49ers OC claims he didn't use real offense during 42-13 loss

[themunn]

I take it he didn't want to show his hand in the first half against Baltimore too?

 

[Marvin49]

We beat the Rams, something the Niners couldn't do. See, two can play that game.

Also, using the Harb's record against the Seahawks is funny. Last I checked you guys beat a Tarvaris Jackson led Seahawks twice, the guy who couldn't wrest the starting job in Buffalo away from Fitzgerald, and then even had trouble doing that in Seattle. The only reason Seattle got swept in 2011 is because Tavaris Jackson even though he had 2 opportunities to win the game in the 4th quarter choked the chance away, as evidenced when he threw the ball away on 4th down to save a sack on Seattle's last possession. The next year in San Fransisco you had trouble beating a rookie led scaled back offense, then got shellacked in Seattle when the offense was opened up while your offense scored 3 more points then it did at home.

...and the 'hawks couldn't beat Atlanta whom the Niners eliminated from the playoffs, needed a miracle to beat the Packers (a team the 49ers beat handily TWICE), actually managed to LOSE once to Arizona, and actually managed to lose to both Miami and Detroit....two teams the Niners beat.

Seriously. We can do this all day.

All the Ram talk does is prove my point. Any given sunday.

My point is that saying "We beat somebody you lost to" doesn't mean crap. We beat teams you didn't as well. All that matters is head to head, you barely beat us and we spanked you. I am not saying that is a division changer, but depending on how the season goes this year it could very well be looked back on and seen as one. I am not even making excuses for why my team lost to the Cards, Dolphins, Lions, and Falcons, even though I could be giving legitimate ones for it, like you have for your teams losses. All four of those games we had the chance to win, but didn't. It happens, sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way. Both of our teams had problems down the stretch with defensive injuries to major contributors. Our teams virtually had identical records, 11-5 to 11-4-1. The only reason your team won the division is because you didn't lose to the Rams, when we both know you really should have been swept by them.

Oh. LOL. Is that "all that matters"?

That is kinda MY entire point. One game means nothing. The game got out of hand early. Cudos to the Seahawks for the win.

It doesn't mean that the Seahawks are hands down the better team. It means that they were the better team ON THAT DAY.

I mentioned the GB games, Atlanta...all of that not to say "we beat them, we're better. My entire point was that its Any Given Sunday.

If Kaep doesn't throw that wild pitch in St. Louis, the Niners would have won by 1.5 games. If David Akers can hit just 1 freakin field goal, it would have been another game.

I'm sure as Seattle fans you can see many similar circumstances in your games.

All I have ever been saying is that the 42-13 result you guys have been harping on means far less than you want it to.

 

[Marvin49]

I take it he didn't want to show his hand in the first half against Baltimore too?

Clever.

 

[The Outfield]

We should create more of these threads and see how many 49ers fans we can get to waste their day fruitlessly defending their team. :stirthepot:

 

[Marvin49]

We should create more of these threads and see how many 49ers fans we can get to waste their day fruitlessly defending their team. :stirthepot:

Cool. Sounds like fun.

 

[Lynch Mob]

Damn and this guy wants to be a HC not to many teams would be cool with anyone giving up especially the coaches crazy stuff.

 

[Marvin49]

Damn and this guy wants to be a HC not to many teams would be cool with anyone giving up especially the coaches crazy stuff.

Is this too difficult a concept?

HE WASN'T GIVING UP. THEY DIDN'T LOSE ON PURPOSE. SEATTLE WON THE GAME FAIR AND SQUARE.

All he did was scale back the playbook in order to not show playoff opposition too much...something that most teams do but don't often admit.

Nice name BTW.

 

[TheLargentLine]

Nice excuse you effing whiner. Can't wait to hear your next one!

 

[Teqneek]

The statement doesnt even make sense... They were still in a fight for the division.. and the season only had 3 games left. What were teams going to pick up against the Seahawks they hadnt the other 13 games? Besides like someone else said. What does our offense scoring 42 points have to do with their inept attempt?

Their real offense with Alex Smith scores 13 at home.. their non real offense with Kaep can barely get a TD against our backups? Doesnt sound to promising for his game plan lol

 

[Teqneek]

Damn and this guy wants to be a HC not to many teams would be cool with anyone giving up especially the coaches crazy stuff.

Is this too difficult a concept?

HE WASN'T GIVING UP. THEY DIDN'T LOSE ON PURPOSE. SEATTLE WON THE GAME FAIR AND SQUARE.

All he did was scale back the playbook in order to not show playoff opposition too much...something that most teams do but don't often admit.

Nice name BTW.

