There are 194 users in the forums

Coaches Film Analysis: 2019 Season

Shop Find 49ers gear online
  • thl408
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 25,072
Originally posted by jonnydel:
Looked like cover 4 palms to me. The difference is I think Moseley is expecting the pass rush to get there and just goes lazy on the play. Even if he plays it out, it's still probably a completion. If you look at the other side, Sherm gives up the same route, the difference is that K'Waun Williams is playing soft in the curl zone and Dre Greenlaw is coming up on the RB who's in pass pro. Not sure why, the RB is clearly in pass pro, don't know why he's floating to the LOS. He should be dropping back to help on any deep curl routes.

I thought Palms has the CB reading #2? Moseley pressing #1 can't possibly be reading #2.
Good point on Greenlaw. He could have gotten depth on his drop to help defend this. I think Ward should stayed shallow so that he could be in better position for #1's in breaking route.
49ers passing defense a little shaky to start the game. The first ARI TD where Fitz was wide open was a blown coverage.
  • thl408
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 25,072
Originally posted by fryet:
JohnnyDel, first off I appreciate the time you put into the fantastic analysis of the 49ers offense and defense. This is the number one thing I look for after each game. I would like to provide some constructive criticism, though. In one of your earlier videos this weak, you had a ton of offensive plays covered in one video. You had the routes already drawn up, and you went through the play very quickly. For my weak football mind, I really wasn't able to follow things well. One advantage of manually drawing on the screen is that it forces you to slow down and you explain the routes/defensive coverages in more detail. Now, I am not saying you should manually draw, the new method is much better, but I would like to suggest that you slow yourself down and cover things in more detail. One thing that would help is to isolate the receiver route (visually), and the one/two defender that determines whether the route will be successful.

Anyway, thanks again for the time and effort you put into your review. I learn a lot from them.
If I can chime in on this, I think jd has a wide audience of viewers. For example, some will hear "On this play, the 49ers are running Spot concept vs Cover 3", and know exactly what he means. Some viewers need to be reminded what the Spot concept is. Some never heard of Spot.

I really enjoy jd's format and how smooth it is. I do think that to watch jd's videos, and get the most out of it, you should have a certain baseline level of understanding of route concepts and coverages. It is not elementary stuff and that's a good thing imo.
Originally posted by thl408:
If I can chime in on this, I think jd has a wide audience of viewers. For example, some will hear "On this play, the 49ers are running Spot concept vs Cover 3", and know exactly what he means. Some viewers need to be reminded what the Spot concept is. Some never heard of Spot.

I really enjoy jd's format and how smooth it is. I do think that to watch jd's videos, and get the most out of it, you should have a certain baseline level of understanding of route concepts and coverages. It is not elementary stuff and that's a good thing imo.

I agree with this. Also, google is a great thing in this regards. For those that are unfamiliar with concepts (well, first I'd suggest you look at the pinned thread in this forum stated by Thl years ago.....I may make an appearance in that thread as well even those most my s**t got erased when tinypics was disabled). Google will usually link you to a James light or other X's and O's studs article as well as give you some playart pictures.
[ Edited by Niners816 on Nov 22, 2019 at 11:21 AM ]
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 22,800
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by fryet:
JohnnyDel, first off I appreciate the time you put into the fantastic analysis of the 49ers offense and defense. This is the number one thing I look for after each game. I would like to provide some constructive criticism, though. In one of your earlier videos this weak, you had a ton of offensive plays covered in one video. You had the routes already drawn up, and you went through the play very quickly. For my weak football mind, I really wasn't able to follow things well. One advantage of manually drawing on the screen is that it forces you to slow down and you explain the routes/defensive coverages in more detail. Now, I am not saying you should manually draw, the new method is much better, but I would like to suggest that you slow yourself down and cover things in more detail. One thing that would help is to isolate the receiver route (visually), and the one/two defender that determines whether the route will be successful.

Anyway, thanks again for the time and effort you put into your review. I learn a lot from them.
If I can chime in on this, I think jd has a wide audience of viewers. For example, some will hear "On this play, the 49ers are running Spot concept vs Cover 3", and know exactly what he means. Some viewers need to be reminded what the Spot concept is. Some never heard of Spot.

I really enjoy jd's format and how smooth it is. I do think that to watch jd's videos, and get the most out of it, you should have a certain baseline level of understanding of route concepts and coverages. It is not elementary stuff and that's a good thing imo.


