Analysis from the Tampa Bay coaches film

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NinerG94:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Snyder ruined the handoff to Boldin, I'll show you, if Snyder makes a simple block, boldin walks in, also, the TD to Vernon was made because he pulled Crabs off the field. I will show it all through the film in a little bit, I'm first comparing our Run D to Tampa's

This!! I saw that when it was live. It was a great play and a great time to call it. Had it been executed right it would have been an easy TD. I hate that bashing Roman in Niner talk has become the trendy topic. Just like how Whitner sucked last season and Dashon did nothing but hit hard and get penalties. Some spoiled ass low information arm chair wannabe gm's in here. I'm sorry but I'm sick of reading the same regurgitated garbage about how bad Roman is. I really hate reading from people who have no idea what they're even looking at on gameday.

You speak the truth dude. Jonnydel has totally made people on here look like fools who have absolutely no idea in what they're talking about. The gameday thread is atrocious. Everyone's emotional, and oblivious to what is the real reason for mishaps and such. Fresh perspective, REAL analysis. Not some vague finger pointing re-hashed b******t. I think Marvin's posting is great. Still is, but doesn't have the detailed intricacy's with break downs in film snippets.

Agreed. My contention is that the first time you should watch the game with your heart. The 2nd, 3rd, etc. you should watch with your mind and you'll see a TOTALLY different game.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Agreed. My contention is that the first time you should watch the game with your heart. The 2nd, 3rd, etc. you should watch with your mind and you'll see a TOTALLY different game.

exactly

Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. He was right about CK being a one-read QB so you dismiss his whole notion as well? Listen, I don't like Grant Cohen either but sometimes he's right on point and you have to respect that (not him).

That's been proven wrong.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Dilfer: "If you're a skill position guy for the Niners, you're only getting the ball if the play was designed to get you the ball. They don't have the type of offensive structure and Colin isn't the type of quarterback that there are five eligible receivers and anyone can get the ball."

Does someone want to call B.S. on my theory now? Dilfer essentially went one level deeper (where I'm at) from calling CK a "remedial" QB if the first read isn't there to what I have been highlighting with the AR (team designed) passing game.

I didnt know u worshipped Dilfer. How's his nuts taste?

I've followed this thread and the previous Seattle analysis thread from the beginning and just wanted to add my 2 cents about the AR vs PS debate. (Now that I know what you mean...lol)

First of all, I would hope that the team has changed, adapted, grown since Dilfer was last a part of the 49ers. If that wasn't the case, every team in our division would be scrambling to hire him as an offensive consultant. I mean to say, that I tend to believe that things change more than just the verbage of play calls. I think the offensive philosophy adapts and grows, especially as a QB and offense as a whole grows. This being the case, I think Dilfer is doing about the same as jonnydel and th and to some degree Ncommand. Making educated guesses based on what he sees happen on the field. Like others, I never thought that Dilfer was that great of a analytical QB to begin with and therefore take most of his quotes with a grain of salt.

As to the subject of the AR vs PS style offense, has anyone brought up the possibility that the two plays that are called into Kap consist of one AR and one PS. Then based on his comfort level with each individual play and his feel for the game, he is choosing between those two?

Originally posted by SFFanSince72:
I've followed this thread and the previous Seattle analysis thread from the beginning and just wanted to add my 2 cents about the AR vs PS debate. (Now that I know what you mean...lol)

First of all, I would hope that the team has changed, adapted, grown since Dilfer was last a part of the 49ers. If that wasn't the case, every team in our division would be scrambling to hire him as an offensive consultant. I mean to say, that I tend to believe that things change more than just the verbage of play calls. I think the offensive philosophy adapts and grows, especially as a QB and offense as a whole grows. This being the case, I think Dilfer is doing about the same as jonnydel and th and to some degree Ncommand. Making educated guesses based on what he sees happen on the field. Like others, I never thought that Dilfer was that great of a analytical QB to begin with and therefore take most of his quotes with a grain of salt.

As to the subject of the AR vs PS style offense, has anyone brought up the possibility that the two plays that are called into Kap consist of one AR and one PS. Then based on his comfort level with each individual play and his feel for the game, he is choosing between those two?

That's def. possible. I think they run a combination of the two, that some are team passing and some aren't. Overall, I think, even if it is a team passing type of play, that's not a negative. Peyton runs a lot of team concept stuff all the time. He's constantly running rub routes and decoy routes based off what he see's during the game. I watched a lot of the coaches film of the Broncos and Chargers game and he was setting up a lot of half field reads for himself with a lot of decoy routes to clear out zones as San Diego ran a lot of zone coverage during the first half.