Its not like this was the first 3 games of the season.. I know you are a 49 homer, but are you that daft to believe something so far fetched? Like my last post.. maybe from a 49er fan.. what were they going to give away that people didnt already know?

 

[QuickLightning]

Damn and this guy wants to be a HC not to many teams would be cool with anyone giving up especially the coaches crazy stuff.

Is this too difficult a concept?

HE WASN'T GIVING UP. THEY DIDN'T LOSE ON PURPOSE. SEATTLE WON THE GAME FAIR AND SQUARE.

All he did was scale back the playbook in order to not show playoff opposition too much...something that most teams do but don't often admit.

Nice name BTW.

Its not like this was the first 3 games of the season.. I know you are a 49 homer, but are you that daft to believe something so far fetched? Like my last post.. maybe from a 49er fan.. what were they going to give away that people didnt already know?

Look at the Green Bay playoff game and you tell me, did it work? Did Green Bay gameplan incorrectly?

 

[AbsolutNET]

I'm looking forward to next January: "The 9ers just dialed back their offense and defense this year so teams won't have them on tape in 2014!"

 

[Shadowhawk]

Damn and this guy wants to be a HC not to many teams would be cool with anyone giving up especially the coaches crazy stuff.

Is this too difficult a concept?

HE WASN'T GIVING UP. THEY DIDN'T LOSE ON PURPOSE. SEATTLE WON THE GAME FAIR AND SQUARE.

All he did was scale back the playbook in order to not show playoff opposition too much...something that most teams do but don't often admit.

Nice name BTW.

Its not like this was the first 3 games of the season.. I know you are a 49 homer, but are you that daft to believe something so far fetched? Like my last post.. maybe from a 49er fan.. what were they going to give away that people didnt already know?

Look at the Green Bay playoff game and you tell me, did it work? Did Green Bay gameplan incorrectly?

Green Bay gameplanned like they thought Alex Smith was still starting. Just because their coaching staff utterly failed to do their job, it doesn't constitute proof that this was all some master plan of San Francisco's to hide their playoff schemes over the last few weeks of the season.

To buy this argument you have to believe that SF--a team that, as Marvin so thoroughly pointed out, was suffering injuries to key players and exhausted after two straight road games--was willing to risk losing out on a badly-needed first round bye and even the chance to host a playoff game just to keep their cards close to the vest. Not buying it.

 

[hawk45]

Damn and this guy wants to be a HC not to many teams would be cool with anyone giving up especially the coaches crazy stuff.

Is this too difficult a concept?

HE WASN'T GIVING UP. THEY DIDN'T LOSE ON PURPOSE. SEATTLE WON THE GAME FAIR AND SQUARE.

All he did was scale back the playbook in order to not show playoff opposition too much...something that most teams do but don't often admit.

Nice name BTW.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. The idea that the playbook was scaled back gives your offense an excuse for getting crushed. You saying "Seattle won fair and square" is just giving a head-fake to good sportsmanship, and nobody is buying it.

ITA that one game doesn't mean a ton, but it was a hurtful, excruciating colon stomping by your division rival in a game that DID matter to SF's seeding and there is no chance anyone dialed it back. I understand some teams dial it back before the post-season, but those are generally teams that have the seeding locked up or are playing opponents they can beat without the entire playbook.

You piss and moan about how Seattle fans act like the game means so much, maybe that's warranted I don't know, but that's how rivalries go. The last team to win between WSU and UW gets to brag, especially if it's a reaming, and regardless of how the rest of the season went for the 2 teams. Deal with it. Coming on here and claiming we won fair and square out of one side of your mouth while making excuses and crying for Mommy out of the other is a big reason you see that win shoved in Niner fan faces so much.

Not all Niner fans because we have some cool ones on here. Just ones desperately grasping at some total BS news item as a fig leaf to cover the small weewees their team showed in the last game against their rivals.

 

[Marvin49]

Green Bay gameplanned like they thought Alex Smith was still starting. Just because their coaching staff utterly failed to do their job, it doesn't constitute proof that this was all some master plan of San Francisco's to hide their playoff schemes over the last few weeks of the season.

To buy this argument you have to believe that SF--a team that, as Marvin so thoroughly pointed out, was suffering injuries to key players and exhausted after two straight road games--was willing to risk losing out on a badly-needed first round bye and even the chance to host a playoff game just to keep their cards close to the vest. Not buying it.

You not buying it doesn't make it less true.