Good point, maybe he can cover some basics with a separate video for beginners and then have the advanced stuff on another video, with some of the more basic stuff referred to in the advanced video. Sort of like a movie ratings kind of indicator. Pg, Pg13, and R,
Originally posted by fryet:
JohnnyDel, first off I appreciate the time you put into the fantastic analysis of the 49ers offense and defense. This is the number one thing I look for after each game. I would like to provide some constructive criticism, though. In one of your earlier videos this weak, you had a ton of offensive plays covered in one video. You had the routes already drawn up, and you went through the play very quickly. For my weak football mind, I really wasn't able to follow things well. One advantage of manually drawing on the screen is that it forces you to slow down and you explain the routes/defensive coverages in more detail. Now, I am not saying you should manually draw, the new method is much better, but I would like to suggest that you slow yourself down and cover things in more detail. One thing that would help is to isolate the receiver route (visually), and the one/two defender that determines whether the route will be successful.

Anyway, thanks again for the time and effort you put into your review. I learn a lot from them.

While that would be nice, that would add tons of additional post production work. And as a professional videographer, editor, and motion graphics designer, I don't think that's worth his extra time or money right now.
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by jonnydel:
Looked like cover 4 palms to me. The difference is I think Moseley is expecting the pass rush to get there and just goes lazy on the play. Even if he plays it out, it's still probably a completion. If you look at the other side, Sherm gives up the same route, the difference is that K'Waun Williams is playing soft in the curl zone and Dre Greenlaw is coming up on the RB who's in pass pro. Not sure why, the RB is clearly in pass pro, don't know why he's floating to the LOS. He should be dropping back to help on any deep curl routes.

I thought Palms has the CB reading #2? Moseley pressing #1 can't possibly be reading #2.
Good point on Greenlaw. He could have gotten depth on his drop to help defend this. I think Ward should stayed shallow so that he could be in better position for #1's in breaking route.
49ers passing defense a little shaky to start the game. The first ARI TD where Fitz was wide open was a blown coverage.

I've always known palms as, is the corner isn't threatened by a vertical he'll sit down and the safeties will match the middle crossing routes.
I might be thinking of cover 2 follow.
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by fryet:
JohnnyDel, first off I appreciate the time you put into the fantastic analysis of the 49ers offense and defense. This is the number one thing I look for after each game. I would like to provide some constructive criticism, though. In one of your earlier videos this weak, you had a ton of offensive plays covered in one video. You had the routes already drawn up, and you went through the play very quickly. For my weak football mind, I really wasn't able to follow things well. One advantage of manually drawing on the screen is that it forces you to slow down and you explain the routes/defensive coverages in more detail. Now, I am not saying you should manually draw, the new method is much better, but I would like to suggest that you slow yourself down and cover things in more detail. One thing that would help is to isolate the receiver route (visually), and the one/two defender that determines whether the route will be successful.

Anyway, thanks again for the time and effort you put into your review. I learn a lot from them.
If I can chime in on this, I think jd has a wide audience of viewers. For example, some will hear "On this play, the 49ers are running Spot concept vs Cover 3", and know exactly what he means. Some viewers need to be reminded what the Spot concept is. Some never heard of Spot.

I really enjoy jd's format and how smooth it is. I do think that to watch jd's videos, and get the most out of it, you should have a certain baseline level of understanding of route concepts and coverages. It is not elementary stuff and that's a good thing imo.


Good point, maybe he can cover some basics with a separate video for beginners and then have the advanced stuff on another video, with some of the more basic stuff referred to in the advanced video. Sort of like a movie ratings kind of indicator. Pg, Pg13, and R,

yeah, a lot of it has come down to me working out kinks of going from stills - video - streamlined video.
My problem with the had drawn out videos was that in my self-reflection and evaluation I was seeing I was getting lost in the weeds way too often, which I do generally. I can easily can drawn off on a tangent.
So, my first efforts at a more streamlined approach I then reviewed and saw I was glancing over too many details then.
From there, it's finding a balance. The harder part about my approach now is remembering to include all the details without sounding redundant and how much time it takes to put together. For example, that video on Jimmy's game winning drive took me about 6 hours or so by the time it was all said and done.
I'm not opposed to that, but when you're spending 6 hours putting together 6 plays and you would like to cover more content, it just gets tight on time.

What I've been doing to try and keep myself on track is I'm writing out a script for myself of the plays so that I don't get draw off topic and can try and include everything.

