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

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. RATING: PG-13
  • I take it he didn't want to show his hand in the first half against Baltimore too?
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2325
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • razor150 wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    razor150 wrote: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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


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


    Clever.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • 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:
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2226
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • The Outfield wrote: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.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • 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.
    Lynch Mob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 531
    Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:30 am


  • Lynch Mob wrote: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. :D
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Nice excuse you effing whiner. Can't wait to hear your next one!
    User avatar
    TheLargentLine
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 200
    Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:35 pm
    Location: Olympia


  • 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
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 280
    Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:18 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Lynch Mob wrote: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. :D



    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?
    Teqneek
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 280
    Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:18 pm


  • Teqneek wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Lynch Mob wrote: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. :D



    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?
    QuickLightning
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 116
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:20 am


  • 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!"
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8687
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • QuickLightning wrote:
    Teqneek wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:[quote="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.


    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. :D



    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?[/quote]

    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.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1141
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Lynch Mob wrote: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. :D


    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.
    hawk45
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4688
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • Shadowhawk wrote: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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • hawk45 wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Lynch Mob wrote: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. :D


    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.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Shadowhawk wrote: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.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1141
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Shadowhawk wrote: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.
    QuickLightning
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 116
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:20 am


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Shadowhawk wrote: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.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • QuickLightning wrote: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.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • RW had the playbook significantly limited until the second half of the season. From that point on it became evident that the Seahawks had found their FIRST ever franchise QB (the 49-er's have had several back in the day). That is what makes this fan very jacked up for the coming seasons. Look at RW's stats from the first half vs the second half to see why. I liked Kaepernick when he was available in the draft, but our guys thankfully went in a different direction. I will say that Kaepernick has a pretty good chance to be a *very good* QB, but the Seahawks have a QB that has a chance to be a *great* QB as he continues to improve and excell at the position. That's what has all of us Seahawks fans really, really excited.
    <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 905
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


  • How often did they run out of pistol prior to the Hawks game?
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8687
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • AbsolutNET wrote:How often did they run out of pistol prior to the Hawks game?


    Up to 30.9% of the plays, according to the article. Peaking in week 14 against Miami then dropping back down for NE, Seattle and Arizona respectively as they approached the playoffs.
    QuickLightning
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 116
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:20 am


  • AbsolutNET wrote:How often did they run out of pistol prior to the Hawks game?


    Not nearly as much as they did in the playoffs but more than they did vs Seattle and Arizona. Whats more, they ran DIFFERENT plays out of the Pistol.

    All anyone is saying is that they scaled back the playbook at the end of the season and then opened it up in the playoffs. That is NOT an excuse for their performance in Seattle.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Okay, now I loathe Abs as much as the 49er fans defending their gimmick.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9924
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • CamanoIslandJQ wrote:RW had the playbook significantly limited until the second half of the season. From that point on it became evident that the Seahawks had found their FIRST ever franchise QB (the 49-er's have had several back in the day). That is what makes this fan very jacked up for the coming seasons. Look at RW's stats from the first half vs the second half to see why. I liked Kaepernick when he was available in the draft, but our guys thankfully went in a different direction. I will say that Kaepernick has a pretty good chance to be a *very good* QB, but the Seahawks have a QB that has a chance to be a *great* QB as he continues to improve and excell at the position. That's what has all of us Seahawks fans really, really excited.


    See this stuff just amazes me.

    Wilson can be great but Kaep only "very good"? Based on what? Kaep took his team to the Super Bowl in his 10th freakin start. Is Wilson the only one who can improve. It seems like this conversation is always that somehow Wilson will continue to improve till he is the second coming of Jesus Christ (unless he is already that) and that Kaep is a pretender who will obviously decline (jeez, who doesn't know that?).

    I think both guys have the potential to be the among the best in the NFL. I understand liking the QB who's on your team, but dude....Kaep has a chance to be INCREDIBLE.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • pehawk wrote:Okay, now I loathe Abs as much as the 49er fans defending their gimmick.


    "gimmick"?

    You mean the Pistol? the same one Seattle runs?
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    AbsolutNET wrote:How often did they run out of pistol prior to the Hawks game?


    Not nearly as much as they did in the playoffs but more than they did vs Seattle and Arizona. Whats more, they ran DIFFERENT plays out of the Pistol.

