NY Giants coaches film analysis

Originally posted by NCommand:
Who cares if it's a 94 power, 93 counter, 96 trap or 93 ISO...it's a RUN UP THE MIDDLE against an 8-10 man box. I posted the facts. If you want to act surprised when we struggle to sustain drives via 2nd and 3rd downs up against the 8-ball, that's fine. All we're saying is that we're only playing with 2 downs here and that's hard to do, even with all the talent we have, including CK who is able to avoid so many pressures and sacks and make something out of nothing (ala 8 of his 12 TD's via broken plays).

As to what "I" would do? I'm not an OC nor would I ever claim to be. I saw a negative trend that was deeper than a best-case-secenario anticipation pass by CK into a tight window on 3rd and 8 and asked, "Why are we even IN 3rd and 8? Let's look at that b/c that's going to tell the bigger picture."

So there it is...and I agree, passing isn't exactly great either WHEN we pass on 1st downs so let's take a look at them in this film review thread. Isn't that more meaningful? Let's take a look at every single 1st down call and see what we could have done to set ourselves up better. I stated earlier, we'll probably see a large number of reasons for going backwards on 1st downs.

BUT no matter what way you slice it, this long of a trend, that comes down to coaching. Period.

To the first Bolded: It does matter a lot which runs we're calling against which fronts. Just because a team is in an 8 man box doesn't mean we can't run against it. If you couldn't run against an 8 man box how did Frank Gore run for 10,000 yards??? He's seen an 8-9 man box for probably 8,000 of those 10,000 yards....

You said you posted the facts - Ok.... what does that tell us as far as causation?? Correlation does not equal causation. It tells us 1st down is a problem - but not the root cause.

To the 2nd bolded: You talk like we're not looking at the big picture. Most of the time, when I post plays, I pick that particular play because it's an example of what I've seen in the big picture. I write down - as I'm watching the games, what plays we've run on the different downs and what defenses it looked like we played against. That way, I tend to get a very good look at what the big picture of the game was.

Lastly, not to sound rude here, but, if you want to take the time to do that - then go ahead. What you're asking us to do to try is something I might be able to spend a week and half doing for each game in the off-season. Because, the narrative you're asking us to look at is a very long and complex one. This is why I write what I do in my original posts. Because, I try and summarize everything I see as the complete narrative of the game - sequencing of plays, performances, what did/did not work, how we ended up in things. To break down every 1st down play is a long and tedious endeavor that I don't have time to do. Because, for it to be truly unbiased, we'd have to look at all of them, successful and unsuccessful. It's easy to point to a 1st down run failure against an 8 man box and say, "well that's why our offense sucks". But, what it disregards are the 3 successful 1st down runs we had on the drive....

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
I'm sorry Bro, but I absolutely refuse to put this on Kap based on the games I've been watching. Kap has been a good leader, and to suggest that he hasn't and that's the reason for the woes on offense is totally wrong-headed IMHO. From what I can tell watching the games it seems as if Kap isn't playing comfortable. The way I see it is that Roman and JH aren't coaching to the players strengths - in particular Kaps - but to a philosophy. When you see the same problems consistently emerge game after game after game, even during games where Kap isn't playing bad at all, you have to turn to coaching as the source. It cannot always be poor player execution, and it definitely cannot be lack of leadership. This team might be lacking a lot of things but leadership isn't one of them. When your deffense hands you 5 turnovers and all your offense can muster is 16 points, when your offense consistently has a problem in the red zone, when your offense has the particular habit of abandoning the run even when the RB's are averaging 5 yards a carry, when you have weapons galore on offense not being adequately tapped, when play calls are consistently called that exposes the weaknesses of your O-line, poor execution or QB leadership can only be a scapegoat and piss-poor excuse for not holding the coaches to account.

No Sir, I cannot accept Kaps leadership as the reason we struggled on offense. Coaches coach, and players play. It's very easy to blame the players because they are the ones on the field. Sure there has been times where the players haven't played their best. But that don't explain these struggles on offense - not even remotely. At some point coaching comes into the equation. And for me the coaching looms large on the current 49ers offensive woes.

IMHO

Easy with the angry face buddy - don't pop a vein.....