That's another reason the videos are taking longer. I have to watch all the film, select the plays, record them, categorize them and then write out a script for what I'm going to talk about, record it in audacity, then edit it all together with the drawings and such. Then, I've had 2 videos that adobe crashed on me when I went to export -I had saved the work but the last time I hadn't saved it until I'd done 45 minutes of editing....Then there's the export and upload time and the time to make a cover card for the youtube videos.

All this to say, I'm not trying to sound defensive or complaining about this, I've got myself into it and I'm making a little bit of money - not anything world changing - but I'm not really doing it for the money. It's just an explanation of why things have been the way they've been.

On the idea of the basic - advanced stuff. I've been chewing on the idea of doing a beginner through advanced on a lot of stuff in the off-season. Use whiteboard talks mixed in with video cutups to teach stuff.
For example. Talk about basic coverages then do an episode on the different types of cover 3 then talk about how those types of cover 3 are used and the nuances of stuff, like a cover-3 "match" for example that has a lot of layers of complexity.
Then do a series covering Shanahan's top passing concepts and run concepts - sort of thing. That way I can also keep the channel going through the off-season.
Originally posted by jonnydel:
yeah, a lot of it has come down to me working out kinks of going from stills - video - streamlined video.
My problem with the had drawn out videos was that in my self-reflection and evaluation I was seeing I was getting lost in the weeds way too often, which I do generally. I can easily can drawn off on a tangent.
So, my first efforts at a more streamlined approach I then reviewed and saw I was glancing over too many details then.
From there, it's finding a balance. The harder part about my approach now is remembering to include all the details without sounding redundant and how much time it takes to put together. For example, that video on Jimmy's game winning drive took me about 6 hours or so by the time it was all said and done.
I'm not opposed to that, but when you're spending 6 hours putting together 6 plays and you would like to cover more content, it just gets tight on time.

What I've been doing to try and keep myself on track is I'm writing out a script for myself of the plays so that I don't get draw off topic and can try and include everything.

That's another reason the videos are taking longer. I have to watch all the film, select the plays, record them, categorize them and then write out a script for what I'm going to talk about, record it in audacity, then edit it all together with the drawings and such. Then, I've had 2 videos that adobe crashed on me when I went to export -I had saved the work but the last time I hadn't saved it until I'd done 45 minutes of editing....Then there's the export and upload time and the time to make a cover card for the youtube videos.

All this to say, I'm not trying to sound defensive or complaining about this, I've got myself into it and I'm making a little bit of money - not anything world changing - but I'm not really doing it for the money. It's just an explanation of why things have been the way they've been.

On the idea of the basic - advanced stuff. I've been chewing on the idea of doing a beginner through advanced on a lot of stuff in the off-season. Use whiteboard talks mixed in with video cutups to teach stuff.
For example. Talk about basic coverages then do an episode on the different types of cover 3 then talk about how those types of cover 3 are used and the nuances of stuff, like a cover-3 "match" for example that has a lot of layers of complexity.
Then do a series covering Shanahan's top passing concepts and run concepts - sort of thing. That way I can also keep the channel going through the off-season.

I want a comprehensive video of every formation and variation used by Kyle in his 49ers tenue......K, Thanks
What's crazy is seeing how bad audience retention is on these videos.
For example. My video on Jimmy's game winning drive - over 14k views. I lost over 3.5k viewers before the opening statements were done.....lol
I was losing almost 100 viewers per second.
  • fryet
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 3,136
Originally posted by jonnydel:
yeah, a lot of it has come down to me working out kinks of going from stills - video - streamlined video.
My problem with the had drawn out videos was that in my self-reflection and evaluation I was seeing I was getting lost in the weeds way too often, which I do generally. I can easily can drawn off on a tangent.
So, my first efforts at a more streamlined approach I then reviewed and saw I was glancing over too many details then.
From there, it's finding a balance. The harder part about my approach now is remembering to include all the details without sounding redundant and how much time it takes to put together. For example, that video on Jimmy's game winning drive took me about 6 hours or so by the time it was all said and done.
I'm not opposed to that, but when you're spending 6 hours putting together 6 plays and you would like to cover more content, it just gets tight on time.

What I've been doing to try and keep myself on track is I'm writing out a script for myself of the plays so that I don't get draw off topic and can try and include everything.

That's another reason the videos are taking longer. I have to watch all the film, select the plays, record them, categorize them and then write out a script for what I'm going to talk about, record it in audacity, then edit it all together with the drawings and such. Then, I've had 2 videos that adobe crashed on me when I went to export -I had saved the work but the last time I hadn't saved it until I'd done 45 minutes of editing....Then there's the export and upload time and the time to make a cover card for the youtube videos.