    All anyone is saying is that they scaled back the playbook at the end of the season and then opened it up in the playoffs. That is NOT an excuse for their performance in Seattle.


    What you're saying is they ran it considerably more in the playoffs than at any point during the regular season. By your argument, they scaled back the playbook the entire season.

    They ran it so much against GB because early on they realized that Dom Capers is a dinosaur that had no idea how to stop something he hadn't faced before in his career. SF didn't take over that game until they decided to stick with it after getting down early. Or, let me guess, the OC "scaled it back" during the 1st quarter, too?
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8687
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Okay, now I loathe Abs as much as the 49er fans defending their gimmick.


    "gimmick"?

    You mean the Pistol? the same one Seattle runs?


    No, gimmick as in being a 49er fan. My GF's a Seahawks fan, but like you, she doesn't know the game either.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9924
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • pehawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Okay, now I loathe Abs as much as the 49er fans defending their gimmick.


    "gimmick"?

    You mean the Pistol? the same one Seattle runs?


    No, gimmick as in being a 49er fan. My GF's a Seahawks fan, but like you, she doesn't know the game either.


    Dude. Seriously? Attacking my knowledge of the game? Really? Thats just sad.

    Football is my passion. I record the freakin draft and have since 1990. I got no prob testing what I do or do not know.

    I've been a Niner fan since 1984. Thats seeing alot of great football followed by some horrific football. The best part is that I appreciate the success much more now than I did when I first became a fan because I didn't experience the lean years. This time I got to see the process of turning it around. I also see that winning the offseason doesn't often turn into winning in the regular season.

    I'll stand on my knowledge of the game against just about anyone. I also wouldn't be bold enough to challenge anyone elses knowledge simply because they are a fan of a different team.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • AbsolutNET wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    AbsolutNET wrote:How often did they run out of pistol prior to the Hawks game?


    Not nearly as much as they did in the playoffs but more than they did vs Seattle and Arizona. Whats more, they ran DIFFERENT plays out of the Pistol.

    All anyone is saying is that they scaled back the playbook at the end of the season and then opened it up in the playoffs. That is NOT an excuse for their performance in Seattle.


    What you're saying is they ran it considerably more in the playoffs than at any point during the regular season. By your argument, they scaled back the playbook the entire season.

    They ran it so much against GB because early on they realized that Dom Capers is a dinosaur that had no idea how to stop something he hadn't faced before in his career. SF didn't take over that game until they decided to stick with it after getting down early. Or, let me guess, the OC "scaled it back" during the 1st quarter, too?


    No...they ran it more and more as the season went on and then stopped using it as much around the time they played NE. They then used it on almost 50% of their snaps in the playoffs. Read the other poster for specific %'s.

    I mean seriously people. This isn't rocket science. Two things can be mutually true. it is possible that the 49ers scaled back the offense AND that they were trying to win. It worked against NE. The OC stated that this was the case late in the year and it was the WRITER who braught up Seattle. The only reason you guys are offended is that you are taking it as some sort of slight on your precious "42-13" mantra.

    Seattle won. Enjoy it. Nobody is taking it away.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Easy Marvin, I'm attacking all 49er fans knowledge of the game.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9924
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:No...they ran it more and more as the season went on and then stopped using it as much around the time they played NE. They then used it on almost 50% of their snaps in the playoffs. Read the other poster for specific %'s.


    So after Alex Smith got hurt, they started running the pistol more often? that's weird.
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8687
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • pehawk wrote:Easy Marvin, I'm attacking all 49er fans knowledge of the game.


    ...and you somehow think that's BETTER?

    I mean seriously...I've seen posters on this site claim that the only reason the 49ers beat Atlanta was that they had a full week off before the game AND the game was at Candlestick.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • AbsolutNET wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:No...they ran it more and more as the season went on and then stopped using it as much around the time they played NE. They then used it on almost 50% of their snaps in the playoffs. Read the other poster for specific %'s.


    So after Alex Smith got hurt, they started running the pistol more often? that's weird.


    Alex was hurt LONG before NE. Kaep had been the starter for more than a month.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • So you're basing your sample size of a new offense on 4 games? You really think by NE that your coaching staff was as sold on the pistol as they were when they started running GB up and down the field after being down early?

    They didn't know what they had until GB. Teams trying to win the conference don't stop doing what they're best at with 3 weeks to go.
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8687
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • I"m not going back into this, but are 49er fans really buying the notion their punk ol team laid down and let us kick 'em in the face?

