Game #10 The Good, Bad, Ugly

Originally posted by BarrySandwich:
That's not a good comparison,they run 1 million more times a game in League and AFL than they do in the NFL

The more you run = More chance of missed tackles

True, but there is also blocking in American FB & players often have to shed the blocker before attempting to make the tackle, that doesn't leave you a lot of time to get into a good tackling position.

Open field tackling is difficult in any tackling football code, especially with the power/speed & footwork of the players they trying to bring down.
Two missed tackles all game is unrealistic

Originally posted by Dingo:

Good - BG and the offensive effort for most of their limited possession.
Bad - More crappy, cowardly play calls with nothing to lose.
Ugly - Tackling technique (agree with auviper, an area NFL, if it weren't so insular, could learn from NRL where tackling happens every 10 seconds for 80 minutes. AFL is a different technique- not so much about preventing yardage but preventing disposal of the ball.) Pears, sick of watching him being spun around.

I was pretty happy with the overall offensive effort. Gabbert again looked solid and decisive. He had some very good throws, a few questionable ones, but by and large was sharp. 250 yards and 2 TDs at Seattle is something we haven't seen from a Niners QB in a while.

The defense was horrifying. Coverage breakdowns coupled with extremely poor tackling means a big offensive day for an otherwise pedestrian offense. The Seahawks are not a 500+ yards a game type of offense. And it looked easy today. Rawls is going to be a great back, but no player puts up 200+ on the ground without an assist from the defense. Hats off to Rawls in any case.

Agreed on Pears. It's time to go to the next guy. But more concerning to me, why was Devey out there to start the game? It's pretty clear the Devey/Pears pairing has nothing going for it, why did the coaching staff go back to it? That's extremely alarming and shows complete incompetence by the coaching staff.

Originally posted by JoeBart324:

Originally posted by Dingo:
Good - BG and the offensive effort for most of their limited possession.
Bad - More crappy, cowardly play calls with nothing to lose.
Ugly - Tackling technique (agree with auviper, an area NFL, if it weren't so insular, could learn from NRL where tackling happens every 10 seconds for 80 minutes. AFL is a different technique- not so much about preventing yardage but preventing disposal of the ball.) Pears, sick of watching him being spun around.

I was pretty happy with the overall offensive effort. Gabbert again looked solid and decisive. He had some very good throws, a few questionable ones, but by and large was sharp. 250 yards and 2 TDs at Seattle is something we haven't seen from a Niners QB in a while.

The defense was horrifying. Coverage breakdowns coupled with extremely poor tackling means a big offensive day for an otherwise pedestrian offense. The Seahawks are not a 500+ yards a game type of offense. And it looked easy today. Rawls is going to be a great back, but no player puts up 200+ on the ground without an assist from the defense. Hats off to Rawls in any case.

Agreed on Pears. It's time to go to the next guy. But more concerning to me, why was Devey out there to start the game? It's pretty clear the Devey/Pears pairing has nothing going for it, why did the coaching staff go back to it? That's extremely alarming and shows complete incompetence by the coaching staff.

This has has been mentioned here ad nauseam, totally mystifying.

Originally posted by BarrySandwich:

The Bad

2 weeks to prepare and still get destroyed by a bad team,doesn't get any worse than that

This

Originally posted by Dingo:
Good - BG and the offensive effort for most of their limited possession.
Bad - More crappy, cowardly play calls with nothing to lose.
Ugly - Tackling technique (agree with auviper, an area NFL, if it weren't so insular, could learn from NRL where tackling happens every 10 seconds for 80 minutes. AFL is a different technique- not so much about preventing yardage but preventing disposal of the ball.) Pears, sick of watching him being spun around.

no excuse for not starting Hodges over Wilhoite now

Bad Pears single handed killed 3 drives he is terrible and Brown should get a lot more snaps.

Originally posted by JoeBart324:

Originally posted by Dingo:
Good - BG and the offensive effort for most of their limited possession.
Bad - More crappy, cowardly play calls with nothing to lose.
Ugly - Tackling technique (agree with auviper, an area NFL, if it weren't so insular, could learn from NRL where tackling happens every 10 seconds for 80 minutes. AFL is a different technique- not so much about preventing yardage but preventing disposal of the ball.) Pears, sick of watching him being spun around.