I realize you guys don't pay as much attention to the 49ers, interviews with players and coaches and the like (I wouldn't expect you to), but its pretty common knowledge that the 49ers spent alot of time in the off week before the Packer game on installing a number of permiations of the Pistol and read-option. The offense they ran in Seattle was vanilla. That doesn't mean that they didn't try to win. It doesn't mean that they weren't throwing deep.

It also doesn't mean that the score would have been any different had they NOT been running a vanilla O. It just means that they kept some things in reserve for later games.

BTW...this isn't the first time they have done this. He often roles out exotic plays and then goes vanilla another week. He'll throw to a DT one week do nothing close to that the next.

This strategy worked against GB. They had no idea what was coming. It clearly DIDN'T work in Seattle. Had it cost them the division it would have been a huge mistake. Thankfully, it didn't and they surprised the hell out of GB. I just remember the stunned look on Clay Mattews face after the game saying that they hadn't seen any of that stuff on tape.

 

[Marvin49]

Damn and this guy wants to be a HC not to many teams would be cool with anyone giving up especially the coaches crazy stuff.

Is this too difficult a concept?

HE WASN'T GIVING UP. THEY DIDN'T LOSE ON PURPOSE. SEATTLE WON THE GAME FAIR AND SQUARE.

All he did was scale back the playbook in order to not show playoff opposition too much...something that most teams do but don't often admit.

Nice name BTW.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. The idea that the playbook was scaled back gives your offense an excuse for getting crushed. You saying "Seattle won fair and square" is just giving a head-fake to good sportsmanship, and nobody is buying it.

ITA that one game doesn't mean a ton, but it was a hurtful, excruciating colon stomping by your division rival in a game that DID matter to SF's seeding and there is no chance anyone dialed it back. I understand some teams dial it back before the post-season, but those are generally teams that have the seeding locked up or are playing opponents they can beat without the entire playbook.

You piss and moan about how Seattle fans act like the game means so much, maybe that's warranted I don't know, but that's how rivalries go. The last team to win between WSU and UW gets to brag, especially if it's a reaming, and regardless of how the rest of the season went for the 2 teams. Deal with it. Coming on here and claiming we won fair and square out of one side of your mouth while making excuses and crying for Mommy out of the other is a big reason you see that win shoved in Niner fan faces so much.

Not all Niner fans because we have some cool ones on here. Just ones desperately grasping at some total BS news item as a fig leaf to cover the small weewees their team showed in the last game against their rivals.

What I'm saying is that the playbook was scaled back but even that isn't enough to account for a 42-13 drubbing. The scaled back playbook isn't the reason they lost.

Kaeps worst game as a pro, the defense not getting off the bus plus Special Teams nightmares were the reason they lost.

I'm not saying that Seattle isn't good. I'm not saying the win for you guys wasn't a big deal. I'm just saying it doesn't mean all some of you think it means.

A good example...

In 2010 the Bucs came into Candlestick after the Niners had begun a bit of a resurgence with Troy Smith at QB. The Bucs CRUSHED the Niners 21-0. The next year the Bucs came back.....and the Niners won 48-3.

I guess the message here is "slow down". Seattle is better than TB by alarge margin. I'm just saying that game proved exactly nothing.

 

[Shadowhawk]

Green Bay gameplanned like they thought Alex Smith was still starting. Just because their coaching staff utterly failed to do their job, it doesn't constitute proof that this was all some master plan of San Francisco's to hide their playoff schemes over the last few weeks of the season.

To buy this argument you have to believe that SF--a team that, as Marvin so thoroughly pointed out, was suffering injuries to key players and exhausted after two straight road games--was willing to risk losing out on a badly-needed first round bye and even the chance to host a playoff game just to keep their cards close to the vest. Not buying it.

You not buying it doesn't make it less true.

I realize you guys don't pay as much attention to the 49ers, interviews with players and coaches and the like (I wouldn't expect you to), but its pretty common knowledge that the 49ers spent alot of time in the off week before the Packer game on installing a number of permiations of the Pistol and read-option. The offense they ran in Seattle was vanilla. That doesn't mean that they didn't try to win. It doesn't mean that they weren't throwing deep.

It also doesn't mean that the score would have been any different had they NOT been running a vanilla O. It just means that they kept some things in reserve for later games.

BTW...this isn't the first time they have done this. He often roles out exotic plays and then goes vanilla another week. He'll throw to a DT one week do nothing close to that the next.

This strategy worked against GB. They had no idea what was coming. It clearly DIDN'T work in Seattle. Had it cost them the division it would have been a huge mistake. Thankfully, it didn't and they surprised the hell out of GB. I just remember the stunned look on Clay Mattews face after the game saying that they hadn't seen any of that stuff on tape.