    I'm not buying that. I'm sure Harbaugh, as much of a doofus as he is, isn't the type of guy to say "okay we're gonna lay 'em on down and let Seattle do their thing when they're still on our heals for the division"

    Get the hell up outta here with that...

    If thats what they're saying.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 18789
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


  • QuickLightning wrote: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.


    Nope, sorry. Because the Yahoo article is making the claim that Roman began to scale back the playbook to set up potential playoff teams AFTER the New England game. But you have made the case in multiple posts on this thread that they started limiting their use of the pistol IN the New England game:

    QuickLightning wrote:Up to 30.9% of the plays, according to the article. Peaking in week 14 against Miami then dropping back down for NE, Seattle and Arizona respectively as they approached the playoffs.


    QuickLightning wrote:I was reading earlier (after the divisional round of the playoffs) that they ran something like 10% of their plays from the pistol in the Seattle, New England and Arizona games


    So if they stopped using the pistol as much in New England but didn't start "scaling back the playbook" until Seattle, it follows that not using the pistol as much isn't proof that that were "scaling back the playbook." And as I said in my first post on this thread, there are many reasons why San Francisco might not want to use the pistol in a particular game--defensive personnel, familiarity with mobile quarterbacks, etc. That doesn't mean they were scaling back the playbook, only that they were adjusting their gameplans for each specific opponent. And as many people on this thread have said multiple times, it would be beyond foolish for an offensive coordinator to start going to a vanilla offense when there was still a chance that they might not earn the first round bye or even win the division.

    Look, you're going to believe this theory because it takes the sting out of an ugly loss. We're not going to believe it because we are of the opinion that Seattle's 42-13 victory meant a hell of a lot more than you want to admit. But answer me this: we've had dozens of 49er fans on this board offering every excuse imaginable for your team's loss. If it's so obvious that they dumbed down the playbook to rope-a-dope potential playoff teams, why is it that NOBODY thought to make that case before when they tried every other excuse you can think of?
    Last edited by Shadowhawk on Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1141
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • AbsolutNET wrote:So you're basing your sample size of a new offense on 4 games? You really think by NE that your coaching staff was as sold on the pistol as they were when they started running GB up and down the field after being down early?

    They didn't know what they had until GB. Teams trying to win the conference don't stop doing what they're best at with 3 weeks to go.


    oi.

    Lets put this a different way....

    Lets just look at the 7 games Kaep played in the regular season.

    If in the first 4 he ran increasingly more plays in every game up to Miami where he played in the formation 30% of the time, and then the formation all but disappeared in the final 3 games of the year...and then in the playoffs they used it 50% of the time....wouldn't it make sense that they were saving it for the playoffs?

    In particular if the OC as much as admitted it while never even mentioning the loss in Seattle, wouldn't that be logical?

    If you were the fan of ANY team outside of the three teams they played in those last few games, wouldn't that simply make sense?

    Wait...I already know your answer. We can never spoil the 42-13 mantra.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Throwdown wrote:I"m not going back into this, but are 49er fans really buying the notion their punk ol team laid down and let us kick 'em in the face?

    I'm not buying that. I'm sure Harbaugh, as much of a doofus as he is, isn't the type of guy to say "okay we're gonna lay 'em on down and let Seattle do their thing when they're still on our heals for the division"

    Get the hell up outta here with that...

    If thats what they're saying.


    Is reading an issue here?

    NO. Nobody is saying the 49ers let Seattle win. Sigh. If you are gonna have an issue here at least have it on topic.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Shadowhawk wrote:[quote="QuickLightning']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.[/quote]

    Nope, sorry. Because the Yahoo article is making the claim that Roman began to scale back the playbook to set up potential playoff teams AFTER the New England game. But you have made the case in multiple posts on this thread that they started limiting their use of the pistol IN the New England game:

    [quote="QuickLightning']Up to 30.9% of the plays, according to the article. Peaking in week 14 against Miami then dropping back down for NE, Seattle and Arizona respectively as they approached the playoffs.[/quote]

    [quote="QuickLightning']I was reading earlier (after the divisional round of the playoffs) that they ran something like 10% of their plays from the pistol in the Seattle, New England and Arizona games[/quote]

    So if they stopped using the pistol as much in New England but didn't start "scaling back the playbook" until Seattle, it follows that not using the pistol as much isn't proof that that were "scaling back the playbook." And as I said in my first post on this thread, there are many reasons why San Francisco might not want to use the pistol in a particular game--defensive personnel, familiarity with mobile quarterbacks, etc. That doesn't mean they were scaling back the playbook, only that they were adjusting their gameplans for each specific opponent. And as many people on this thread have said multiple times, it would be beyond foolish for an offensive coordinator to start going to a vanilla offense when there was still a chance that they might not earn the first round bye or even win the division.

