our lack of passing on 1st down. You do know there were only around 2 quarterbacks in the NFL last season that had a worse passer rating on first down than ALex Smith right?

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
The bottom line in terms of 2 minute drill skewing things is that you have to assume it skewed it APPROXIMATELY the same amount. There's no way the 2010 niners had their passing stats FAR more skewed because of the 2 minute drill than did the '07 niners. If there was a difference, it was slight, and the slight difference could have gone either way. It's not significant enough to matter.

We aren't getting anywhere with this whole 2 minute drill argument. The numbers are definitely skewed, but its unknown to what degree. The only way to know for sure is to dig up the actual no huddle numbers...and I'm not interested in doing that.

Originally posted by andes14:
And we weren't efficient at running the ball in 2009? We averaged 4.3 yards per carry, which is plenty efficient (good for 12th in the league).

No, we weren't efficient running the ball in 2009. When Gore wasn't breaking away for the occasional big gain, he was getting stuffed in the backfield. I define run efficiency as being able to run the ball for at least 3 yards each time the HB carries the rock. Getting stuffed a million times before breaking a big run is not efficient. And thats not a knock on Gore because its not all his fault. He was getting hit as soon as he received the handoff.

Originally posted by andes14:
We actually weren't that efficient at passing as we gained only 6.2 yards per pass attempt (24th in the league). Yet we still ran the ball less than almost any team.

I agree, we were not efficient through the air either. We weren't running the ball positively enough, so eventually we had to pass the ball despite being a poor passing team.

Originally posted by andes14:
What makes you say we weren't efficient at running the ball? We were 30th in the league in attempts yet 25th in yardage...how in the world is that not efficient?

We got minimal gains most times we ran the ball, even struggling to pick up yards on short yardage situations. I don't think anybody who actually watched the games can say we were efficient at running the ball. If we were effective at running then we wouldn't have faced as many 3rd & long situations as we did.

Originally posted by andes14:
Not to mention, Frank Gore is an elite back. Shaun Hill/Alex Smith were not elite.

No argument here

Long runs boost everyone's yards per carry, not just ours. There were plenty of games where Gore didn't even have a run longer than 15 yards, he had only 23 runs all year of 10+ yards, so let's not just assume it was only the occasional long run that boosted our yards per carry. He also averaged 5.5 yards per carry on 1st and 10 btw. The bottom line is we were CLEARLY more efficient (and efficient period) at running than passing (not efficient period). We were a good team that barely ever had to enter catch up mode. 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.

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.

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."