There's no way to tell what the other play called in the huddle was when the execute the plays though.....

Right now I'm working on scouting Atlanta. This is taking a long time because I'm going back to our playoff game against them last year, and then going through this year and then more looking at what they have done against Carolina this year to see how they change their gameplan against a mobile quarterback. It's a ton of game film to go through. It'll take a while, I probably won't have it until tomorrow

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Here I'll try and show what happened on the 2nd TD we gave up... still not 100% sure.



From here I've shown what we're going to do as far as a coverage drop. It appears like we're trying to run a cover 2 zone. However, if we are, I don't know what the heck Whitner is doing..... We also might be running a cover 3 zone and Reid failed to rotate over, but, I think it was the former.



You can see as the play develops everyone is dropping into a cover 2 zone look, what Whitner is doing... I have no idea...



You see a the top, Brock is dropping into a more shallow zone, showing he's expecting a safety zone over the top. Whitner, still don't know.....




You see Rogers clues in on the guy coming into his soft zone, whereas the TE heads to, what I think, is Whitner's deep half responsibility, but he's not there.... leaving a huge hole.



By the time he reacts, he's already lost.



Here it looks like Whitner is playing a man coverage scheme



But here, he looks like he's play zone, peeking in the backfield....



But here, he's back to chasing the TE, not sure what he's doing.....

The good news is, whatever happened, is unlikely to happen again. I think it was a breakdown somewhere where he thought it was a different coverage, or heard a different coverage in the huddle. IDK, but rare to see something like this.

Looks like Whitner had his worst game of the year. However he has really played a lot better than last year and hopefully in the play offs he is on top of his game.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
personally, I think Dilfer is oversimplifying things a little bit. He means that, if you're not the receiver designed against a certain coverage, and that certain coverage appears, you're not getting the ball - which is what I've seen. But, that doesn't mean that he's not an option on other plays where the primary read wasn't there. We set up a lot of half field reads(as I've shown) but, I've also shown(rams game with the flood route combo) that there are options for other receivers to get the ball based on Colin's read. On that play, Boldin was the 3rd read, and, if Colin were simply, "running the play as he's told" Vernon gets the ball on that play every time.

Lets send a tweet to Dilfer and ask him if we are mostly an AR passing team or a version of the west coast?

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by SFFanSince72:
I've followed this thread and the previous Seattle analysis thread from the beginning and just wanted to add my 2 cents about the AR vs PS debate. (Now that I know what you mean...lol)

First of all, I would hope that the team has changed, adapted, grown since Dilfer was last a part of the 49ers. If that wasn't the case, every team in our division would be scrambling to hire him as an offensive consultant. I mean to say, that I tend to believe that things change more than just the verbage of play calls. I think the offensive philosophy adapts and grows, especially as a QB and offense as a whole grows. This being the case, I think Dilfer is doing about the same as jonnydel and th and to some degree Ncommand. Making educated guesses based on what he sees happen on the field. Like others, I never thought that Dilfer was that great of a analytical QB to begin with and therefore take most of his quotes with a grain of salt.

As to the subject of the AR vs PS style offense, has anyone brought up the possibility that the two plays that are called into Kap consist of one AR and one PS. Then based on his comfort level with each individual play and his feel for the game, he is choosing between those two?

That's def. possible. I think they run a combination of the two, that some are team passing and some aren't. Overall, I think, even if it is a team passing type of play, that's not a negative. Peyton runs a lot of team concept stuff all the time. He's constantly running rub routes and decoy routes based off what he see's during the game. I watched a lot of the coaches film of the Broncos and Chargers game and he was setting up a lot of half field reads for himself with a lot of decoy routes to clear out zones as San Diego ran a lot of zone coverage during the first half.

There's no way to tell what the other play called in the huddle was when the execute the plays though.....

This is very true. We're essentially talking about two sides of the same coin and the fundamental difference is the number of played called from each set. I think we run a more predominant AR and jonny thinks we run PS (correct me if I'm wrong jonny). You can't live or die by one philosophy anymore. DC's are too good. Look how quickly they adjusted to the Q formation (read-option).

And like I said in Roman thread, the AR's HAVE and will continue to successful as long as everyone does their part. It relies heavily on top notch talent and individual matchups as well as the OC calling the right plays in the huddle. As a reference, the AR2 where we have two or three offensive players downfield blocking while an underneath AR is hit well short of the first down and it's up to him to get RAC to make that marker? That play was stolen by Alex Smith and incorporated into the KC playbook with one wrinkle...the underneath WR will drag from one side of the field to the other for RAC so that he's at full speed when he catches that underneath route making him much harder to tackle in the open field.

