Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by SkyZer0:
Deebo may not play. so hopefully to Aiyuk

what why?

Originally posted by davide49:
What? Deebo is playing dude.

re-aggravated calf. questionable.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Go look at the Stafford thread.

I was wrong.

If only you were capable of typing this lol

Originally posted by TheGore49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Go look at the Stafford thread.

I was wrong.

If only you were capable of typing this lol

lol for a second i was like wtf

Originally posted by TheGore49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Go look at the Stafford thread.

I was wrong.

If only you were capable of typing this lol

Why did you cut out my post when you replied?

I wrote:
called Jimmy a winner and said they were both on the Average Tier.

Stafford is playing at the top tier this year, definitely not average.
I also said he wouldn't be a significant upgrade which he would.

I did say I was wrong, sorry if the words were too big or too many for you to understand.

Originally posted by SkyZer0:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by SkyZer0:
Deebo may not play. so hopefully to Aiyuk

what why?

Originally posted by davide49:
What? Deebo is playing dude.

re-aggravated calf. questionable.

So? He's f'ing playing . Apparently some people don't understand what the words "deebo" and "questionable" equal.

Originally posted by davide49:

Originally posted by SkyZer0:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by SkyZer0:
Deebo may not play. so hopefully to Aiyuk

what why?

Originally posted by davide49:
What? Deebo is playing dude.

re-aggravated calf. questionable.

So? He's f'ing playing . Apparently some people don't understand what the words "deebo" and "questionable" equal.

The dude missed 10 games in his first 2 seasons so I wouldn't be surprised if he missed this one

Come on, Jimmy - keep the good play going. No wounded ducks this Sunday.

Originally posted by TheGore49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Go look at the Stafford thread.

I was wrong.

If only you were capable of typing this lol

Originally posted by mayo49:
Come on, Jimmy - keep the good play going. No wounded ducks this Sunday.

Less worried about that and more worried about him being decisive and not blind. The ducks come from hesitation and poor pass protection.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by mayo49:
Come on, Jimmy - keep the good play going. No wounded ducks this Sunday.

Less worried about that and more worried about him being decisive and not blind. The ducks come from hesitation and poor pass protection.

The later causes the former

Originally posted by Goatie:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by mayo49:
Come on, Jimmy - keep the good play going. No wounded ducks this Sunday.

Less worried about that and more worried about him being decisive and not blind. The ducks come from hesitation and poor pass protection.

The later causes the former

I think bad interceptions cause the hesitation, but it's quite clear that at least some of the time, our pass protection is Goodwill tier. Like on that play to Aiyuk that Deebo caught that would have been a deep touchdown.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Goatie:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by mayo49:
Come on, Jimmy - keep the good play going. No wounded ducks this Sunday.

Less worried about that and more worried about him being decisive and not blind. The ducks come from hesitation and poor pass protection.

The later causes the former

I think bad interceptions cause the hesitation, but it's quite clear that at least some of the time, our pass protection is Goodwill tier. Like on that play to Aiyuk that Deebo caught that would have been a deep touchdown.

Agree to both.

Keep the spread offense going this week. Let's see how he does again.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Goatie:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by mayo49:
Come on, Jimmy - keep the good play going. No wounded ducks this Sunday.

Less worried about that and more worried about him being decisive and not blind. The ducks come from hesitation and poor pass protection.

The later causes the former

I think bad interceptions cause the hesitation, but it's quite clear that at least some of the time, our pass protection is Goodwill tier. Like on that play to Aiyuk that Deebo caught that would have been a deep touchdown.

Agree to both.

Keep the spread offense going this week. Let's see how he does again.

I'm not so sure about this.

Looking at the Bears game and the Packers game for comparison (last full game Jimmy played not counting the Colts game because the weather), I counted how many formations were either empty or single back (not including 2 TE sets unless they are empty, nor when Juice lines up as a TE; WRs that line up in the backfield in a split back set are playing the role of RBs, so they are not counted either, except in the case where the WR lines up wide and motions across at the snap; COUNTING bunch formations as "spread").

Bears: 31 spread plays, 20 non-spread; spread% = 60.78
(not including 3 kneel downs)

Packers: 39 spread plays, 23 non-spread plays; spread% = 61.90
(Not including Trey plays)

Now, maybe it's the case for the other games. But at least those two, there wasn't much difference overall. I'll say that in the Bears game we STARTED with more spread stuff more often, but as the game went on it regressed to the mean. And as for the Packer game, definitely more spread stuff, as defined here.

Of course you may object to me counting bunch formations as spread. Maybe I'll go back and do it again with a different definition. But in terms of 11 personnel and empty formations, there was not a huge difference overall.

It would be interesting to look at all of them, but just this much took me an hour and some of it is subjective, given the weird formations the 49ers use. But really, overall there wasn't much difference. Just EARLY there were more empty formations against the Bears. Maybe that gave him confidence, or maybe it was playing at home, but overall there wasn't too much of a difference. We used more WR motion against the Packers, but I'm assuming that was a particular game plan for the Packers' defense.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Goatie:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by mayo49:
Come on, Jimmy - keep the good play going. No wounded ducks this Sunday.