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Who cares if it's a 94 power, 93 counter, 96 trap or 93 ISO...it's a RUN UP THE MIDDLE against an 8-10 man box. I posted the facts. If you want to act surprised when we struggle to sustain drives via 2nd and 3rd downs up against the 8-ball, that's fine. All we're saying is that we're only playing with 2 downs here and that's hard to do, even with all the talent we have, including CK who is able to avoid so many pressures and sacks and make something out of nothing (ala 8 of his 12 TD's via broken plays).

As to what "I" would do? I'm not an OC nor would I ever claim to be. I saw a negative trend that was deeper than a best-case-secenario anticipation pass by CK into a tight window on 3rd and 8 and asked, "Why are we even IN 3rd and 8? Let's look at that b/c that's going to tell the bigger picture."

So there it is...and I agree, passing isn't exactly great either WHEN we pass on 1st downs so let's take a look at them in this film review thread. Isn't that more meaningful? Let's take a look at every single 1st down call and see what we could have done to set ourselves up better. I stated earlier, we'll probably see a large number of reasons for going backwards on 1st downs.

BUT no matter what way you slice it, this long of a trend, that comes down to coaching. Period.

To the first Bolded: It does matter a lot which runs we're calling against which fronts. Just because a team is in an 8 man box doesn't mean we can't run against it. If you couldn't run against an 8 man box how did Frank Gore run for 10,000 yards??? He's seen an 8-9 man box for probably 8,000 of those 10,000 yards....

You said you posted the facts - Ok.... what does that tell us as far as causation?? Correlation does not equal causation. It tells us 1st down is a problem - but not the root cause.

To the 2nd bolded: You talk like we're not looking at the big picture. Most of the time, when I post plays, I pick that particular play because it's an example of what I've seen in the big picture. I write down - as I'm watching the games, what plays we've run on the different downs and what defenses it looked like we played against. That way, I tend to get a very good look at what the big picture of the game was.

Lastly, not to sound rude here, but, if you want to take the time to do that - then go ahead. What you're asking us to do to try is something I might be able to spend a week and half doing for each game in the off-season. Because, the narrative you're asking us to look at is a very long and complex one. This is why I write what I do in my original posts. Because, I try and summarize everything I see as the complete narrative of the game - sequencing of plays, performances, what did/did not work, how we ended up in things. To break down every 1st down play is a long and tedious endeavor that I don't have time to do. Because, for it to be truly unbiased, we'd have to look at all of them, successful and unsuccessful. It's easy to point to a 1st down run failure against an 8 man box and say, "well that's why our offense sucks". But, what it disregards are the 3 successful 1st down runs we had on the drive....

Yes, even Gore can gain positive yards against an obvious 8-10 man box...the "Gore-effect" as I call it but overall, how are we doing in that category when we're going backwards THIS YEAR?

I don't want to be rude either but if you're willing to show the series of 3rd and longs, why wouldn't do the same for 1st down plays as well when I post the facts for you? It certainly isn't "volume." Could it be that 1st down plays might highlight "other" waeknesses and 3rd down and long cut-ups highlight more of this: "... this falls squarely on the shoulders of CK."?

Personally, I understand the source of our offensive woes can fall into many categories (and state so when jsutified) but only one category is solely responsible overall...coaching (and I love Harbaugh). So to me, I'd rather spend time reviewing 1st downs and looking at the series of events rather than reiewing the end result once we're already backed up against the wall (although, important too).

But if you aren't willing to help get down to the source in this objective thread, to-each-his-own and we'll walk about knowing you flat out bias and come to peace with it.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
I'm sorry Bro, but I absolutely refuse to put this on Kap based on the games I've been watching. Kap has been a good leader, and to suggest that he hasn't and that's the reason for the woes on offense is totally wrong-headed IMHO. From what I can tell watching the games it seems as if Kap isn't playing comfortable. The way I see it is that Roman and JH aren't coaching to the players strengths - in particular Kaps - but to a philosophy. When you see the same problems consistently emerge game after game after game, even during games where Kap isn't playing bad at all, you have to turn to coaching as the source. It cannot always be poor player execution, and it definitely cannot be lack of leadership. This team might be lacking a lot of things but leadership isn't one of them. When your deffense hands you 5 turnovers and all your offense can muster is 16 points, when your offense consistently has a problem in the red zone, when your offense has the particular habit of abandoning the run even when the RB's are averaging 5 yards a carry, when you have weapons galore on offense not being adequately tapped, when play calls are consistently called that exposes the weaknesses of your O-line, poor execution or QB leadership can only be a scapegoat and piss-poor excuse for not holding the coaches to account.