All this to say, I'm not trying to sound defensive or complaining about this, I've got myself into it and I'm making a little bit of money - not anything world changing - but I'm not really doing it for the money. It's just an explanation of why things have been the way they've been.

On the idea of the basic - advanced stuff. I've been chewing on the idea of doing a beginner through advanced on a lot of stuff in the off-season. Use whiteboard talks mixed in with video cutups to teach stuff.
For example. Talk about basic coverages then do an episode on the different types of cover 3 then talk about how those types of cover 3 are used and the nuances of stuff, like a cover-3 "match" for example that has a lot of layers of complexity.
Then do a series covering Shanahan's top passing concepts and run concepts - sort of thing. That way I can also keep the channel going through the off-season.

I may be in the minority here, but I would prefer fewer plays broken down with more detail, than lots of plays done quickly. The last thing I expect from you is to spend even more time making these great videos.

To put this a different way, the best part of your videos is you spotting the main themes of the game offensively and defensively. If you take a theme approach, you pick a couple of plays that show that theme, and then move on to the next theme.

Of course, everyone wants to know why JG through an INT, so ideally those plays are covered regardless whether it covers a theme or not.

  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 22,800
Originally posted by jonnydel:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by fryet:
JohnnyDel, first off I appreciate the time you put into the fantastic analysis of the 49ers offense and defense. This is the number one thing I look for after each game. I would like to provide some constructive criticism, though. In one of your earlier videos this weak, you had a ton of offensive plays covered in one video. You had the routes already drawn up, and you went through the play very quickly. For my weak football mind, I really wasn't able to follow things well. One advantage of manually drawing on the screen is that it forces you to slow down and you explain the routes/defensive coverages in more detail. Now, I am not saying you should manually draw, the new method is much better, but I would like to suggest that you slow yourself down and cover things in more detail. One thing that would help is to isolate the receiver route (visually), and the one/two defender that determines whether the route will be successful.

Anyway, thanks again for the time and effort you put into your review. I learn a lot from them.
If I can chime in on this, I think jd has a wide audience of viewers. For example, some will hear "On this play, the 49ers are running Spot concept vs Cover 3", and know exactly what he means. Some viewers need to be reminded what the Spot concept is. Some never heard of Spot.

I really enjoy jd's format and how smooth it is. I do think that to watch jd's videos, and get the most out of it, you should have a certain baseline level of understanding of route concepts and coverages. It is not elementary stuff and that's a good thing imo.


Good point, maybe he can cover some basics with a separate video for beginners and then have the advanced stuff on another video, with some of the more basic stuff referred to in the advanced video. Sort of like a movie ratings kind of indicator. Pg, Pg13, and R,

yeah, a lot of it has come down to me working out kinks of going from stills - video - streamlined video.
My problem with the had drawn out videos was that in my self-reflection and evaluation I was seeing I was getting lost in the weeds way too often, which I do generally. I can easily can drawn off on a tangent.
So, my first efforts at a more streamlined approach I then reviewed and saw I was glancing over too many details then.
From there, it's finding a balance. The harder part about my approach now is remembering to include all the details without sounding redundant and how much time it takes to put together. For example, that video on Jimmy's game winning drive took me about 6 hours or so by the time it was all said and done.
I'm not opposed to that, but when you're spending 6 hours putting together 6 plays and you would like to cover more content, it just gets tight on time.

What I've been doing to try and keep myself on track is I'm writing out a script for myself of the plays so that I don't get draw off topic and can try and include everything.

That's another reason the videos are taking longer. I have to watch all the film, select the plays, record them, categorize them and then write out a script for what I'm going to talk about, record it in audacity, then edit it all together with the drawings and such. Then, I've had 2 videos that adobe crashed on me when I went to export -I had saved the work but the last time I hadn't saved it until I'd done 45 minutes of editing....Then there's the export and upload time and the time to make a cover card for the youtube videos.

All this to say, I'm not trying to sound defensive or complaining about this, I've got myself into it and I'm making a little bit of money - not anything world changing - but I'm not really doing it for the money. It's just an explanation of why things have been the way they've been.

On the idea of the basic - advanced stuff. I've been chewing on the idea of doing a beginner through advanced on a lot of stuff in the off-season. Use whiteboard talks mixed in with video cutups to teach stuff.
For example. Talk about basic coverages then do an episode on the different types of cover 3 then talk about how those types of cover 3 are used and the nuances of stuff, like a cover-3 "match" for example that has a lot of layers of complexity.
Then do a series covering Shanahan's top passing concepts and run concepts - sort of thing. That way I can also keep the channel going through the off-season.