Thanks for all the detailed analysis johnnydel.

Just wanted to say I was firmly in the camp of Roman being a mediocre OC. You threads have changed that perception. I think it's apparent the offense is fairly complex and seeks to exploit the weaknesses of other teams, whether it be run or pass. It's not just a one read offense, or an offense that will continually run into 9 man fronts. However, some of these plays are very complex or rely on great execution to work. Thus, when they don't work, they get utterly blown up and look ridiculous.

I think this is where much of our consternation has come from. We've seen the Niners perform poorly and were quick to blame Roman. But it appears it is a mix of players missing assignments, defenses simply out-executing the Niners, Kaep missing his throw and/or read, and difficulties in getting the play off due (apparently) to the difficulty of radio-ing in a complex play call. Not all of that is Roman's fault.

Fortunately, much of this is correctable, and the offense should improve as it gets healthier.

Originally posted by kronik:
That's been proven wrong.

Proven wrong by who? I haven't seen anyone prove that wrong yet.

On the contrary, spending 3-4 hours a day reading and listening to NFL coaches, players, and broadcasters, it's been proven that is the strategy teams employ against Kaepernick, at least pre-Crabtree/Manningham.

Or did you see a couple GIFs of Kap scanning the field and convinced yourself that he no longer struggles there

Originally posted by SFFanSince72:
I've followed this thread and the previous Seattle analysis thread from the beginning and just wanted to add my 2 cents about the AR vs PS debate. (Now that I know what you mean...lol)

First of all, I would hope that the team has changed, adapted, grown since Dilfer was last a part of the 49ers. If that wasn't the case, every team in our division would be scrambling to hire him as an offensive consultant. I mean to say, that I tend to believe that things change more than just the verbage of play calls. I think the offensive philosophy adapts and grows, especially as a QB and offense as a whole grows. This being the case, I think Dilfer is doing about the same as jonnydel and th and to some degree Ncommand. Making educated guesses based on what he sees happen on the field. Like others, I never thought that Dilfer was that great of a analytical QB to begin with and therefore take most of his quotes with a grain of salt.

As to the subject of the AR vs PS style offense, has anyone brought up the possibility that the two plays that are called into Kap consist of one AR and one PS. Then based on his comfort level with each individual play and his feel for the game, he is choosing between those two?

I sure hope so b/c that would mean 1) CK is hitting the right receivers successfully in these sets and 2) the coaching staff is starting to put more and more on HIS shoulders vs. relying on their own chess match pre-play and hoping CK, the AR and the non-AR's are executing to perfection (including the OL and pass protection in this as well).

Originally posted by Stanley:

Originally posted by kronik:
That's been proven wrong.

Proven wrong by who? I haven't seen anyone prove that wrong yet.

On the contrary, spending 3-4 hours a day reading and listening to NFL coaches, players, and broadcasters, it's been proven that is the strategy teams employ against Kaepernick, at least pre-Crabtree/Manningham.

Or did you see a couple GIFs of Kap scanning the field and convinced yourself that he no longer struggles there

You beat me to it. All you have to do is watch ANY 2 or 3 plays and you'll STILL see he's a one-read...but NOT b/c he's incompetent and green but b/c of the DESIGN. And THAT is where Dilfer is going with this after initially thinking he was one-read only.

Originally posted by JoeBart324:
Thanks for all the detailed analysis johnnydel.

Just wanted to say I was firmly in the camp of Roman being a mediocre OC. You threads have changed that perception. I think it's apparent the offense is fairly complex and seeks to exploit the weaknesses of other teams, whether it be run or pass. It's not just a one read offense, or an offense that will continually run into 9 man fronts. However, some of these plays are very complex or rely on great execution to work. Thus, when they don't work, they get utterly blown up and look ridiculous.

I think this is where much of our consternation has come from. We've seen the Niners perform poorly and were quick to blame Roman. But it appears it is a mix of players missing assignments, defenses simply out-executing the Niners, Kaep missing his throw and/or read, and difficulties in getting the play off due (apparently) to the difficulty of radio-ing in a complex play call. Not all of that is Roman's fault.

Fortunately, much of this is correctable, and the offense should improve as it gets healthier.

Spot on IMHO! It's a myriad of issues...from offensive philsophy, game planning, lack of adjustments (or the wrong ones), personnel issues, CK being green and hesitant, the 6-coach-input, that fan up in section 64B, etc. It realy is a number of factors but at least, right now, we can rule out personnel and even CK being "green" now that we're into week 16. We should really see now what the coaches had in store for our offense prior to Crabtree going down (but don't underestimate the impact Miller has in our offense either).