"What's Changed?" - thru Game 4 of 2011

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by Joecool:

I'm not buying this one. We were outcoached in the 2nd half and only won due to ST.

"only won due to ST"??? Come on Joe, your smarter than that. We have know idea what Harbaugh would have done when the score was 19-17. Unless you have a crystal ball that can give me some lottery numbers, your opinion is just that and nothing more. He may have had creative play designs to get another TD or we may have turned the ball over or we may have just eaten up the clock.

Considering he ran the ball and didn't look at all to go for the endzone with 6 minutes remaining and our offense was only 10 yards away from a TD...I have a feeling he would have been happy with a 2 point lead and forced SEA to try and win it.

This still doesn't change the fact that SEA won the halftime adjustments and we were outcoached in that half.

I was looking forward to going back on offense with that 2 point lead with a sense of dread and anticipation. Would Harbaugh and the team go through a clockwork process of going downfield, moving the chains, while killing as much time as possible? That would have been a great barometer as to how well our coaching staff does in the "chess match" of a game. We had the advantage in the 1st half, but Seattle had it in the 2nd - up to that point.

Of course, Ted Ginn had to "spoil" everything.

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by Joecool:
I'm not buying this one. We were outcoached in the 2nd half and only won due to ST.

"only won due to ST"??? Come on Joe, your smarter than that. We have know idea what Harbaugh would have done when the score was 19-17. Unless you have a crystal ball that can give me some lottery numbers, your opinion is just that and nothing more. He may have had creative play designs to get another TD or we may have turned the ball over or we may have just eaten up the clock.

Considering he ran the ball and didn't look at all to go for the endzone with 6 minutes remaining and our offense was only 10 yards away from a TD...I have a feeling he would have been happy with a 2 point lead and forced SEA to try and win it.

This still doesn't change the fact that SEA won the halftime adjustments and we were outcoached in that half.

I was looking forward to going back on offense with that 2 point lead with a sense of dread and anticipation. Would Harbaugh and the team go through a clockwork process of going downfield, moving the chains, while killing as much time as possible? That would have been a great barometer as to how well our coaching staff does in the "chess match" of a game. We had the advantage in the 1st half, but Seattle had it in the 2nd - up to that point.

Of course, Ted Ginn had to "spoil" everything.

It would have given us much more information about Harbaugh than we have now. But in a way, I think I got enough information from that 6 minute clock burner when the endzone was there for the taking and it looked like momentum was coming back our way after the penalty giving us another 1st down.

Originally posted by communist:
You dont get it, do you? WCO doesnt mean pass pass pass, especially not with Harbaugh. Look at the '09 Stanford season. But it doesnt mean run up the middle the whole day long either.
Until the moment where our lead melt down to 2 points, we never were in the situation to play risky. Instead, we ran down the clock. The execution wasnt the best in the world but the plan itself was good.

We won against a division rival, with Alex as a good game manager without big mistakes. Our D destroyed the chickens in the 1st half but we lost the 3rd quarter completely.
Of course, we had some luck at the end of the game though luck is relatively. Ginn was acquired for those moments.

If we come to the situation where we are behind (against the boys it could/will happen), then Harbaugh will open up the playbook.

Originally posted by jimbagg:
NFL's new rule, penalizing M. Williams on shoulder-to-shouler hitting of a pass receiver with ball in his hands

??? Like I know the rule doesnt care about where the ball is. It's about defenseless receiver.

I thought defenseless WR rule was when they were in the air, dude had his feet on the ground. and got hit just under his shoulder. There wasn't much defenseless about that.

Originally posted by Joecool:
It would have given us much more information about Harbaugh than we have now. But in a way, I think I got enough information from that 6 minute clock burner when the endzone was there for the taking and it looked like momentum was coming back our way after the penalty giving us another 1st down.

That drive was very frustrating to watch, especially since one of Alex's strengths are the red zone

Originally posted by unst4bl3:

Originally posted by communist:
You dont get it, do you? WCO doesnt mean pass pass pass, especially not with Harbaugh. Look at the '09 Stanford season. But it doesnt mean run up the middle the whole day long either.
Until the moment where our lead melt down to 2 points, we never were in the situation to play risky. Instead, we ran down the clock. The execution wasnt the best in the world but the plan itself was good.

We won against a division rival, with Alex as a good game manager without big mistakes. Our D destroyed the chickens in the 1st half but we lost the 3rd quarter completely.
Of course, we had some luck at the end of the game though luck is relatively. Ginn was acquired for those moments.