Less worried about that and more worried about him being decisive and not blind. The ducks come from hesitation and poor pass protection.

The later causes the former

I think bad interceptions cause the hesitation, but it's quite clear that at least some of the time, our pass protection is Goodwill tier. Like on that play to Aiyuk that Deebo caught that would have been a deep touchdown.

Agree to both.

Keep the spread offense going this week. Let's see how he does again.

I'm not so sure about this.

Looking at the Bears game and the Packers game for comparison (last full game Jimmy played not counting the Colts game because the weather), I counted how many formations were either empty or single back (not including 2 TE sets unless they are empty, nor when Juice lines up as a TE; WRs that line up in the backfield in a split back set are playing the role of RBs, so they are not counted either, except in the case where the WR lines up wide and motions across at the snap; COUNTING bunch formations as "spread").

Bears: 31 spread plays, 20 non-spread; spread% = 60.78
(not including 3 kneel downs)

Packers: 39 spread plays, 23 non-spread plays; spread% = 61.90
(Not including Trey plays)

Now, maybe it's the case for the other games. But at least those two, there wasn't much difference overall. I'll say that in the Bears game we STARTED with more spread stuff more often, but as the game went on it regressed to the mean. And as for the Packer game, definitely more spread stuff, as defined here.

Of course you may object to me counting bunch formations as spread. Maybe I'll go back and do it again with a different definition. But in terms of 11 personnel and empty formations, there was not a huge difference overall.

It would be interesting to look at all of them, but just this much took me an hour and some of it is subjective, given the weird formations the 49ers use. But really, overall there wasn't much difference. Just EARLY there were more empty formations against the Bears. Maybe that gave him confidence, or maybe it was playing at home, but overall there wasn't too much of a difference. We used more WR motion against the Packers, but I'm assuming that was a particular game plan for the Packers' defense.

I'm really glad you brought this up!

I too went back "casually" to watch just the first half of the Bears condensed game on NFL Game Pass to see if what had dawned on me originally, was accurate.

These were my notes on the number of receiving options available on each passing play:

First series:
4 receiving options
5
5
3 (screen)
5
5
5

Second series:
5
5

Third series:
5
3
5
5

Fourth series:
5
5
5
5
4

Notes: When it wasn't spread out, it was always condensed and a run (might be a tell). RB's and FB would flare out of the backfield after a beat as receiving options. In other cases, they'd all line up outside as immediate receivers. But in each case, there were multiple options and most at 3 levels. That seemed like a conscious decision; calling a spread game plan to JG's strength and experience. Charlie Woerner had 45 snaps that game and this was the most I've seen him out in passing routes too. 6 different receivers with a catch and a 7th targeted was held illegally (Jennings).

Anyway, it's not definitive but certainly something to keep an eye on going forward.

PS: The biggest tell in the change of game plan was he was in shotgun the whole game (passing plays) and I didn't see one PA set. Not one. That's polar opposite of Kyle's standard game plans.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
I'm not so sure about this.

Looking at the Bears game and the Packers game for comparison (last full game Jimmy played not counting the Colts game because the weather), I counted how many formations were either empty or single back (not including 2 TE sets unless they are empty, nor when Juice lines up as a TE; WRs that line up in the backfield in a split back set are playing the role of RBs, so they are not counted either, except in the case where the WR lines up wide and motions across at the snap; COUNTING bunch formations as "spread").

Bears: 31 spread plays, 20 non-spread; spread% = 60.78
(not including 3 kneel downs)

Packers: 39 spread plays, 23 non-spread plays; spread% = 61.90
(Not including Trey plays)

Now, maybe it's the case for the other games. But at least those two, there wasn't much difference overall. I'll say that in the Bears game we STARTED with more spread stuff more often, but as the game went on it regressed to the mean. And as for the Packer game, definitely more spread stuff, as defined here.

Of course you may object to me counting bunch formations as spread. Maybe I'll go back and do it again with a different definition. But in terms of 11 personnel and empty formations, there was not a huge difference overall.

It would be interesting to look at all of them, but just this much took me an hour and some of it is subjective, given the weird formations the 49ers use. But really, overall there wasn't much difference. Just EARLY there were more empty formations against the Bears. Maybe that gave him confidence, or maybe it was playing at home, but overall there wasn't too much of a difference. We used more WR motion against the Packers, but I'm assuming that was a particular game plan for the Packers' defense.

Nice stuff. If you do decide to go back and do this legwork, can you go in with the definition of 'spread' as, "having at least one eligible receiver to each side of the formation, lined up outside the numbers". Personnel does not matter, it's all about formation. It's a lot of work to go back and record this, but I think that's what we should define 'spread' as. I have to think PFF tallies things like this and we can just ask someone that has a PFF subscription.