I was pretty happy with the overall offensive effort. Gabbert again looked solid and decisive. He had some very good throws, a few questionable ones, but by and large was sharp. 250 yards and 2 TDs at Seattle is something we haven't seen from a Niners QB in a while.

The defense was horrifying. Coverage breakdowns coupled with extremely poor tackling means a big offensive day for an otherwise pedestrian offense. The Seahawks are not a 500+ yards a game type of offense. And it looked easy today. Rawls is going to be a great back, but no player puts up 200+ on the ground without an assist from the defense. Hats off to Rawls in any case.

Agreed on Pears. It's time to go to the next guy. But more concerning to me, why was Devey out there to start the game? It's pretty clear the Devey/Pears pairing has nothing going for it, why did the coaching staff go back to it? That's extremely alarming and shows complete incompetence by the coaching staff.

Tiller started the game.

Good - Marshawn Lynch wasn't playing. What a relief.

Good- Gabbert seems to have the offense in a slightly better place mentally, even if not fully born out in results on the field due to talent voids in key areas.

Bad- coaching is abysmal.

Ugly- DL looked like a bunch of slugs that was supposed to be a strength of the team. These are Tomsula Men, and they played like a JV team.

Originally posted by tohara3:

Originally posted by BarrySandwich:
The Bad

2 weeks to prepare and still get destroyed by a bad team,doesn't get any worse than that

This

we were never in the game.

we lost - so all bad.

from the first two possessions and we went 3 and out. to garbage time plays
tackle - FFS
pears. OMG and yet he still gets a start every week?
coaches, calls so conservative they are more concerned about loosing big than wining.
running game sucked
ST either blockers didn't show up for the return guy or got in his way when they did.

good
our kicker FG never misses
one drive late first half

* We have only three good or decent OL between Staley/Boone/Tiller. Martin and Pears can't block.

* Draughn is filling in admirably, but he's no Hyde.

* Defense giving up 200+ to any RB is inexcusable. Rawls is a talented player, a diamond in the rough, won't take that away from him, but we looked weak.

* Acker and Brock looked so bad. Rusty. Poor position, horrendous tackling. The speed and physicality of Cromartie and Johnson I think helped our defense play much better. It's hard to use such a small sample size to draw conclusions, but I'm willing to bet we could have better results if we had the latter two start with Brock/Acker/Ward rotating and playing the slot (Brock/Ward that is).

* Brooks is slightly above average at best, but he's all we've got. Eli Harold was getting chances today, but still is a one-trick pony. Lemonier? .... lol. The pick wasn't a bad pick when we took him, he just didn't pan out. We badly need to get pass-rush help for next season. If we have any chance to land a top rusher in FA, we do it. If we can get a top notch DL, we should do that too.

Good - Gabbert, Aaron Lynch, and OL pass blocking (minus Pears).
Bad - LBs, offensive playcalling. More no huddle and short passes.
Ugly - Mangini - players miss tackles because they are out of position and/or not talented enough. Terrible defensive playcalling. Cromartie replaced Ackers. Why not replace Wilhoite?

UGLY: Torrey Smith

Originally posted by wailers15:
UGLY: Torrey Smith

his catches have been sweet! Just happens to be only 1 in every 3 times.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
* We have only three good or decent OL between Staley/Boone/Tiller. Martin and Pears can't block.

* Draughn is filling in admirably, but he's no Hyde.

* Defense giving up 200+ to any RB is inexcusable. Rawls is a talented player, a diamond in the rough, won't take that away from him, but we looked weak.

* Acker and Brock looked so bad. Rusty. Poor position, horrendous tackling. The speed and physicality of Cromartie and Johnson I think helped our defense play much better. It's hard to use such a small sample size to draw conclusions, but I'm willing to bet we could have better results if we had the latter two start with Brock/Acker/Ward rotating and playing the slot (Brock/Ward that is).

* Brooks is slightly above average at best, but he's all we've got. Eli Harold was getting chances today, but still is a one-trick pony. Lemonier? .... lol. The pick wasn't a bad pick when we took him, he just didn't pan out. We badly need to get pass-rush help for next season. If we have any chance to land a top rusher in FA, we do it. If we can get a top notch DL, we should do that too.

I think we've been way too hard on Brooks. Our embarrassment of riches at OLB just made him look worse than he really was. He's the Tony Romo of linebackers. As we now know, we can do MUCH worse.