You haven't proven that it is true. If you are correct that Roman came up with some new tricks for the Packers game, good for him. But the Yahoo article that launched this thread wasn't talking about Roman's game plan for the Packers game, it was making the claim A) that he dialed back the playbook in the last two games of the season and B) did it to keep from showing his hand to potential playoff teams. Not the same thing; for all we know, Roman sat down after the regular season and said, "the usual stuff isn't working. I need to try something new." All you have proved is that he tried some new things in the playoffs. You haven't proven that he ran a "vanilla O" to end the regular season. And the reason why I am skeptical that he did is because that would be a very foolish thing to do with a division title and a first-round bye up for grabs.

You're right that I don't pay as much attention to the 49ers as you do, but I have been a Seahawks season ticket holder for 14 years, and I can honestly say I have never seen a quarterback look so rattled and shaken as Kaepernick looked last December. I don't say it to slam him--I expect he will put together a much better game in Seattle this season--but he looked completely lost out there. What you call a vanilla gameplan, I call the result of a quarterback who, for that game at least, was completely overmatched.

 

[QuickLightning]

Green Bay gameplanned like they thought Alex Smith was still starting. Just because their coaching staff utterly failed to do their job, it doesn't constitute proof that this was all some master plan of San Francisco's to hide their playoff schemes over the last few weeks of the season.

To buy this argument you have to believe that SF--a team that, as Marvin so thoroughly pointed out, was suffering injuries to key players and exhausted after two straight road games--was willing to risk losing out on a badly-needed first round bye and even the chance to host a playoff game just to keep their cards close to the vest. Not buying it.

You not buying it doesn't make it less true.

I realize you guys don't pay as much attention to the 49ers, interviews with players and coaches and the like (I wouldn't expect you to), but its pretty common knowledge that the 49ers spent alot of time in the off week before the Packer game on installing a number of permiations of the Pistol and read-option. The offense they ran in Seattle was vanilla. That doesn't mean that they didn't try to win. It doesn't mean that they weren't throwing deep.

It also doesn't mean that the score would have been any different had they NOT been running a vanilla O. It just means that they kept some things in reserve for later games.

BTW...this isn't the first time they have done this. He often roles out exotic plays and then goes vanilla another week. He'll throw to a DT one week do nothing close to that the next.

This strategy worked against GB. They had no idea what was coming. It clearly DIDN'T work in Seattle. Had it cost them the division it would have been a huge mistake. Thankfully, it didn't and they surprised the hell out of GB. I just remember the stunned look on Clay Mattews face after the game saying that they hadn't seen any of that stuff on tape.

You haven't proven that it is true. If you are correct that Roman came up with some new tricks for the Packers game, good for him. But the Yahoo article that launched this thread wasn't talking about Roman's game plan for the Packers game, it was making the claim A) that he dialed back the playbook in the last two games of the season and B) did it to keep from showing his hand to potential playoff teams. Not the same thing; for all we know, Roman sat down after the regular season and said, "the usual stuff isn't working. I need to try something new." All you have proved is that he tried some new things in the playoffs. You haven't proven that he ran a "vanilla O" to end the regular season. And the reason why I am skeptical that he did is because that would be a very foolish thing to do with a division title and a first-round bye up for grabs.

You're right that I don't pay as much attention to the 49ers as you do, but I have been a Seahawks season ticket holder for 14 years, and I can honestly say I have never seen a quarterback look so rattled and shaken as Kaepernick looked last December. I don't say it to slam him--I expect he will put together a much better game in Seattle this season--but he looked completely lost out there. What you call a vanilla gameplan, I call the result of a quarterback who, for that game at least, was completely overmatched.

Here's your stats to back up the point.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -formation

They ran 9% of their plays from the Pistol in Seattle and only 2 snaps against Arizona... that figure jumped up to 45.3 in Green Bay and 54.9% in Atlanta. I think it is pretty obvious looking at those numbers they were trying to set Green Bay up to game plan for a more generic offense.

 

[Marvin49]

Green Bay gameplanned like they thought Alex Smith was still starting. Just because their coaching staff utterly failed to do their job, it doesn't constitute proof that this was all some master plan of San Francisco's to hide their playoff schemes over the last few weeks of the season.

To buy this argument you have to believe that SF--a team that, as Marvin so thoroughly pointed out, was suffering injuries to key players and exhausted after two straight road games--was willing to risk losing out on a badly-needed first round bye and even the chance to host a playoff game just to keep their cards close to the vest. Not buying it.

You not buying it doesn't make it less true.