No Sir, I cannot accept Kaps leadership as the reason we struggled on offense. Coaches coach, and players play. It's very easy to blame the players because they are the ones on the field. Sure there has been times where the players haven't played their best. But that don't explain these struggles on offense - not even remotely. At some point coaching comes into the equation. And for me the coaching looms large on the current 49ers offensive woes.

IMHO

The tape doesn't lie. CK missed a few. Some games have gone on the OL, there's been a game that's gone on drops, and there's been games that have gone on CK missing reads or making terrible decisions based on the situation. There have also been games where Roman has done a WTF.

What we do know is that there is a reason why we have yet to put a complete game together and that's because there has yet to be game where all of these have been in sync at the same time: OL, WR's, Kap, and Roman.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Who cares if it's a 94 power, 93 counter, 96 trap or 93 ISO...it's a RUN UP THE MIDDLE against an 8-10 man box. I posted the facts. If you want to act surprised when we struggle to sustain drives via 2nd and 3rd downs up against the 8-ball, that's fine. All we're saying is that we're only playing with 2 downs here and that's hard to do, even with all the talent we have, including CK who is able to avoid so many pressures and sacks and make something out of nothing (ala 8 of his 12 TD's via broken plays).

As to what "I" would do? I'm not an OC nor would I ever claim to be. I saw a negative trend that was deeper than a best-case-secenario anticipation pass by CK into a tight window on 3rd and 8 and asked, "Why are we even IN 3rd and 8? Let's look at that b/c that's going to tell the bigger picture."

So there it is...and I agree, passing isn't exactly great either WHEN we pass on 1st downs so let's take a look at them in this film review thread. Isn't that more meaningful? Let's take a look at every single 1st down call and see what we could have done to set ourselves up better. I stated earlier, we'll probably see a large number of reasons for going backwards on 1st downs.

BUT no matter what way you slice it, this long of a trend, that comes down to coaching. Period.

To the first Bolded: It does matter a lot which runs we're calling against which fronts. Just because a team is in an 8 man box doesn't mean we can't run against it. If you couldn't run against an 8 man box how did Frank Gore run for 10,000 yards??? He's seen an 8-9 man box for probably 8,000 of those 10,000 yards....

You said you posted the facts - Ok.... what does that tell us as far as causation?? Correlation does not equal causation. It tells us 1st down is a problem - but not the root cause.

To the 2nd bolded: You talk like we're not looking at the big picture. Most of the time, when I post plays, I pick that particular play because it's an example of what I've seen in the big picture. I write down - as I'm watching the games, what plays we've run on the different downs and what defenses it looked like we played against. That way, I tend to get a very good look at what the big picture of the game was.

Lastly, not to sound rude here, but, if you want to take the time to do that - then go ahead. What you're asking us to do to try is something I might be able to spend a week and half doing for each game in the off-season. Because, the narrative you're asking us to look at is a very long and complex one. This is why I write what I do in my original posts. Because, I try and summarize everything I see as the complete narrative of the game - sequencing of plays, performances, what did/did not work, how we ended up in things. To break down every 1st down play is a long and tedious endeavor that I don't have time to do. Because, for it to be truly unbiased, we'd have to look at all of them, successful and unsuccessful. It's easy to point to a 1st down run failure against an 8 man box and say, "well that's why our offense sucks". But, what it disregards are the 3 successful 1st down runs we had on the drive....

Yes, even Gore can gain positive yards against an obvious 8-10 man box...the "Gore-effect" as I call it but overall, how are we doing in that category when we're going backwards THIS YEAR?

I don't want to be rude either but if you're willing to show the series of 3rd and longs, why wouldn't do the same for 1st down plays as well when I post the facts for you? It certainly isn't "volume." Could it be that 1st down plays might highlight "other" waeknesses and 3rd down and long cut-ups highlight more of this: "... this falls squarely on the shoulders of CK."?