If we come to the situation where we are behind (against the boys it could/will happen), then Harbaugh will open up the playbook.

Originally posted by jimbagg:
NFL's new rule, penalizing M. Williams on shoulder-to-shouler hitting of a pass receiver with ball in his hands

??? Like I know the rule doesnt care about where the ball is. It's about defenseless receiver.

I thought defenseless WR rule was when they were in the air, dude had his feet on the ground. and got hit just under his shoulder. There wasn't much defenseless about that.

I think the rule is all about hitting in the head with any part. It was fast and the refs thought he was shouldered in the head...I can't really blame them for calling that but they need to change that rule. Any hit with the shoulder should be legal no matter where it is.

Originally posted by Joecool:
I think the rule is all about hitting in the head with any part. It was fast and the refs thought he was shouldered in the head...I can't really blame them for calling that but they need to change that rule. Any hit with the shoulder should be legal no matter where it is.

I see what you are saying, and what I'd like to add is.... Those calls should be reviewable, by a challenge flag or something. How mad would we have been if that call resulted in them scoring the game winning TD?

Originally posted by Joecool:
We were trying to run out the clock with 6 minutes to go and near a TD. Why don't you ask this, which team played better in the 2nd half and which team sat on it? We were playing too conservative (scared) that half.

We never got to see what the play calling would have been with that 2 point lead. So your basing your assumptions on a game plan that maintained a two score lead. Do you know if JH would have maintained that game plan or what? You don't so don't go assuming anything.

Originally posted by unst4bl3:

Originally posted by Joecool:
I think the rule is all about hitting in the head with any part. It was fast and the refs thought he was shouldered in the head...I can't really blame them for calling that but they need to change that rule. Any hit with the shoulder should be legal no matter where it is.

I see what you are saying, and what I'd like to add is.... Those calls should be reviewable, by a challenge flag or something. How mad would we have been if that call resulted in them scoring the game winning TD?

Agree. It's a possible game changing call and if a fumble can be reviewed, then so should this. The dude already got hit so you can't really protect him after the fact but you can correct the call.

Originally posted by kingairta:

Originally posted by Joecool:
We were trying to run out the clock with 6 minutes to go and near a TD. Why don't you ask this, which team played better in the 2nd half and which team sat on it? We were playing too conservative (scared) that half.

We never got to see what the play calling would have been with that 2 point lead. So your basing your assumptions on a game plan that maintained a two score lead. Do you know if JH would have maintained that game plan or what? You don't so don't go assuming anything.

Sitting on the ball with 6 minutes left only up by 7 when you are 10 yards away from a TD when the opponent has controlled the entire 2nd half? I have a fair idea of what JH would have done.

1. Coaching. Hard to point out everything that this can touch, but the team as a whole looked... better. More prepared? Absolutely. Attention to details like the line-shift on 4th and 1 to draw SEA offside. Alex looks much more comfortable than he's ever looked (IMO) and I can only guess that's due to coaching.

2. Re-adjusting when other team has "figured" us out. A bit alarming that SEA came back the way they did. Can we re-adjust when needed? (I'll admit, I didn't get to see the second half, so don't know if it was on our coaching or if it was execution on the players part)

3. Defense looked more aggressive without giving up huge chunks of yardage on every series. (I feel better about our secondary with Clements gone, but concerned about our Nickel package)

4. As others have pointed out. Gore looked slow (or hesitant?) and just didn't have that POWER that he normally plays with. I realize the run-blocking was horrid, but some of those runs he made just wouldn't have stopped where they did in the past. Have to hope it was just getting his frame of mind/feet under him and that he's not losing it.

Originally posted by unst4bl3:
I see what you are saying, and what I'd like to add is.... Those calls should be reviewable, by a challenge flag or something. How mad would we have been if that call resulted in them scoring the game winning TD?

I hate when a completely legal hit is deamed a penalty. I hate when the league comes out and says we are "cracking down" on this type of penalty. Refs are put in the position to keep the leagues image then maintain the integrity of the game. Happens every year when certain rules are "emphasized" People are going to go over baord and call anything that looks remotely near the definition and stand their with a straight face and say well that's what I saw so live with it.

Our front 7 is better.

Coaches actually had a gameplan that tried to cover for an obvious weakness (the offensive line).