    Look, you're going to believe this theory because it takes the sting out of an ugly loss. We're not going to believe it because we are of the opinion that Seattle's 42-13 victory meant a hell of a lot more than you want to admit. But answer me this: we've had dozens of 49er fans on this board offering every excuse imaginable for your team's loss. If it's so obvious that they dumbed down the playbook to rope-a-dope potential playoff teams, why is it that NOBODY thought to make that case before when they tried every other excuse you can think of?[/quote]


    Who said they started scaling back the playbook in Seattle? I think they started in New England...and they won there.

    Some of you seem to think scaling back the offense means "let Seattle win". Thats not what ANYONE is saying. They are just saying that they intentionally didn't use portions of the playbook that they wanted to save for the playoffs. The % of time they spent in the pistol bears that out.

    Why is this so difficult to believe?

    There is no guarantee that if the entire offense had been in play that the score would have been any different. None. You guys all seem to read it as an excuse even though Roman wasn't even talking about Seattle when he made the comment.

    49er fans only buy this because it gives an excuse?

    1) No it doesn't. There is no excuse.

    2) Seattle fans don't WANT it to be true because it spoils their 42-13 mantra.

    I guess, you know.....Harbaugh is such a jerk. When he isn't tossing dwarves he's skinning kittens. It would logically follow that his OC is a downright liar.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote: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.


    I find this accusation particularly amusing given how you started your very next paragraph:

    Marvin49 wrote:Kaep doesn't get shaken. If you knew much about him, you'd understand that.


    Physician, heal thyself. ;)
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1141
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Marvin49 wrote:I guess, you know.....Harbaugh is such a jerk. When he isn't tossing dwarves he's skinning kittens. It would logically follow that his OC is a downright liar.


    I'm proud of you. Glad you're finally seeing the light.
    Talkin Seahawks All Day, All Night @ my blog Seafense! http://seafense.blogspot.com/
    User avatar
    NYCoug
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1389
    Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:45 pm


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote: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.


    I find this accusation particularly amusing given how you started your very next paragraph:

    Marvin49 wrote:Kaep doesn't get shaken. If you knew much about him, you'd understand that.


    Physician, heal thyself. ;)


    uh...nothing wrong with what I said. You just don't like it because you want to believe that Wilson can't be shaken and Kaep can.

    I personally think both guys are incredible in that regard and show an ability to stay calm that some HOF QBs never did (Cough....Elway...cough). Wilson was cool under pressure all year. He almost came all the way back vs Atlanta. It was the D that failed them. Kaep DID come all the way back in Atlanta and almost did it in the SB.

    When you consider their playoff performances and the amount of time they've actually been under center in the NFL, it's amazing.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin, I am sure you are well versed in all things Niner, though I have probably watched all their games twice myself. However, you appear to know damn near nothing about the rest of the NFL, like most Niner fans we see here.

    I personally think Roman is pretty smart. So smart that he watches how other teams play against pistol looks and tailors his game plan quite well. The Patriots have a pretty effective scheme against the pistol, having seen it twice the year before with Tebow, and absolutely killing it the second time they saw it. Seattle held Cam Newton to three offensive points earlier in 2012 and in the few looks in the first half Roman did use it, we killed the look. Makes sense, Seattle practices against it every day. As it turns out, no pistol QB scored more than 14 on us last year in three games. Besides, the Niners were too far behind to pose a serious run threat from any look, so why use the Pistol? The Cards have pretty good edge speed too, and in week 17 it makes perfect sense to not show a lot of what you have planned in two more weeks against a team unlikely to put up more than 20 (the Cards). But if you think Kaep's production against the Pack has anything to do with not showing them plays, you are daft. The Pack couldn't put a finger on him, only 4 of his yards were after contact. Sometimes coordinators just shit the bed by not being ready or in Capers case, lining up in 4 and 5 man man coverage looks, which just made QB runs easy. In Kaepernicks first game vs the Bears, same thing, a defensive coordinator very unprepared for Kaepernick.