Personally, I understand the source of our offensive woes can fall into many categories (and state so when jsutified) but only one category is solely responsible overall...coaching (and I love Harbaugh). So to me, I'd rather spend time reviewing 1st downs and looking at the series of events rather than reiewing the end result once we're already backed up against the wall (although, important too).

But if you aren't willing to help get down to the source in this objective thread, to-each-his-own and we'll walk about knowing you flat out bias and come to peace with it.

Because we had - as I counted, if I recall right(I threw my paper away after I reviewed all the film) we had 5 3rd and longs in the game. To see an accurate idea of our 1st down production, you have to look at all the 1st downs. That's over 20 plays - I simply don't have the time to break down over 20 plays for the sole purpose of analyzing 1st down and I don't want to spend all my time looking at our offensive 1st down. That would be a thread in its own. So yes, it is "volume". I'd rather look at a handful of offensive plays that highlight the overall story of the game and look at the defensive highlights.

to the last bold - hahaha, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black lol

I understand how much you hate Roman, but let's not take a cheap shot at me for not having the time to entertain the witch hunt you have.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Who cares if it's a 94 power, 93 counter, 96 trap or 93 ISO...it's a RUN UP THE MIDDLE against an 8-10 man box. I posted the facts. If you want to act surprised when we struggle to sustain drives via 2nd and 3rd downs up against the 8-ball, that's fine. All we're saying is that we're only playing with 2 downs here and that's hard to do, even with all the talent we have, including CK who is able to avoid so many pressures and sacks and make something out of nothing (ala 8 of his 12 TD's via broken plays).

As to what "I" would do? I'm not an OC nor would I ever claim to be. I saw a negative trend that was deeper than a best-case-secenario anticipation pass by CK into a tight window on 3rd and 8 and asked, "Why are we even IN 3rd and 8? Let's look at that b/c that's going to tell the bigger picture."

So there it is...and I agree, passing isn't exactly great either WHEN we pass on 1st downs so let's take a look at them in this film review thread. Isn't that more meaningful? Let's take a look at every single 1st down call and see what we could have done to set ourselves up better. I stated earlier, we'll probably see a large number of reasons for going backwards on 1st downs.

BUT no matter what way you slice it, this long of a trend, that comes down to coaching. Period.

To the first Bolded: It does matter a lot which runs we're calling against which fronts. Just because a team is in an 8 man box doesn't mean we can't run against it. If you couldn't run against an 8 man box how did Frank Gore run for 10,000 yards??? He's seen an 8-9 man box for probably 8,000 of those 10,000 yards....

You said you posted the facts - Ok.... what does that tell us as far as causation?? Correlation does not equal causation. It tells us 1st down is a problem - but not the root cause.

To the 2nd bolded: You talk like we're not looking at the big picture. Most of the time, when I post plays, I pick that particular play because it's an example of what I've seen in the big picture. I write down - as I'm watching the games, what plays we've run on the different downs and what defenses it looked like we played against. That way, I tend to get a very good look at what the big picture of the game was.

Lastly, not to sound rude here, but, if you want to take the time to do that - then go ahead. What you're asking us to do to try is something I might be able to spend a week and half doing for each game in the off-season. Because, the narrative you're asking us to look at is a very long and complex one. This is why I write what I do in my original posts. Because, I try and summarize everything I see as the complete narrative of the game - sequencing of plays, performances, what did/did not work, how we ended up in things. To break down every 1st down play is a long and tedious endeavor that I don't have time to do. Because, for it to be truly unbiased, we'd have to look at all of them, successful and unsuccessful. It's easy to point to a 1st down run failure against an 8 man box and say, "well that's why our offense sucks". But, what it disregards are the 3 successful 1st down runs we had on the drive....

Yes, even Gore can gain positive yards against an obvious 8-10 man box...the "Gore-effect" as I call it but overall, how are we doing in that category when we're going backwards THIS YEAR?

I don't want to be rude either but if you're willing to show the series of 3rd and longs, why wouldn't do the same for 1st down plays as well when I post the facts for you? It certainly isn't "volume." Could it be that 1st down plays might highlight "other" waeknesses and 3rd down and long cut-ups highlight more of this: "... this falls squarely on the shoulders of CK."?