Alex was more accurate than usual.

Special teams overall looks a lot better. Not just the Ginn TD's, but our coverage units overall were impressive, and Andy Lee was as beastly as a punter can get. Both teams punters had unusually good games, I think, especially for Candlestick, but Lee was pretty amazing.

Braylon gives the offense a different dimension. We only got glimpses of it, but as the weeks go on and the offense gets opened up and finds it rhythm, Braylon is going to be awesome. Maybe that's just a hunch, but that's how I see it.




...Other than that, I really didn't see much different. The secondary is still a work in progress. We were still terrible in the 3rd quarter. Despite a couple of very creative play calls, we were still a conservative, game-managing offense, but we did it a little better than in years past. We did not run the ball well, which seems like a step backwards. Our offense was still not fun to watch, except for a couple of bright moments. But: we won. There is something to build on--and we have to build, open things up, etc. And maybe the biggest change that has happened since last year is the sense that the coaches will actually know how to build on success, minimize weaknesses, and evolve. Time will tell, I guess.

Coaching is the biggest thing. The plays were getting in on time and Alex looked IN CONTROL of HIS team. In previous years it looked as if, like Ann Killon said, the QB was just "another guy." This is the first time in a long time where it looks as though the coaches simply facilitate the success. More specifically, the QB is allowed to lead.

After calming down and thinking about it...I'm not as upset with the play calling. As Harbaugh and Smith said...it's what the game dictated. They were up and even though Seattle was "coming back" I have a feeling Harbaugh felt they could at least get another FG..which they did...and the defense would have been able to contain the great Tavaris Jackson from scoring two back to back TDs in less than 4 minutes.

*Oh, and Alex USED HIS FEET. We haven't seen this in the last 2 years. Smith made mention of this in the post game interview saying that the "game plan in previous years" didn't really allow him to use his feet. This is mind numbingly frustrating...so wtf happened? Sing/Raye TOLD him to just hang in the pocket?

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:

Coaching is the biggest thing. The plays were getting in on time and Alex looked IN CONTROL of HIS team. In previous years it looked as if, like Ann Killon said, the QB was just "another guy." This is the first time in a long time where it looks as though the coaches simply facilitate the success. More specifically, the QB is allowed to lead.

After calming down and thinking about it...I'm not as upset with the play calling. As Harbaugh and Smith said...it's what the game dictated. They were up and even though Seattle was "coming back" I have a feeling Harbaugh felt they could at least get another FG..which they did...and the defense would have been able to contain the great Tavaris Jackson from scoring two back to back TDs in less than 4 minutes.

*Oh, and Alex USED HIS FEET. We haven't seen this in the last 2 years. Smith made mention of this in the post game interview saying that the "game plan in previous years" didn't really allow him to use his feet. This is mind numbingly frustrating...so wtf happened? Sing/Raye TOLD him to just hang in the pocket?

The timeout calls were unremarkable and transparent. None of the "WTF" timeouts from the past at odd times and odd locations on the field like deep in our territory.

Originally posted by Joecool:
We were trying to run out the clock with 6 minutes to go and near a TD. Why don't you ask this, which team played better in the 2nd half and which team sat on it? We were playing too conservative (scared) that half.

Don't know if the team "sat on it" like you say. I don't think the plan changed much between half, and why would you change a plan when you are up 16-0 anyways? Only a fool would go and try and fix what isn't broken. I think if you are going to claim they sat on it in the second half, you need to claim it for the first half too because I don't think there was any difference in the plan between halfs.

Truth is, the offense didn't execute worth a s**t ...by and large in either half.....and that is far from "sitting on it". You say the ST won the game in the end which is partially true at best, because the reality is the ST (and the d) pretty much won it all game long (field position, field goals etc.) and the offense didn't execute well pretty much all game long. Stats will bear this out, third down conversions, red zone performance etc.

The offense has a long way to go, and the saying holds true: "You have to learn to first not beat yourself before you can learn to beat others." They got the first part of that wisdom right yesterday and that is big progress for this offense considering where they have been in the past. That was their main contribution yesterday.. ...not beating themselves... and it was a realistic expectation, it's simply unrealistic to expect these dudes to fly when they barely know how to stand on their own feet. They gotta learn to not f**k it up for the rest of the team first (something which they were experts at prior), and they did that. You and I, and everybody else, is just going to have to wait and see if the second part...learning to beat others... comes to fruition or not.