I realize you guys don't pay as much attention to the 49ers, interviews with players and coaches and the like (I wouldn't expect you to), but its pretty common knowledge that the 49ers spent alot of time in the off week before the Packer game on installing a number of permiations of the Pistol and read-option. The offense they ran in Seattle was vanilla. That doesn't mean that they didn't try to win. It doesn't mean that they weren't throwing deep.

It also doesn't mean that the score would have been any different had they NOT been running a vanilla O. It just means that they kept some things in reserve for later games.

BTW...this isn't the first time they have done this. He often roles out exotic plays and then goes vanilla another week. He'll throw to a DT one week do nothing close to that the next.

This strategy worked against GB. They had no idea what was coming. It clearly DIDN'T work in Seattle. Had it cost them the division it would have been a huge mistake. Thankfully, it didn't and they surprised the hell out of GB. I just remember the stunned look on Clay Mattews face after the game saying that they hadn't seen any of that stuff on tape.

You haven't proven that it is true. If you are correct that Roman came up with some new tricks for the Packers game, good for him. But the Yahoo article that launched this thread wasn't talking about Roman's game plan for the Packers game, it was making the claim A) that he dialed back the playbook in the last two games of the season and B) did it to keep from showing his hand to potential playoff teams. Not the same thing; for all we know, Roman sat down after the regular season and said, "the usual stuff isn't working. I need to try something new." All you have proved is that he tried some new things in the playoffs. You haven't proven that he ran a "vanilla O" to end the regular season. And the reason why I am skeptical that he did is because that would be a very foolish thing to do with a division title and a first-round bye up for grabs.

You're right that I don't pay as much attention to the 49ers as you do, but I have been a Seahawks season ticket holder for 14 years, and I can honestly say I have never seen a quarterback look so rattled and shaken as Kaepernick looked last December. I don't say it to slam him--I expect he will put together a much better game in Seattle this season--but he looked completely lost out there. What you call a vanilla gameplan, I call the result of a quarterback who, for that game at least, was completely overmatched.

LOL. OK, you went there. ;-)

MAN am I tired of hearing that Kaep was SHAKEN. No. He wasn't. Did he play well? No. Did he have issues getting the ball off on time? Yes. That is much more a function tho of the way the offense works and an inability to get plays in on-time....and neither of those is a compliment to the 49ers.

Russell Wilson played HORRIBLY in SF, but I don't think he was shaken. He simply didn't play well.

On any given snap, then 49ers get to the line, run a number of shifts (more than any other NFL team), and then call out "Let it Roll", or "Kill, Kill, Kill". Essentially, they ALWAYS have 2 plays called in the huddle. The point here is to wait for the D to declare and run the clock all the way down to a few seconds before snapping the ball. Alex Smith became a master at this, but it wasn't always so. Harbaugh actually had THREE plays at the line for Andrew Luck at Stanford. We'll see if he does the same with Kaep now that he gets a full off-season as the starter. This differs from the conventional Audible system. This is something that happens on every single snap...PLUS they have audibles.

Very often, especially on the road, there wasn't enough time to get the call in, relay it, get the shifts in...and then get the ball off. This did not only happen in Seattle and actually is one of the reasons the 49ers lost the Super Bowl. They had a QB run set and Kaep likely would have scored on that final series but he couldn't get the ball off. They also had to call a timeout earlier in the half because of it and they could desparately have used it at the end of the game.

None of this was because he was "shaken". Seattle fans like to say that it was, largely because they see their own QB as unshakable and would like to use it as a point of emphasis when comparing the two QBs.

Kaep doesn't get shaken. If you knew much about him, you'd understand that. He didn't shake when opened the game with a pick 6 vs Green Bay, he didn't get shaken down 17 points in Atlanta, and he didn't shake when down 22 points in the Super Bowl. Don't believe me? how about Terrell Suggs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj_9ackcS6k

Alot of the issues he had getting the ball off all season were mostly related to inexperience, not being shaken. Lets not forget that the Super Bowl was ONLY his 10th NFL start. That's unheard of.

 

[Marvin49]

Here's your stats to back up the point.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -formation

They ran 9% of their plays from the Pistol in Seattle and only 2 snaps against Arizona... that figure jumped up to 45.3 in Green Bay and 54.9% in Atlanta. I think it is pretty obvious looking at those numbers they were trying to set Green Bay up to game plan for a more generic offense.

This. It was also all over the media in the days after the GB game what the OC had been doing. There is no guarantee that the 49ers would have been any more successful had they run so many plays from the Pistol vs Seattle. Not using the formation isn't the reason they lost. They SHOULD have been able to compete in that game with a more conventional offense. They didn't.

That doesn't change the fact that the 49ers were scaling back the playbook.