Personally, I understand the source of our offensive woes can fall into many categories (and state so when jsutified) but only one category is solely responsible overall...coaching (and I love Harbaugh). So to me, I'd rather spend time reviewing 1st downs and looking at the series of events rather than reiewing the end result once we're already backed up against the wall (although, important too).

But if you aren't willing to help get down to the source in this objective thread, to-each-his-own and we'll walk about knowing you flat out bias and come to peace with it.

Because we had - as I counted, if I recall right(I threw my paper away after I reviewed all the film) we had 5 3rd and longs in the game. To see an accurate idea of our 1st down production, you have to look at all the 1st downs. That's over 20 plays - I simply don't have the time to break down over 20 plays for the sole purpose of analyzing 1st down and I don't want to spend all my time looking at our offensive 1st down. That would be a thread in its own. So yes, it is "volume". I'd rather look at a handful of offensive plays that highlight the overall story of the game and look at the defensive highlights.

to the last bold - hahaha, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black lol

I understand how much you hate Roman, but let's not take a cheap shot at me for not having the time to entertain the witch hunt you have.

Nah, just these...if we were backed up d/t a penalty, just note it and move onto the next. It shouldn't be too many at all, right?

Giant's Game:
2nd and 18
2nd and 17
2nd and 11
2nd and 7
2nd and 8
2nd and 11
2nd and 10
2nd and 9
2nd and 10
2nd and 7
2nd and 8
2nd and 9

Of the 19 2nd downs we had this game, here is the breakdown:
12 of the 19 times we had >7 yards to go averaging 10.4 yards to go

And for the record, it's called HaRoman. And I don't hate either man...I hate our system, the play book and the play calling within it. It's an Anti-WCO. Of course I don't like it...it plays, CLEARLY, to our weaknesses, isn't QB or OL-friendly and doesn't utilize talent to the best of our abilities; it's a "hodge podge" offense. This isn't exactly eye-opening to fans in here. It's been reality after 4 years of proof under 2 different QB's at both ends of the QB-experience spectrum. That said, the players aren't exactly helping themselves either so...lots of issues but it ALL comes down to coaching in the end...starts AND ends with coaching b/c it certainly isn't talent.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Who cares if it's a 94 power, 93 counter, 96 trap or 93 ISO...it's a RUN UP THE MIDDLE against an 8-10 man box. I posted the facts. If you want to act surprised when we struggle to sustain drives via 2nd and 3rd downs up against the 8-ball, that's fine. All we're saying is that we're only playing with 2 downs here and that's hard to do, even with all the talent we have, including CK who is able to avoid so many pressures and sacks and make something out of nothing (ala 8 of his 12 TD's via broken plays).

As to what "I" would do? I'm not an OC nor would I ever claim to be. I saw a negative trend that was deeper than a best-case-secenario anticipation pass by CK into a tight window on 3rd and 8 and asked, "Why are we even IN 3rd and 8? Let's look at that b/c that's going to tell the bigger picture."

So there it is...and I agree, passing isn't exactly great either WHEN we pass on 1st downs so let's take a look at them in this film review thread. Isn't that more meaningful? Let's take a look at every single 1st down call and see what we could have done to set ourselves up better. I stated earlier, we'll probably see a large number of reasons for going backwards on 1st downs.

BUT no matter what way you slice it, this long of a trend, that comes down to coaching. Period.

To the first Bolded: It does matter a lot which runs we're calling against which fronts. Just because a team is in an 8 man box doesn't mean we can't run against it. If you couldn't run against an 8 man box how did Frank Gore run for 10,000 yards??? He's seen an 8-9 man box for probably 8,000 of those 10,000 yards....

You said you posted the facts - Ok.... what does that tell us as far as causation?? Correlation does not equal causation. It tells us 1st down is a problem - but not the root cause.

To the 2nd bolded: You talk like we're not looking at the big picture. Most of the time, when I post plays, I pick that particular play because it's an example of what I've seen in the big picture. I write down - as I'm watching the games, what plays we've run on the different downs and what defenses it looked like we played against. That way, I tend to get a very good look at what the big picture of the game was.