You are doing a fantastic job JD. Compared to the other videos on youtube, for me, you are the goto resource. I'm clueless about video, so I'll just say I appreciate all the work that you do in assembling all these Videos, I learn lots of stuff from them.

I"m wondering if there is a way to imbed links in the video so a guy like me can click on the link and go to a video that you are referring to for background info. Don't do it if it's too much for you or too complicated though. I'd rather have a video of your analysis than no video at all because it's too hard. In the offseason, I'd love your take on the draft/free agency and how that relates to Kyle's concepts (in addition to some of your planned basic football tutoring videos )- i.e. why Trent Brown was let go (for example) and why McGlinchy was drafted (again just a suggestion for another time in the offseason).

Again, thanks a bunch JD and Thl!

JD
Thl
Originally posted by Giedi:
You are doing a fantastic job JD. Compared to the other videos on youtube, for me, you are the goto resource. I'm clueless about video, so I'll just say I appreciate all the work that you do in assembling all these Videos, I learn lots of stuff from them.

I"m wondering if there is a way to imbed links in the video so a guy like me can click on the link and go to a video that you are referring to for background info. Don't do it if it's too much for you or too complicated though. I'd rather have a video of your analysis than no video at all because it's too hard. In the offseason, I'd love your take on the draft/free agency and how that relates to Kyle's concepts (in addition to some of your planned basic football tutoring videos )- i.e. why Trent Brown was let go (for example) and why McGlinchy was drafted (again just a suggestion for another time in the offseason).

Again, thanks a bunch JD and Thl!

JD
Thl

There is a way to do it, I haven't done it yet so that'd be another thing to learn. I haven't had time to make some of those background videos yet so I don't have much to link there anyway, lol.

I appreciate the community feedback though. It does help me sort through how to improve and keep making great content. The hard part, for me, at least in a game like the last one, there were so many great things to show, it's really hard paring it down. I mean, It's hard to show how many different coverages Jimmy beat without showing him beating all those different coverages. The seattle game, for comparison, was much easier to show even though there was 70 minutes more of football played because Seattle didn't do a lot of different stuff.
Originally posted by jonnydel:
What's crazy is seeing how bad audience retention is on these videos.
For example. My video on Jimmy's game winning drive - over 14k views. I lost over 3.5k viewers before the opening statements were done.....lol
I was losing almost 100 viewers per second.

Not sure what others do, but I sometimes end up watching a little bit just to see if it's one I've seen before. As the intro is the same, and the 'part X' bit of the title is typically at the end of the title and trimmed by YouTube to '...' , it's not simple to determine. I think there is 'part x' in unreadably small text on the thumbnail, and sometimes I look at how long ago the video was released, but my default is to watch the first few seconds.
Originally posted by Driftforge:
Originally posted by jonnydel:
What's crazy is seeing how bad audience retention is on these videos.
For example. My video on Jimmy's game winning drive - over 14k views. I lost over 3.5k viewers before the opening statements were done.....lol
I was losing almost 100 viewers per second.

Not sure what others do, but I sometimes end up watching a little bit just to see if it's one I've seen before. As the intro is the same, and the 'part X' bit of the title is typically at the end of the title and trimmed by YouTube to '...' , it's not simple to determine. I think there is 'part x' in unreadably small text on the thumbnail, and sometimes I look at how long ago the video was released, but my default is to watch the first few seconds.

wow, I didn't realize the pt "x" of the title was unread-able. I'll have to re-think what I'm titling these videos - makes sense why I see such a dropoff from part to part on the views.
Anyone have any ideas on what I could name the episodes to make sense for subs and non-subs?
Originally posted by jonnydel:
wow, I didn't realize the pt "x" of the title was unread-able. I'll have to re-think what I'm titling these videos - makes sense why I see such a dropoff from part to part on the views.
Anyone have any ideas on what I could name the episodes to make sense for subs and non-subs?
Everything may also be amplified by your limited number of users.(please dont take that negatively)
I was also going to say. How much of that could be a rewatch to see something specific. I have done that, I went through some early videos because there was an extremely similar play, i went back to look at it.

Also sometimes i fail to get the video in my time window, i have to pause it, when i come back its gone.

I wonder how casting it to a TV effects your data. Also it autoplaying videos we have seen already so it gets skipped or closed.
[ Edited by jdt84_2 on Nov 22, 2019 at 9:00 PM ]
Share 49ersWebzone