    But Roman isn't so smart that he didn't get his car towed when hanging with his buddy Silver.

    See Marvin, how it's done? There were true facts about 4 teams besides the Niners and Hawks in my post. Go drop the 30 bucks or so on a rewind package, and try to watch games not involving your Niners. You just might become an NFL fan instead of a blind homer.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10545
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Marvin49 wrote:Who said they started scaling back the playbook in Seattle? I think they started in New England...and they won there.


    From the Yahoo article that started this thread (emphasis mine):

    Except, of course, when he intentionally doesn't. In mid-December, after the Niners pulled out a 41-34 victory over the New England Patriots to improve to 10-3-1, Roman consciously decided to dial back the offense in order to keep potential playoff opponents off balance.


    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--offensive-guru-and-coaching-candidate-greg-roman-a-victim-of-his--niners--success-022509392.html

    Who said they started scaling back the playbook in Seattle? Michael Silver of Yahoo Sports did.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1141
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    In my post I said that the Seahawks were good. Never argued otherwise.

    The "point" I was making that you call nonexistant was simply that the 43-13 win wasn't everything you guys seem to think it is. Do you really think that if they played again the score would be the same? Do you really think that the factors I listed played no role whatsoever in the outcome of the game? If you do then I feel sorry for you. You are in for a rude awakening.

    The Niners and Seahawks are gonna battle this year in a big way. Its gonna be a tough division. To read the posts on this site tho you'd think it was a forgone conclusion that the Seahawks are the better team. All you have to do is look at the score of that last game. That proves everything, right?

    The problem is that it doesn't. It proves nothing. You still lost the division. You are still 1-3 vs Harbaugh. You still only split the division series. You were still 3-5 on the road. You still lost to the team the Niners eliminated in the playoffs.

    The problem with annoining yourself the king in the offseason is that very often it doesn't happen in the REGULAR season.


    Of course it wouldn't be a 30 point blow out when we meet again; 30 point blowouts (let alone 3 in a row) are rare in the NFL. But I'm quite sure Seattle will win comfortably, by 10-14 points. Past record vs. Harbaugh will have zero influence on future meetings. Sure, we split the series last year, but had Carroll and Bevell not been handcuffing the playcalling (same argument you're using) in order to bring Wilson along slowly, it would've been a Seattle sweep. Lastly, congrats on getting one more break than Seattle got against ATL. One break, one play... that the was difference between a W and L against ATL for both Seattle and SF.
    For custom Seahawk backgrounds and signatures, click HERE!
    User avatar
    SE174
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1246
    Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:11 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:Who said they started scaling back the playbook in Seattle? I think they started in New England...and they won there.


    From the Yahoo article that started this thread (emphasis mine):

    Except, of course, when he intentionally doesn't. In mid-December, after the Niners pulled out a 41-34 victory over the New England Patriots to improve to 10-3-1, Roman consciously decided to dial back the offense in order to keep potential playoff opponents off balance.


    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--offensive-guru-and-coaching-candidate-greg-roman-a-victim-of-his--niners--success-022509392.html

    Who said they started scaling back the playbook in Seattle? Michael Silver of Yahoo Sports did.


    Hell, the coach himself said it.
    "My post-New England mindset was to hold back and try to save things for the playoffs," Roman says.
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8687
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:Who said they started scaling back the playbook in Seattle? I think they started in New England...and they won there.


    From the Yahoo article that started this thread (emphasis mine):

    Except, of course, when he intentionally doesn't. In mid-December, after the Niners pulled out a 41-34 victory over the New England Patriots to improve to 10-3-1, Roman consciously decided to dial back the offense in order to keep potential playoff opponents off balance.


    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--offensive-guru-and-coaching-candidate-greg-roman-a-victim-of-his--niners--success-022509392.html

    Who said they started scaling back the playbook in Seattle? Michael Silver of Yahoo Sports did.


    I stand corrected.

    See that...I can admit when I'm wrong.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:uh...nothing wrong with what I said. You just don't like it because you want to believe that Wilson can't be shaken and Kaep can.


    Hate to break it to you, Marv, but only one person on this thread has made the claim that his team's quarterback can't be shaken. Here's a hint: it wasn't me.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1141
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:24 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online