Lastly, not to sound rude here, but, if you want to take the time to do that - then go ahead. What you're asking us to do to try is something I might be able to spend a week and half doing for each game in the off-season. Because, the narrative you're asking us to look at is a very long and complex one. This is why I write what I do in my original posts. Because, I try and summarize everything I see as the complete narrative of the game - sequencing of plays, performances, what did/did not work, how we ended up in things. To break down every 1st down play is a long and tedious endeavor that I don't have time to do. Because, for it to be truly unbiased, we'd have to look at all of them, successful and unsuccessful. It's easy to point to a 1st down run failure against an 8 man box and say, "well that's why our offense sucks". But, what it disregards are the 3 successful 1st down runs we had on the drive....

Yes, even Gore can gain positive yards against an obvious 8-10 man box...the "Gore-effect" as I call it but overall, how are we doing in that category when we're going backwards THIS YEAR?

I don't want to be rude either but if you're willing to show the series of 3rd and longs, why wouldn't do the same for 1st down plays as well when I post the facts for you? It certainly isn't "volume." Could it be that 1st down plays might highlight "other" waeknesses and 3rd down and long cut-ups highlight more of this: "... this falls squarely on the shoulders of CK."?

Personally, I understand the source of our offensive woes can fall into many categories (and state so when jsutified) but only one category is solely responsible overall...coaching (and I love Harbaugh). So to me, I'd rather spend time reviewing 1st downs and looking at the series of events rather than reiewing the end result once we're already backed up against the wall (although, important too).

But if you aren't willing to help get down to the source in this objective thread, to-each-his-own and we'll walk about knowing you flat out bias and come to peace with it.

Because we had - as I counted, if I recall right(I threw my paper away after I reviewed all the film) we had 5 3rd and longs in the game. To see an accurate idea of our 1st down production, you have to look at all the 1st downs. That's over 20 plays - I simply don't have the time to break down over 20 plays for the sole purpose of analyzing 1st down and I don't want to spend all my time looking at our offensive 1st down. That would be a thread in its own. So yes, it is "volume". I'd rather look at a handful of offensive plays that highlight the overall story of the game and look at the defensive highlights.

to the last bold - hahaha, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black lol

I understand how much you hate Roman, but let's not take a cheap shot at me for not having the time to entertain the witch hunt you have.

Nah, just these...if we were backed up d/t a penalty, just note it and move onto the next. It shouldn't be too many at all, right?

Giant's Game:
2nd and 18
2nd and 17
2nd and 11
2nd and 7
2nd and 8
2nd and 11
2nd and 10
2nd and 9
2nd and 10
2nd and 7
2nd and 8
2nd and 9

Of the 19 2nd downs we had this game, here is the breakdown:
12 of the 19 times we had >7 yards to go averaging 10.4 yards to go

That's still 12 plays dude - That'd take me about about 3-4 hours for that alone. Also, without showing the other 7 successful 1st down plays, you don't get a feeling for overall play selection. Because it will skew the data. If we see 6 negative runs on 1st down, but ignore 5 positive runs on 1st down, we'll have an unbalanced view of the play calling - which is what you want anyways though.....

Originally posted by NCommand:
Who cares if it's a 94 power, 93 counter, 96 trap or 93 ISO...it's a RUN UP THE MIDDLE against an 8-10 man box. I posted the facts. If you want to act surprised when we struggle to sustain drives via 2nd and 3rd downs up against the 8-ball, that's fine. All we're saying is that we're only playing with 2 downs here and that's hard to do, even with all the talent we have, including CK who is able to avoid so many pressures and sacks and make something out of nothing (ala 8 of his 12 TD's via broken plays).

As to what "I" would do? I'm not an OC nor would I ever claim to be. I saw a negative trend that was deeper than a best-case-secenario anticipation pass by CK into a tight window on 3rd and 8 and asked, "Why are we even IN 3rd and 8? Let's look at that b/c that's going to tell the bigger picture."

So there it is...and I agree, passing isn't exactly great either WHEN we pass on 1st downs so let's take a look at them in this film review thread. Isn't that more meaningful? Let's take a look at every single 1st down call and see what we could have done to set ourselves up better. I stated earlier, we'll probably see a large number of reasons for going backwards on 1st downs.

BUT no matter what way you slice it, this long of a trend, that comes down to coaching. Period.

Not all "run up the middle" is the same. That's like saying all short throws are the same. All intermediate throws are the same. There are different ways to get someone open over the middle. There are different blocking concepts that achieve a "run up the middle". Different defensive fronts are susceptible to different blocking concepts.

To the point about 1st downs. I think it's a good one and a big reason why the offense seems to stall on drives. Negative plays and penalties kill 49er drives as they seem to rarely recover from these drive killing 1st downs.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
That's still 12 plays dude - That'd take me about about 3-4 hours for that alone. Also, without showing the other 7 successful 1st down plays, you don't get a feeling for overall play selection. Because it will skew the data. If we see 6 negative runs on 1st down, but ignore 5 positive runs on 1st down, we'll have an unbalanced view of the play calling - which is what you want anyways though.....

Like I said above, if we're in 2nd and long d/t a penalty, just note it and move on to the next. We're trying to get down to the heart of why 2/3rds of the time, we going BACKWARDS on 1st downs. Given that this is a perpetual problem, it's important we review, right?

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Who cares if it's a 94 power, 93 counter, 96 trap or 93 ISO...it's a RUN UP THE MIDDLE against an 8-10 man box. I posted the facts. If you want to act surprised when we struggle to sustain drives via 2nd and 3rd downs up against the 8-ball, that's fine. All we're saying is that we're only playing with 2 downs here and that's hard to do, even with all the talent we have, including CK who is able to avoid so many pressures and sacks and make something out of nothing (ala 8 of his 12 TD's via broken plays).

As to what "I" would do? I'm not an OC nor would I ever claim to be. I saw a negative trend that was deeper than a best-case-secenario anticipation pass by CK into a tight window on 3rd and 8 and asked, "Why are we even IN 3rd and 8? Let's look at that b/c that's going to tell the bigger picture."

So there it is...and I agree, passing isn't exactly great either WHEN we pass on 1st downs so let's take a look at them in this film review thread. Isn't that more meaningful? Let's take a look at every single 1st down call and see what we could have done to set ourselves up better. I stated earlier, we'll probably see a large number of reasons for going backwards on 1st downs.

BUT no matter what way you slice it, this long of a trend, that comes down to coaching. Period.

Not all "run up the middle" is the same. That's like saying all short throws are the same. All intermediate throws are the same. There are different ways to get someone open over the middle. There are different blocking concepts that achieve a "run up the middle". Different defensive fronts are susceptible to different blocking concepts.

To the point about 1st downs. I think it's a good one and a big reason why the offense seems to stall on drives. Negative plays and penalties kill 49er drives as they seem to rarely recover from these drive killing 1st downs.

They all end the same for us (2nd and long) and 30th in the NFL so does it matter what formation we ran a negative play from?

As to your second point there, I know we certainly see eye-to-eye on that one and honestly, the Giants game wasn't televised nationally this round so I'm leaning on your guys to help us out and show these 1st downs that lead to 2nd and longs to see if we can pinpoint why we're in this predicament so often. If you two don't have the time, I understand.

For something from the defense: This was a straight up bad a$$ play. 7:31 in the 1st Qtr



The Giants are gonna run a simple dive. The O-line is hat on hat, straight up blocking. The RB dives into the hole - very simple Run play. I've highlighted the blocking assignments.


As soon as the guard infront of him moves forward for a run block borland hits the hole. This is what I've talked about how he plays with no hesitation. You see Wilhoite is still trying to read the play and hasn't moved forward yet.


Borland hits the guard with absolute violence. It's more than just brute strength or being crazy, he does it with good form. He keeps his hips square and explodes through his hips(that's why power cleans are a great lift for LB's to get power) and hits the Guard just under his pads with his arms.


His hit is so violent that he knocks the guard back into the RB. The blue arrow is pointing at the RB's shoulder.


This blows up the play.


From this angle - it's hard to see, but the RB is stuffed against the guard as the guard was pushed back into the RB.


The Giants gain 3 yards. That was so awesome to watch. When I saw that play it got me really excited. That is amazing LB play.

Originally posted by fryet:

Originally posted by jonesadrian:
If it's hard to pinpoint then don't pinpoint the blame lol. I think it's a collective effort from what I've seen. combination of missed blocks, bad reads, drops...and especially drive extending drops where everything was done right but the catch.. and play calling.
it's everyone.

Personally, I want to hear what JohnnyDel and Thl have to say about the root cause. Does that mean that they are necessarily correct? Certainly not, but my personal opinion is molded as I hear what the experts on this board have to say. I certainly don't want to hamstring them into only giving us the facts. I want to know what they think as well.

I go through the rewind tape too I see what they see too This is their thing and Im not nor have i taken a shot at them about anything they present. I agree with it most times so it's not coming from a guy who doesn't recognize and see the same things that they do. I am just saying that it's a system issue and that doesn't mean the play calling it's everything that's off just a bit that makes this offense not what it could be. a block here, a drop there, a play call here and there it's everyone holding us back not just 1 person, that's what the tape shows when I see it and Kap is including in that everyone.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
For something from the defense: This was a straight up bad a$$ play. 7:31 in the 1st Qtr



The Giants are gonna run a simple dive. The O-line is hat on hat, straight up blocking. The RB dives into the hole - very simple Run play. I've highlighted the blocking assignments.


As soon as the guard infront of him moves forward for a run block borland hits the hole. This is what I've talked about how he plays with no hesitation. You see Wilhoite is still trying to read the play and hasn't moved forward yet.


Borland hits the guard with absolute violence. It's more than just brute strength or being crazy, he does it with good form. He keeps his hips square and explodes through his hips(that's why power cleans are a great lift for LB's to get power) and hits the Guard just under his pads with his arms.


His hit is so violent that he knocks the guard back into the RB. The blue arrow is pointing at the RB's shoulder.


This blows up the play.


From this angle - it's hard to see, but the RB is stuffed against the guard as the guard was pushed back into the RB.


The Giants gain 3 yards. That was so awesome to watch. When I saw that play it got me really excited. That is amazing LB play.

Wow, 7 on 7 and Borland doesn't just shoot a gap, he BLOWS IT UP! Look at the difference between how Wilhoite and Borland play that assignment (and Wilhoite is a good players). But Borland? The leverage, fisrt-step burst to generate power, instincts, etc. Just awesome!

Originally posted by NCommand:
Wow, 7 on 7 and Borland doesn't just shoot a gap, he BLOWS IT UP! Look at the difference between how Wilhoite and Borland play that assignment (and Wilhoite is a good players). But Borland? The leverage, fisrt-step burst to generate power, instincts, etc. Just awesome!

I saw it from the texans game when he got that interception. He absolutely trusts what he sees 100% of the time and because of his study habits he's right more than wrong. it's the equivalent of any of us seeing 1+1=
Some players say "Let's see, it looks like 1+1 so it's probably 2."
Players like him and a few others on this defense simply go "2."

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Well the *trend* is a sucky passing offense. Any DC worth his salt will 8 man in a box the run, and dare this offense to pass. Our run game is actually doing very well, thank you.

As for Jonnydel's question, I think the play in which crabs scored a TD is going to be exploited by this offense. The tendency of a defense is indeed to load up on the run and zone if it's not a run, so I think the offense needs to run those kinds of plays more. It's very much like the Martz offense with the square in's and square outs, because most teams zone the Martz offense - due to it's complexity. I think instead of vertical stretch plays, more sudden quick change routes like a square in, post, or square out will suit this WR corps better.

That, of course, means Colin has to be able to read the zone coverages much better and continue to develop the ability to throw blind. The nice thing about that play (the crabs TD) is I think there are options for Colin if it's man. I.e, if it's man, instead of a zone, Crabs (or anquan on the other side) runs a much sharper route to shake the man defender, maybe a hook, or a slant, or a hitch.

How about this between two fans. How about we watch the first down play calling for the next game. Let's break it down...what we liked, what we didn't, etc.? Were the coaches doing something different to address this issue but we clearly were failing on execution? Or was the play calling running into a brick wall and hamstringing the players? Drops, poor run blocking, blitz pick up, etc. I did the research, showed you a HUGE area of weakness for 10 games now, so let's try to get down to the source.

I already rewatched the game twice, and I already posted what I thought was wrong. Go back a few pages, I'm not going to look for it. Summary. TE play, O-line Play, and Colin's still learning the offense. What Jonnydel and thl408 analaysis did was pretty much confirm what I thought was happening. It's not my fault you don't understand how important the TE is to this offense. I've tried to explain it, but if you aren't open to that idea and have some bias against G-ro, not much I can do about that.